Andrew Prutsok

"For many questions leading hither and yon originate with this girl. And it is obvious that she was meant to do that: to muddy the waters and keep people guessing once they came to realize that Sirhan obviously did not kill RFK. And she “disappeared” as quickly as she “appeared.” And the authorities shut down their investigation and pursuit of her. They denied her existence against all the evidence. Meant to stand out, she was also meant to go out, leaving a trail of questions....Everything about her has served to hypnotize, first Sirhan, and then those seeking to get to the deeper forces behind this American tragedy." Pretty good treatment of RFK Assassination and the girl in the dress by Edward Curtin at Intrepid Report: http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/24166

Robert Kennedy Jr. visited Sirhan in prison just before Christmas, believes there was second gunman. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2018/05/26/who-killed-bobby-kennedy-his-son-rfk-jr-doesnt-believe-it-was-sirhan-sirhan/?utm_term=.77e91caff9a6

I don't believe the oil boys, banks, defense contractors nor organized crime have any complaints so far.

Thanks for posting. Looks like quite the diverse crowd.

Congrats. That's really cool. I haven't been able to figure it out yet.

Microsoft applied Microsoft AI to 34,000 pieces of evidence from the files of JFK using Cognitive Search. See what we found and what you can do with: https://www.ailab.microsoft.com/experiments/7d6b0652-51dc-440d-a12a-481f28525143

Is a blinker anything like a blinder?

We all certainly owe Mr. Hagger better, more objective reasearch.

I guess that was recoil that covered the motorcycle officers riding behind the limo and not blood and brain bits?

There is no predicting what Trump will do. There is no White House, really. Not as that term came to be used. It's just Trump... and people who work in the building. With that being said, it's hard to understand how someone who has built his entire political persona around attacking the Deep State, could come down on its side on this or any issue.

Family of Charles Thomas are pleading with Trump to release papers they say show his 1971 suicide stemmed from officials wanting to shut down effort to reopen JFK investigation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/22/jfk-documents-could-show-the-truth-about-a-diplomats-death-47-years-ago Sent from my iPhone

What do you think the odds are that almost nobody was publicly critical of Dulles when he died?

The dictate that one 'not speak ill of the dead' is (at best) appropriate for private individuals, not influential public figures. Glenn Greenwald writing on Margaret Thatcher's death noted the following: "But the key point is this: those who admire the deceased public figure (and their politics) aren't silent at all. They are aggressively exploiting the emotions generated by the person's death to create hagiography. Typifying these highly dubious claims about Thatcher was this (appropriately diplomatic) statement from President Obama: "The world has lost one of the great champions of freedom and liberty, and America has lost a true friend." Those gushing depictions can be quite consequential, as it was for the week-long tidal wave of unbroken reverence that was heaped on Ronald Reagan upon his death, an episode that to this day shapes how Americans view him and the political ideas he symbolized. Demanding that no criticisms be voiced to counter that hagiography is to enable false history and a propagandistic whitewashing of bad acts, distortions that become quickly ossified and then endure by virtue of no opposition and the powerful emotions created by death. When a political leader dies, it is irresponsible in the extreme to demand that only praise be permitted but not criticisms." I know not whether Barbara Bush was a great person. She may well have been. I never had any dealings with her. Whether she was or not, it doesn't change the fact that she and her husband behaved suspiciously on Nov. 22, 1963, behavior that has never been fully explained to the public.

Well, if it was anything nefarious, she got away with it. R.I.P.

And there's the part about him calling the FBI on his mentally challenged GOP employee. Nothing suspicious about any of their activities.

With Barbara Bush being in the news for going into hospice care, just curious what seasoned researchers here make of her "letter home" to family while on a few days campaign swing when JFK was assassinated. According to Russ Baker's "Family of Secrets," the future First Lady was in a salon getting her hair done while composing a letter home to family. JFK was alive when she started the letter and his death confirmed before it ended. Not that I have any ill will toward Mrs. Bush, but I've just not seen this topic discussed elsewhere, literally at all, and it seems awfully fishy. Here's how Baker describes it: "Barbara’s curious role as recording secretary to history-in-the-making was interesting enough that one would expect the letter to have surfaced well before 1994. Yet, until it appeared in Barbara’s memoirs, it was not even known to exist. Meanwhile, the original letter itself has not turned up. Thus, many questions remain – questions that I hoped to pose to Poppy and Barbara, who declined to be interviewed for this book. "The excerpted letter warrants careful scrutiny, especially because of all the perplexing particulars. The note begins with a dull thud – a bland mention of a lunch with a “Doris Ulmer.” No Ulmer appears in any of the Bushes’ other books, which list hundreds of family friends, well-known and completely obscure. Therefore, presumably only very close Bush relatives, such as her children, would know who Doris Ulmer was or would even conceivably wish to learn of Barbara lunching with her. No one else would understand that George had even been in Greece on the occasion Barbara mentions when the Ulmers were said to be so nice to him – nor would anyone else know in what way they were so nice to him. "And yet, the style and comments in the assassination portion of the letter – “we are hoping that it is not some far right nut but a ‘commie’ nut” – are odd things to write to children. "It’s not clear from Barbara’s memoirs who the recipients of the letter were. She says “Dearest Family” and that it was “a letter home.” But those of her children who were at home were all ten years old or younger. The eldest, George W., was away at prep school in New England. Also, it would seem odd to write “a letter home” if you were only gone from home for several days of an in-state campaign swing – you would likely be back home before the letter arrived. And she signed it “Bar,” not the typical identifier in a letter to young children." Baker goes on to note that Barbara had strained relations with the rest of her family and didn't even attend her mother's 1949 funeral, so it would be odd that she would write such a letter to them. What to make of this? Here's a link to Baker's site where the book is excerpted: https://whowhatwhy.org/2013/10/09/bush-and-the-jfk-hit-part-4-barbaras-hair-raising-day/

Here's how the article Reads (It's a shame there was no elaboration on several points): Lebanon Democrat, Thursday, March 30, 1967: JFK shot from front speaker tells Rotary "The President of the United States was definitely shot from the front and this fact has been covered up by the Warren Commission and the family," Dr. David Stewart told the Lebanon Rotary Club Tuesday at its noon luncheon. Dr. Stewart, who now lives and practices medicine in Gallatin, was on duty and one of the attending physicians at Dallas' Parkland Hospital when President John Kennedy was brought there on November 22, 1964 (sic). Another thing kept secret was the fact that the President could have possibly been suffering from Addison's Disease. "Because of the actions of the President's White House physician on the trip with him, we at Parkland felt that the President was suffering from this," Dr. Steart said. The Doctor was quite critical of the apparent coverups by the family and Bethesda Naval Hospital. He said there were many things overlooked by the Warren Commission when they investigated and that the whole, complete story has never been told. He quoted the Warren Commission as saying in Texas that it might possibly be seventy-five years before the complete story is known. "If the family and the naval hospital will hide certain facts that we at Parkland know about, then it is certain they will hide other facts," he added. To illustrate this point he noted that certain files were destroyed, x-ray films disappeared and the family was given custody over the autopsy reports. Before the President's visit Parkland was chosen as the hospital to be used in case there was a need while in Dallas. "Just as soon as the President was shot, they knew exactly what to do and where to go," Dr. Stewart said. At the time the President was brought to Parkland, about lunch time, all of the chiefs of departments were on hand. "There was no lack of competent help," he said and added "If it had been fifteen minutes later, it might have been a different story." He described in detail the wounds President Kennedy received. He told the club the President had three visible wounds and was in a desperate condition. "He was not dead when he arrived at Parkland and our main objective was to clear the airway which we did and to stop the hemorrhaging. However, before the hemorrhaging could be stopped, the President died," Dr. Stewart said. The wound in the left front was definitely entered from the front, Dr. Stewart said. One of the basics for diagnosing the frontal entry was the fact that tissue and brain particle was found on the motorcycle officer who was to the rear of the Presidential car. "Why they have never said anything about this is hard for us to understand," and added "That much has been covered up in the entire matter." He also noted that all of this was told to the Warren Commission but apparently they weren't interested in it. OTHER DETAILS he commented on like this: That he helped take care of Governor Connally and that he was shot separately and apart from any bullet that struck the president. Original notes at Parkland have been destroyed by fire. After the President had left each doctor on duty wrote in long hand his account of the activities at Parkland. That Oswald was on the way by the most direct route to see Jack Ruby when he was (sic) killed by Officer TIppit. Oswald was later shot by Ruby and he too was brought to Parkland where he died. He said that Attorney General Jim Garrison's probe into the Kennedy assassination is a fraud. Dr. Stewart was introduced by a former classmate, Dr. James Bradshaw of Lebanon. A question and answer period followed the speech by Dr. Stewart.

I received a file today from my friends in Tennessee with the front page and the jump page of the March 30, 1967 issue of the Lebanon Democrat. It appears, however, they merely shot a photo of the pages from a Microfilm reader. I'm trying to get them printed out to where they are readable and if so I will transcribe. I can't seem to upload the JPEGs of the pages because they are too big. I've never tried to upload anything here before. Any hints on doing that would be appreciated. It seems the the doctor was the speaker at the local Rotary Club meeting the previous day and claimed the president was shot from the front.

Just curious whether anyone else on here knows of evidence that exists somewhere that shows them being in two different places at the same time? I don't believe I've encountered anything like that about me. It seemed to happen quite a bit to Mr. Oswald. I'm just curious if this is a common circumstance and I am just exceptional?

Will do. The editor tells me their old bound volumes are offsite at a local college. He's going on vacation next week but will try to locate when he gets back.

I'm pretty sure the newspaper referenced would be the "Lebanon Democrat," not the "New Lebanon Democrat." I work for the company that owns the Democrat and will look into getting a copy.

What's excellent about her? I always suspected her of being a spineless Bluedog, and her hounding Al Franken out of the Senate on the basis of possibly Roger Stone-manipulated evidence was pretty low.

Have seen his reporting cited on this forum many times. Did outstanding reporting on Irangate. Apparently died over the weekend. https://consortiumnews.com/2018/01/29/robert-parrys-legacy-and-the-future-of-consortiumnews/

I didn't like the story when I saw it on Monday. I've listened to the Mae Brussell broadcasts available on youtube. Likening her to Alex Jones is unfair. She wasn't a buffoon, or a performance artist.

When Bradlee died, a journalist friend reprimanded me for making somewhat-less-than-glowing remarks about him due to his intelligence background as well as the entire Post's cozy relationship with the CIA. She noted the historic work he did on the Pentagon Papers. I remember thinking at the time that anything Bradlee did or didn't do on the Pentagon Papers was likely more related to his desire to stick it to someone on behalf of the intelligence community than it was a desire to serve journalism.