Michael Griffith

<< Mike, Whew.  Stoll worked for Newsmax and Reason.  And the New York Sun. >>

And? So what? Have you read his book? Or, do you just assume that because he wrote for two conservative journals and a libertarian journal that he can have nothing valid to say?

<< The idea that Kennedy was a conservative is kind of ridiculous. >>

Actually, it is not. It is not ridiculous at all. It is based on his record in the House, in the Senate, and in the White House. Have you read Stoll's book?

<< As ridiculous as saying he would be a Manchin Democrat. >>

I think JFK's record proves he would be at least as center-right as Manchin, if not more so. 

Please understand one thing: I am not using the term "liberal" as a pejorative adjective. As an Independent, I'm liberal on some issues, such as a pathway to citizenship for illegal immigrants, universal healthcare, red-flag laws, background checks for gun purchases, raising the age limit for rifle purchases to 21, most federal-level affirmative action policies, granting citizenship to "Dreamers," etc.

However, I think liberal conspiracy theorists have done JFK a disservice by painting him to be a liberal peacenik who would have readily abandoned South Vietnam to communist tyranny, who would have gutted the defense budget, who would have endorsed today's mammoth welfare and regulatory state, etc.

When I began to study the JFK case, I was not a fan of JFK as a person because of his serial adultery, but I had a much more favorable opinion of him as a president because I knew he had supported tax cuts, increased defense spending, worked toward a balanced budget, etc. Thus, I was surprised to find that one pro-conspiracy book after another described JFK as a liberal and included varying doses of liberal politics (especially on the Vietnam War, the Cold War, and disarmament). After a while, I learned to ignore the liberal preaching, but the vitriolic, sweeping attacks on conservatives contained in Coup in Dallas go well beyond the liberal preaching I've seen in other pro-conspiracy books.

I recommend that JFK fans read Ira Stoll's highly acclaimed book JFK, Conservative (Mariner Books, 2013).  Stoll documents that JFK was not the liberal that most Democrats now paint him to be.

If JFK were alive today, he would be aghast at how far left the Democratic Party has lurched. If he would be a Democrat at all, he would be, at the very least, a Joe Manchin Democrat. It is possible he would be a centrist Republican. 

Look at the Kennedy family today. Where are they? Why aren't they helping to fund research efforts into JFK's death? Why aren't they talking about any of the historic disclosures and new research that have emerged over the last 10-20 years? RFK Jr. is the notable, lone exception. The rest of the family seemingly could not care less about the issue. If you want to experience a gag reaction, go to the JFK Presidential Library and Museum website and see what the site offers about the assassination. 99% of the site's material on the assassination accepts the lone-gunman theory. If you search for "HSCA" on the site, you get no results. 

Or, let's go back to 1967-1968 during the Jim Garrison investigation. Where was the Kennedy family? Where were RFK and Teddy? Teddy said and did nothing to help. Nor did RFK. In fact, whenever RFK commented on Garrison's noble effort, he made comments that helped those who were trying to sabotage Garrison. Garrison made many mistakes and sometimes made unfounded claims, but we now know that he was on the right track. Given the obstruction and outright sabotage that Garrison had to endure, it is a wonder that he managed to uncover as much evidence as he did. 

Again, my complaints about Democratic cowardice are not intended to be partisan. The Republican record on the case is even worse; it is downright shameful. What progress that was made on the case was made largely thanks to Democrats. But Democrats could and should have done much more than they did, and they could and should have done it much sooner. 

If you watch the Z film at regular speed, there is no discernible slowdown, much less a full stop. This is not even a close call. The witnesses would have seen the limo moving in real time. It strains the imagination to fathom how the 1-2-second full stop or obvious slowdown described by over 40 witnesses could be the split-second slowdown that Alvarez only identified by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis. 

On 8/18/2022 at 1:34 AM, Pat Speer said:

Some points to consider... 

1. LBJ picked 4 Republicans and 3 Southern Democrats to man the Warren Commission because he knew a northern Democrat was unlikely to play along. 

2. Arlen Specter became a Republican after his stint on the Warren Commission's staff, in part because he knew that his creation of the SBT would hurt him more with Democrats than Republicans. 

3. The congressmen and historians who called for a new investigation in the 60's were largely Democrats.

4. Ted Kennedy supported the creation of the HSCA, and the HSCA may not have been created without his support.

5. Pre-Trump, the prominent politicians to say they questioned the conclusions of the Warren Commission were mostly Democrats, and the Republicans who did question it were mostly of the commies-did-it variety.

I largely agree with every point you make here, but those points don't change the fact that JFK's family, friends, and allies failed to forcefully, vocally confront the lone-gunman myth. There is some question about how strongly Teddy backed the formation of the HSCA. But, even assuming he strongly backed the committee's creation, he stayed on the sidelines after that, not to mention that he said nothing when the Warren Report came out 13 years earlier. 

The firing of Richard Sprague was inexcusable and was a devastating blow to the HSCA investigation--not a fatal blow, but a badly damaging one. I think Dick Russell's chapter on Sprague in On the Trail of the JFK Assassins proves there was no valid reason to fire Sprague and every reason to keep him. Democrats had the power to defend Sprague and keep him as chief counsel, but they caved in. They had huge majorities in Congress, and they controlled the White House and the Justice Department. Yet, they let the Deep State's propaganda campaign against Sprague intimidate them into firing him.

If Teddy and other Kennedy family members, not to mention other prominent Democrats, had vocally, forcefully defended Sprague and demanded that he remain as chief counsel, the HSCA investigation could have been historic and decisive. But it didn't happen because there were simply no Kennedy family members and prominent Democrats willing to stand up for Sprague and to insist on full, unconditional cooperation from the CIA, the FBI, and the Secret Service. 

At that time (late 1970s), it was still possible to bring at least some of the conspirators to justice. Even Blakey said he believed it was possible to get convictions of a few of the conspirators. But there was no one with the courage of Mary Pinchot Meyer in the Kennedy family or among JFK's friends and allies. Thus, the conspirators got away with their crime and the lone-gunman tale has never been officially exposed and repudiated.

4 hours ago, Allen Lowe said:

If you look at the Zapruder film the car comes to a near stop  just before the headshot. I seem to recall Senator Yarborough saying the same thing, that it slowed down but did not stop. And every time I see it I see this and wonder why everyone claims it didn’t happen. And it’s easy to see how at this moment of shock witnesses thought the car came to a complete stop, because it was a pause in the action.

There is no visible slowing down of the limousine in the Z film. There is only the virtually invisible, split-second slowing identified by Alvarez. This virtually imperceptible slowing occurs from Z295-304, as the limo decelerates from 11/12 mph to 8 mph, per Alvarez's measurements. In the film, this event is so subtle that viewers usually do not notice it. In fact, no one appears to have noticed it until Alvarez detected it by measurement and frame-by-frame analysis. It seems highly unlikely that this split-second, subtle slowing is the 1-2-second stop or drastic slowdown described by over 40 witnesses.

There is also the problem of the vanishing explosion of blood and brain. The spray of particulate matter disappears far too quickly. In the current film, it is there in one frame but gone in the next frame. Ballistics tests have proved that the spray should be visible for at least six frames. In addition, no spray is seen blowing backward. Yet, we know that two of the trailing patrolmen and the follow-up car were sprayed with blood and brain matter. Hargis said the spray hit him such force that he thought he himself had been hit.   

20 hours ago, Joe Bauer said:

Well, there's that old proposition that RFK knew he couldn't do anything about a real JFK investigation until and only if he was President.

His enemies were too powerful to take on without the full power of the Presidency.

As President he could have placed his own people to head the CIA, FBI, AG and so many other powerful positions to then get the kind of control and power he needed.

Obviously, that plan failed. I totally get that RFK and other family members were devastated, and I could excuse them if their inaction and silence had only lasted a few weeks. But, once they saw the FBI's propaganda blitz for the lone-gunman theory, they should have shaken off their grief and loudly protested the emerging myth. Certainly, at the very latest, when the Warren Report was released, with its obscene disregard for the truth, they should have spared no effort to challenge the report in the public arena.

I'm reminded of Mary Pinchot Meyer, who truly loved JFK. She recognized early on that the emerging tale was a brazen falsehood, and when the Warren Report was released, she became determined to challenge it. Yes, that's what got her killed. However, if many/most/all of JFK's family members and friends had boldly and loudly challenged the government's myth, the conspirators would have been unable to silence them, and the cover-up probably would have collapsed. If nothing else, such determined, vocal opposition from JFK's family members and friends would have drastically changed the public debate on the issue. 

On 1/4/2015 at 12:58 AM, Robert Prudhomme said:

Below is a link to a Youtube film showing newsman Dan Rather describing his viewing of the Zapruder film on 25/11/63.

 

His descriptions vary greatly from what is actually seen in the version of the Z film we see today. I had put this down to Mr. Rather misremembering (OMG! Misremembering? I just used a classic LN verb) what he had seen but, after reading some eyewitness testimony today, I believe he was describing exactly what he saw.

At about 1:34 in this film, Mr. Rather describes Gov. John Connally turning in his seat, and extending his right hand towards JFK. Of course, no such thing can be seen in today's version of the Z film. However, read this excerpt from the WC testimony of eyewitness S.M. Holland, a railroad worker who saw the assassination unfold from atop the Triple Underpass.

"Mr. HOLLAND - And the motorcade was coming down in this fashion, and the President was waving to the people on this side [indicating].

Mr. STERN - That is the north side of Elm Street?
Mr. HOLLAND - Yes; On the north side.
Mr. STERN - All right.
Mr. HOLLAND - And she was looking in this direction [indicating].
Mr. STERN - "She," is Mrs. Kennedy?
Mr. HOLLAND - His wife. And about that time---
Mr. STERN - Was looking in a southern direction?
Mr. HOLLAND - In the southern direction.
Mr. STERN - South side of Elm Street?
Mr. HOLLAND - And about that time he went over like that [indicating], and put his hand up, and she was still looking off, as well as I could tell.
Mr. STERN - Now, when you say, "he went like that," you leaned forward and raised your right hand?
Mr. HOLLAND - Pulled forward and hand just stood like that momentarily.
Mr. STERN - With his right hand?
Mr. HOLLAND - His right hand; and that was the first report that I heard.
Mr. STERN - What did it sound like?
Mr. HOLLAND - Well, it was pretty loud, and naturally, underneath this underpass here it would be a little louder, the concussion from underneath it, it was a pretty loud report, and the car traveled a few yards, and Governor Connally turned in this fashion, like that [indicating] with his hand out, and another report.
Mr. STERN - With his right hand out?
Mr. HOLLAND - Turning to his right.
Mr. STERN - To his right?
Mr. HOLLAND - And another report rang out and he slumped down in his seat, and about that time Mrs. Kennedy was looking at these girls over here [indicating]. The girls standing---now one of them was taking a picture, and the other one was just standing there, and she turned around facing the President and Governor Connally. In other words, she realized what was happening, I guess.
Now, I mean, that was apparently that---she turned back around, and by the time she could get turned around he was hit again along in---I'd say along in here [indicating].
Mr. STERN - How do you know that? Did you observe that?
Mr. HOLLAND - I observed it. It knocked him completely down on the floor. Over, just slumped completely over. That second---
Mr. STERN - Did you hear a third report?
Mr. HOLLAND - I heard a third report and I counted four shots and about the same time all this was happening, and in this group of trees--[indicating].
Mr. STERN - Now, you are indicating trees on the north side of Elm Street?"

So, Dan rather was not the only one to see Connally extend his hand out. Is this more proof of alteration of the Z film?

This is interesting. Speaking of witness-described actions missing from the film, Kellerman, one of the SS agents, told the FBI that JFK tried to reach with his left hand "to a point on his right shoulder." This makes sense. When the misfire hit JFK's upper back and made a shallow wound, JFK felt it and was trying to feel what it was, trying to feel what was going on at that spot.

Kellerman's account has been dismissed because this action is not seen in the extant Z film, but one wonders why Kellerman would have invented this and what action he could have mistaken for a left-handed backward reach toward the right shoulder.

Of course, the most egregious case of witness-described actions missing from the Z film is the limo stop, described by over 40 witnesses from all over the plaza. 

I should mention that in spite of my disappointment with the heavy dose of ultra-liberal politics in Coup in Dallas, I am carrying it on the front page of my JFK site as one of my 12 recommended books/videos. I hope the book reaches many readers. I hope the conservatives who read it can overlook the ultra-liberal preaching.

It's just never a good idea to accuse 1/3 to 1/2 of your potential reading audience of being racists, fascists, xenophobes, homophobes, poopoo sympathizers (or outright Nazis), bigots, Brown Shirts, etc.

20 hours ago, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

How are u with survey  question (1 & (2).

Re the 6.5 mm object i think that it might have been a plant.

But Donahue & Co were stuck on the AR15 firing just one shot.

And Oswald's first shot, the ricochet, is a stuff-up.

 

I answer No to both survey questions.

We now know the 6.5 object was planted. It is a ghosted image, created by double exposure. Dr. Mantik has duplicated how it was done. Dr. Mantik has also established this via optical density measurements and high-magnification analysis.

There is a small amount of metal inside the 6.5 mm object, and that metal must have come from a ricochet shot. 

20 hours ago, Kathy Beckett said:

Why does it have to be a partisan problem?  Wasn't it everyone's problem? 

If a Republican President were to be assassinated, shouldn't concern for something like that be non partisan? Who cares what party?

 

I agree. Everyone should have cared about JFK's death, regardless of their party affiliation. My point is that JFK's family and friends, those who knew him best, did not have the courage to stand up and challenge the shameful lone-gunman myth. Of all people, they should have been the loudest and fiercest in their rejection of the lone-nut tale.

RFK, Jackie, Teddy, Dave Powers, Ken O'Donnell, Pierre Salinger, Admiral Burkley, Lem Billings, etc., should have publicly denounced the lone-gunman myth. RFK was the attorney general, yet he played no role in the investigation--he did not even try. If enough of JFK's family and friends had forcefully challenged the Warren Report, this would have made an enormous difference and probably would have created such a firestorm that the cover-up would have collapsed.

Similarly, when the HSCA came around, with Democrats holding huge majorities in the House and Senate and controlling the White House and the Justice Department, Richard Sprague was fired and the CIA was allowed to mislead and obstruct the HSCA investigation. Where was Teddy? Where was Jimmy Carter? Where was Henry Gonzalez? Where was Jackie? If these people and others had taken stronger stands to help the HSCA, history could have been changed.

Where were JFK Jr. and Caroline when they became adults? They showed little or no interest in challenging the lone-gunman fable. 

I do recognize that most of the WC critics, as well as most of those who called for new investigations, were Democrats, but nearly JFK's family and friends declined to forcefully challenge the lone-gunman myth. 

8 minutes ago, Micah Mileto said:

Maybe one day they could fix their horribly misleading presentation of all of the evidence.

I agree.

In around 2001/2002, I exchanged several e-mails with Gary Mack, who was then the curator of the museum, about the biased selection offered by the museum's bookstore. The last e-mail I received from him was sent to me by mistake; he intended to send it to the museum's management, but he accidentally included me as a recipient. In the e-mail, he told them that they would have to formulate a response to the objections I was raising because others would raise the same objections. Of course, he said nothing about fixing the problem by making the bookstore's selection more balanced.

I do not view McCullough as harshly. His books on Adams and Truman contain a great deal of worthwhile, interesting information. I especially enjoyed his book on Adams. However, regarding his book on Truman, I do agree that he had a major blind spot when it came to nuking Japan. His defense of using the A-bomb was inexcusably wrong and incomplete when he wrote Truman in 1992. By that time, there was ample scholarship that showed that nuking Japan was not only unnecessary but immoral, that by June 1945 Japan was on the verge of collapse and practically defenseless against air and sea attack, and that by June 1945 Japan's moderate leaders (including Hirohito) were trying to bring about a surrender. 

Yes, and I also noticed today that the Sixth Floor Museum bookstore is carrying several pro-conspiracy books, including Thompson's new book Last Second in Dallas and Summers' Not in Your Lifetime.

On 7/31/2022 at 5:15 PM, Marjan Rynkiewicz said:

I reckon that Hickey fired an accidental auto burst of 4 or 5 or 6 shots with his AR15, & that the last shot hit jfk in the head at Z313, & (say) the first shot bloodied Tague. 

I am wondering which members agree that .....

1. Hickey fired at least one shot.

2. Hickey fired the fatal shot at Z313.

Anyone not agreeing with (1) or (2) need not answer -- a no answer is a no vote -- but comments & insults are welcome.

You're talking about Howard Donahue's theory, a theory that is now championed, with some modifications, by Denise Hazelwood. Donahue, a firearms expert, recognized that the ammo that hit Kennedy's head did not behave like the ammo that Oswald allegedly used. He also recognized that the 6.5 mm object on the skull x-rays could not have come from Oswald's alleged ammo (full-metal-jacketed ammo).

I got to know Donahue a little bit in the 1990s, a few years before he died. We exchanged several letters. He was a very nice, sincere guy, but he simply could not tolerate the idea that a conspiracy killed JFK. So, he went looking for an alternative explanation for the fact that the ammo that hit Kennedy's head did not behave like Oswald's alleged ammo, and he came up with the theory that Hickey shot JFK in the head and that the 6.5 mm object was a ricochet fragment from a miss.

Yes, the vast majority of the Republican members of Congress and Republican federal officials displayed moral cowardice in response to JFK's assassination, and a few of them actually took part in the cover-up. However, the cover-up probably would have failed if JFK's family members, close friends, and other prominent Democrats had had the courage to publicly challenge the obscene lone-gunman theory.

The excuse given for their cowardice was that they had to remain silent "in order for the Kennedy family to heal." How could anyone "heal" when an obscene myth about JFK's death was being foisted on the nation? 

The pattern of tragic cowardice continued in the 1970s with the HSCA investigation. Congressional Democrats Don Edwards and Henry Gonzalez, supposed allies of JFK, played key roles in the firing of Richard Sprague as chief counsel for the HSCA. Gonzalez, as HSCA chairman, was the one who fired him. When Sprague was fired and when G. Robert Blakey was then installed as chief counsel, the Democrats had huge majorities in the House and Senate, and Democrat Jimmy Carter was president. Democrat Griffin Bell, appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals by JFK, was the Attorney General, appointed to the post by Jimmy Carter. How could they have allowed these things to happen? Where were the Democrats when the CIA was obstructing, stonewalling, and misleading the HSCA?

JFK's family and friends--the people who should have publicly voiced loud, fierce objections to the lone-gunman fiction--displayed tragic cowardice and enabled the Warren Commission to mislead tens of millions of Americans for years to come. Years later, when outrage over the leaked Zapruder film and disclosures of CIA crimes led to the creation of the HSCA, JFK's fellow Democrats again failed to do their moral and civic duty (as did nearly all Republicans in Congress and elsewhere in the government).

I think it is unwise and counterproductive for those of us who acknowledge an assassination conspiracy in our writings to go beyond the following reasons that people should care about JFK's death:

1. We cannot have powerful elements of the government conspiring to assassinate a president because they don't like his policies. This sets a dangerous precedent and calls into question the viability of our form of government.

2. We cannot have a powerful conspiracy that assassinates a president covered up by our news media, especially when the cover-up occurs because the same elements that killed the president exert control over so much of the news media. 

3. We cannot allow a powerful conspiracy that kills a president to murder dozens of witnesses in order to prevent those witnesses from exposing the conspiracy. 

4. We cannot allow federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to destroy evidence, alter evidence, suppress evidence, and pressure witnesses to change their story in an investigation of the death of a president (or under any circumstances, for that matter).

When we move well beyond these reasons and inject large doses of liberal positions on other issues into our JFK assassination writings, especially if we include harsh and sweeping attacks on conservatives, as Coup in Dallas does, we alienate many readers and give the impression that only liberals should care about JFK's death. 

I think one of the reasons that the conspiracy view has not gained wider acceptance in academic circles and among the wealthy is that so many conspiracy theorists have insisted on injecting large doses of their ultra-liberal political views into their books and documentaries. It turns off a lot of people when you make it appear that if you believe there was a JFK assassination conspiracy you must also accept a wide range of ultra-liberal political positions, most of which have nothing to do with the assassination, and some of which JFK himself did not accept. 

When you do this, you also give people the false impression that JFK was an ultra-liberal, when in fact JFK was conservative or moderate on a number of issues, including taxes, the budget, law and order, monetary policy, immigration, trade, and the evils of communism.

9 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

It doesn't (of course).

But for CTers in the last few years, it's been open season on Bugliosi with respect to everything Vince ever did in his 80 years of life, despite the fact that absolutely none of the incessant attacks on VB weakens or refutes any of the evidence that pours forth from Vincent's "Reclaiming History".

CTers love engaging in the same type of smear campaigns against Gerald Posner too. But they failed there too, because Posner's "Case Closed" will forever be a great evidence-based book on the JFK case---even with the CTer smear campaigns aimed at the book's author forever in place.

I can't fathom how any serious, credible researcher could claim in 2022 that Posner's Case Closed is "a great evidence-based book." 

I have not yet seen a WC apologist explain the evidence that Anthony Summers presents regarding Oswald's whereabouts from 12:00-12:30 in the 2013 edition of Not in Your Lifetime (pp. 88-96).

Have any WC defenders taken a stab at explaining the superb segment on this issue in Stone's new documentary JFK Revisited?

On 8/2/2022 at 8:16 PM, Gerry Down said:

I wonder why Out Of The Blank videos get such few views. Its turning out to be a good youtube channel to the JFK research community. 

This morning I included a link to Out of the Blank on my Recommended Websites page on my JFK Assassination Website. I hope that will help spread the word about Robbie's very worthwhile channel. 

Coup in Dallas is an unfortunate example of the attitude that so many JFK conspiracy theorists exhibit. They act like you cannot really regret JFK's death, cannot sincerely recognize the good things he did as president, and cannot genuinely believe he was killed by a conspiracy unless you also believe that the Vietnam War was wrong, that Ronald Reagan was a bad president, that Trump was a racist and a fascist, that opposing illegal immigration is racist and xenophobic, that Edward Snowden and Bradley Manning are heroes, that the PATRIOT Act was tyrannical, that using drones to kill terrorists is wrong, etc., etc.

This counter-productive attitude is found in far too many pro-conspiracy books and documentaries, such as Coup in Dallas and Oliver Stone's recent four-hour documentary JFK: Destiny Betrayed. (Thankfully, most of the liberal preaching is omitted in the two-hour version of the documentary.) 

I wonder how many conspiracy theorists know that Jim Marrs was a huge Trump supporter. Marrs supported Trump because he recognized that Trump was very anti-Deep State. If you don't believe this, go watch the presentation that Marrs gave at the 2016 JFK conference in Dallas, which was held shortly after the 2016 election--it's on YouTube. 

4 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

If you have not seen the January 6th hearings, you should.

Herschmann, Cipollone and Barr, plus the top level of the DOJ, looked at several instances of this alleged vote fraud and had agents investigate it.  None of it held up and they talk about why.  Its also not true that each and every court challenge was thrown out before any of the evidence was looked at.  In about half the cases, it was looked at.  In Georgia, they did three recounts for example.

As for the Arizona audit by Cyber Ninjas. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/cyber-ninjas-company-led-arizona-gop-election-audit-shutting-down-n1287145

This will be my last reply on election fraud in this thread. Your arguments indicate that you have only read one side of the story. It is surprising to see JFK conspiracy theorists taking the news media's word on this. Have you read the other side of the story on the GA recounts? Have you read the AZ audit and the qualifications of those who did it. And I notice you didn't mention the Wisconsin election fraud evidence. 

So you are giving a blanket endorsement of the January 6 committee? Wow, and yet you condemn the Warren Commission. I agree that the January 6 committee has uncovered disturbing evidence that Trump purposely delayed calling on his supporters to stand down after the riot started, and I agree that his delay was wrong and inexcusable. But, good grief, you can't see the selective, biased nature of the committee's proceedings and arguments? Have you read the other side of the story on the committee and its case? Are you aware of the evidence that has surfaced, which the committee and the media have buried, that Trump tried to ensure that extra security was provided for the Capitol, and that Pelosi opposed his efforts? Are you aware of the video proof that before the riot, Trump publicly called on his supporters to engage in peaceful protest? Are you aware that some of the January 6 rioters were not Trump supporters but were far-left agitators? You might read the articles that Just the News has published about the January 6 committee and the riot.

Regarding Barr's so-called "investigation," it was nothing of the kind, and it is surprising to see you endorsing it. The scope and nature of the evidence that Barr's people ignored is shocking. They never interviewed the hundreds of election workers and election observers who reported observing election fraud (my wife was one of them, as chance would have it). They never explained the cold, hard video evidence of election fraud in PA, and MI, and at the State Farm Center in GA. They never explained the amazingly low rejection rate of mail-in ballots, which ranged from two to 10 times lower than in any previous election, even though there was a massive increase in the number of such ballots.

Barr's people never explained the district-court-authorized forensic audit of the Dominion voting system in Antrim County, MI, which found a huge and suspicious error rate that favored Biden. If a county clerk had not noticed the suspicious results and intervened, that strongly Republican county would have gone to Biden. Crucially, Dominion destroyed the server security logs for November 2, 3, and 4 for Antrim County. Server security logs are crucial for any forensic audit because they contain, among other things, user logins, network connections to file servers, file accesses, authentication records, data transfers, and domain controls. But when the forensic auditors contacted Dominion to obtain the server security logs for November 2-4, they were advised that the logs had gone "missing." Server security logs don't just go "missing." Revealingly, Dominion was forced to admit that they had all the other logs for those days, just not the server security logs. Humm, what a coincidence.

Barr's people offered no rational explanation for how Biden could have shattered Obama's vote record by 12 million votes while winning 37% fewer counties. Biden won 324 fewer counties than Obama did. Obama won 875 counties, while Biden won 551 counties. "People move" and "turnout" don't even come close to explaining this historic disparity. Those phenomena might be a plausible explanation if Biden had won, say, 50 or 60 fewer counties, but not for a difference of 324 counties. Biden's alleged numbers are the most gigantic disparity between vote total and counties won in the history of U.S. elections. No other election even comes close.

Finally, I just have to say that it is surprising to me to see that so many JFK conspiracy theorists are vocally anti-Trump, while at the same time they condemn the Deep State. Well, the Deep State despised Trump. The Deep State did all they could to sabotage his first campaign, his presidency, and his reelection campaign. Yet, we have so many JFK conspiracy theorists who proclaim their fierce opposition to the Deep State but who voice the most outrageous attacks on Trump. 

On 8/8/2022 at 11:52 AM, Allen Lowe said:

The thing to remember about this nonsense about election fraud is that it makes no sense, because if the Dems cooked the results in the presidential, why did they not do the same to make sure they had an impenetrable majority in the Senate? This is starting to sound like claims of Zapruder fakery, which ignore the basic logic that if they wanted to suppress the images they would have destroyed the film, not let it come out in ways which convinced the rest of the world that there was a conspiracy.

One, that would have aroused too much suspicion. Two, several Senate and House races do appear to have been won via fraud. Three, there were several cases where Republicans won solid majorities in the state legislature but somehow lost the U.S. Senate race(s) and the presidential race. For example, Republicans decimated Democrats in New Hampshire in the state legislature, actually flipping the legislature and achieving a large majority in both chambers, but we're supposed to believe that hundreds of thousands of those same voters voted for Biden and enabled him to win the state. Similarly, in Georgia, Republicans won strong majorities in the state legislature, but Biden narrowly won the state and Democrats narrowly won both U.S. Senate races, requiring us to again believe that hundreds of thousands of the same voters who gave the GOP large majorities in the state legislature turned around and voted for Biden-Harris.

Other evidence: An audit ordered by the Arizona Senate found evidence that 200,000 mail-in ballots had signature mismatches--i.e., the signature on the ballot did not match the signature on file. Biden "won" Arizona by just 11K votes. In Wisconsin, which Biden "won" by just 20K votes, a special counsel investigation found that 91 nursing homes had an astounding, unprecedented voter turnout rate of 95-100%. Investigators interviewed family members of many of the seniors in those nursing homes, and they repeatedly insisted that their loved ones were in no condition to vote and had not voted in years. 

Another fact to keep in mind: When Obama broke the record for number of votes received in 2008, he won 873 counties, but Biden won only 537 counties. So, we are supposed to believe that Biden shattered Obama's record by 12 million votes but won 336 **fewer** counties than Obama won. Never, ever in the history of U.S. elections has there been such a huge disparity between the number of counties won and the number of votes.

I take it you didn't bother to read any of the material on my election fraud website. You might start with the dissent in the Wisconsin supreme court's 4-3 decision on Trump's election fraud lawsuit in the state. The dissent was written by the chief justice of the court. She notes, among other things, that the majority simply refused to address any of the evidence of election fraud presented in the lawsuit, and then she discusses some of that evidence. The dissenting opinion is on my election fraud website.

I am persuaded by Doug Horne and David Mantik's research on indications of alteration in the Z film. 

One of the things that first stood out to me was the impossibly fast-yet-controlled movement of Brehm's son. In Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father. Then, from Z277-287, or in just over half a second, he bolts out from behind his father and comes to stand beside him, clapping his hands no less. IOW, in Z277 Brehm junior is standing behind his father, but, just ten frames later, he is standing calmly and steadily beside him and clapping his hands--all in a fraction over half a second.

Years ago, I used my youngest son in an attempt to duplicate Brehm's son's movement. The only way my son could even come close to Brehm Jr.'s feat was to practically jump from his starting position to the final position, but even then he had to take a moment to steady himself and start clapping. My son was never able to duplicate Brehm Jr.'s amazing movement. My son's fastest time was .77 seconds, and that was when he practically jumped to the new spot. 

On 11/24/2021 at 2:55 AM, Greg Doudna said:

I have respected the work of Albarelli but I see a serious issue of authenticity versus forgery in the Pierre Lafitte datebook which is central to this posthumously published Coup in Dallas. I think a better explanation of basis for belief that those datebook pages were written in 1963 prior to the assassination is needed than the explanation offered by Leslie Sharp in the only part of the book I can see which addresses this most fundamental starting question of authenticity: pp. 571-574, "Coauthor's Statement on the Provenance and Authenticity of the Lafitte Datebook".

This statement merits careful reading. In it, coauthor Sharp tells of her own earlier serious doubts as to authenticity and reasons why, before ending with a full endorsement of its authenticity. 

Sharp recounts that her original reaction to seeing the datebook shown her by Albarelli was "a mixture of awe and skepticism, both of which I did not hesitate to share with Hank". She determined "that this instrument and the contents therein are either a brilliant fraud, or a miraculous find". 

Sharp continues, "After Hank passed away, I experienced levels of doubt and uncertainty equal to the most severe critic". She lists a series of reasons which prima facie call authenticity into serious doubt.

• "During one phase, I realized that the timeline Hank left in his Frank Olson book, A Terrible Mistake, reflects dates tied to the Lafitte material that sometimes contradicted my understanding of the trajectory of events."

In other words, minor chronological errors (apparently) in A Terrible Mistake are echoed in the supposed Pierre Lafitte datebook. But Albarelli did not know of the Pierre Lafitte datebook when he wrote A Terrible Mistake. A Terrible Mistake was published in 2011. Although Leslie Sharp does not directly say so, the question is raised whether A Terrible Mistake written in 2011 was a source utilized by the author of the Pierre Lafitte datebook, since it reflects the same chronological peculiarities (though Leslie Sharp does not give specifics). But if so, that would mean the Pierre Lafitte datebook was written some time after 2011, and not in 1963.

• Albarelli before his death had arranged for a London-based professional handwriting/document analysis as well as an international ink expert, to study the physical artifact and render a professional opinion. There were "issues" unresolved at the time Albarelli died, and Leslie Sharp reports that there is no disclosure of results or findings and no known prospect of any, by contractual agreement with the owners of the datebook (not named but presumably family members). "The London professional would only state that he remains under a Nondisclosure Agreement and could not comment".

This is not encouraging. One possible interpretation is an outside professional opinion was sought but the opinion or initial provisional opinion rendered was not to the liking of the customer, and therefore that finding will never be known. Reference is made to the handwriting analysts requesting further samples of Pierre Lafitte's handwriting than initially provided and such samples not being provided.

• "Of deep concern were those parties in a position to confirm the provenance but refused to cooperate; every feasible effort to secure a definitive statement has gone unfulfilled."

Again, not encouraging. 

What then changed Leslie Sharp's mind, tipped it in her assessment, convinced her that it was genuine? She gave two reasons: (1) Hank Albarelli could not have been duped. "He would not be a victim of fraud". This is simply asserted, explained with this non-explanatory statement: "In my relatively informed opinion, Hank would never have subjected himself to ridicule were the datebook to be determined to be the equivalent of the 'Hitler Diaries'. That is, Albarelli would never willingly subject himself to ridicule if it was fraudulent, therefore the datebook is genuine. Some might find this syllogism less than satisfying.

In my own field, the Dead Sea Scrolls, there have been high-profile cases in recent years of major-name senior scholars and prestigious museums taken in by forgeries--forgeries done by professionals who are very good at it. It is not the original Dead Sea Scrolls of the late 1940s and 1950s I am referring to here--those were genuine. I am referring to a series of alleged later secretly-privately-owned Dead Sea Scroll fragments of biblical manuscripts, as well as other sensational alleged archaeological finds from the legal and illegal antiquities market, sold to collectors and museums in the 2000s and 2010s (or appraisal obtained at high dollar value for tax deductions when donated, a more sophisticated mechanism for profit through charitable giving) which finally became exposed as large-scale, industrial-strength fraud. Similarly a "Gospel of Jesus's Wife" manuscript discovery in 2012 was endorsed by a Harvard professor as genuine and received much attention and learned discussion until a brilliant piece of investigative-detective work exposed it as a con job in 2016, with much professional embarrassment (https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-catholic-porn-producer-scammed-harvard-professor-with-gospel-of-jesus-wife). Many more examples could be cited. 

There is that saying in the investment world: "if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is", and the same high bar of skepticism is merited toward a document which purports to give sensational diary-like cryptic entries with names and dates of the JFK assassination plot, first discovered over fifty years later, whose argument for authenticity is confidence that "Hank Albarelli would not be a victim of fraud". 

But Leslie Sharp gave a second explanation of basis, in addition to confidence that Albarelli would not be a victim of fraud: (2) "I have studied the contents of the datebook for more than two years and find it persuasive for similar (although more in-depth) reasons outlined by Dick Russell".

Dick Russell's reasons would be found in several pages of introductory material at the beginning of Coup in Dallas written by Dick Russell, "The Lafitte Datebook: A Limited Analysis", pp. ix-xiii. So I--we--go to there to find what reasons persuaded Dick Russell that it was authentic. And the answer is: no reason is given apart from a listing of ways in which if it is authentic then it is very significant. Well yes, but is it authentic is the prior question. Here is Dick Russell:

"Pending verification by forensic document specialists and handwriting experts, I have carefully reviewed the 1963 datebook allegedly written by Jean Pierre Lafitte. Based on the entries I have seen, cryptic as many of them are (no doubt intentionally), this is a crucial piece of new evidence indicating a high-level conspiracy that resulted in the assassination that November 22 of President John F. Kennedy. Many of the names mentioned are familiar to me (. . .) A number of these names, however, were not known publicly in 1963 and for more than a decade thereafter. Thus, assuming the datebook entries were indeed set down at that time by Lafitte, this adds substantial credibility to the likelihood that the document contains never-before-revealed information about a conspiracy involving accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald as well as his own killer, Jack Ruby. (. . .) I believe that this datebook fills in many gaps about what really happened on November 22, 1963 (. . .) I believe, presuming the datebook is verified as having been  written by Lafitte in 1963, that this constitutes probably the strongest evidence that has ever come to light of a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy."

In the "Foreward" to the book by Dick Russell (pp. v-vi), the authenticity of the Pierre Lafitte 1963 datebook is assumed, not argued, and its importance emphasized:

"The book you are about to read contains the strongest evidence ever published of a high-level conspiracy by the military-industrial complex and its ultra-right-wing-allies to assassinate President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963. As an author who has spent years researching and writing three books on the subject, I state that unequivocally. The narrative by H. P. Albarelli Jr., coauthored with Leslie Sharp and Alan Kent, is based upon a 1963 datebook, or desk diary, kept by a mysterious, deep-cover intelligence operative named Jean Pierre Lafitte (. . .) I'll let the authors describe how he gained access to the datebook. It is eerie to see this come to light after all these years--a template, albeit intentionally cryptic, for the diabolical planning resulting in a coup d'etat that haunts our national psyche (. . .) Lafitte's datebook, a faux leather-bound red volume with a vintage N azi coin taped to the inside front cover, is of immeasurable importance toward unraveling the takeover that took place that terrible day in Dallas (. . .)"

To cut to the chase, Dick Russell gives no reason for believing it is genuine other than it contains important information if it is. Based on that--the significance of its contents if true--Dick Russell concludes "this is a crucial piece of new evidence", i.e. genuine, not forged. (The apparent logic being that surely no forgery would have such interesting content, therefore it is genuine.) Leslie Sharp says her reasons for believing are similar to Dick Russell's. None of the other writers in the book address the issue of authenticity.

My reaction is it sounds too good to be true.

I hope that Sharp or Kent will be able to obtain forensic confirmation of the Lafitte datebook's authenticity. I decided to recommend Coup in Dallas because of the large amount of corroboration of the datebook's entries that Albarelli, Sharp, and Kent present. If the datebook is a forgery, it is an amazingly detailed forgery that would have taken years to write. Where would the forgers have obtained the new information in the datebook that Albarelli, Sharp, and Kent were able to corroborate or support?

Another factor that leads me to believe the datebook is genuine is the manner in which Albarelli became aware of it, i.e., accidentally in the course of other research, and the reluctance of Lafitte's widow to share it with him. It's not like anyone leaked it to him.