7 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

Hi William, 

TBH it's the first I have heard of the 'Fairness Act', when I flick between Fox & CNN, it could not be more polarising, or vitriolic at times. It just leads to two tribes and those factions seeking confirmation bias material constantly. It's difficult for me to judge BBC, it had a reputation as being of quality back then, BBC world service was the standard for a long time. They do fantastic nature documentaries but, today there is little of no difference between the BBC (government/tax payer funded) and SKY (Murdoch funded). In my opinion they are most regularly acting as a counterpoint to government, appearing on the side of the people but, manufacturing consent for government policy. The government then appears to compromise, which pleases the readers. Back to Covid, its very easy to predict government decisions on lockdowns and now vaccine passports, as we always get 2-4 weeks of very hard pushing via BBC/SKY and by the time the government speaks, it always seems they have been listening to the news networks, the self appointed voices of the people. My opinion was very different in 1990, 2000 or 2010 but, it seems very much like the EU funding of many aspects of life, has paved the way for Austrian, Richard Von Coudenhove Kalergi's vision for Europe, funded by American money. He was the author of "Practical Idealism". I spend a lot of time with German's living in exile (also tax dodgers), their views of the EU are the same. What masqueraded as a trading block, had desires to be a super-state controlling Europe, their agenda to erode/destroy nation states. They provided a lot of BBC funding for the past two decades or so. Culturally, Britain has changed a lot in this time. 

Cheers

Chris

Censorship?

Just remember, the way you feel about Fox...is the way the next guy feels about CNN.

By their very nature, censors are perched on the very pinnacles of righteousness. They think. 

And that's how many censors felt about the JFKA research community in the years after 1963. The JFKA research community was presented as jackals trying to make money from the nation's misery....

Oh, and how about corporate social-media, and corporate-media shutting down the "debunked Wuhan Lab virus leak" stories in 2020? 

Censorship is always a bad idea, with a few exceptions in bona fide wartime. I am talking WWII. 

The real question is: Youtube, Twitter, Google et al have become to de facto national town squares.

The big question: How can we stop censorship? It is here already, through de-platforming, and especially search algorithms. 

One guy I follow on Youtube, actually has an a-political show. One day his viewership cut in half. Overnight. An algorithm was changed, and he was shunted lower in the search totem pole.  That was by happenstance. Imagine what can happen with a little nudge. 

I know nothing about film distribution, TV rights, etc. 

I am appalled that no US TV network--CBS, NBC, CNN, Fox, et al, or no major media outfit like WaPo or NYT--won't buy the rights and broadcast or stream the four hours, for one hour a night.

Maybe Stone didn't want broadcast/stream, maybe he only wants film-DVD distribution. 

I sure would like the public to see this, to have a national discussion generated, ahead of Biden's decision to release or not the remaining JFK docs. 

Yeah, I wish for a lot of things....

Why the unusual spelling of "Hydell"? 

4 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Russia Today is useful, IMO, for perspectives on the pervasive propaganda in our U.S. mainstream media.

But the Kremlin, obviously, has its own pervasive propaganda apparatus, as everyone knows.

Russians I have known over the years know what it's like to live in a media-fabricated bubble of unreality.  And they also know that Putin is a guy who has murdered journalists who dare to criticize him.

Did the CIA do the same thing to Udo Ulfkotte?

It reminds me of that line from John LeCarre's Cold War era novel, The Spy Who Came In From the Cold -- "The Berlin Wall is not a wall.  It's a seam."

Great line from LeCarre.

And President Xitler is no better. Probably worse. 

I was thinking about Oliver Stone's latest work, the four-hour version. 

I do not know jack about marketing, licensing etc., but is it not odd that no US network, not CBS, CNN, Fox, ABC, NBC, or not even any major news outlet, Wapo or NYT, wants to acquire and then broadcast the work? (The latter through Youtube and other online channels). 

Maybe Stone wants theatrical release first. Direct to TV-web seems better to me, but these matters are way beyond my ken. 

But are you telling me there would be no audience for four, one-hour broadcasts? 

2 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:

Stone appeared last week on the RT program "Going Underground". Informed questions, informed answers - cannot imagine such an interview conducted on American mainstream media.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVso_wpata4

Jeff Carter: I agonize over this, and not just in this particular case. Why does someone have to watch a Russian disinformation channel to get a more-accurate take on many news events?  

19 hours ago, John Butler said:

 

The hole on right side (button side) of the Kennedy's shirt does not match the left side.  The hole under the left side is much smaller.  If that is the hole on the button hole side?  If not please advise.  I can't tell if there is anything that looks like a bullet hole further down from where the arrow is pointing.  The hole in the back of the shirt looks larger than the hole on the left below the button hole.

The large exit wound looks like it matches with the bullet holes in the Kennedy shirt.  You might notice that both the larger and smaller wounds are key shaped as said to be the type of wound made by tumbling rounds.

This wound site in the back of Connally's shirt indicates he was shot from the front just as Kennedy was.  The wound hole is 3/8 x 3/8 inches.  That translates to .375 or a .38 caliber round.  This is not a standard military or high powered rifle round size.  It's more of a pistol size.  That suggests this might be a tumbling .25 caliber Carcano round.  The keyhole shape suggests it is the same type of hole seen in the Kennedy backwound as an exit wound.  Both wounds were made from the front and exited the back.

I have always thought that the Kennedy shirt evidence has been manipulated and Governor Connally's clothing suggests the same thing.  Are they really the clothing worn on the day of the assassination?  I have always wondered if that was so.

The hole in the jacket does not match the description above for Connally's shirt.  This suggests at least to me that the jacket does not match the shirt for a frontal wound.  More shady official story evidence?  

John Butler--

I appreciate your views, but JBC's surgeon Dr. Shaw, and JBC himself, said he was shot from behind. I think this aspect is indisputable. 

Interestingly enough, there is confusion as to what happened to JBC's clothes after the shooting, with multiple stories and versions afoot.  It could be possible someone wanted to suppress evidence.  One possibility is the shirt would not show copper, but only lead around the holes. 

Another curiosity is that JBC's wrist wound resulted from a bullet that entered on the dorsal (wristwatch) side of the wrist. This is nearly anatomically impossible, if the bullet exited JBC's chest. Try holding your wristwatch (on your right arm) flat against your chest. You cannot do it. 

You can hold the palm side of the wrist against your chest. 

Dr. Shaw told the WC it was possible another bullet struck JBC's wrist. 

Keep up with your skepticism. I look forward to reading your posts. 

7 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Is anyone on the forum aware of any new revelations about alleged CIA/Deep State contracts with mainstream media corporations or private journalists, since Ulfkotte's book?

I recall reading somewhere about Jeff Bezos signing a $640 million contract with the CIA a few years ago, after he bought the Washington Post.

For such a hugely important subject, the silence is deafening.

You are asking a media to report on its own compromising. 

Verily, WaPo is owned by a fellow who has become a large Pentagon defense-industry contractor. 

As stated, there is about 1% of consumed media offered by the marginalized, gadflies, oddballs, extremists and some smart people doing their best. 

The corporate media wants to stomp on that 1%, offering one worthy reason or another for censorship. 

This is from Jonathan Turley---

The White House is openly calling for greater corporate action to address censorship, health care, and other issues.  That call is being supported by a growing list of Democratic members, journalists, and academics who have discovered the advantages of shared corporate governance.

Actually, I think this is a lost battle. There is a self-righteous zeal among many modern-day censors that abandons circumspection, and corporate media has never been so ubiquitous, pervasive, monolithic, powerful.

Good luck out there. 

44 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Neat.  But I don't think they understand the full meaning of that.

https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2021/7/19/jfk-review-cannes/

BTW, the last piece of criticism is because what was shown at Cannes was the two hour version.  The four version goes into more depth about the evidence for who we think was involved and how it was done. 

BTW, how did all these people get into Cannes?  They must have been at the open screenings that were held the next day.

The CE 399 debunking is important in and of itself. 

But the (very sad) take-away then is that other "evidence" cannot be trusted either. 

I am sure Oliver Stone's four-hour version is excellent. 

Unfortunately, we live in an age when people demand easy watching, let alone easy reading.

Oliver Stone knows the market, probably 1000 times better than I, and made a two-hour version, and even then the Harvard Crimson review says it drags. Maybe Oliver Stone will be forced to make a Tik Tok version. 

That said, the Harvard Crimson review is fair enough, and no film reviewer can be asked to know the case like a James D. 

Verily, we all would like to know how exactly the JFKA unfolded. The last man to blame for the knowledge hole is Oliver Stone. 

1 hour ago, Chris Davidson said:

Besides other items and speaking ballistically, the County Records rooftop aligns quite nicely with JBC's back/chest(possible thigh) wounds. I tend to believe the shot was fired at z273 and whizzed past JFK's hair at z275 in keeping with the document's 6ft prior to their existing shot span(do the math using the red boxes) which is approx extant z274 based on Nelli's reaction time thereafter, coincidentally while the vertical panning of the zframes hiding JBC's chest occurs.

 

Chris Davidson: That is a crisp Z film you have. Is there a frame by frame version available? 

Thanks for reading and commenting. 

1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:

When I saw the above image, I was really surprised.

I consulted with Mili Cranor and she said, "Jim, people like Latimer don't really believe what they are saying. They are really like salesmen."

This is from someone who studied the urologist more than anyone.

 

James--

Yeah, I almost included the above image in the Tumbling Bullet story too, since obviously the bullet was not tumbling when it left Connally's body. 

This is what Lattimer wrote in his book, from viewing the Z film:  The CE 399 bullet “exits under his [Connally’s] right nipple with a cloud of bloody soft tissue and rib fragments.”

Huh?

One, I don't see that on the film.

Two, look at that little hole on JBC's jacket. Nothing but a bullet passed though that coat. 

In fact, JBC's shirt was bloody, and flesh and bone fragments burst out through the exit wound, but caught against his shirt and coat lining. 

I generally do not like to cast aspersions on people, just for having a different take on matters than myself. 

But Michael Baden and John Lattimer...well, one has to wonder if they were compromised. 

7 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Don't know any good reason to think the lapel flap is an optical illusion.

Micah M--

The lapel does appear to open up, 223-224. It may just the coat bunching up a bit. Hard to tell.

Addtionally, the very small exit bullet hole in the coat is well below the flap. See image. 

The exit hole is as sharp as a whistle and nowhere near the lapel. 

The same problem comes up. How could JBC make a 180-degree turn in his seat after being shot through the chest, and after being immediately incapacitated? 

1 hour ago, Tony Krome said:

Connally said he did see the president. He said he saw the president slumped.

Tony K--

All the better. You have cite? 

Thanks for reading....

7 hours ago, Dan Rice said:

This one doesn't work for me nor the original link.

5 hours ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

From Wesley Bueller Frazier to Mary Moorman to Robert MacNeil, the shot sequence is exactly as described by Dallas Sheriff Seymour Weitzman at the end of the article:

(WC Attorney) Joe Ball: How many shots did you hear?

Seymour Weitzman: Three distinct shots.

Joe Ball: How were they spaced?

Seymour Weitzman: First one, then the second two seemed to be simultaneously.

I could never figure out how that jibed with the Zapruder film but this article explains how Connally was hit right before the final shot.

I still believe there was an earlier missed shot that caused James Tague’s wound. I think it’s clear from ZF that JFK stops waving for a moment, a little girl in a white sweater stops running toward the president and looks toward the TSBD, and Connally looks grim and to his left.

Not sure why Connally never mentions this because it’s clear to me he’s heard something out of the ordinary.

But that also messes up the 3-shot sequence that so many seemed to have heard.

Either way, this is case closed on the MBT. Nice job!

 

 

Michaleen K--

Yes, there likely was more than three shots. There may have been use of silencers; or there were simultaneous shots; or echoes that blended into subsequent shots; and so on. Even non-simultaneous shots can be heard simultaneously, if shooters are varying distances from the listener. 

James Tague may have been hit by a ricochet from separate shot, but one that fired at the same time at the first or second shots at the limo. It is interesting that the FBI extracted lead, but no copper, from the curb where the bullet struck near Tague. 

That indicates a non-copper jacketed bullet.

Max Holland, in some contortions, once posited LHO shot at JFK soon after the limo turned onto Elm, but the bullet struck a light pole, and the lead from inside the bullet squished out and headed down towards Tague and struck the curb there, pushing up concrete splinters into Tague's face. 

So, in Holland's world, there are two magic bullets.  

12 hours ago, Gil Jesus said:

Sacking the "gunsack"

By Gil Jesus ( 2021 )

"A handmade bag of wrapping paper and tape was found in the southeast corner of the sixth floor alongside the window from which the shots were fired."
( Warren Report, pg. 134 )


The Warren Commission concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald had constructed a paper gunsack from materials he obtained from the Texas School Book Depository and used that gunsack to bring his rifle into the building on the morning of November 22nd, 1963 with the intent of assassinating President John F. Kennedy.

They came to that conclusion in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary.


The visual


The thing that strikes you right off the bat about this piece of evidence is the color. Most of it has been stained with a chemical using silver nitrate, but a small portion of it at the end is not. I would like to focus on this unstained part because the FBI claimed that they developed a left index finger print from one end of the bag and the right palm print at the other end of the bag using this chemical treatment.
https://photos.google.com/photo/AF1QipONUSE1S3Cwo7c8CDt5LNQp31Ln9HYCGC7rDMlp
 

So how did they develop the print at the untreated end ?



Discovery on the 6th floor

Let me start this fairy tale in the traditional sense, "Once Upon a Time there was a gunsack nobody saw in a place where it wasn't but was found by two different people."

Commission Document 5, pg 128 indicates that the "gunsack" was found by Detective R.L. Studebaker in the southwest corner of the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository while dusting for fingerprints.


But on the next page, the same document credits the discovery to Lt. J.C. Day, with TSBD Supervisor Roy Truly as a witness and states that "no one else viewed it."

Somebody's not telling the truth here. As if that wasn't enough, a crime scene photograph of the corner where the "gunsack" was allegedly found (CE 729 ) shows no such thing.




In fact, the Warren Commission had to outline where the bag was found.



So if the Dallas Police had the presence of mind to photograph the shells under the window in position as found ( in situ ), why didn't they photograph the bag the same way ? In position as found ?


Because it was never in that position and it was never found.



Examination of the paper


Following the assassination, James C. Cadigan, an FBI agent whose expertise was the examination of questionable documents, was asked to examine a brown paper bag that was allegedly found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository, not far from the "sniper's nest". He also was asked to examine the tape on the bag.

This bag would later become Commission Exhibit No. 142.

In addition, he examined the samples of paper and tape that were taken from the mailroom of the TSBD by Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C. Day and Detective Studebaker and which Lt. Day gave to FBI agent Vincent Drain on the night of the assassination. This sample that Day took for comparison would become Commission Exhibit No. 677.


It might be interesting to note that the paper used by the TSBD arrived on March 19, 1963 from the St. Regis Paper Mills of Jacksonville, Florida and that this shipment of paper was not completely used up until January of 1964. (Hearings, Vol. IV, p. 96)

In other words, the paper that was in the building on November 22, 1963 and December 1st was from the same shipment.


On December 1, 1963, the FBI took samples of the paper and tape from the TSBD mailroom and compared that sample (Exhibit # 364) to the paper gunsack and the sample taken on November 22nd.

This is what they found:

That the paper from gunsack matched the paper that Day said that he got from the TSBD shipping room. However, the FBI sample from the same TSBD shipping room 10 days later did not match either of the other two. (Hearings, Vol. IV, p. 94)

Mr. DULLES. Do I understand correctly, though, you have testified that a sample taken 10 days later was different---or approximately 10 days later?

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes.

Mr. EISENBERG. Approximately 10 days.

Mr. CADIGAN. Yes; this was a sample taken December 1. I could tell that it was different from this sample, 677, taken on the day of the assassination, and different from the bag, Exhibit 142.


Armed with this information, the FBI started looking for a match for the paper and tape by checking places Oswald had worked in the past. They checked Jaggers-Chiles-Stovall in Dallas and the William B. Reilly Company in New Orleans. ( 4 H 98 ) They also examined paper and tape that was in the home of Ruth Paine. They even went so far as to obtain paper and tape from Klein's Sporting Goods in Chicago, where they alleged Oswald bought the rifle.

For all their efforts, they were unable to find paper and tape that matched the paper and tape on the alleged gunsack.

In fact, the ONLY paper and tape that matched the paper and tape found on the "gunsack" was the paper and tape that was in the shipping room of the Texas School Book Depository on the afternoon of November 22nd, 1963.


In my opinion, taking into account that the crime scene photographs show no bag in the location where police said they found it and that who found it is questionable, this bag was made by the Dallas Police on the afternoon of the assassination in the shipping room of the Texas School Book Depository. Then they took a sample from the same rolls of paper and tape so it matched. Apparently, they didn't have the rifle presemt when they made the bag, so they ended up making it 2 inches too short.

And the FBI found this out when they sent agents to make a replica bag on December 1st. They then tested the paper and tape on the replica and found out that it didn't match the bag or the sample taken by the DPD on November 22nd.

The Dallas Police made this bag to connect the rifle to the building and thus Oswald. But what they didn't know was that they were were using paper and tape that would connect it to the building on the afternoon of November 22nd TO THE EXCLUSION OF ALL OTHERS.



The tape dispenser


The TSBD had only one tape dispenser. FBI examined it and the tape. They found that the dispenser left unique marks on the tape as it went through. Because of this, they were able to identify the dispenser from the shipping room of the TSBD as the unit that dispensed the tape. There's no evidence that Oswald was ever working in the shipping room and there's no evidence that he took the dispenser home with him to construct the gunsack.



Blanket fibers found inside the gunsack ?


When Paul M. Stombaugh of the FBI Laboratory examined the paper bag, he found, on the inside, a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light green cotton fibers. 'The blanket in which the rifle was stored was composed of brown and green cotton, viscose and woolen fibers'.

The single brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers from the blanket in all observable characteristics. The green cotton fibers found in the paper bag matched 'some of the green cotton fibers in the blanket "in all observable microscopic characteristics." Despite these matches, however, Stombaugh was unable to determine that the fibers which he found in the bag had come from the blanket, because other types of fibers present in the blanket were not found in the bag.

The best he could come up with, because there were so few fibers in the bag, was that they could have come from the blanket.

Or they could have been placed there.



Oswald's fingerprint and palmprint found on bag


Using a standard chemical method involving silver nitrates the FBI Laboratory developed a latent palmprint and latent fingerprint on the bag. (See app. X, p. 565.) .

Sebastian F. Latona, supervisor of the FBI's Latent Fingerprint Section, identified these prints as the left index fingerprint and right palmprint of Lee Harvey Oswald. The portion of the palm which was identified was the heel of the right palm, i.e., the area near the wrist, on the little finger side. These prints were examined independently by Ronald G. Wittmus of the FBI and by Arthur Mandella, a fingerprint expert with the New York City Police Department. Both concluded that the prints were the right palm and left index finger of Lee Oswald.

Of course, to think anyone would carry a broken down rifle ( or ANY rifle, for that matter ) in this fashion is utter nonsense. Here is how he would have had to carry the gunsack if the prints on it are legit:





So how did Oswald's prints get on the bag ? Well, either the story of his prints on the bag is a lie or they were forced on the bag by the Dallas Police during Oswald's "interrogation". I suggest that there were struggles in that interrogation room and they could have forced his hands on the bag. Before you start laughing at this theory, let me remind you that the police opted to NOT have a stenographer present nor to tape the interrogation.

There was to be no evidence of what was going on in that room.

And for anyone to think that any police department who had captured a suspect who they suspected of killing one of their own, would simply sit him down and ask questions is naive at best.

Especially in the South in the 1960s.

This guy was going to get an ass kicking, especially after the struggle in the Texas Theater. Make no mistake about it.

As a footnote, it's been noted that the shirt he was wearing when he was arrested had no hole in the elbow. I believe that happened when they roughed him up during his interrogation.



No other identifiable prints were found on the bag


As if Oswald's shooting skills being better than the world's master riflemen wasn't enough, Oswald was able to fashion this homemade gunsack without leaving more than 1 fingerprint and a print of the heel of his right hand. This is another in a long list of Oswald's lifelong achievements and I'm surprised he isn't in the Guiness Book of World Records for all he accomplished.

This is another of the Commission's lies and we know that because it is impossible to have constructed this piece of evidence with one's bare hands without leaving countless fingerprints. They simply lied about this to hide the fact that the Dallas Cops ( probably Studebaker's ) fingerprints were all over it.

Not Oswald and not anyone else.

Impossible.

More evidence the "paper bag" was made on the afternoon of the assassination: it never contained a rifle.



Evidence the "gunsack" never contained a rifle


The FBI examined the "gunsack" to determine if it had carried the rifle. The examination was of the inside of the sack to see if there were marks or scratches in the paper caused by the rifle. The FBI expert on the subject was James Cadigan:

Mr. EISENBERG. Mr. Cadigan, did you notice when you looked at the bag whether there were, that is the bag found on the sixth floor, Exhibit 142 whether it had any bulges or unusual creases?

Mr. CADIGAN. I was also requested at that time to examine the bag to determine if there were any significant markings or scratches or abrasions or anything by which it could be associated with the rifle, Commission Exhibit 139, that is, could I find any markings that I could tie to that rifle.

Mr. EISENBEBG. Yes?

Mr. CADIGAN. And I couldn’t find any such markings.

(4 H 97)

Cadigan added:

There were no marks on this bag that I could say were caused by that

rifle or any other rifle or any other given instrument.

(ibid.)


Cadigan found no evidence that the "gunsack" had contained the rifle and while he testified that the absence of scratches was not proof that the rifle was not in the bag, he added the caveat that the rifle could have been wrapped in cloth.

Which it certainly wasn't.

So the rifle that was so sharp that it could pull fibers off of a blanket and so sharp that it could pull fibers off of a shirt that was in Oswald's dresser drawer at the time of the shooting, couldn't leave a scratch in paper.

The rifle left no impression of itself, not a little hole, not even the tiniest little scratch on the bag. Since the rifle wasn't wrapped in anything, Cadigan's opinion simply stated was that this bag never contained a rifle.



Conclusion

I believe there's a lot of evidence here that points to this "gunsack" as having been constructed on the afternoon of the assassination.


First, crime scene photographs prove that it wasn't where they said they found it.


Second, two different officers said they found it. One claimed to have a witness and stated no one else saw it.


Third, the type of prints taken from it are proof that Oswald never carried it.


Fourth, there were not enough fibers to say they came from the blanket in the Paine garage.


Fifth, there was no evidence that the rifle was ever inside it.


Sixth, it was IMPOSSIBLE for anyone, Oswald or anyone else, to have constructed this bag without leaving fingerprints.


Seventh, the paper and tape used to construct the bag matched the paper and tape that was on the shipping room table on the afternoon of November 22nd to the exclusion of all others.

Great stuff.

We know beyond reasonable doubt that CE 399 was fraudulently entered into the evidentiary record. 

The mysterious paper-bag raises a lot of questions too. 

Thanks James-

Yeah, I cannot figure out the "JBC was hit around 237/240" viewpoint. 

That timing still posits that JBC makes a 180-degree turn in his seat, after being shot through the chest, to try to see JFK. And JBC and his wife remember the shot to JBC as immediately incapacitating (well, yes, one would think). 

It is in the literature that JBC once reviewed the Z-film and said he thought he was shot somewhere around 238, but I wonder if he had single-frame freezes, like readily available today online. 

Sheesh, anything is possible, like simple disinformation is out there about what Connally said, or perhaps Connally made a guess based on watching a celluloid movie running, which is hard to do.  

39 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Here's a reference for those who are wondering whether CIA Director George H.W. Bush actually killed the Mockingbird, as advertised, in the 70s.

Ulfkotte's original book, Gekaufte Journalisten, was published in Germany in 2014 and became a major bestseller, despite being completely blacklisted by the mainstream media in the EU.

The original 2017 English translation, Bought Journalists, was never made available in the U.S. market.

An English edition of the book was finally published in 2019 as Presstitutes-- Embedded in the Pay of the CIA.

Presstitutes Embedded in the Pay of the CIA: A Confession from the Profession

https://www.amazon.com/Presstitutes-Embedded-Pay-CIA-Confession/dp/1615770178/ref=pd_sbs_1/147-0355117-5616453?pd_rd_w=NtvUh&pf_rd_p=f8e24c42-8be0-4374-84aa-bb08fd897453&pf_rd_r=8JDD3SYKFX3A4MQ01H4P&pd_rd_r=7224c4be-10f3-4252-b08b-90b12ec207e1&pd_rd_wg=zl98h&pd_rd_i=1615770178&psc=1

W. Niederhut:

Thanks for bringing this book to our attention. 

Obviously, "the media" is a large blob, with many variations. Books like this are a window.

It is impossible to know how extensive CIA, or other military intel, grooming of the media is today.  

But judging from results....

5 hours ago, Robert Burrows said:

Perhaps, after almost 60 years, the MSM is now successfully conditioned into perpetuating the objectives of Operation Mockingbird. 

Oh, don't get me started. 

In the past several decades, large enterprises, often embedded in even larger multinational conglomerates, have come to control probably 99% of consumed news. 

An unholy alliance among captured and aligned media, coprolitic political parties, the national security state and multinationals. 

Perhaps 1% of news is produced by the marginalized, whackos, gadflies, extremists and, rarely, a few smart independent people. 

I am in some of the latter groups. 

James D-

Thanks for the opportunity to contribute to the JFKA community. 

And yes, that sure is a small bullet hole in the rear of Connally's shirt (3/8ths by 3/8ths, and possibly artificially enlarged to test fabric), to have been made by a large ( 1/4" diameter by 1 1/4" long) tumbling bullet striking sideways.  

I am an old dog now. Lost more than a few steps. But this may be my best work yet, due to some luck finding the forgotten photos of the Connally shirt. 

I hope everyone in the JFKA reads this article, and contributes to James D's essential website. 

Hollywood Media Self-Punking? Project Mockingbird Not Needed

For those of you unacquainted, broadly defined Project Mockingbird was a successful CIA operation to convert US journalists and news organizations into security-state apparatchiks, post-war through the 1970s. 

Due to state secrecy, no one outside the intel community anymore knows how extensive are modern-day equivalents of Project Mockingbird. 

The JFKA research community has been long a favorite target of this weaponized US media, with even earnest scholars made to look like unhinged conspiracy nuts. 

But maybe the CIA is hands-off now—no need. Perhaps the Hollywood media is self-punking.  

How else to explain this insipid review of Oliver Stone’s new documentary that appeared in Variety, one of the news pillars of Tinseltown: JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass’ Review: Oliver Stone Doubles Down on the Mother of All Conspiracy Theories

Yes, Oliver Stone is again presented as an unhinged conspiracy theorist, by the Variety reviewer of celluloid Owen Gleiberman. 

One could write a book about this wretched descent by a Variety pixil-packer into self-reverential hubris, state-toadyism and disinformation. 

But where to start? 

This one sentence from the review just boggles the mind: “And if you watch (the Zapruder film) his (JFK’s) hands up at his throat just beforehand and watch Texas Gov. John Connally’s movements, the timing and flow of the magic-bullet theory line up perfectly.”

Huh?

Well, except that JFK puts his balled fists toward his throat around frame 225, and Connally does a 180-degree turn in his seat after that, to look back at JFK, as seen in frame 280. (Reminder, the Z-film runs at about 18 frames per second). Connally recounted on the record to the Warren Commission, and to anyone else, that after JFK was struck by the first shot, the Governor turned around to try to see the President.  As indisputably verified by the Z film. 

Among many, many other delusions, the single-bullet theorists posit Connally had a bullet rip through his chest, fracture his right wrist, pierce his right thigh, but then a concerned Connally turned around to look at JFK. This is indisputably the single-bullet thesis. 

However, not only do Connally and his wife remember the Governor being concerned and turning around to check on JFK after the first audible shot—but that the Governor was immediately incapacitated upon being struck by the second shot. 

Oh, you think? You think a bullet through the chest would immediately incapacitate a man? But hey, what do the Connallys know? They were only there. 

Owen Gleiberman, who has spent a professional lifetime debating the merits of fictional films, sets the record straight on the JFKA—and how does Gleiberman know so much? 

Well...once suspicious about the JFKA, Gleiberman writes he had an epiphany after he confronted “new evidence and analysis like the kind presented in Gerald Posner’s 1993 book Case Closed.”

Oh, dear. No, I am not making this up. 

Like I said, there is no end to the premises, disinformation and inanities in the Variety film review, and it would take a lengthy footnoted tome to accurately rebut them all. 

However, one of my concerns is that the JFKA community sometimes ventures onto squishy ground, and that gives critics a stony foothold. Gleiberman notes the haziness around whether anyone could have seen Lee Harvey Oswald on the stairway, in the immediate aftermath of the JFKA. 

To my friends, I say the JFKA community has so much rock-solid indisputable evidence, we nary need bring into the picture evidence that can be challenged. 

Leave that to the FBI, and their manufacturing of CE 399. Another topic Gleiberman knows nothing about. 

But in the end, the trenchant question is this: Has Hollywood media punked itself, or is intel community influence still at work? 

23 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

I can appreciate Mr. Stone's attempts to humanize Russia and try to bring our two countries closer, as they were when we joined together to defeat the Nazis.

However during his courting of Putin, I wonder if he forgets that KGB officers were indoctrinated to hate Americans as much as CIA guys were taught to hate Russians.

The US and Russia will hopefully be allies again someday. But I don't think that will happen while Putin is in power.

Matt A.--

I agree that Putin (regrettably) is a thug, a klepto-capitalist. 

The best hope is that when Putin passes on, Russia will more or less want to become part of Europe. 

26 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Here is another one.  This time the interviewer says that the facts and logic in JFK Revisited are hard to resist.

I would go farther, they are impossible to resist.

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/oliver-stone-interview-jfk-documentary-b1882614.html?fbclid=IwAR2uFPHmSZTirXG5VcOercAwkaMBYE9BXif5gYwpsypX9vr2_OJ91mCFnyo

Good one...I didn't see this, so I posted it also.

Yes, I concur, the case for at least two gunman is beyond reasonable doubt.  

The cover-up is indisputable also. 

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/features/oliver-stone-interview-jfk-documentary-b1882614.html

Not bad. And Stone's views on censorship are (should be) universal. 

2 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:

Here's another decent west coast review/interview.  Though I disagree with Mr. Stones ending remarks.

We can argue all day about freedom of speech.  Documented facts should never be censored.  Using the msm or social media to promote lies that advocate insurrection should be exposed and stopped imho.  The companies owning these entities have a social responsibility to prevent the destruction of the system under which they have freedom of speech to let us express our opinions.  Off the soap box.

Oliver Stone revisits JFK assassination in new documentary (sfgate.com)

Ron B.---

Agreed. But also interesting is what Oliver Stone said at the very end of the interview you posted:

“America is censoring itself. It’s censoring Facebook, it’s censoring the ex-president. We’re scared. We’re scared of hearing the truth,” Stone continued. “Sometimes you have to hear the Alex Joneses of the world. You have to have different points of view.”

I am no fan of Alex Jones or Trump.

But as I say, all across the political spectrum are smart and fair people. No group I have ever met has a monopoly on insight, fairness, good manners, and decency.

One of the most prominent pillars of the JFKA community is Jacob Hornberger, a devout libertarian and obviously a deeply thoughtful fellow. I assume Hornberger would disagree with some of JFK's domestic policies, maybe all. That's fine, we need different opinions in this world. Hornberger would be a "right-winger" in the parlance of many.

But to Hornberger what is more important than politics is the truth. What really happened to JFK?

A person could despise JFK's politics (not the man) but still be outraged that a coup was effected.

Censorship, like patriotism, is often the first and last resort of goons. 

1 hour ago, Bill Fite said:

 

Here's one from France with the key sentence translated.

from 74e Festival de Cannes - Oliver Stone revisite son «JFK» revisité: «Si Kennedy n’avait pas été assassiné, le monde vivrait plus en paix»

translated:

Oliver Stone unravels the WC report from the beginning of the epoch and demonstrates all its incoherencies, contradictions and omissions.  And concludes more convinced than ever that it was a CIA plot.

Bill Fite: Thanks for the translation. The French, especially those who backed de Gaulle, had some perspective on the JFKA, as de Gaulle had been the target of many unsuccessful assassination attempts. 

That does not make the JFKA a conspiracy or not (I think it was), but it means the overt bias against such a JFKA explanation was lacking....