Ron Bulman

Fact Check: Video of Dick Cheney Calling Trump the Greatest Threat to US Since Its Founding Is Real (msn.com)

Thread Topic/Title falls under "Reason for Warning Member" as "Mocking another member" and/or "Mocking another members opinion."  Automatic 15 point penalty.

13 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Nor is it appropriate for members to refer to historians and critics of the Mossad and/or the Israeli government as "Jew haters."  Some of the most highly educated and informed historians and critics of Israeli government policies are Jews, like Bernie Sanders and Norman Soloman.

Under "Forum Rules and Membership Behavior," "General Posting Behavior":

Members are responsible for what they post on this board. A member will not use this board to post any comment or which is demonstrably false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually-oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. 

To me, implying anyone is a "Jew Hater" is defamatory, abusive and hateful.

Racism:

Racism will not be tolerated on this forum. Action will be taken whenever and wherever it is seen on the forum.

Under "General Comments":  If members need to consider whether a link, a word or a sequence of words will be acceptable -- to post or not post before posting -- then we would advise not to post such words or terms.

Any of the above would qualify for a 10 point warning under "Other Behavior" in the warning system, incurring a one-day suspension.  As Ben's 10 points from Marks warning and suspension on July 2 are still active this would have automatically doubled a new suspension to two days.

Possibly how I might have handled this if I'd seen and noticed it first, along with possibly hiding the thread. 

3 hours ago, Jean Ceulemans said:

I noticed the topic "Moderator Reminders" had been merged with "Moderator Actions ... ", but that doesn´t seem to exist anymore? 

 

 

Jean, the "Moderator Reminders" thread was merged with "Moderator Actions" by Mark Knight to conserve space on the main page to allow for more space on it for current topics before they disappear to the second page and beyond.  He has not said so, but it seems Mark then Hid the Moderator Actions thus creating one more space for a current topic on the main page.  It is still there for Mod's and Admin's to see, as both topics are for Moderators.

Senators Ask Attorney General For Criminal Investigation Into Clarence Thomas (msn.com)

As an aside, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse's book "Captured" is an excellent read, very informative.

Amazon.com: Captured: The Corporate Infiltration of American Democracy: 9781620974766: Whitehouse, Sheldon, Wachtell Stinnett, Melanie: Books

Praise for Senator Sheldon Whitehouse:
“Sheldon Whitehouse is one of the most respected and thoughtful progressives in the Senate. His energy and enthusiasm make him a powerful voice in defending our American democracy against the relentless, pervasive―and often hidden―power of corporate special interests.”
―Senator Elizabeth Warren
 

White House releases more details on Biden’s health after press room shouting match (msn.com)

35 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

An absurd statement there, to be sure.

Oswald cannot possibly be innocent of shooting J.D. Tippit. And anyone who knows anything about the evidence should, of course, know why this is true.

 

Well, it must be true because David said it's true.  But a lot of that evidence is a little flaky, like Blakey and the MOB in the HSCA version/book afterwards. 

Bill stopped a few seconds early.  "Just about all of the evidence in the Tippit case is full of errors and problems."

29 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

A little trip down my memory lane. In 1962 (maybe ‘61) I played a youth concert in Carnegie Hall, all city JHS orchestra. Javitz was guest speaker, and us kids were made to sit on stage during his presentation at intermission. Mid way through his speech about the glories of American children and education, a voice from the upper balcony interrupted him - ‘what about the kids in Vietnam’? Twice. I knew instantly it was my father. 

That's pretty cool Paul.

Open convention, Newsome, Corey Booker or Hakeem Jeffries as VP?  Biden throws his delegates to them.  Too simple?  I think such a team would beat trump. 

10 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Harriman did say that there were forces working against a neutralization plan.

Wasn't Harriman also involved in at least the cover up of the JFK Assassination.  The creation of the Warren Commission?

Did Allen pass on his Laos/ Vietnam projects when he was fired?  JFK inherited this from Eisenhower/ Nixon/the Dulles brothers project(s)?

Hey Joe.  I remember you talking about abandoning the forum several years ago, I encouraged you to stay.  Glad I did, you have progressed tremendously as a member.

I hope your surgery goes well and you have a quick full recovery.  Drawings such as yours of JFK, Jackie and RFK would be a treat.  

I think I've posted this before in relation to your SF/Monterey location.  No way intended as about your apparently loving and dedicated wife.  Get well soon.

8 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

This is from a Doug Horne essay, "

Why Do So Many in the JFK Research Community Resist the Mounting Evidence that the Zapruder Film is an Altered Film?

I do not include here, in this question, those who have written books defending the Zapruder film’s authenticity; their obstinacy and closed-mindedness is related to ego, reputation, and to lifelong defense of their established turf.  The old orthodoxy always resents the new paradigm that threatens established ways of thinking.[38]

There is a bigger problem within the JFK research community, and it revolves around the following question commonly posed by perplexed members of the “old guard,” first-generation JFK researchers, to whom the concept of an altered Zapruder film seems dangerous heresy.  They usually ask, “Why would anyone alter the film, and yet still leave evidence of conspiracy in the film?”  (By this they usually mean the “timing problem” in the extant film which makes the single bullet theory impossible; and the “head snap” of JFK’s upper torso and head to the left-rear after frame 313—which they equate with a shot, or shots, from the right front, and not from the Texas School Book Depository.)

The answers to this valid question are clear to me: (1) those altering the Zapruder film at “Hawkeyeworks” on Sunday, November 24, 1963 were extremely pressed for time, and could only do “so much” in the twelve-to-fourteen hour period available to them; (2) the technology available with which to alter films in 1963 (both the traveling matte, and aerial imaging) had limitations—there was no digital CGI technology at that time—and therefore, I believe the forgers were limited to basic capabilities like blacking out the exit wound in the right-rear of JFK’s head; painting  a false exit wound on JFK’s head on the top and right side of his skull (both of these seem to have been accomplished through “aerial imaging”—that is, animation cells overlaid “in space” on top of the projected images of the frames being altered, using a customized optical printer with an animation stand, and a process camera to re-photograph each self-matting, altered frame); and removing exit debris frames, and even the car stop, through step-printing.

In my view, the alterations that were performed were aimed at quickly removing the most egregious evidence of shots from the front (namely, the exit debris leaving the skull toward the left rear, and the gaping exit wound which the Parkland Hospital treatment staff tells us was present in the right-rear of JFK’s head).  I believe that in their minds, the alterationists of 1963 were racing against the clock—they did not know what kind of investigation, either nationally or in Texas, would transpire, and they were trying to sanitize the film record as quickly as possible before some investigative body demanded to “see the film evidence.”  There was not yet a Warren Commission the weekend following the assassination, and those who planned and executed the lethal crossfire in Dealey Plaza were intent upon removing as much of the evidence of it as possible, as quickly as possible.  As I see it, they did not have time for perfection, or the technical ability to ensure perfection, in their “sanitization” of the Zapruder film.  They did an imperfect job, the best they could in about 12-14 hours, which was all the time they had on Sunday, November 24, 1963, at “Hawkeyeworks.”  Besides, there was no technology available in 1963 that could convincingly remove the “head-snap” from the Zapruder film; you could not animate JFK’s entire body without it being readily detectable as a forgery, so the “head-snap” stayed in the film.  (The “head snap” may even be an inadvertent result—an artifact of apparently rapid motion—caused by the optical removal of several “exit debris” frames from the film.  When projected at normal speed at playback, any scene in a motion picture will appear to speed up if frames have been removed.  Those altering the film may have believed it was imperative to remove the exit debris travelling through the air to the rear of President Kennedy, even if that did induce apparent “motion” in his body which made it appear as though he might have been shot from the front.  The forgers may have had no choice, in this instance, but to live with the lesser of two evils.  Large amounts of exit debris traveling toward the rear would have been unmistakable proof within the film of a fatal shot from the front; whereas a “head snap” is something whose causes could be debated endlessly, without any final resolution.)

Those who altered the Zapruder film knew that the wound alteration images in frames 317, 321, 323, 335, and 337, for example, were “good enough” to show investigators the film on a flimsy movie screen coated with diamond dust, but they also knew the alterations were not good enough to withstand close scrutiny.  That is why I believe C.D. Jackson—the CIA’s asset at LIFE and its best friend in the national print media—instructed Richard Stolley to again approach Abraham Zapruder on Sunday night, and to offer a much higher sale price for Zapruder’s movie, in exchange for LIFE’s total ownership of the film, and all rights to the film.  By Sunday night, the name of the game at LIFE was suppression, not profit-making.  By Sunday night, November 24^th, C. D. Jackson was wearing his CIA hat, not his Time, Inc. businessman’s hat.  After striking the new deal with Time, Inc. on Monday, Zapruder received an immediate $25,000.00, and the remainder of his payments ($25,000.00 per year, each January, through January of 1968), were effectively structured as “hush money” payments.  His incentive to keep his mouth shut about the film’s alteration would clearly be his desire to keep getting paid $25,000.00 each January, for the next five years.

The alterationists in 1963 also had a “disposal” problem, for they had three genuine “first day copies” of the Zapruder film floating around which threatened to proliferate quickly, unless they could get them out of circulation immediately, replaced with new “first generation copies” stuck from the new “Hawkeyeworks” master delivered to NPIC on Sunday night.

For them, speed was of the essence, not perfection.  I believe that once the new “master” was completed at “Hawkeyeworks” early Sunday evening, three new first generation copies were struck from it, as well as at least one “dirty dupe” for the LIFE editorial crew standing by in Chicago.  Only after these products were exposed at Rochester, early Sunday evening, was the “new Zapruder film” (masquerading as an unslit, 16 mm wide camera-original “double 8” film) couriered down to NPIC by “Bill Smith,” who took his cock-and-bull story along with him, to his everlasting discredit.

Of course, the cock-and-bull story worked, since Homer McMahon and Ben Hunter knew nothing about the event with the true camera-original film at NPIC the previous night.  McMahon and Hunter had no reason, on Sunday night, 11/24/63, to disbelieve “Bill Smith” when he told them that he had brought “the camera-original film” with him, after it had been “developed” at Rochester.  After all, the product handed to them looked like a camera-original “double 8” film: it was a 16 mm wide unslit film, with sprocket holes on both sides, and exhibited opposing image strips, upside down in relation to each other, and going in reverse directions.

I am quite sure that by Tuesday, November 26^th, all of the original “first day copies” had been swapped out with the three replacements made at “Hawkeyeworks” Sunday night from the new “original.”

NPIC finished up with the new “original” Zapruder film by some time Monday morning, November 25^th, or perhaps by mid-day Monday at the latest.  McMahon went home after the enlargements (the 5 x 7 prints) were run off, but the graphics people at NPIC still had to finish assembling the three sets of four panel briefing boards.

And the rest is history.  Now, through the magic of high resolution digital scans—technology undreamed of in 1963, in an analog world—the forgery and fraud of November, 1963 is being exposed, slowly but surely.  Alterations that were “good enough” to hold up on a flimsy, portable 8 mm movie screen back in 1963, look quite bad—very crude—today, under the magnifying glass of today’s digital technology.

The two back-to-back “briefing board events” the weekend of President Kennedy’s assassination at the CIA’s National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) in Washington, D.C.—compartmentalized operations bracketing the Zapruder film’s alteration at the “Hawkeyeworks” lab in Rochester, N.Y.—are the signposts that illuminate for us, like two spotlights piercing the night sky, the hijacking of our nation’s history almost 49 years ago.

The Zapruder film was altered by the U.S. government, using clandestine, state-of-the-art Kodak resources in Rochester, to remove the most egregious evidence within the film of shots that came from in front of JFK’s limousine.  The true exit wound in the rear of his head was blacked out in many frames; frames showing exit debris from the fatal head shot propelled violently to the left rear were removed from the film; and a false “exit wound” was added to many of the image frames, in an attempt to support the lone assassin cover story. The altered film is one of the strongest proofs of a massive government cover-up following President Kennedy’s death, and the intelligence community’s third party surrogates are doing all they can, today, to deny that the film was ever altered, and discredit this story.  I believe the facts speak for themselves.

I will close now with this cautionary quote for those skeptics, unwilling to let go of a discredited paradigm, who still feel compelled to defend the Zapruder film’s authenticity:

 “It is misleading to claim that scientific advances and scholarly experiments can cause all photo fakes to be unmasked. Questions about authenticity remain.  Many photos that once were considered genuine have recently been determined to be faked.”

—Dino Brugioni,
Author of – Photofakery: the History and Techniques of
Photographic Deception and Manipulation, 1999  "

---

[1] The panel voted its decision on June 16, 1999, but did not announce its decision publicly until August 3, 1999, due to its sensitivity over the death of John F. Kennedy Jr. in a plane crash.

[2] Richard B. Trask, National Nightmare on Six Feet of Film (Yeoman Press, 2005); David R. Wrone, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination (University Press of Kansas, 2003);  and Douglas P. Horne, Inside the Assassination Records Review Board (self published, 2009).

[3] Horne, 2009, p. 1220-1226

[4] Ibid., p. 1231.

[5] Roland J. Zavada, Analysis of Selected Motion Picture Photographic Evidence (September 25, 1998), Attachment  A1-8 (Meeting Minutes of Discussion between Roland Zavada, Phil Chamberlain, and Dick Blair), and Attachment A1-11 (Phil Chamberlain’s original manuscript regarding events related to the handling and processing of the Zapruder film at the Kodak Plant in Dallas).

[6] Zavada, 1998, Attachment A1-8.

[7] Trask, 2005, p. 119-122; and Wrone, 2003, p. 22-28.

[8] Zavada, 1998, Study 1, p. 27.

[9] Trask, 2005, p. 127-131; and Wrone, 2003, p. 32-35.

[10] Horne, 2009, p. 1200.

[11] Trask, 2005, p. 131; and Wrone, 2003, p. 34-35.

[12] Horne, 2009, p. 1346-1350.

[13] Trask, 2005, p.  152-155; and Wrone, 2003, p. 34-35, and 52-53.

[14] Wrone, 2003, p. 34-37.

[15] Horne, 2009, p. 1200-1201.

[16] Trask, 2005, p. 154-155.

[17] Peter Janney, Mary’s Mosaic (Skyhorse Publishing, 2012), p. 293.

[18] Horne, 2009, p. 1221.

[19] Dino A. Brugioni, Eyes in the Sky (Naval Institute Press, 2010), p. 364.

[20] ARRB interview of Homer A. McMahon conducted on July 14, 1997 by Douglas Horne.

[21] Horne, 2009, p. 1326-1327.

[22] Horne, 2009, p. 987-1013.

[23] Trask, 2005, p. 122.

[24] ARRB interview of Homer A. McMahon conducted on July 14, 1997 by Douglas Horne.

[25] Trask, 2005, p. 118.

[26] Trask, 2005, p. 117-119; and Horne, 2009, p. 1277-1281.

[27] HD Video interview of Dino Brugioni conducted on July 9, 2011 by Douglas Horne.

[28] Ibid.

[29] Ibid.

[30] Handwritten Memo for File written by H. Knoche on 5/14/1975.

[31] Dino A. Brugioni, Eyeball to Eyeball (Random House, 1991), p. 66.

[32] Horne, 2009, p. 1295-1296

[33] Ibid., p. 1296.

[34] Ibid., p. 1201-1205.

[35] Ibid., p. 1352-1363.

[36] Ibid., 1299-1302.

[37] Zavada, 1998, Attachment A1-1C, “Film Map of Original Zapruder Film” (prepared by ARRB staff member Douglas Horne following examination of the extant Zapruder film on April 4, 1997, at the National Archives)

[38] Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (University of Chicago Press, 1962).

Thanks for this Chuck.  It's a very good synopsis imo.  Taken with the Sidney Wilkinson piece posted somewhere around here in the last month or so and some of Horne's other work (e.g. Brugioni interview) it's all pretty convincing to me.  Though I don't claim to be an expert or to have studied it all in the depth that some have.

Not sure what to think about this.

Supreme Court Just Gave Joe Biden 'a Powerful Tool'—Legal Analyst (msn.com)

I know so much less than several out there on this subject.  I've read some of the experts work on "it", the bigger picture but by no means all.  E.G, John Newman, Peter Dale Scott, Jim and Larry Hancock plus a little elsewhere by others.

After reading the book mentioned above, The Brothers by Stephen Kinzer, that John Foster and Allen Dulles were the root cause of the United States involvement in the Vietnam War.  He doesn't say that I conclude it from the information he provides.

Truman first gave the French financial aid to fight Vietnam hoping to gain their support of US involvement in Korea.  John Foster and Allen came in with an agenda, fighting Communism in the name of US interests.  First deposing elected leaders for US controlled dictators in Iran then Guatemala.  Next was to be Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam. 

John Foster according to some favored sending US troops to help at Dien Bien Phu.  Ike did say no to this emphatically, though he too wanted Ho gone at any other cost.  This is when John foster made his speech creating the infamous "Domino Theory".  I thought I'd read somewhere he also supported the idea of using tactical nuclear weapons there as well. 

JF went to Geneva with the goal of no concessions to Ho.  Ho was given control over North Vietnam for two years until a national general election.  JF was appalled.  Enter Allen, they got Diem appointed in the South and he sent in Lansdale as Ho's "coach".  He created the Northern Catholics mass exodus to the South.  They ignored the Geneva Accords and created a false election for Diem in the South.  So much more detail.

Kinzer doesn't say this either, just my speculation.  Though Foster died they had the ball teed up for Nixon to send in ground troops in Vietnam after he invaded Cuba.  The Military Industrial Complex Eisenhower warned of wanted these things.  The military was gung-ho and ready to go after no war since Korea.  Wall Street saw $$$.

Then came JFK.  In the way, uncooperative and idealistic.    

Isn't Ike the one in a meeting with Dulles and others said words to the effect of Lumumba had to go?

On 7/2/2024 at 12:50 AM, Cliff Varnell said:

Sounds fine to me.

 

Great speech.  Thanks for sharing, Cliff.

I think this lady has a pretty good take on where we are in the USA now.

‘We have never been here as a country’: Historian Heather Cox Richardson puts Trump immunity ruling into perspective | Watch (msn.com)

Is it all about more Money?

23 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Because as Lovett said to JFK: Foster Dulles had his brother's back.

But Lovett now said Kennedy had the perfect opportunity to get rid of him.

Recently reading "The Brothers" by Stephen Kinzer I have to wonder if Eisenhower was not more involved.  The fatherly former General seemed to have approved pretty much everything the Dulles brothers did.  Has a critical analysis of Eisenhower's presidency ever been done?  Regarding foreign policy?

I wish it could have been longer, I'd like to have heard more of Monika on other chapters.  I enjoyed and learned from both of them.  It's Dr. Sachs Book Club.  He is obviously verry knowledgeable about the JFK assassination.  But it is a conversation (as titled) where he talked much more than she did.  Great to see it getting out there to a larger audience.

Thank you both.  Ron.

The big question here is why didn't Allen get fried by Eisenhower over the report?