Ron Ecker

I thought they were supposed to eat cake over there.

I told you what my evidence is on the back of the head photo. The two eyeballs in my head that can still see things. Which reminds me of an old document that says something about "we hold these truths to be self-evident." I know that's not good enough for you, nothing would be, so you and the others will have to carry on without me.

Ha ha ha ha. All I have to do to know that the "back of the head" photo is fake is to look at it. Where's the hole that all those medical professionals saw and documented? But then why even show a photo of the back of JFK's head unless the purpose was to show that what was there wasn't there, because - well, because it would very inconvenient for it to still be there. So see, it isn't there! Oh, but how could anyone dare think that the U.S. government or military would fake something. There was a time in my life when I wouldn't dare think such a thing. It would be so unpatriotic! But over the years the U.S. government has opened my eyes to many things about itself, and guess what, it continues to do so. You should be thankful that you have a government you can trust in France.

I'll just say that being willingly taken in by a 55-year-old cover-up is as bad - no, actually it's far worse - as believing in a 7,000-year-old Earth.

Sorry, but I'm staying out of this pointless discussion now that I've been set straight. Arguing with lone nutters is like arguing with young-Earth creationists. I had enough of that years ago.

OK, thanks DVP and FC. The statement that "the best evidence" has to be the materials from the military's autopsy ("Get that body out of Dallas!" and "Keep the clothes out of here!") says it all. Now I see why all those medical eyewitnesses at Parkland can go fly a kite.

I'm having a hard time following this discussion, which may have something to do with my age. Am I alone in this? Sandy has quoted a number of medical professionals on what they saw, and FC seems to be saying (with no evidence unless I missed it, and I don't know what evidence there could be) that those people didn't see what they said they saw. I really don't understand this, and just wanted to say so, so that maybe someone can set me straight. .

I thought that all lone nutters were Americans. (You know, it couldn't happen in America.) I thought that foreigners knew better. Also, I want to revise my proposed remake of Dumb and Dumber. I would make it instead about two FBI agents investigating for the Warren Commission. Dumb: I think the chances of Oswald killing JFK with that rifle from this window are about a million to one. Dumber: So you're saying there's a chance.

Hey, how about Daniels as VP Bush teaming up with Jim Carrey as Ronald Reagan in a new version of Dumb and Dumber? There could be a scene where Reagan is meeting with his men to plot Iran/Contra. While Reagan tries to stay awake, Bush gets up to go to the bathroom, so he can claim he was "out of the loop." Bush goes and sits on a toilet and communicates with the others at the meeting by radio. Of course those at the meeting have to listen to flushing and other sounds while they're communicating with Bush. There could be another scene where Reagan and Bush meet with the generals to plan the great invasion of Grenada. Bush says, "If I'm ever president, what I want to do is invade Panama."

Poppy as a drug smuggler makes perfect sense. I wondered where that nickname came from.

I tuned in to the Colbert show tonight, and saw the actor who would be perfect to play Poppy in a movie. Jeff Daniels actually looks like him (much moreso than that guy in Dealey Plaza). Unfortunately any movie about Poppy would be a total bore, since he denied everything that would make such a movie interesting.

Hinckley could have possibly been a good screenwriter too, writing scripts like THE LITTLE GUN SHOP ON ELM STREET.

It was just mentioned on FoxNews that Bush was a prolific writer of letters but never wrote a formal memoir. I wonder why. I guess there are some things you just don't write about. Reminds me of E. Howard Hunt's memoir Undercover that completely skips 1963. After all, nothing memorable happened that year.

I was a WC dupe for years. I trusted the government, which is stupid to start with. I remember when Rush to Judgment came out. I didn't bother reading it because Time Magazine gave it a bad review. That was good enough for me. I think it was my brother who introduced me to Crossfire, and I came across Best Evidence in the library where I worked. Reading is a wonderful thing.

Which one? (One real and one attempted.)

The simple fact that there are documents that the government still refuses to release in spite of the law says a lot more than all the documents that have been released.

Does anyone believe the story of Ronald Reagan and the magic bullet (oh no, not another one!) fired by John Hinckley, who bought his gun on Elm Street in Dallas? (Boy, somebody had a sense of humor, didn't they?) What did Reagan ever do to anyone to get shot by conspirators soon after taking office? That is, what did he do besides choose as VP a former head of that criminal organization the CIA? Who would naturally, immediately benefit from Reagan’s death but this official criminal, whose family was friends with (wait for it) the Hinckleys? The CIA would have had its man in the Oval Office right then if Reagan hadn’t been too dumb to die. But this great man Bush couldn’t leave well enough alone. (Whether or not he was involved in the JFK hit too. He said he, unlike everyone else on the planet, couldn’t remember where he was on 11/22/63, he thought "somewhere in Texas," though he must have known where he was that day when he made a long-distance phone call to name a possible suspect in the murder - I wonder if that was to establish the fact that he wasn't in Dallas - and must have known where he was when he then got on a plane and in fact flew to Dallas. And he must have known where he was when he got briefed, on behalf of the CIA for some strange reason, by the FBI on the aftermath of the JFK hit). No, he had to give us George W. Bush, who gave us Cheney and Rumsfeld and their New Pearl Harbor, who gave us the Iraq War and thousands and thousands of deaths, Iraqi and American, and a Middle East power vacuum to be filled by Iran and ISIS. And for what? Why, for good old Corporate America, what else? Last night I was all ready to hear Dolly Parton sing on Jimmy Fallon’s show (which ordinarily you couldn’t pay me to watch). But no, I had to get hit with a long-prepared NBC Special Report on the death of this great man. Some other time, Dolly.

Movie on Turner Classic Movies tonight at 8 pm EST.

Might this statement by a high Turkish official on the Khashoggi murder not apply as well to the JFK assassination? “It is not possible for an intelligence agency such as the CIA, which even knows the colour of the fur on the cat walking around the Saudi consulate’s garden … to not know who gave this order.” Turkey attacks Trump's stance I have indeed wondered more than once how the U.S. intelligence community could not know, at least somewhere along the line, who planned, financed, and carried out the JFK hit, when also considering the CIA’s role in covering up relevant information 55 years later and counting. “It is not possible” doesn’t seem like exaggeration or conjecture to me. It seems more like just the way it is.

Thanks. I hadn't heard of that case. The CIA could have just killed the guy with a drone, but that could also kill a few Milan passersby. The CIA would only do that in Arab or Muslim countries, where innocent lives ("collateral damage") are worth less than in Europe.

Paz, Who did they kidnap, and what happened to the magistrate?

Well it sounds kind of rude to answer the phone with "Pronto," like telling the caller to hurry up and say what he or she wants. And what's with "prego," like telling someone to go get pregnant?

Francois thinks the idea that the Secret Service may have been somehow involved in the JFK assassination is not only ridiculous but libelous. This is odd, since one of his professed areas of interest is history. (Another is crime investigations.) Despite this interest he has apparently never heard of bodyguards being involved in the assassination of the person they were guarding. Perhaps he should read up on the assassination of Indira Gandhi. Or of Salaam Taseer. I'm sure there are others, but Francois, as one interested in history and crime, ought to know more about them than I do.

BDM in Willis and Betzner does look anonamous, somehow blurred unlike anything else in the two photos. But who could have done something to the negatives of both? Who developed the photos? Occam's Razor tells me that BDM is the black couple, moving in some way to make them blurred.

As I recall Files said his handlers let him do the shooting at the last minute after Roselli or someone backed out or didn't show up. IOW it was a very well-planned operation.