Robert Harper

On 2/9/2018 at 9:40 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

 trying to over-throw an election by criminalizing adultery.

Well, that's one way of looking at it. the other way is that they were criminalizing what already is a crime --lying under oath.  He could have fessed up; he didn't; he forced the government to come to the White House and take blood rather than fess up. The advisers around him blamed the victim; he lied to his VP and Secretary of State. If Ms. Gillibrand was so concerned about issues of sexual harassment, she shouldn't have had to wait until 2016 to voice it. She relied on Clinton connections and money for advancement and when they no longer factors, she found a feminist voice.

On 2/9/2018 at 9:40 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Bill Clinton didn't run in '08.

Thanks for that info Cliff. His wife did; he traveled the country campaigning for her. She lost. Gillibrand could have spoken up during this time and called HRC an "enable" but she didn't, did she?

On 2/9/2018 at 9:40 PM, Cliff Varnell said:

Sexual harassment is a hot topic these days.

I'm sure you've heard about it -- it's been in all the papers...

Oh really? Thanks for that also, Cliff. Without you I might not know anything.

On 9/5/2012 at 11:13 AM, James R Gordon said:

If your question is suggesting something sinister, I think you will find it not so.

Well, my view on JFK studies is never assume anything.

Zapruder worked with de  Mohrenschildts wife(fwiw).

Also, my father filmed us all with an 8mm camera which he first acquired in the 1940's. If he was standing in an enclosed space, and bullets starting flying, he would have ducked. He was a husband and father, not a war photographer. The last thing he would have done, would  have been to keep filming. Bruce Adamson first brought this up and my own instincts agree. I've filmed a fair amount with an 8mm camera; I can't believe I wouldn't have ducked for self preservation. Unless, of course, I knew I wouldn't be hit.

Zapruder first said he "gave the money to Tippet's widow" but you find out later he gave her 25 of the 150 thousand dollars Luce & Company paid him (about 1.2 million in 2017 $). He was once employed by Luce.  Zapruder, de Mohrenschildt, and Bush all have connections with Dresser Industries. The Dallas Council of World Affairs was an organization founded by Bush  pal Neil Mellon; members included Allen Dulles, de Mohrenschildt, the Judge who swore in LBJ, and the Mayor of Dallas, recently exposed as a CIA asset. Later the family received 16 million for the "original film" and yet Doug Horne's You Tube presentation of a blow-up from an "original" negative shows a splash of black painted clearly on JFK's head. The number of copies made; the presentation boards made at the CIA, the withholding of an obviously touched-up film for 12 years, all make me wonder how much Abraham knew and saw.

6 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

She condemned Bill Clinton as well.

Well after the fact she jumped on the accuse wagon. She was appointed by a Lt Governor after the Gov (Spitzer) had to resign. In 1998 she didn't say anything.

In 2008 she didn't say anything. Now, she's leading the pack of so-called "feminists" to look like she is sensitive. B.S.

2 hours ago, Pamela Brown said:

VB has preyed on the need for info and closure with a good number of people falling for it.  Not only falling for it but vehemently defending her right to be so obtuse with the evidence....

Everything she's offered to corroborate, doesn't.

When I first read her work, I thought it was very good creative writing. A version - not as good of course - of what Gore Vidal would do with certain known facts of Burr or Lincoln. I think there is something to Mary Sherman, David Ferrie, Doctor Oschner, INCA, LHO and Estelle Edison's experience. i"m not sure if they are, or aren't, part of the Oswald project. But I doubt Ms Baker's credibility in any of it that matters.

On 2/1/2018 at 4:31 AM, Ron Bulman said:

t's been renamed operation GoogleBird.

Love this term. Anything to get people thinking.

9 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

And are desperately flailing to come up with some way it could be Oswald without the SBT...

Reading your discussion  reminded me of my favorite amazon review for JFK and the Unspeakable, from 2008(.His only error is referring to the author as a "Jesuit priest")

I think it best reflects my own evolution.:

 

We are all jurors in an ongoing trial to find the truth of John Kennedy's murder. Most of us have fallen asleep; some left the chamber, and others don't even care anymore. But a few, a very small few, have been paying attention for the last 45 years as arguments for the prosecution of Lee Harvey Oswald, headed up by government lawyers and their lackeys have been constantly countered by a volunteer and unpaid defense team for the truth made up of laymen, clergymen, historians, teachers, researchers, republicans, democrats, non-affiliates of all ages shapes and sizes. It has been a bewildering experience to have been patted on the head and told to go to sleep by the Warren Commission only to be rudely awakened by a garrulous DA from Louisiana, followed then by a government report which said, well, there might have been two, but go on back to sleep. Dazed and confused we began to leave the room but were called back in by Oliver Stone who told us to take a look at his evidence of Oswald's innocence. We were intrigued, but an impish Gerald Posner convinced Dick Cavett and other icons of American mainstream media that Stone's myth was just that and the case was indeed closed: Oswald did it. But Stone had garnered enough interest to cause Congress to form the ARRB- under George Bush Sr, no less. It took Bill Clinton half his presidency to get the thing going, but we watched with bated breath as the Assassinations Records Review Board began pulling from the FBI, CIA, and the rest of the alphabet bits and pieces of information that left gaping holes in the official story. Most of us didn't believe it anyway, but a few, a small few did notice that there seemed to have been two brains pulled from John Kennedy's head during the so-called autopsy. In fact so many moles began popping up it was difficult for the gatekeepers to bop them in the head fast enough. Distracted as we were by 911 and the war on terror, and the revelation that our government has the capacity to pull off an Operation Northwoods, as the ARRB found out, we continued to keep half an eyeball on the story, those of us who were paying attention. But then just as we were ready to reach a verdict of no true bill, Peter Jennings pops in to save the day for the prosecution. Disregarding all prior logic, evidence and common sense he lulled us back to comfortable numbness as he proved through computer generation, laser beams and some small degree of witch-craft that yes, indeed that was some magic bullet. Nevertheless, while almost dozing off again we heard rumblings of another defense witness about to enter the courtroom. He was David Talbot, an almost Main stream media type who was arguing that John and Robert Kennedy were possibly victims of powerful forces in our own government who wanted and needed them gone. But before he could present his full case a boisterous and bellicose advocate of Governmental Righteousness threw on to the floor, almost breaking it, an objection, claiming his stake in the case with a tome of such immense size and weight that no one, at first, dared to read it or question its obvious Buglisosian authority. When it was finally opened, the muse of Arlen Spector saundered forth speaking in only a language that he could understand. Talk shows raved about Vince's masterpiece; gatekeepers swooned, and the prosecution let out a huge and foul-smelling sigh of relief as they said, There! That ought to put this damn thing to rest finally! Everyone began to pack up and leave, most never having read briefs by Scott, Gerald McKnight, Larry Hancock, etc., defense advocates who had built their arguments on the works of Vince Salandria, Marrs, Howard Roffman, Sheim, Weisberg, etc., and the thousands of pages of released and obscure documents. But just as the courtroom almost emptied, looking like a Senate Chamber with a wobbling old man named Byrd trying to make a point, in comes a Jesuit priest. I'm no Catholic, I thought, as I was getting up to leave with the two or three other jurors who had sat through the whole case so far, trying to pay attention, but this guy seems to know his stuff. He's talking about everything we have already heard but putting it all into context. His summation is actually making sense- reason, logic, truth, honesty, footnotes, primary source interviews, follow-up questions, giving the benefit of the doubt to all sides. I sat back down. As James Douglass presented his case, scales fell from my eyes. Oswald was innocent. I look around. Is anybody there?
David Neal

Kitty Hawk, NC

thanks for this; never saw the word "assassins" in any 1963 story either

On 2/3/2018 at 6:36 AM, Ron Bulman said:

By Dulles and he you mean de Mohrenschildt?

I wonder if they had ever met previously?

Yes. After I read about de Mohrenschildt in Bruce Adamsons series, I returned to this chapter which I first read when it came out.The links  "go back four decades." Dulles was Standard Oil's lawyer and negotiated for access to Russian oil with a Baron Sergius von Mohrnschildt. There is a brother academic and George becomes a geologist. Much overlapping in the decades following. The Warren Commission discussed George's"overlapping relationships with the Kenndy/Bouvier family, as well as the Oswald family, but never addressed any overlap with the Dulles family. Or the Bush family.

The former Netherlands East Indies - now Indonesia - had a LOT of oil. So did Iraq. Rockefeller interests expressed by lawyers at Sullivan and Cromwell like the Dulles brothers, made it seem that it was in America's interest to overthrow governments in each place.One brother ended up as Secretary of State; the other as  Director of CIA.

 Lee Harvey Oswald's buddy, George, was in a quid pro quo relationship with he CIA over a long period of time. The day he was made aware  of having to testify to the HSCA, he either killed himself or someone killed him.

On 2/4/2018 at 5:01 AM, Joe Bauer said:

one would have expected 60 Minutes or many other so-called highest bar

I mentioned to a friend that this documentary series on Netflix - called Dirty Money - was so different than the approved documentaries we grew up on ,like 60 Minutes, which was 20 minutes-of-halfway-decent  docs. Each of  these first 6 episodes, put to shame most of the main stream media in the non-fiction department. Imagine if Lane, Joetsen, Buchanan, Meagher and Salandria were able to speak to large numbers within a year of a story.

•  

  , 

  38 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

  This is one of the key reasons that the FBI report was not included in the hearings

• Today, I left the following on the comments section of the Wall Street Journal of the story headlined below. Unlike the NYTimes, they let different voices speak:

• House Releases GOP Surveillance Memo

• There are only two FBI memos that interest me. Everything else is distraction.

  Both were written by J. Edgar Hoover.

  One, in 1960 he wrote of "someone else  using Lee Harvey Oswald's birth certificate". (we were told they never heard of him until November 1963). The other was written by Hoover, the day after JFK's murder. It said that he "informed George Bush of the CIA" about the activities of anti-Castro  groups.

  Now each was discovered by researchers, but never really discussed in the media. This latest one pales next to those two I think. Ever since I learned that the FBI took all the evidence from Dallas to Washington, and then returned,"officially" with more than they picked, and took it back toe Washington.    

  Until that gets squared, all FBI stuff is held at bay by this wsj reader.

imho, her work on Garrison is important and her book Destiny Betrayed ( I have both editions), should be part of the canon.

Her latest work is more a collection of relevant and related topics. She convinced me that the Wallace finger print match was unlikely, while confirming a lot of LBJ snake-ness all around. I think her book on deMohrenschildt is like Morley's on  Win Scott - -its a lot of info about each,  helps your adding up of the evidence, but is not a sustained and complete investigation of the topic. I think Simpich and Armstrong  are such on Mexico say, and Bruce Adamson's information  on deMohrenschildt is more inclusive;, but she has one master work and many with good supporting material in her pocket and, on top of her teaching and other writing is most impressive.

Thanks Steve, I hadn't either.

I am still somewhat chilled every time I recall reading the chapter from The incubus of intervention by Greg Poulgrain,  called " Dulles, de Mohrenschildt and Oil."

I kept thinking that during his WC testimony, Dulles and he looked at each other and said to themselves "I know that you know that I know..."

At the time, they just didn't talk. They never defended Lane. What the hell did Sorensen ever say about the SBT? I made reference to "the unspeakable" in my first post on MSU the other day, alluding to the work of Talbot, Douglass and others. What I was trying to say was that the force of authority can quiet the inner voice.

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Robert - Have you read JFK and the Unspeakable? Or Brothers, by David Talbot?

Yes.

The silence of SO MANY is hard to fathom. When I think of all the people whose career was made by their association with JFK, to have so few of them say a peep has always been depressing (I exclude the Irish mafia and their tale to Tip O'Neill). God bless Mark Lane. There is a picture of him and JFK together; there was a friend who acted like one.

1 hour ago, David Josephs said:

So the documents showing the CIA investigating and finding no visa requests or visa applications for Oswald in and out of Finland/Sweden would lead me to believe either one of you can explain how he got his documentation other than from the SOVIETS or some pre-arranged process...

42 minutes ago, Jim Hargrove said:

Fascinating.  I either never knew this or forgot it.

Messrs. Josephs and Hargrove: your frequent comments on the Harvey/Lee research has kept me very busy as a reader. For those who might have a difficult time  with the material, I offer my own experience. I bought the book and started it. Head spun too much during the  days. I always had a feeling that the pictures didn't make sense but just trying to accept each step seemed too hard. Then I started the book with the Nov 22 chapter, and read each chapter  in  reverse order. Everything made more sense. Popkin's book from years ago on "the second Oswald" made sense, but Armstrong managed to fix the lens for longshots as well. While I still can't account for the disappearance of the "tall, good looking Marguerite" and the reserve of Robert Oswald, the overall concept makes more sense than any alternative.

Slowly I've learned that the participants in many similar things are brought into the net somehow, someway. Then he or she is part of it. In 1988 I couldn't figure why Bush picked Quayle .(I'm unsure if McBride's publication of the Hoover memo was before or after the VP pick). It made no sense to me. Years later, reading through books on Iran/Contra, I found that members of Congress "helped out" by letting their offices be used as makeshift hotels by some of those involved in this illegal activity-all-for-a-better-cause

. Quayle was one of them. Now I see it as a kind  of an insurance policy for Bush. Nixon I think felt the same with Agnew ..little did he realize....

I agree with you that Moyers joins the long list of those used by others. I still can't locate McGeorge Bundy's place.

Thanks Ray. You are among those I have read for a long time.

Using an inflation calculator, that's in the range of $600 a month. Using the same, one can find that Jack Ruby had the equivalent in cash of around $50,000. The government takes the cars of people with cash like that and no proof of income.

btw--thanks for welcoming

"For the record, RT is the only television network that will tell the truth about the massive corruption in this country. I'm proud to have been interviewed at their studios a couple of times. They are not disseminating any "Russian" propaganda, unlike our own homegrown television networks, which are far closer to the old Pravda. The difference between Pravda and CNN, CBS, NBC, etc., is that the Soviets were awake enough to at least realize they were absorbing state propaganda."

Exactly what I found living in Europe and watching any TV news. I like RT.

 A book years back by Frances Saunders  - Who Paid the Piper- was enlightening to me; I used to trust any publisher. Last year, I read The Zhivago Affair. If anyone hears anyone talk about how ______ (Russians, whatever) are attacking Americans with their "propaganda," I suggest that they look at these books as a starter.

Thank you.  One of the reasons i have read this forum for years.

In a copy of the 1980 book  "Authority" by Richard Sennett,  I wrote "JFK" in the margin by the following sentences:

What people are willing to believe is not simply a matter of the credibility or legitimacy

 of the ideas, rules and persons offered them. What they want from an authority

 is as important as what the authority has to offer."

I retrieved this recently while reading about the NCAA gymnastics scandal and watching You-Tube coverage of the Nassar trial. 

Thomas Aquinas's favorite expression for a form was," that by which, or in virtue of which, a thing is what it is" ( id quo aliquid est). My first exposure to the gymnat case was when I watched Kyle Stephens at the start of the impact phase, and Judge Aquilina at the close of the plea stage. By the time I watched the statement of MSU graduate, former gymnast, lawyer and mother of 3, Ms. Denhollander speak at the close of the impact portion of the sentencing, I kept thinking of JFK and the concerns of this forum.