Keyvan Shahrdar

It's important to emphasize that regardless of opinions or statements, facts remain facts. It seems that in this discussion, there are individuals who prefer narratives over factual evidence. Interestingly, some contradict themselves by alleging alterations in the Zapruder film, autopsy images, and X-rays by the government, and then paradoxically cite government officials to support their narrative. It's quite astonishing. I recommend viewing the Nix Film below, which clearly illustrates the events surrounding JFK's assassination and the manner of his injury. This is not about crafting a story, but rather presenting undeniable evidence and facts. My objective is to encourage people to focus on factual information rather than getting swayed by narratives.

Coincidental Discovery: Ruth Paine could have found the letter by coincidence in her house. This scenario suggests she was not knowingly involved in any conspiracy but became inadvertently entangled in the aftermath of the assassination. Intentional Planting of the Letter: The letter could have been deliberately planted in her house for her to find, possibly by Oswald himself or by another party wishing to frame or involve him. In this case, Ruth Paine's discovery would still be coincidental, but the placement of the letter would be part of a larger conspiracy. Active Involvement: A more complex theory could involve Ruth Paine being knowingly involved in the conspiracy, where she was instructed to give the fabricated letter to the FBI as part of the plot. This would imply her active participation in the conspiracy. Unwitting Participant: Ruth Paine might have been manipulated by others involved in the conspiracy, not fully understanding the significance of the letter or her actions. This scenario places her as an unwitting participant, used by others without her full knowledge. Misinterpretation or Misrepresentation: The letter's discovery and its contents might have been misinterpreted or misrepresented either by Ruth Paine, the FBI, or other parties involved in the investigation, leading to confusion or false leads.

The expedite check on George de Mohrenschildt was initiated by Gale Allen, a case officer in the Domestic Operations Division of the CIA. This request was made on April 29, 1963, and was relayed through Anna Panor. The context and exact reasons for this expedite check remain unknown. This request coincided with de Mohrenschildt's trip through Washington, D.C., New York, and Philadelphia in the spring of 1963. The interest from Gale Allen in de Mohrenschildt during this period is noted as significant, especially considering that there is no detailed information about what the de Mohrenschildts were doing or whom they were in contact with during this trip. One known associate of Gale Allen was Thomas J. Devine, a former CIA staff employee. Devine later became an oil-wildcatting associate of George Bush, and their joint activities led to the establishment of Zapata Oil in 1953. After selling Zapata Oil, Bush entered politics while Devine joined the investment firm of Train, Cabot and Associates in New York. This relationship between Devine and Bush continued through the late 1960s, including the period when Bush served as the United States Ambassador to the United Nations. Gale Allen was aware of the project WUBRINY/LPDICTUM, which involved proprietary commercial operations in Europe and was connected to Devine and Bush. This project and its associations were known to Allen through his role at the CIA However, further detailed information about other known associates of Gale Allen, specifically in the context of his work with the CIA, is not readily available in open sources. The nature of intelligence work, especially during the era in which Allen was active, often involved maintaining secrecy about personal and professional associations. Consequently, comprehensive public records of his associations might not be fully documented or accessible.

Michael, there are X-rays and autopsy pictures and they all refute what the doctors at Parkland have said after the WC report was released. Facts are facts and narrative is narrative. I don't understand why people are hell bent on believing a narrative. Here is a YouTube video of the Nix study which shows you were some of the shots came from, again, facts based and not a narrative.

Facts are facts and facts don't change with what people say! Historical film, photo, x-rays ... of the assassination do not show a hole in the back of JFK's head. I know you want to discredit the film, photos, and x-rays in order to convince people of a narrative that the parkland doctors started, but facts are facts, and they just don't change no matter what anyone says.

You would be right unless you have wayward doctors that would say otherwise and an never ending stream of book authors and film makers that believe there is an alternate reality to facts.

@Pat Speer Why do you entertain this silliness? Facts don't matter anymore to some people. Narratives do! @Sandy Larsen You are taking peoples opinions as fact. Why? Look at the factual evidence in front of you. The historical film that shows exactly what occurred in that moment. You have the Zapruder Film, Nix Film, Marie Muchmore film, and the Mary Moorman photo. Seriously, you should be awarded the equivalent of the Golden Raspberry Award for this post.

I'd like to offer a perspective on why some people may prefer narratives from doctors, authors, or filmmakers over what appears to be undeniable facts captured in historical footage. It's understandable that many have deeply invested in their interpretations, but when faced with irrefutable evidence, I wonder how one can continue to support a narrative that contradicts it. Coming from a family of medical professionals, I've observed a certain reluctance among doctors to acknowledge errors. This "god complex" seems common in the medical field, leading to a stubborn insistence on being right. In the context of the JFK assassination, I believe the doctors at Parkland Hospital, and subsequently the filmmakers who adopt their perspective, are not presenting an accurate account. Take, for instance, the equivalent of Zapruder Frame 313 in the Marie Muchmore film. It clearly shows JFK’s brain and blood matter ejecting from the top of his head towards his left. This is similarly depicted in the Zapruder film, where matter is seen ejecting towards the grassy area on Elm Street. These pieces of visual evidence are hard to dispute, yet narratives that contradict them continue to persist. Why is that?

You believe Fraziers, do you believe he saw a gunman putting a rifle in a car and watching the car leave?

Don't you find it odd that Frazier took Oswald to Irving on the 21st and brought him back to the TSBD on the 22nd, as if he was tasked to make sure Oswald was at the TSBD? What if Frazier is lying about Oswald asking him to take him to Irving? What if Frazier was telling Oswald that he should go to Irving on the 21st? Since you have studied the case, I assume, what am I missing?

Could it be that Frazier was Oswald's handler?

Foxnews reports - https://www.foxnews.com/media/jfk-author-discovered-eerie-incident-occurred-year-before-assassination

Does anyone know if Buell Frazier was a member of JROTC in High School?

Buell’s father is Albert Eunice Frazier, died in 1993. He was in the military. Does anyone have information about him?

In the ongoing discussion about the JFK assassination, specific known facts about Buell Wesley Frazier have been widely acknowledged: Frazier moved from Huntsville to Irving, Texas, to live near his sister. He started working at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) in September 1963. Frazier owned a car. On November 21, 1963, he drove Lee Harvey Oswald to Irving, during which Oswald mentioned needing to pick up curtain rods. The following day, Frazier drove Oswald to the TSBD and inquired about the contents of a bag Oswald was carrying. Frazier claims he was in the hallway on the ground floor of the TSBD when JFK was shot. He asserts that the shots he heard seemed to originate from behind the pergola on the grassy knoll, a detail he noted while in the TSBD hallway. Frazier allegedly encountered a well-dressed man with a rifle on Elm Street, outside the Depository, shortly after the assassination. This individual is said to have stored the rifle in his car's trunk before leaving the scene. However, these points, particularly 4 through 8, are based solely on Frazier's account and lack external verification. Consider the following hypothetical scenarios: What if Frazier was the one who suggested Oswald visit Irving on November 21, possibly to meet with Marina? This is done to assure the conspirators that Oswald was at the TSBD on November 22, 1963. Could it be that Frazier himself brought a bag into the TSBD and not Oswald. What if Oswald carried his lunch bag inside? Is it possible that Frazier was the one firing shots from the Depository window? What if Frazier met a co-conspirator outside the Depository post-assassination, who instructed him to return inside and remain silent? Since Frazier had a car, he could have been the one visiting the rifle range for shooting practice. Oswald did not own a car, raising questions about how he would have managed such trips. The relationships and interactions between Frazier, Oswald, Marina Oswald, and Ruth Paine are intricate and often puzzling. Reevaluating Frazier's role could offer new insights into the dynamics of the assassination, suggesting a scenario where he might have been more involved than previously thought.

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/jfk-assassination-60-years-later-we-know-truth-about-real-killer

Groden does not have frame sets. Groden copied the Zapruder film in 1975 to Betamax, in part that is how he got the HSCA gig in 1976. You can’t see the sprockets in his film.

@Chris Davidson, Gotcha - When transferring film to a digital format, some software may use interpolation to smooth out the footage. This process can sometimes create additional frames or alter existing ones to produce a more fluid motion in the video. While this can improve the viewing experience, it's important to be cautious as it might also introduce artifacts or alter the original content of the film.

I am using Cyberlink and I advance the Robert Groden version of the Zapruder film frame by frame. Anything is possible as both of you mentioned but this seems to be a new frame that was omitted in the NARA version of the Zapruder frames. Do you guys have the Robert Groden version of the Zapruder Film. If not DM me.

Delve into the enigmatic Zapruder frame 312.5, a crucial yet often overlooked frame in Robert Groden's version of the Zapruder film, absent from the NARA collection. This frame captures a haunting, reddish mist enveloping President Kennedy and First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy, accompanied by the startling sight of fragments exiting the top of JFK's head.

I recently watched "JFK: What the Doctors Saw" and found the documentary to be a complex presentation of different opinions and interpretations about President Kennedy's assassination. The focal point of the documentary is the nature of the wound in the back of JFK's head, with varying interpretations from the Parkland Hospital doctors featured. The doctors in the documentary discuss the possibility of the throat shot originating from the front, leading them to conclude that the hole in the back of Kennedy's head was an exit wound. They also describe an injury to the top right of JFK's head, visible when he was lying on his back with a flap of hair and scalp moved downward. Additionally, the documentary delves into the analysis of autopsy photos, where the doctors speculate about an entry wound to the right temple area. This observation is presented as a potential explanation for the hole in the back of the head. It's important to note, however, that these doctors are not pathologists, which might affect the accuracy of their assessments. Moreover, the Nix film, which was briefly mentioned in the documentary, appears to provide crucial evidence. This film seems to show that the shots came from the direction of the pergola in the grassy knoll area, hitting JFK from the right in the temporal region above the ear. This could suggest a tangential shot that exited through the top of the skull. The documentary "JFK: What the Doctors Saw" presents a series of interpretations and theories about the assassination. The contrasting views among the doctors and the potential evidence from the Nix film contribute to the ongoing debate and mystery surrounding this historical event.

In the aftermath of World War II, the United States became a new home for many European immigrants, including those from Russia. Cities like New York and San Francisco are known for their Russian immigrant communities, but the story of such communities in smaller cities, particularly Irving, Texas, is less known and intriguing. This historical obscurity raises critical questions: Did the U.S. government, in the midst of Cold War anxieties, extend its surveillance network to Russian communities in cities like Irving, as it did with Japanese communities during World War II? Could this surveillance have been a part of a larger strategy, especially during the tense period of the JFK administration, marked by high-stakes espionage and international conflict? The plot thickens when we consider Lee Harvey Oswald, a pivotal figure of this era with ties to the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Could there have been covert surveillance programs in Irving that intersected with Oswald's path? Is it possible that these programs were designed not just to monitor, but also to influence individuals like Oswald? The Wesley Buell Frazier Connection A central figure in this puzzle is Wesley Buell Frazier, known for informing Oswald about the job opportunity at the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD). If a surveillance program was indeed active in Irving, could Frazier's move to Irving and his subsequent role in Oswald's employment at the TSBD have been influenced by intelligence assets? This hypothesis offers a potential explanation for the seemingly serendipitous chain of events leading to Oswald's placement at the TSBD.

Instances of federal intelligence assets being placed in a neighborhood to influence the decision-making of a specific subject would be highly secretive and typically not disclosed to the public. Such operations, if they exist, would likely fall under covert surveillance or influence operations conducted by intelligence agencies. However, there are historical examples of intelligence agencies conducting surveillance and influence operations: 1. **FBI's COINTELPRO**: The FBI's Counter Intelligence Program (COINTELPRO) in the 1950s to 1970s targeted various domestic political groups and individuals deemed subversive. While COINTELPRO involved a range of tactics, including infiltration, it's not clear if this extended to agents living in neighborhoods to influence individuals. 2. **CIA Operations**: The CIA has been involved in various covert operations globally, which have included surveillance and influencing political outcomes. While specific methods are often classified, the use of agents in key positions is a known strategy. 3. **Modern Surveillance Techniques**: Modern intelligence agencies often use technology for surveillance, reducing the need for physical presence. This includes electronic monitoring, internet surveillance, and other forms of remote observation. In conclusion, while historical and current practices of intelligence agencies include surveillance and influence operations, the specific tactic of agents living in neighborhoods to influence an individual's decision-making is not publicly documented and would likely remain classified if it were used.

What if Marina is the instigator and was trying to get Lee the job at the TSBD? One thing we know for sure, Lee was placed there. The questions is, who placed him there? This would mean that Marina's father was a double agent for the CIA or Marina and the Russians had a hand in the assassination. I have been thinking about this issue for years.

If you listen to Frazier speak, he said Thursday Oswald told him he was getting curtain rods then on Friday, Frazier has no idea what Oswald has in the bag, so he asks him what’s in the bag.