Andrew Prutsok

On 9/11/2017 at 3:11 PM, Lance Payette said:

I scrolled through all 308 pages of the PDF, and it is certainly a gold mine of information.  All of the incredible confusion, chaos, sloppiness and after-the-fact CYA scrambling strike me as exactly what I would expect if a Presidential visit had suddenly become a Presidential assassination, compounded by the murder of a DPD officer - and exactly what I would not expect if this had been any sort of organized conspiracy.  One aspect of the interrogation that recently struck me was an interview of Houston Post reporter Lonnie Hudkins that was included in the excellent PBS Frontline documentary "Who was Lee Harvey Oswald?"  Hudkins emphasized that LHO was unnaturally calm and unruffled, completely unfazed by his circumstances - precisely as Baker and Truly reported LHO as being during the lunchroom encounter.  There, I believe, might be a much bigger clue than the confusion, chaos, sloppiness and after-the-fact CYA scrambling of the interrogation.  (A bigger clue to exactly what I can't say, but preternatural calm in those circumstances strikes me as impossible.)

it's almost like he had some type of training to remain so.calm, huh?

I recall hearing that. Not a modus operandi unlike today 's NE.

I think it's more likely that Jim Jordan and other members of the Congressional Trump Investigation Obstruction Team will all over Fox soon demanding hearings and investigations on who it was in the Turkish government who told on the killers.

The more I think on this, the more Lance’s thread reminds me of the early days of Fox News. Every night, it seemed, Bill O’Reilly would be facing down some pervert from NAMBLA claiming he represented all liberals to discredit the entire progressive cause in the eyes of the gullible and not-too-bright people who watched it regularly. That’s what Lance is attempting to do: pick one, obscure,  bizarre theory to try to discredit what polls have shown for 50 years what everyone knows to be true. It’s intellectually dishonest.

On 10/17/2018 at 9:26 PM, Vince Palamara said:

The only other motorcade I could find with someone holding and umbrella on a warm day (non-raining day, mind you): Houston, 1962, the year before!

Owning the libs, early 60s style.

6 hours ago, Lance Payette said:

In the world of logic and common sense, you cannot avoid THIS issue by saying you get the same feeling every time you look at the WCR.  That is a non-response.  What about THIS issue?  Spend a couple of hours and prove me wrong.

I don’t dispute that there is stupid, crazy xxxx out there. Nonetheless it does not validate the official story, which appears to be your position. My sarcasm aside. I’ve yet to come across a single conspiracy theory as outrageous as the WCR.

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

 

Yes, this is a small issue and a small matter.  But how come every time I spend an hour or two diving into these small matters they don't check out?  To what extent is Conspiracy Thinking built upon a foundation of non-facts such as this and the dark but completely unwarranted speculation that flows from them?

 

Weird. That's the exact feeling I get every time I glance at the Warren Commission Report.

10 minutes ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

the conspirators were willing to kill the President of the United States in  broad daylight in front of hundreds of witnesses. So, yes, they would risk having the Umbrella man there to signal when JFK was coming to make the murder happen.   3 liberal leaders (JFK, RFK and MLK) were murdered by  conservative .... 

It’s mind boggling anyone could see it any other way.

1 hour ago, Lance Payette said:

Once again, EXACTLY.  I believe that things like Umbrella Man are what simply make the conspiracy enthusiasts (my new kinder, gentler term) look silly.  I see absolutely nothing suspicious or inconsistent in Witt's statements.  He seems to be drawing a pretty clear distinction between hearing that "folks" and "people" had been "shot" and later learning "the President" had been shot and "assassinated."  If he were my client and this were a deposition transcript, I certainly wouldn't be thinking "Oh, Lord, they're going to impeach him at trial with this."

And again, applying logic and common sense:  Would it make ANY SENSE for sophisticated conspirators to have something as completely goofy and out of place as Umbrella Man standing in full view for the purpose of whatever you think he was doing - signaling or firing poison-tipped darts or whatever???  Do you seriously think assassins would be relying on umbrella signals to time their shots - as though Umbrella Man were the Leonard Bernstein of the assassination?  How about a signal to JFK as to why he was being killed - because he didn't provide umbrella air coverage at the Bay of Pigs?  Uh-huh.  If an out-of-place umbrella conspicuously popping open and closed near the curb were going to have any effect, wouldn't the most likely one be to cause the President to duck down or other evasive action to be taken? 

Umbrella Man, the Magic Bullet, Yada Yada - these are the very things, the ridiculous red flags, you WOULDN'T have if a conspiracy were afoot.  The ultimate conclusion of this sort of logic is the position that Sandy took in the Prayer Man thread:  The conspirators were sending a message about how completely in control they were and didn't even CARE if Oswald was standing on the steps of the TSBD or that the assassination had more red flags than a May Day parade in Moscow.

More logic and common sense:  With a decade to get their house in order, would the conspirators send someone forward with Witt's bizarre Neville Chamberlain explanation???  To this day I don't understand the logic of what he said or how he thought JFK was going to understand what this protest was all about (he had apparently heard that umbrellas were a "sore spot" with the Kennedy family) - but I do know that if I were organizing a conspiracy Witt would've had a much more mundane and plausible explanation than this.  It's the very absurdity of Witt's explanation that points toward truth ("Just wacky enough to be true," as Tink Thompson said).  I would be willing to bet that not only will you not find any other "umbrella protests" in the annals of JFK, but you won't find anyone who ever even THOUGHT of an "umbrella protest."

Lastly, I would say that the VAST majority of my friends - most of whom, like me, were teenagers when JFK was assassinated - have never read a book on the assassination.  Would never think of reading a book on the assassination.  For that matter, they've never read a book on UFOs.  Only in Conspiracy Land is something like this "suspicious.

Addendum, kind of interesting:

Those who opposed Chamberlain’s work soon began to mock him using a signature accessory of his as their ammunition – his large black umbrella, ever present by his side. Throughout the 1930s and 40s, the black umbrella had been used in satirical cartoons to poke fun at the Prime Minister, as well as in protest. When the Berlin Wall was being constructed, a group of schoolchildren sent a black umbrella, emblazoned with the word “Chamberlain” to the White House.

 

They had decades to cover up their crime and the single bullet theory was the best they could come up with. How many of your friends who never read a JFK book knew the Kennedy family was frightened of umbrellas?

In a June 6, 2006 speech to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, founder of The Daily Kos, stated that he had spent between six months and two years training at the Central Intelligence Agency in Washington, DC. In this speech Kos said began in 2001, before he started DailyKos,^[5] and continued until the beginning of his involvement with the Howard Dean presidential campaign (late 2003/early 2004), which would mean that Zúniga was in training with the US CIA for as much as two years.^[6]

Ever since Daily Kos came out against Dennis Kucinich during one of his presidential runs, I always suspected that with Zuniga's intelligence background, Daily Kos might have been an intelligence-sponsored site designed to limit the parameters on what is acceptable liberal opinion/discussion.

It creeps me out. Too much fantasizing about sex with children.

Here's Scientific American explaining authoritatively how fire brought down a skyscraper for the first time in the history of skyscrapers, three times on a single day -- with one of the skyscrapers not even being hit by a plane and apparently only having some pieces of furniture on fire.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-twin-towers-fell/

And now with the Trump administration and its messaging arm -- Infowars, Breitbart, Limbaugh, Fox, et al -- conspiracy theory has been turned on its head. Everything is a damned conspiracy.  it's intentional. If you call "everything" a conspiracy, then real conspiracies like colluding with adversarial powers to subvert Democracy are ignored by the general populace, or at least it has less of an impact.

4 hours ago, François Carlier said:

Pretending to be a researcher is NOT the same as being a researcher. Apparently, Palamara doesn't know the difference. Though he has spent years just compiling information (which is easy to do) on Secret Service agents, he was never able to analyze the evidence, sort facts from fiction, and apply critical thinking and common sense to the subject. So, one day he says "conspiracy", then "no conspiracy", then "conspiracy again", then what ?
But that's OK, I mean, that's not harmful.
But to slur somebody is something else. That's bad, very bad. To insult dead people is very bad too. To falsely accuse Secret Service agents, to smear their names, is disgusting.
Secret Service agents (from Clint Hill to Bill Greer) were true, honest, dedicated people, who would have given their lives to protect the President. They were brave.
To think that Palamara – who has yet to show 0.1% of such bravery – is showing pride in this forum because he has spent years launching a smear campaign against those brave men is beyond me. I think it is despicable.
(I don't know if we are allowed to use the word "despicable" in this forum, but what else can I write ? The mere thought of someone accusing Secret Service agents of an involvement in a make-believe conspiracy to assassinate John Kennedy is definitely shameful and loathsome !)

It's OK to say bad things about dead people who were bad.

At 1:01, there's a shot of the front steps of the TSBD, I believe, on Saturday I assume. Funny though that the shadows in the corners don't look nearly as dark as they do in extant films from Friday. Weather conditions seemed to be similar.

On 9/22/2018 at 4:55 PM, W. Niederhut said:

      One of the most striking things about Oliver Stone's film, JFK, for me, was the way it depicted the systematic government surveillance and harassment of Jim Garrison and his staff-- bugging offices, intimidating investigators, and even making threats against family members.  (Not to mention the disappearing witnesses.)  It also clearly portrayed the collusion of the mainstream U.S. media in the defamation of Garrison and his investigation.

       It's an observation about the "forest" rather than the trees.

       If Oswald had really been a "Lone Nut," why would the U.S. government have gone to such great lengths to harass and undermine Jim Garrison's investigation?

       It makes no sense at all.

 

Carl Bernstein revealed in the 70s the extent of intelligence infiltration in the media — that hundreds of “journalists” were active intelligence assets, taking dictation, basically, from the CIA to be spread throughout the world. The Washington Post was particularly so, with both Bradlee and Woodward being “former” Naval Intelligence folk.

On 9/18/2018 at 11:06 PM, Joe Bauer said:

 

I think it's pretty well accepted that a good percentage of white males employed in the police agency fields back in 1963 - on every level, city, county, state and federal - in this country, harbored race feelings very contrary and hugely less liberal than JFK.

 

Pretty apparent this is not just a 1963 thing. Photos pop up all the time of police officers flashing those juvenile white power hand signals. 

Great article. If you don’t mind a suggestion from an aging editor, I would abandon the justified text at Kennedysandking in favor of ragged right. Justification causes type to break oddly, creating those big spaces between words which emerge not infrequently in this piece. Makes reading more difficult, particularly on a small screen like a phone, where about 70 percent of online content is consumed. 

1 hour ago, Ron Bulman said:

To the right of these two a woman seems to be showing a man in a suit something in her hand, neither of them paying attention to other people, the GK or TSBD. 

Is he confiscating her camera?

The guy in the blazer and white trousers sure looks awfully preppy. Almost like an Ivy Leaguer of some sort.

19 minutes ago, Michael Cross said:

Check out the cosmopolitan guy behind the "Hunt" figure . . . white pants, blazer, open shirt, relaxed . . . wtf?

He's sure not looking at the depository.

Actually, at least among the leaders in Washington, both sides are in agreement on most really big issues -- unending war, growing defense budgets, allowing Wall Street and corporations to loot. All that is typically bipartisan.

23 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Roe vs Wade?  Nobody called me on this?  Brown vs Board of Education.

In all fairness, I was ready to reply but then saw you had caught it.

16 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Do I have a first amendment right to publish my work on kennedysandking.com?  Of course not...

Facebook et al are non-government entities that don't want to be associated with white supremacist content.

Exactly. Amendments to our constitution restrict only government egress. Private companies can do what they want.

3 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

        One thing that I have learned this week is that a lot of people, (including Jefferson Morley on a 2013 JFK Facts thread I reviewed) seem very uncomfortable about the subject of George H.W. Bush's possible involvement in the plot to assassinate JFK.

       Not saying that I know what happened, by any stretch, (!) but the research community seems somewhat polarized about this awkward subject.

       That same awkwardness seems to surround the subject of the Bush family's close relationship with John Hinckley's family.

This is true. I dared to mention it a couple years ago on ROKC and got my head bitten off. It's verboten.