David G. Healy

YES!

Without even seeking more information .... I could tell from the response above that you seemingly have difficulty in separating theory from history. The FBI exhibit is part of the history of the official investigation into the assassination of JFK, as well as any medical drawings used in the investigations. In the sense of fairness, I asked Gary to respond to the allegations you made and this is what he said to me ... Mack wrote: "Hi Bill, 1) There are NO references to "space aliens" in the exhibit. There is a separate panel addressing popular conspiracy theories and there are nine examples: Organized crime, U.S. agencies, Conservatives, Soviets/KGB, Cubans, Anti-Castro elements, New Orleans, Jack Ruby, Vietnam war withdrawal. But no space aliens. 2) The FBI model of Dealey Plaza is THEIR version of the assassination, as presented to the Warren Commission in January 1964. Anyone who read the text on the railing surrounding the exhibit would know that. 3) The "three shots" recording is the first bulletin most people heard; the announcer is an ABC newsman reading the report by Merriman Smith, the closest reporter to JFK actually IN the motorcade. 4) Yes, history says Oswald was the "perp" - he is the one named by every official investigation to have been the one who killed President Kennedy. History is what the Museum does, not Morrow's personal theory or mine either, for that matter. 5) Yes, Navy petty officer (not a doctor) Harold Rydberg's drawing is shown, for the Warren Commission relied upon it, as explained in the panel text. 6) JFK: Inside the Target Car is not mentioned in the Museum or store, though except for getting Jackie in the wrong position in a recreation that had nothing to do with the scientific test shots, I still maintain is an excellent documentary." Bill Miller As suspected, the 6th Floor Museum is a simple testament for the Warren Commission Report/SBT-THEORY Seems foolish to hide behind historical FACT with PR stunts -- IMO

Obviously you haven't looked too hard!

ROTFLMFAO ! ! ! ! len, Len LEN you make for a poor imitation of Redd Foxx... you should be ashamed!

Of course there WERE. Last I recall was about 10 years ago! Right there on alt.conspiracy.jfk! They were converted by-the-way, or, simply went away when their SBT arguments proved futile. The residue these days are merely lone nut xxxxx's whom never read the WCR or, simple minded, paid disinfo agents. Today's residue? Frankly, not worth any effort, however, when posting to these boards they are off the streets, and that's a good thing! Frankly Glenn, your interpretation of my view is a waste of your time... there's only one thing to sell: the HSCA determined a conspiracy murdered John Fitzgerald Kennedy, President of the United States. What others do about that is entirely THEIR business...

Evidently Glenn -- you don't spend much time on JFK assassination-conspiracy related boards. This moderated board (Ed Forum) is as tame as it gets. The HSCA (the only US government sanctioned investigation into JFK assassination) determined: a conspiracy murdered JFK. Yet, Lone Nut disinfo agents spend years trolling the internet touting LHO as the sole being involved.... Can you explain why the latter seems to be FACT? The FACT is: a conspiracy murdered JFK, not, NOT only by the hand of a simple minded, disgruntled communist (whom wasn't a communist, btw).

well, pity those unaware.... see below: "There was a time, not too long ago (relatively speaking), that governments and the groups of elites that controlled them did not find it necessary to conscript themselves into wars of disinformation. Propaganda was relatively straightforward. The lies were much simpler. The control of information flow was easily directed. In fact, during the early Middle-Ages in most European countries commoners were not even allowed to own a Bible, nor was the Bible allowed to be interpreted from Latin to another language, let alone any other tome that might breed “dangerous ideas”. This was due in large part to the established feudal system and its hierarchy of royals and clergy. Rules were enforced with the threat of property confiscation and execution for anyone who strayed from the rigid socio-political structure. Those who had theological, metaphysical, or scientific information outside of the conventional and scripted collective world view were tortured and slaughtered. The elites kept the information to themselves, and removed its remnants from mainstream recognition, sometimes for centuries before it was rediscovered. With the advent of anti-feudalism, and most importantly the success of the American Revolution, elites were no longer able to dominate information with the edge of a blade or the barrel of a gun. The establishment of Democracies (and Democratic Republics), with their philosophy of open government and rule by the people, compelled Aristocratic minorities to plot more subtle ways of obstructing the truth and thus maintaining their hold over the world without exposing themselves to retribution from the masses. Thus, the complex art of disinformation was born. The technique, the “magic” of the lie, was refined and perfected. The mechanics of the human mind and the human soul became an endless obsession for the elites. The goal was malicious, but socially radical; instead of expending the impossible energy needed to dictate the very form and existence of the truth, they would allow it to drift, obscured in a fog of contrived data. They would wrap the truth in a “Gordian Knot” of misdirections and fabrications so elaborate that they felt certain the majority of people would surrender, giving up long before they ever finished unraveling the deceit. The goal was not to destroy the truth, but to hide it in plain sight. In modern times, and with carefully engineered methods, this goal has for the most part been accomplished. However, these methods also have inherent weaknesses. Lies are fragile. They require constant attentiveness to keep them alive. The exposure of a single truth can rip through an ocean of lies, evaporating it instantly. In this article, we will examine the methods used to fertilize and promote the growth of disinformation, as well as how to identify the roots of disinformation and effectively cut them, starving out the entire system of fallacies once and for all. Media Disinformation Methods The mainstream media, once tasked with the job of investigating government corruption and keeping elitists in line, has now become nothing more than a PR firm for corrupt officials and their Globalist handlers. The days of the legitimate “investigative reporter” are long gone, and journalism itself has deteriorated into a rancid pool of so called “TV Editorialists” who treat their own baseless opinions as supported fact. The elitist co-opting of news has been going on in one form or another since the invention of the printing press, however, the first methods of media disinformation truly came to fruition under the supervision of newspaper magnate William Randolph Hearst, who believed the truth was “subjective” and open to his personal interpretation. Hearst’s legacy of lies and sensationalism lives on in the Hearst published magazine ‘Popular Mechanics’, who accuse the growing 9/11 Truth Movement of outrageous “conspiracy theory” while at the same time consistently publishing articles about UFO sightings and secret government flying saucer programs. As we will show, this strange juxtaposition of mixed signals and hypocritical accusations is characteristic of all purveyors of disinformation. Some of the main tactics used by the mainstream media to mislead the masses are as follows: Lie Big, Retract Quietly Mainstream media sources (especially newspapers) are notorious for reporting flagrantly dishonest and unsupported news stories on the front page, then quietly retracting those stories on the very back page when they are caught. In this case, the point is to railroad the lie into the collective consciousness. Once the lie is finally exposed, it is already too late, and a large portion of the population will not notice or care when the truth comes out. A good example of this would be the collusion of the MSM with the Bush administration to convince the American public after 9/11 that Iraq had WMDs, even though no concrete evidence existed to prove it. George W. Bush’s eventual admission that there had never been any WMDs in Iraq (except chemical weapons which the U.S. actually sold to Saddam under the Reagan / Bush administration) was lightly reported or glazed over by most mainstream news sources. The core reason behind a war that has now killed over a million people was proven to be completely fraudulent, yet I still run into people today who believe that Iraq had nukes… Unconfirmed Or Controlled Sources As Fact Cable news venues often cite information from “unnamed” sources, government sources that have an obvious bias or agenda, or “expert” sources without providing an alternative “expert” view. The information provided by these sources is usually backed by nothing more than blind faith. A recent example of this would be the Osama Bin Laden audio tapes which supposedly reveal that the Christmas “Underwear Bomber” was indeed Al-Qaeda: http://abcnews.go.com/WN/osama-bin-laden-addresses-president-obama-audio-tape/story?id=9650267 The media treats the audio tape as undeniable fact in numerous stories, then at the same time prints a side story which shows that the White House cannot confirm that the tape is even real: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE60N16I20100124 If the White House cannot confirm the authenticity of the tape, then why did the media report on its contents as if it had been confirmed? Calculated Omission Otherwise known as “cherry picking” data. One simple piece of information or root item of truth can derail an entire disinfo news story, so instead of trying to gloss over it, they simply pretend as if it doesn’t exist. When the fact is omitted, the lie can appear entirely rational. This tactic is also used extensively when disinformation agents and crooked journalists engage in open debate. Distraction, and the Manufacture of Relevance Sometimes the truth wells up into the public awareness regardless of what the media does to bury it. When this occurs their only recourse is to attempt to change the public’s focus and thereby distract them from the truth they were so close to grasping. The media accomplishes this by “over-reporting” on a subject that has nothing to do with the more important issues at hand. Ironically, the media can take an unimportant story, and by reporting on it ad nauseum, cause many Americans to assume that because the media won’t shut-up about it, it must be important! An example of this would be the recent push for an audit of the Federal Reserve which was gaining major public support, as well as political support. Instead of reporting on this incredible and unprecedented movement for transparency in the Fed, the MSM spent two months or more reporting non-stop on the death of Michael Jackson, a pop idol who had not released a decent record since “Thriller,” practically deifying the man who only months earlier was being lambasted by the same MSM for having “wandering hands” when children were about. Dishonest Debate Tactics Sometimes, men who actually are concerned with the average American’s pursuit of honesty and legitimate fact-driven information break through and appear on T.V. However, rarely are they allowed to share their views or insights without having to fight through a wall of carefully crafted deceit and propaganda. Because the media knows they will lose credibility if they do not allow guests with opposing viewpoints every once in a while, they set up and choreograph specialized T.V. debates in highly restrictive environments which put the guest on the defensive, and make it difficult for them to clearly convey their ideas or facts. TV pundits are often trained in what are commonly called “Alinsky Tactics.” Saul Alinsky was a moral relativist, and champion of the lie as a tool for the “greater good;” essentially, a modern day Machiavelli. His “Rules for Radicals” were supposedly meant for grassroots activists who opposed the establishment, and emphasized the use of any means necessary to defeat one’s political opposition. But is it truly possible to defeat an establishment built on lies, by use of even more elaborate lies, and by sacrificing one’s ethics? Today, Alinsky’s rules are used more often by the establishment than by its opposition. These tactics have been adopted by governments and disinformation specialists across the world, but they are most visible in TV debate. While Alinsky sermonized about the need for confrontation in society, his debate tactics are actually designed to circumvent real and honest confrontation of opposing ideas with slippery tricks and diversions. Alinsky’s tactics, and their modern usage, can be summarized as follows: 1) Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have. We see this tactic in many forms. For example, projecting your own movement as mainstream, and your opponent’s as fringe. Convincing your opponent that his fight is a futile one. Your opposition may act differently, or even hesitate to act at all, based on their perception of your power. 2) Never go outside the experience of your people, and whenever possible, go outside of the experience of the enemy. Don’t get drawn into a debate about a subject you do not know as well as or better than your opposition. If possible, draw them into such a situation instead. Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty in your opposition. This is commonly used against unwitting interviewees on cable news shows whose positions are set up to be skewered. The target is blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address. In television and radio, this also serves to waste broadcast time to prevent the target from expressing his own positions. 3) Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules. The objective is to target the opponent’s credibility and reputation by accusations of hypocrisy. If the tactician can catch his opponent in even the smallest misstep, it creates an opening for further attacks. 4) Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. “Ron Paul is a crackpot.” “Dennis Kucinich is short and weird.” “9-11 twoofers wear tinfoil hats.” Ridicule is almost impossible to counter. It’s irrational. It infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage. It also works as a pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 5) A good tactic is one that your people enjoy. The popularization of the term “Teabaggers” is a classic example, it caught on by itself because people seem to think it’s clever, and enjoy saying it. Keeping your talking points simple and fun keeps your side motivated, and helps your tactics spread autonomously, without instruction or encouragement. 6) A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag. See rule number 6. Don’t become old news. If you keep your tactics fresh, its easier to keep your people active. Not all disinformation agents are paid. The “useful idiots” have to be motivated by other means. Mainstream disinformation often changes gear from one method to the next and then back again. 7) Keep the pressure on with different tactics and actions, and utilize all events of the period for your purpose. Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. Never give the target a chance to rest, regroup, recover or re-strategize. Take advantage of current events and twist their implications to support your position. Never let a good crisis go to waste. 8) The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. This goes hand in hand with Rule #1. Perception is reality. Allow your opposition to expend all of its energy in expectation of an insurmountable scenario. The dire possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization. 9) The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition. The objective of this pressure is to force the opposition to react and make the mistakes that are necessary for the ultimate success of the campaign. 10) If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside. As grassroots activism tools, Alinsky tactics have historically been used (for example, by labor movements) to force the opposition to react with violence against activists, which leads to popular sympathy for the activists’ cause. Today, false (or co-opted) grassroots movements use this technique in debate as well as in planned street actions. The idea is to provoke (or stage) ruthless attacks against ones’ self, so as to be perceived as the underdog, or the victim. Today, this technique is commonly used to create the illusion that a certain movement is “counterculture” or “anti-establishment.” 11) The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative. Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. Today, this is often used offensively against legitimate activists, such as the opponents of the Federal Reserve. Complain that your opponent is merely “pointing out the problems.” Demand that they offer a solution. 12) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. The targets supporters will expose themselves. Go after individual people, not organizations or institutions. People hurt faster than institutions. The next time you view an MSM debate, watch the pundits carefully, you will likely see many if not all of the strategies above used on some unsuspecting individual attempting to tell the truth. Internet Disinformation Methods Because the MSM’s bag of tricks has been so exhausted over such a long period of time, many bitter and enraged consumers of information are now turning to alternative news sources, most of which exist on the collective commons we call the internet. At first, it appears, the government and elitists ignored the web as a kind of novelty, or just another mechanism they could exploit in spreading disinformation. As we all now well know, they dropped the ball, and the internet has become the most powerful tool for truth history has ever seen. That being said, they are now expending incredible resources in order to catch up to their mistake, utilizing every trick in their arsenal to beat web users back into submission. While the anonymity of the internet allows for a certain immunity against many of Saul Alinsky’s manipulative tactics, it also allows governments to attack those trying to spread the truth covertly. In the world of web news, we call these people “disinfo trolls.” Trolls are now being openly employed by governments in countries like the U.S. and Israel specifically to scour the internet for alternative news sites and disrupt their ability to share information. http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Raw_obtains_CENTCOM_email_to_bloggers_1016.html http://www.thenational.ae/article/20090104/FOREIGN/882042198/1002 http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/news/1/10793-twitterers-paid-to-spread-israeli-propaganda-internet-warfare-team-unveiled.html Internet trolls, also known as “paid posters” or “paid bloggers,” are increasingly being employed by private corporations as well, often for marketing purposes. In fact, it is a rapidly growing industry. Trolls use a wide variety of strategies, some of which are unique to the internet, here are just a few: 1) Make outrageous comments designed to distract or frustrate: An Alinsky tactic used to make people emotional, although less effective because of the impersonal nature of the web. 2) Pose as a supporter of the truth, then make comments that discredit the movement: We have seen this even on our own forums — trolls pose as supporters of the Liberty Movement, then post long, incoherent diatribes so as to appear either racist or insane. Here is a live example of this tactic in use on Yahoo! Answers. The key to this tactic is to make references to common Liberty Movement arguments while at the same time babbling nonsense, so as to make those otherwise valid arguments seem ludicrous by association. In extreme cases, these “Trojan Horse Trolls” have been known to make posts which incite violence — a technique obviously intended to solidify the false assertions of the notorious MIAC report and other ADL/SPLC publications which purport that constitutionalists should be feared as potential domestic terrorists. 3) Dominate Discussions: Trolls often interject themselves into productive web discussions in order to throw them off course and frustrate the people involved. 4) Prewritten Responses: Many trolls are supplied with a list or database with pre-planned talking points designed as generalized and deceptive responses to honest arguments. 9/11 “debunker” trolls are notorious for this. 5) False Association: This works hand in hand with item #2, by invoking the stereotypes established by the “Trojan Horse xxxxx.” For example: calling those against the Federal Reserve “conspiracy theorists” or “lunatics”. Deliberately associating anti-globalist movements with big foot or alien enthusiasts, because of the inherent negative connotations. Using false associations to provoke biases and dissuade people from examining the evidence objectively. 6) False Moderation: Pretending to be the “voice of reason” in an argument with obvious and defined sides in an attempt to move people away from what is clearly true into a “grey area” where the truth becomes “relative.” 7) Straw Man Arguments: A very common technique. The xxxxx will accuse his opposition of subscribing to a certain point of view, even if he does not, and then attacks that point of view. Or, the xxxxx will put words in the mouth of his opposition, and then rebut those specific words. For example: “9/11 truthers say that no planes hit the WTC towers, and that it was all just computer animation. What are they, crazy?” Sometimes, these strategies are used by average people with serious personality issues. However, if you see someone using these tactics often, or using many of them at the same time, you may be dealing with a paid internet xxxxx. Government Disinformation Methods Governments, and the globalists who back them, have immense assets — an almost endless fiat money printing press — and control over most legal and academic institutions. With these advantages, disinformation can be executed on a massive scale. Here are just a handful of the most prominent tactics used by government agencies and private think tanks to guide public opinion, and establish the appearance of consensus: 1) Control The Experts: Most Americans are taught from kindergarten to ignore their instincts for the truth and defer to the “professional class” for all their answers. The problem is that much of the professional class is indoctrinated throughout their college years, many of them molded to support the status quo. Any experts that go against the grain are ostracized by their peers. 2) Control The Data: By controlling the source data of any investigation, be it legal or scientific, the government has the ability to engineer any truth they wish, that is, as long as the people do not care enough to ask for the source data. Two major examples of controlled and hidden source data include; the NIST investigation of the suspicious 9/11 WTC collapses, in which NIST engineers, hired by the government, have kept all source data from their computer models secret, while claiming that the computer models prove the collapses were “natural”. Also, the recent exposure of the CRU Climate Labs and their manipulation of source data in order to fool the public into believing that Global Warming is real, and accepting a world-wide carbon tax. The CRU has refused to release the source data from its experiments for years, and now we know why. 3) Skew The Statistics: This tactic is extremely evident in the Labor Department’s evaluations on unemployment, using such tricks as incorporating ambiguous birth / death ratios into their calculation in order to make it appear as though there are less unemployed people than there really are, or leaving out certain subsections of the population, like those who are unemployed and no longer seeking benefits. 3) Guilt By False Association: Governments faced with an effective opponent will always attempt to demonize that person or group in the eyes of the public. This is often done by associating them with a group or idea that the public already hates. Example: During the last election, they tried to associate Ron Paul supporters with racist groups (and more recently, certain Fox News anchors) in order to deter moderate Democrats from taking an honest look at Congressman Paul’s policies. 4) Manufacture Good News: This falls in with the skewing of statistics, and it also relies heavily on Media cooperation. The economic “Green Shoots” concept is a good example of the combination of government and corporate media interests in order to create an atmosphere of false optimism based on dubious foundations. 5) Controlled Opposition: Men in positions of power have known for centuries the importance of controlled opposition. If a movement rises in opposition to one’s authority, one must usurp that movement’s leadership. If no such movement exists to infiltrate, the establishment will often create a toothless one, in order to fill that social need, and neutralize individuals who might have otherwise taken action themselves. During the 1960’s and 70’s, the FBI began a secretive program called COINTELPRO. Along with illegal spying on American citizens who were against the Vietnam conflict or in support of the civil rights movement, they also used agents and media sources to pose as supporters of the movement, then purposely created conflict and division, or took control of the direction of the movement altogether. This same tactic has been attempted with the modern Liberty Movement on several levels, but has so far been ineffective in stopping our growth. The NRA is another good example of controlled opposition, as many gun owners are satisfied that paying their annual NRA dues is tantamount to actively resisting anti-gun legislation; when in fact, the NRA is directly responsible for many of the compromises which result in lost ground on 2nd amendment issues. In this way, gun owners are not only rendered inactive, but actually manipulated into funding the demise of their own cause. 6) False Paradigms: Human beings have a tendency to categorize and label other people and ideas. It is, for better or worse, a fundamental part of how we understand the complexities of the world. This component of human nature, like most any other, can be abused as a powerful tool for social manipulation. By framing a polarized debate according to artificial boundaries, and establishing the two poles of that debate, social engineers can eliminate the perceived possibility of a third alternative. The mainstream media apparatus is the key weapon to this end. The endless creation of dichotomies, and the neat arrangement of ideologies along left/right lines, offers average people a very simple (though hopelessly inaccurate) way of thinking about politics. It forces them to choose a side, usually based solely on emotional or cultural reasons, and often lures them into supporting positions they would otherwise disagree with. It fosters an environment in which beating the other team is more important than ensuring the integrity of your own. Perhaps most importantly, it allows the social engineer to determine what is “fair game” for debate, and what is not. Alinsky himself wrote: “One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other.” One merely needs to observe a heated debate between a Democrat and a Republican to see how deeply this belief has been ingrained on both sides, and how destructive it is to true intellectual discourse. Stopping Disinformation The best way to disarm disinformation agents is to know their methods inside and out. This gives us the ability to point out exactly what they are doing in detail the moment they try to do it. Immediately exposing a disinformation tactic as it is being used is highly destructive to the person utilizing it. It makes them look foolish, dishonest, and weak for even making the attempt. Internet trolls most especially do not know how to handle their methods being deconstructed right in front of their eyes, and usually fold and run from debate when it occurs. The truth, is precious. It is sad that there are so many in our society that have lost respect for it; people who have traded in their conscience and their soul for temporary financial comfort while sacrificing the stability and balance of the rest of the country in the process. The human psyche breathes on the air of truth, without it, humanity cannot survive. Without it, the species will collapse in on itself, starving from lack of intellectual and emotional sustenance. Disinformation does not only threaten our insight into the workings of our world; it makes us vulnerable to fear, misunderstanding, and doubt, all things that lead to destruction. It can lead good people to commit terrible atrocities against others, or even against themselves. Without a concerted and organized effort to diffuse mass-produced lies, the future will look bleak indeed. http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2010/02/07/disinformation-tactics-the-methods-used-to-keep-you-in-the-dark/ feel enlightened now?

Now please stop? (grin) My main point can be summed up in the notion that foreknowledge of the signatories to NSAM-273 (in draft or adopted form) is not the ONLY conclusion one can reach, and is indeed the one least supported by the available evidence, which includes the on-going opposition to Kennedy's "policy" of withdrawal by almost all "senior" NSC officials (Bundy, McNamara, Rusk, et al.) and the then-Vice President LBJ. It is every bit as likely - and probably more likely - that these men took advantage of Kennedy's "absence" and Johnson's new (and sole) authority to enact a policy that all of them had been advocating all along. They were no longer compelled to support the deceased president's inclinations, and very clearly did not. There is nothing "absurd" about questioning Fletch Prouty's bona fides since the only evidence of them is his own assertions. That is not to say that he lied about what he did, but merely to say that "why would I lie" is about the only "proof" that he ever offered that they were factual. The fact that a "mere" colonel - almost a non-entity at the Pentagon level, much less the national security level - is not mentioned on the official record is not proof of his veracity or, to be more generous, his accuracy. There are no sacred cows, are there? (Silly me: of course there are! Isn't "Oswald did it alone and unaided" one of them to some people? It's just not right to question what we want to believe!) It's my experience that it's generally fairly easy to find evidence to support a notion, or rather, easy to ignore evidence that doesn't when you've found enough that does. Most of us have this tendency, I think, and some of us don't act against it. Peter, for example, notes that "it is of course possible that NSAM 273 had already been censored before it was submitted to some or all of the authors of the Pentagon Papers," yet he doesn't seem to consider the possibility that the draft NSAM-273 that was made on November 21 was likewise "censored" (read: "destroyed"), and in any event superceded by the version which was presented to LBJ on November 24 and ratified by him? Why in the world would we think that we have the one-and-only true and uncensored version of the "draft" that was actually made on November 21, when those at the Pentagon who made a study for and on behalf of Robert McNamara might not have had it? Your emphasis on the concept of "ACTION" seems a little misplaced, especially in light of the Honolulu Conference's objectives. You make it sound as if what Kennedy had been contemplating and hinting at was a "directive" that everyone in government had to take immediate steps to implement: "everybody get on board and DO THESE THINGS ... NOW!" If that is indeed the case, why - again in Peter Dale Scott's own words - would Kennedy demand "a 'full-scale review' of U.S. Policy in Southeast Asia" to be made in "an extraordinary all-agency Honolulu Conference of some 45 to 60 senior Administration officials" when he'd already made up his mind?? When POTUS has "made up his mind," then that seems to be the time for a "directive" for "ACTION," and not the time to "demand" a "full-scale review," wouldn't you think? This even despite the claim that "on November 20, two days before the assassination, the Honolulu Conference secretly 'agreed that the Accelerated Plan (speed-up of force withdrawal by six months directed by McNamara in October) should be maintained.'" If that is so - it was done "secretly," after all - if everyone agreed that JFK's "planned withdrawal" was the right course for the country, then how in the world did Mac Bundy get away with drafting something so at odds with such a determination and nobody said a word about those changes, or raised a furor in the press, or even mentioned it in a footnote years later in their memoirs? Shoot, if these guys had "foreknowledge" of the assassination, why did they bother to "secretly agree" to anything at all? And after having reached that "secret agreement," yet drafting a memorandum in direct contravention of it, what the heck were they gonna do if Kennedy had survived the weekend unscathed? It would seem at least that they'd have drafted a memo more in keeping with the "policies" "decided upon" by JFK in NSAM-263 in case they'd need it, wouldn't you? Even the best laid plans and all that, y'know? Or were they also somehow prescient of the coup's success as well? And FWIW, a command to "action" is only to "do certain things" in support of an objective; it does not imply full-scale mobilization to implement all phases of it. Likewise - and I could be mistaken here, I'm only 52 - I don't think that "national security" became the mantra, the "be-all and end-all" that it is today that "TRUMPS all other considerations," until the Nixon era. I guess that what I'm ultimately saying is that, as long as we stick to the facts that are presented, it's easy to draw a conclusion of foreknowledge and a coup. But if we try (without making an intense and in-depth study of it) to reconcile it with other evidence, it's not quite as convincing a conclusion, and clearly isn't the only one that there is. also EXCELLENT, Duke!

EXCELLENT Monk! David

ahh, David, this is quite beyond you, might want to forward a link for this thread to Vin Bugliosi.

you're whining at fever pitch again, David Von Pein.

TIME OUT FOR A REALITY BREAK HERE!! (Thank you.) Surely Lee Farley MUST realize how totally silly he sounds when he purports such total nonsense. Because why on Earth would the FBI and/or the DPD feel the need to jump through so many hoops regarding Lee Harvey Oswald--even if we make the kooky assumption that they WERE wanting to frame him for JFK's murder? IOW, why not just say that Oswald took the cab to his roominghouse, and skip the unnecessary bus "story"? By adding a story about a bus, the "plotters" (FBI/DPD/Mother Teresa, et al) now only add more complications and hazards to the "Let's Frame Oswald" plot that so many of you conspiracy-happy folks like to think really took place on November 22nd. Via a phony bus story, the authorities now have to have more and more people in their hip pockets to tell lies for them (mainly Mary E. Bledsoe in this bus instance), PLUS they've got to plant a phony bus transfer in Oswald's pocket after he's arrested. And please note that bus driver Cecil McWatters apparently resisted the FBI's and Mother Teresa's attempts to place Oswald on his bus, because McWatters refused to make a positive identification of Oswald. Good God, what crap you're spewing here, Lee. Of course, the exact OPPOSITE is the truth regarding Lee Harvey Oswald's bus and cab rides on November 22nd, 1963 -- i.e., the evidence that exists demonstrates beyond ALL reasonable doubt that Oswald was, in fact, a passenger on Cecil McWatters' bus AND a passenger in William Whaley's taxicab on 11/22/63. But it's always nice to know that conspiracy theorists like Lee Farley are still hard at work at revising the true facts surrounding JFK's tragic murder. Well, maybe "nice" is the wrong word to use there -- "pathetic" is a more appropriate term for what people like Farley are doing to the evidence in the JFK and Tippit cases. (And "sickening", too.) http://JFK-Archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/william-whaley.html http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc151/David_Von_Pein/MISCELLANEOUS%20JFK-RELATED%20PHOTOS/222OswaldsBusTransfer.gif this has to be torture for you David Von Pein. Nothing, N-O-T-H-I-N-G seems to be going well for lone nut jobs here, there and EVERYWHERE for that matter . But harken, my words of wisdom: there's a few counter positions open at a KFC (if you can handle the stink, that is) near you.

60's moron..... GROW UP, David Von Pein you're not fooling a soul around here....

Bull. Bull. It is a fact. The SBT is the only REASONABLE solution to the double-man wounding to JFK & JBC (as Dale correctly explains HERE). Your silly "TWO BULLETS WENT IN, NEVER CAME OUT, & DISAPPEARED" theory is not reasonable. In fact, it's ridiculous from every angle. Bull. I'm sure Dale is devastated by the fact that an Anybody-But-Oswald conspiracy monger like Jimbo DiEugenio thinks he has no credibility. (Not.) http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/09/what-is-one-to-make-of-jim-dieugenio.html Forgive David Von Pein -- for he knoweth not what he does.... after all he can't varyeth from the Nutter script, he leadeth to stilled waters surround by Bugliosi, Myers, McAdams, Posner nonsense and lies.... why? Begging for a part in HBO's upcoming Bugliosi-Hanks mini-series... an aside: lately the nutters and trolls (active disinfo agents) are getting bashed on every internet venue... as displayed above in Von Pein's consistent whining... ROTFLMFAO! ! ! Carry on big Davey, where would Bugliosi and RH be without ya! ! ! R-O-T-F-L-M-F-A-O

Are you a MD, Pat Speer? What you are posting is pure speculation, based on your opinion. You want to chop an MD down, best you obtain some chops, what you think or believe is irrelevant... I suspect David Mantik Ph.D, MD would have no problem stepping up on a courtroom stand, called as as an expert witness in related medical matters. Think you could cut the mustard? Get real Dude!

No, he doesn't. He thinks all of the evidence against Oswald is fake and/or planted. He has to think that. Otherwise, his precious patsy is so obviously guilty. If "dealing" with the evidence is attempting to prove that 100% of it has been faked and/or manipulated (a la the O.J. Simpson Scheme Team), then I think I'll jump off Jimbo's ship right now. Because it's sinking. And common sense (alone) sinks that ship. You love to over simplify and misrepresent the positions of others, don't you Dave? I'm not sure if you think people buy the garbage you constantly spew forth or if you're just saying crap you know to be untrue because you're desperate for attention. Either way, your arguments are, like yourself, all fur coat and no knickers. I've also noticed how often you like to invoke the "common sense" argument. Seems to me that you're living proof what Mark Twain once said is true: Common sense is what uneducated people attribute to themselves. Martin -- thank you. When it comes to DVP, his 'common sense' rhetoric, not to mention his blind faith in Bugliosi's RH and ALL matters regarding the WCR. No truer were ever spoken: "Common sense is what uneducated people attribute to themselves." Frankly, I like this Twain truism, especially when one considers the WCR: "It's no wonder that truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." -- Mark Twain

What's pin registration as he defined it? He was referring to the mechanism which pulls the film through the back plate of the camera where it is placed to be exposed to light through the lens. He said that in a professional camera like a 35 mm Mitchell or Arriflex, this transaction is very secure, precise, and accurate. The reason being that in professional films, you have to allow for opticals after. But in an amateur 8 mm camera, like Zapruder's, it was not anywhere near as precise since post production opticals were not allowed for. Therefore the image would slide around as you both blew it up and reduced it down. ANd he would be able to detect it, especially in comparison to the early family scenes on the film, which he considered a baseline. If you know anything about films, and since I went to film school I do, this is a cogent argument. Pin registration on 8 mm or Super 8, which is what I worked with in one class, is very loose in those cameras compared to say an Arri. Jack, as I warned earlier, the idea that Zavada is some kind of disinfo agent will not fly anymore since he has now been seen in public and talked and answered questions. He just does not have those qualities about him. He is very open and candid and he answers questions as directly as he can. And he tells you what he bases the answers on, and he even qualifies his answer by telling you how hard the data is he is using. He then gave me his business card after so I could call him if I had any other questions. This is why I think Horne made a mistake in his book by characterizing him as a pathological xxxx and CIA agent. He does not come off as that at all. He really believes in what he is saying. Jim, as I warned earlier, 2003 in fact: what the hell does 8mm pin registration have to do with with possible Zapruder film alteration? There is no such animal as 8mm optical film effects, therefore pin registration at the 8mm level is a non-started, ain fact, a canard -- even today's first year film students know that's impossible! Try reading my chapter in The Great Zapruder Film HOAX.... Let's follow the bouncing ball, again: 8mm film blown up to 35mm film, any possible alteration happened at the 35mm format! The 35mm altered version of the Zapruder film is then copied to 8mm film format, end of story! Perhaps someone here would like to make the claim that 8mm film can't be blown up to 35mm....? This little 8mm to 35mm blow-up sequence is EXACTLY what Moe Weitzman did with the alleged Zapruder film for LIFE magazine.... Ya know Jim, Rollie knows all about this, yet he continues to pursue the foolish argument of doing optical film effects to 8mm to 8mm film.... might want to ask him about that yourself!

for 5+ years on this forum, who knows how much longer elsewhere...... Redd Foxx is NOT happy

ya got'em! DVP has been up to this type of "review" nonsense for at least 5 years......

Oh, they care Dr. Jim! They REALLY care! Simply hoping the show will pass into obscurity as soon as possible -- They're hoping their silence will be overlooked due to something as simple as, too close to the holiday for any serious dialogue with the CT community (of course they know they'll get their collective, lone nut as*** kicked). Hope this coming holiday season finds you and your family well..... David H.

ROTFLMFAO ! ! ! ! ! Guess that xxxxx Spooky Myers, he can't stand NOT being in the limelight..... your boy isn't doing to well here, Todd!

I guess these images shoots the hell out of Sitzman not being the woman on the Pedestal with Zapruder ... Bill Oh? Regarding ANY DP photo/film taken 11/22/63, you're the ONLY amateur researcher that can positively ID Sitzman in those film/photos as standing next to (who we've been told) Abraham Zapruder on the DP/Elm St. pedestal. BTW, what positively identifies Marilyn Sitzman in those photos? Still ever the comedian I see. Don't give up your day job! ROTFLMFAO!

and your two film source is? The alleged camera originals, perchance? all the more reason to be leery, kinda like saying: "hi, I'm from the government, I'm here to help you...." finally you admit photo musings are "opinion" including your own -- we're getting somewhere, finally! Until the alleged in-camera originals are put on the table for scrutiny, these Z-film threads are a waste of time! Unless of course one gets paid to post endlessly on Zapruder film subject matter....

... I dismissed the idea that such a stop would be removed from the film record. Bill of course you do, that's expected, the 6th Floor expects you to do so! End of story, yes? The possibility of an ALTERED Zapruder film has kept the JFK assassination research community in an uproar for the past 10+ years... as a result, the 1964 WCR evidence "cornerstone" (the Zapruder film) has rendered the entire WCR-Dealey Plaza visual record, ineffectual (not that the remainder of WCR needed that, by any means...) the WCR is a farce..... what YOU or I dismiss is irrelevant (that includes the Dallas City Fathers!)

ahh sounds like, the classic David Von Pein.... whom, I might add hangs out at AMAZON, when he and his staff aren't creating YouYube videos...