Robert Mady Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Tommy, is there any reason why these scenes could not have been staged at a later date? Can you identify anything peculiar within these films that could make them suspect? Based on the necessity of the conspirators to deceive us into believing DOORMAN was LOVELADY, could the conspirators be expected to produce evidence in support of LOVELADY wearing plaid? Tommy, not intended to derail this thread, I would like to know your interpretation of SPECTRE instructing LOVELADY to identify himself in such a way that it is impossible to determine where LOVELADY indicated he was within the photograph, do you believe SPRCRE was incompetent or was the intention to not have LOVELADY located within Altgens #6? AND GRODEN not providing LOVELADY with an Altgen #6 photograph in which to identify himself, don't you find this curious? Cognitive dissonance....not funny Edited February 20, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) I believe "Rush To Judgment" although contains some valuable information it is presented in such a way as to confuse the viewer, it is a CIA propaganda piece IMO. I do not trust anything that LANE has produced. Zapruder film is very valuable, I use extensively to bolster and support the assassination four shot model. 4 shots, one silent shot at Z-189, three rifle shots starting at Z-313. I appreciate your view on WALKER, although I don't see it clearly enough to know for sure if WALKER was involved or not, I will keep an open mind to the possibility as remote as it seems. Paul T., do you look at photographs taken in the aftermath of the assassination? Take a look at this photograph and tell me where every witness is directing their attention towards, please? Edited February 20, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Tommy, is there any reason why these scenes could not have been staged at a later date? Can you identify anything peculiar within these films that could make them suspect? Based on the necessity of the conspirators to deceive us into believing DOORMAN was LOVELADY, could the conspirators be expected to produce evidence in support of LOVELADY wearing plaid? Tommy, not intended to derail this thread, I would like to know your interpretation of SPECTRE instructing LOVELADY to identify himself in such a way that it is impossible to determine where LOVELADY indicated he was within the photograph, do you believe SPRCRE was incompetent or was the intention to not have LOVELADY located within Altgens #6? AND GRODEN not providing LOVELADY with an Altgen #6 photograph in which to identify himself, don't you find this curious? Cognitive dissonance....LOL You know, Bobby.... Well, never mind. SPECTRE? MK/SPECTRE? Sorry Bobby, I'm not familiar with that CIA operation. Question: Why is it such a problem for people like you to accept the possibility that Oswald wasn't necessarily "caught" in the original, "unaltered" Altgens 6 photo? Couldn't Oswald have been innocent, anyway? Do you think that Oswald's not being captured on film during the assassination somehow implicates him in the dastardly deed? Why are you so obsessed with it? Does your psyche thrive on the feedback loop of paranoiac thought (kinda like a drug I guess) which is evidently involved and reinforced in your "observations" and "discoveries" of so many alterations and bad, bad things being done by so many authority figures and people in control? If so, perhaps you should consider getting some professional help, you know, from someone who isn't in your humble opinion suffering from "cognitive dissonance." But that would severely limit the number of qualified professionals who could help you, wouldn't it. Hmmm. That would be the mother f ALL dilemmas! But at least it would give you something else to obsess on and construct a complicated, paranoiac theory about ! --Tommy Edited February 20, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) SPECRE is the WC not just SPECTER, SPECTER was just a mouthpiece for the rest of the gang. I know it was OSWALD because it could not have been LOVELADY as proved by LOVELADY himself during an FBI interview which produced an Official Report on LOVELADY and accompanying photographs both of which were accepted by the FBI, the WC and the news media as being the shirt LOVELADY wore on 11/22/1963, I read the article in TIME LIFE that proclaimed the red and white vertical stripped short sleeved shirt matched the attire on DOORMAN, they even published the photographs side by side for comparison. Where is the mark LOVELADY made to identify himself in Altgens #6? This evidence is conclusive that LOVELADY could not possibly be DOORMAN, is DOORMAN absolutely OSWALD? Who else? Even the cut and hang on the shirts matched. By the way, I really don't care if OSWALD was on the steps or not, the assassination has nothing to do with him. There were no shots fired from the TSBD so what difference does it make other than provide visual proof the WC is a lie? Edited February 19, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 (edited) Tommy, is there any reason why these scenes could not have been staged at a later date? Can you identify anything peculiar within these films that could make them suspect? Based on the necessity of the conspirators to deceive us into believing DOORMAN was LOVELADY, could the conspirators be expected to produce evidence in support of LOVELADY wearing plaid? Tommy, not intended to derail this thread, I would like to know your interpretation of SPECTRE instructing LOVELADY to identify himself in such a way that it is impossible to determine where LOVELADY indicated he was within the photograph, do you believe SPRCRE was incompetent or was the intention to not have LOVELADY located within Altgens #6? AND GRODEN not providing LOVELADY with an Altgen #6 photograph in which to identify himself, don't you find this curious? Cognitive dissonance....LOL You know, Bobby.... Well, never mind. SPECTRE? MK/SPECTRE? Sorry Bobby, I'm not familiar with that CIA operation. Question: Why is it such a problem for people like you to accept the possibility that Oswald wasn't necessarily "caught" in the original, "unaltered" Altgens 6 photo? Couldn't Oswald have been innocent, anyway? Do you think that Oswald's not being captured on film during the assassination somehow implicates him in the dastardly deed? Why are you so obsessed with it? Does your psyche thrive on the feedback loop of paranoiac thought (kinda like a drug I guess) which is evidently involved and reinforced in your "observations" and "discoveries" of so many alterations and bad, bad things being done by so many authority figures and people in control? If so, perhaps you should consider getting some professional help, you know, from someone who isn't in your humble opinion suffering from "cognitive dissonance." But that would severely limit the number of qualified professionals who could help you, wouldn't it. Hmmm. That could be the Mother Of ALL Dilemmas! --Tommy Edited of course, and bumped. Bobby-- I just read your post # 244, too, and I'm gonna respond to it by askin' ya the same darn question I've already asked ya: Why's It So Important To You That People Believe As You Do that Oswald Was "Captured" In Altgens 6? In your mind does it somehow absolutely "make" the case" against Oswald if it is somehow proved that Oswald isn't in it? Couldn't he be innocent anyway, Bobby? I personally believe that Oswald was innocent, Bobby, and guess what-- I don't think he's visible in unaltered Altgen's 6! You're always talking about "distractions," Bobby. In my humble opinion, the whole "issue" as to whether or not Oswald was captured on film during the assassination is one big distraction. That's the best I can do, Bobby. I'm not gonna engage you in an endless "debate" about Altgens 6, the Jack Martin and Robert Hughes clips showing Lovelady in front of what looks like the TSBD, etc. etc. etc. I'm afraid you're suffering from a severe case of "cognitive dissonance" with a more than a touch of paranoia thrown in, and I think that that "combo" makes it particularly difficult to get you to see things any other way than the way you've chosen to see them. Because you have an elaborate "belief system" to maintain. I've read your posts and tried to follow your logic and tried to grasp your analysis of "the situation," but frankly, Bobby, I'm not favorably impressed by what you have to say. Sorry. So instead of wasting any more time and energy "debating" with you, I'm gonna "stop beating my head against the wall" now and just "run away with my tail between my legs." Okay Bobby? Declare yourself "the winner" if you want to. I couldn't care less. Edited February 20, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Tommy, as I said, I don't care where OSWALD was during the assassination, I just find it of immense amusement that conclusive evidence is rejected and replaced by hearsay so as to sustain a belief. You have avoided my question for some reason, was SPECTER incompetent or was the intention to have LOVELADY not clearly identify himself in Altgens #6? Yep, a distraction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted February 19, 2015 Share Posted February 19, 2015 Tommy, your ranting again. And after reading your suggestion to seek professional help, I think we should end this conversation. Thanks for the post Tommy be well Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 Tommy, your ranting again. And after reading your suggestion to seek professional help, I think we should end this conversation. Thanks for the post Tommy be well Bob your or you're? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Tommy, is there any reason why these scenes could not have been staged at a later date? Can you identify anything peculiar within these films that could make them suspect? Based on the necessity of the conspirators to deceive us into believing DOORMAN was LOVELADY, could the conspirators be expected to produce evidence in support of LOVELADY wearing plaid? Tommy, not intended to derail this thread, I would like to know your interpretation of SPECTRE instructing LOVELADY to identify himself in such a way that it is impossible to determine where LOVELADY indicated he was within the photograph, do you believe SPRCRE was incompetent or was the intention to not have LOVELADY located within Altgens #6? AND GRODEN not providing LOVELADY with an Altgen #6 photograph in which to identify himself, don't you find this curious? Cognitive dissonance....LOL SPECTRE? MK/SPECTRE? Sorry Bobby, I'm not familiar with that CIA operation. You wouldn't by any chance be referring to Harlot's Ghost would you? (It was a joke, Bobby. You do know what the word "spectre" means, don't you?) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/spectre You asked, "Is there any reason these scenes" (I assume you mean the clips by Martin and Hughes showing Lovelady smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD a few minutes after the assassination, and also the clip shot showing Oswald being taken past Lovelady, sitting in a chair inside the police department, a couple of hours later) "could not have been staged at a later date?" Well, my answer to you, Bobby, is kinda short and a bit rhetorical. Here it is: "Are You Nuts?" Now that I've answered your question, I have a little question for you. I'll even phrase it a six different ways so you'll be sure to understand it: 1 ) Why do you have such a hard time accepting the possibility that Oswald wasn't "captured" in Altgens 6? 2 ) Why do you base your total case regarding Oswald's innocence on Altgen's 6? 3 ) Even if Oswald wasn't captured in Altgens 6, wouldn't you consider him to be innocent, anyway? (I do.) 4 ) Do you think that Oswald's not being captured on film during the assassination would somehow implicate him in the dastardly deed? 5 ) Don't you think there's enough other evidence -- for example Vicki Adams' not seeing or hearing Oswald on the wooden stairway between the 4th and 1st floors during that critical period of time about a minute after the shots rang out, Oswald's saying that he saw "Junior" and another black guy in the Domino Room during lunch, etc.--- to exonerate Oswald, regardless of whether or not he's in Altgen's 6? 6 ) Do you enjoy discovering "absolute proof" that so many films and photos were "altered" or "staged?" Do you have an overall paranoiac world view? 7 ) How is what you are doing with your particular "four shot theory" helping us solve the JFK assassination? Do you actually hope to pinpoint where the shots came from and then find the shooters in some "unaltered" or "unstaged" photographs or films? Or is it gonna have to be, by definition, a lot more general than that -- "The Illuminati / CIA must have done it because they were the only ones who could have altered and staged so many photos and films, and so quickly, too!" And now for a "loaded" question, the most important one of all: Why are you so obsessed with it, Bobby? Does your psyche thrive on the feedback loop of paranoiac thought (kinda like a drug I guess) which is evidently involved and reinforced in your "observations" and "discoveries" and "proofs" of so many bad, bad things being done by so many authority figures and so many corrupt people with so much money and so much power? If so, perhaps you should consider getting some professional help, you know, from a real professional who isn't, in your humble opinion, suffering from a nasty 'ol case of "cognitive dissonance." Hmmm, on second thought, that would by definition severely limit the number of qualified professionals who could help you, wouldn't it, because everyone who hears you out but still refuses to see things your way is obviously suffering from a nasty case of "cognitive dissonance," aren't they?. Well, in that case I guess you'd just have to find a professional who agrees in advance to "see things your way!" (Good luck with that.) (That is, of course, only if you thought you actually needed professional help...) --Tommy You're always talking about "distractions," Bobby. "Oswald is a distraction." "Edwin Walker is a distraction." In my humble opinion, the whole "issue" as to whether or not Oswald was captured in Altgens 6 is the biggest distraction of all, and if I were paranoid, I just might be tempted to say you were sent here to distract us! LOL How you like 'dem apples, Bobby? I hate to disappoint you, Bobby, but I'm not gonna engage you in an endless downward-spiraling "debate" about Altgens 6, nor am I going to argue with you about your ridiculous proposition that the Jack Martin and Robert Hughes clips were secretly "staged" at your conveniently unspecified "later date" (funny how none of the "extras" nor any of the inevitable "Lookie Loos" ever said anything about it, huh?; did the bad guys kill them all?) and whether or not the Martin and Hughes clips show a guy who sure looks like Lovelady in front of what sure looks like the TSBD, and only about ten feet away from two guys who sure look like Lovelady's co-workers Bonnie Ray Williams and Danny Arce not long before Williams and Arce, wearing the same clothing, respectively) were taken away in what sure looks like a police car with a guy who sure looks like Bill Shelley on 11/22/63, ... Bobby, I'm gonna lay it out for ya. I'm afraid you're suffering from a severe case of "cognitive dissonance" with perhaps a touch of paranoia thrown in, and I think that that "combo" makes it particularly difficult to get you to see things any other way than the way you've chosen to see them. Why? Because you have such an elaborate and flimsy "belief system" to prop up and maintain as regards our evil, evil society and the JFK assassination (and probably whether or not the moon is made out of green cheese, too). I've read your posts and tried to follow your logic and tried to grasp your analysis of "the situation," but frankly, Bobby, I'm not favorably impressed by what you have to say. Sorry Dude. So instead of wasting any more time and energy "debating" with you, I'm gonna "stop beating my head against the wall" now and just "run away with my tail between my legs." Okay, Bobby? Feel free to go ahead and declare yourself "the winner" if you want to, Bobby. I couldn't care less. You'll always be a "real winner" in my book. LOL Please realize that the edited post, above, is my Parthian Shot here, Bobby. I'm riding this horse over to greener pastures now. (Look "Parthian Shot" up if you have to, and oh yeah, try to "be well" yourself.) Hey! I just thought of a good joke! -- "Robert Mady is the kind of guy who gives cognitive dissonance a bad name." LOL Not bad, huh? --Tommy Edited February 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) I believe "Rush To Judgment" although contains some valuable information it is presented in such a way as to confuse the viewer, it is a CIA propaganda piece IMO. I do not trust anything that LANE has produced. Zapruder film is very valuable, I use extensively to bolster and support the assassination four shot model. 4 shots, one silent shot at Z-189, three rifle shots starting at Z-313. I appreciate your view on WALKER, although I don't see it clearly enough to know for sure if WALKER was involved or not, I will keep an open mind to the possibility as remote as it seems. Paul T., do you look at photographs taken in the aftermath of the assassination? Take a look at this photograph and tell me where every witness is directing their attention towards, please? Well, Bob, I'm glad that you see some value in Mark Lane's 1967 film, Rush To Judgment. I myself see no trace of CIA propaganda in that film. It seems to me that Mark Lane is being as courageous and honest as he can be in that film. Still, Bob, I appreciate the way that you can disagree without being disagreeable. Also, I'm glad you see value in the Zapruder film. I count two JFK head shots -- how about you? Also, I appreciate that you'll keep an open mind about WALKER and his possible participation in the JFK murder. That's all I can ask at this stage of research. Finally, Bob, I looked at that photograph you posted. IMHO, the people tend to be looking at the grove of shady trees between the monument on the East side of the picket fence above the Grassy Knoll, and the picket fence itself -- roughly where Badge Man was purported to be. What do you see? Regards, --Paul Trejo Edited February 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Josephs Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) delete Edited February 20, 2015 by David Josephs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Paul T., I held LANE in very high regard, he was a hero of mine until I discovered his connections to Jonestown = CIA. Coincidentally at about the same time I began to realize how the assassination occurred and then how the government and media twisted the evidence so as to mislead the populace away from the truth, the work of LANE and GRODEN became transparent and could be recognized to be nefarious and filled with disinformation. Recently Paul B. turned me on to Mae Brussell which confirmed my opinion about LANE and GRODEN, If you have not listened to Mae's information on LANE and GRODEN, I would highly recommend it. We can disagree, I have no problem with this, I find it stimulating to hear other views and I thank you for sharing your knowledge with me. Paul I see only one head shot that comes at Z-313. I know the z-film has been altered in at least two ways, one is the loss of frames and the other is a limited amount of film alteration or special effects, namely the blood spray and the fake head wound & obscuring of real head wound. Paul, it might take some time to gather the list, but I can post a list of witnesses, if you would review them they illustrate that the majority of witnesses reported the shots coming from the monument area not the picket fence, a second list of witnesses, some being the same, that responded to the gunfire by running to the monument area to investigate, again not the picket fence. The picket fence was disinformation from the start that took hold in our awareness before we realized what witnesses actually claimed. The guys on the overpass had the picket fence between them and the monument area. Also there was a puff of smoke that came from the corner of the picket fence, this smoke I believe was a diversion meant to pull attention away from the monument area to allow extra time for escape. There was no weapon that would have produced the amount of smoke seen in Couch film unless the sniper was using a muzzle loaded weapon. This is what HOLLAND saw as well as a number of others on the overpass. I believe the majority of witnesses depicted are looking generally towards where Zapruder and Seitzman were located. Look at NEWMAN and his wife, BREHM, OLIVER, MOORMAN and HILL, also review the WIEGMAN film and see where WIEGMAN goes as he runs toward the sound of gunfire, he does not run to the picket fence he runs to the monument area, actually to where HESTERS were located. To name a few witnesses, ZAPRUDER claimed the shots came from behind, so did the NEWMANS. ZAPRUDER can be seen in a film or photo, do not remember off hand which, looking thru the opening in the monument towards the rear. "They" simply repeated 'picket fence' and 'grassy knoll' until we believed this was the true evidence (also consider the 'picket fence' was made to become synonymous with 'grass knoll'). It is nothing but propaganda planted in our Zeitgeist, it is entrenched in our conspiracy dogma and has little basis in fact. This is how it works, they provided us with the foundation for conspiracy theory that can not be true, they convinced us of what happened by providing us two false stories, one was the WC/R lone nut the other was a conspiracy theory that was contaminated with disinformation. This is why researchers have been incapable of understanding the true nature of the assassination. The researchers are likely more confused and confounded today than in anytime since the assassination because the foundation was untrue to begin with and instead of starting from scratch to build a foundation based on fact and evidence we continue to build upon the one provided to us by the conspirators which causes us to wander farther and farther from reality. Edited February 20, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Trejo Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Paul T., I held LANE in very high regard, he was a hero of mine until I discovered his connections to Jonestown = CIA. Coincidentally at about the same time I began to realize how the assassination occurred and then how the government and media twisted the evidence so as to mislead the populace away from the truth, the work of LANE and GRODEN became transparent and could be recognized to be nefarious and filled with disinformation. Recently Paul B. turned me on to Mae Brussell which confirmed my opinion about LANE and GRODEN, If you have not listened to Mae's information on LANE and GRODEN, I would highly recommend it. We can disagree, I have no problem with this, I find it stimulating to hear other views and I thank you for sharing your knowledge with me. Paul I see only one head shot that comes at Z-313. I know the z-film has been altered in at least two ways, one is the loss of frames and the other is a limited amount of film alteration or special effects, namely the blood spray and the fake head wound & obscuring of real head wound. Paul, it might take some time to gather the list, but I can post a list of witnesses, if you would review them they illustrate that the majority of witnesses reported the shots coming from the monument area not the picket fence, a second list of witnesses, some being the same, that responded to the gunfire by running to the monument area to investigate, again not the picket fence. The picket fence was disinformation from the start that took hold in our awareness before we realized what witnesses actually claimed. The guys on the overpass had the picket fence between them and the monument area. Also there was a puff of smoke that came from the corner of the picket fence, this smoke I believe was a diversion meant to pull attention away from the monument area to allow extra time for escape. There was no weapon that would have produced the amount of smoke seen in Couch film unless the sniper was using a muzzle loaded weapon. This is what HOLLAND saw as well as a number of others on the overpass. I believe the majority of witnesses depicted are looking generally towards where Zapruder and Seitzman were located. Look at NEWMAN and his wife, BREHM, OLIVER, MOORMAN and HILL, also review the WIEGMAN film and see where WIEGMAN goes as he runs toward the sound of gunfire, he does not run to the picket fence he runs to the monument area, actually to where HESTERS were located. To name a few witnesses, ZAPRUDER claimed the shots came from behind, so did the NEWMANS. ZAPRUDER can be seen in a film or photo, do not remember off hand which, looking thru the opening in the monument towards the rear. "They" simply repeated 'picket fence' and 'grassy knoll' until we believed this was the true evidence (also consider the 'picket fence' was made to become synonymous with 'grass knoll'). It is nothing but propaganda planted in our Zeitgeist, it is entrenched in our conspiracy dogma and has little basis in fact. This is how it works, they provided us with the foundation for conspiracy theory that can not be true, they convinced us of what happened by providing us two false stories, one was the WC/R lone nut the other was a conspiracy theory that was contaminated with disinformation. This is why researchers have been incapable of understanding the true nature of the assassination. The researchers are likely more confused and confounded today than in anytime since the assassination because the foundation was untrue to begin with and instead of starting from scratch to build a foundation based on fact and evidence we continue to build upon the one provided to us by the conspirators which causes us to wander farther and farther from reality. (1) Well, Bob, I won't turn my back on Mark Lane simply because he made some mistakes in his life. I won't attack a person's theory based on his personality (ad hominem). Insofar as Mark Lane made mistakes at Jonestown, this is, to me, part of his attorney's career, and unrelated to his WC exposition. I see no connection. Also, Bob, when you connected Mark Lane and Robert Groden, to dismiss them both, I quickly thought of Mae Brussell, who also dismisses these two as a package. In other words, you reject Lane/Groden and consider them "transparent" because of the attacks upon them by Mae Brusell. I'm aware of Mae Brussell's work -- and I find a few things interesting in it -- but ultimately her basic theory is that the Nazi Party created a secret Fourth Reich in the USA after WW2, and successfully control the US Government today. This is, in my mind, simply incorrect, and Mae Brussell constructs her theory by bending facts, ignoring facts, jumping to conclusions, and calls it the Truth, and not a Theory, which is what it is. No wonder Mark Lane considered her "irresponsible" and refused to recognize her as a peer in JFK Research. To be plain, Mark Lane first rejected Mae Brussell before she rejected Lane and *exposed* Lane as "CIA" and "Nazi" and so on. That was simple revenge. Now, I could go on and on about Mae Brussell -- but this thread is already stretched beyond its beginnings. If there's another thread on Mae Brussell, I'm willing to continue this there. (2) Also, Bob, I see two head shots -- one that comes around Z-309 from behind (and even seems to show the full metal jacket bullet exiting the front of his skull) and then, almost immediately, the frangible bullet that came from the front at Z-313 and exploded inside JFK's head. I don't see as much alteration in the Zapruder film as others have reported. The film quality was relatively poor, so that contributes to some confusion, IMHO. (3) Also, Bob, even though I would like to see your list of witnesses that point to the monument next to the Grassy Knoll, I cannot buy the notion that the many other witnesses who claim to have heard shots from the picket fence above the Grassy Knoll amount to "disinformation" by some sort of plot. I do agree that the FBI set out about 3pm CST to manipulate all evidence in the JFK case that would contradict Hoover's mandate that a "Lone Shooter" was responsible for the murder of JFK. However, I don't agree with Mae Brussell and others who claim that the witnesses Mark Lane assembled about the picket fence were part of any JFK Kill Team consipiracy, or the CIA, or even the FBI. The FBI, of course, were annoyed by Mark Lane's contradiction of their "Lone Shooter" theory. So was the CIA. I look at Mark Lane as a great hero, myself. I also see Jim Garrison as a great hero. That said -- I find flaws in the works of both men. Both of them caved in too soon to the theory that the CIA-did-it, and they never saw past it. (4) In my view, the puff of smoke was not a diversion -- it was real. In my view, the JFK Killers behind both the monument AND the picket fence did not have to "escape" because their alibi was already on their backs -- their DPD uniforms. Those in suits had (fake) Secret Service cards. There was no "escape." The plan to kill JFK was executed flawlessly. (5) The location of Badge Man (whom Don Phillips says is TIPPIT in his 2009 book, A Deeper Darker Truth) is indeed behind the Monument itself, rather than the picket fence. Yet, IMHO, there were multiple teams of shooters -- at least three, and perhaps as many as six (two teams in the TSBD, maybe one or two in Dal Tex, and two around the Grassy Knoll area, and *maybe* one inside the storm drain at the curb). There were at least six shots, IMHO. Aside from the storm drain, the person with the best shot (i.e. Badge Man) was closest to the JFK limo and closer to the people -- which is probably why the people tended to look there. (6) I sharply disagree that the 'picket fence' and 'grassy knoll' theories were "propaganda" created by the JFK Killers or the CIA to confuse people. The JFK Cover-up didn't have time to pursue any other strategy except "Lone Shooter." That was their mantra for months. The eye-witnesses that Mark Lane filmed are all believable, IMHO. (7) Mae Brussell may be forgiven for her extra degree of suspicion, due to the fact that some brilliant JFK Researchers throughout the 1960's and the 1970's failed to solve the JFK murder. So, they started attacking each other, blaming each other. Jim Garrison was among the first to be blamed -- first by Harold Weisberg. Jim Garrison's failed case against Clay Shaw caused millions of people to toss the whole JFK Research movement into the trash can. It harmed Harold Weisberg's career, and that of many others as well. So the JFK Researchers began to pick on each other. Jim Garrison, Mae Brussell, this one, that one -- and they were all called "CIA stooges" at one point or other -- by their own colleagues. This is only because they failed to solve the JFK murder. The main result of this general failure to solve the JFK murder has simply been to blame the CIA, which can be relied upon to say nothing in its own defense, and to continue to keep secrets -- which is their job. It's an easy gambit -- just blame the CIA. And then, when you don't like another JFK Researcher, just accuse him or her of working for the CIA. It's the sort of thing that give JFK Research a sorry reputation. So, Bob, I think I understand your position much better now -- you're a follower of Mae Brussell. Regards, --Paul Trejo <edit typos> Edited February 20, 2015 by Paul Trejo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Mady Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Paul T. After a series of good posts it resorts to name calling, I am "a follower of Mae Brussell" I informed you that I had come to a conclusion about LANE and GRODEN prior to knowing of Mae, you seem to have missed this point, Mae's information merely reconfirmed my conclusions with additional information that I had been unaware of. I don't follow anyone, I do my own analysis on every aspect of the assassination, I want first hand knowledge not some interpretation by another, I am willing to listen to others but will research for myself the specifics. I don't expect you to change your mind on the godfathers of conspiracy, I merely informed you that I believe they are frauds and some of the reasons why I came to that conclusion. Edited February 20, 2015 by Robert Mady Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 (edited) Paul T. After a series of good posts it resorts to name calling, I am "a follower of Mae Brussell" I informed you that I had come to a conclusion about LANE and GRODEN prior to knowing of Mae, you seem to have missed this point, Mae's information merely reconfirmed my conclusions with additional information that I had been unaware of. I don't follow anyone, I do my own analysis on every aspect of the assassination, I want first hand knowledge not some interpretation by another, I am willing to listen to others but will research for myself the specifics. I don't expect you to change your mind on the godfathers of conspiracy, I merely informed you that I believe they are frauds and some of the reasons why I came to that conclusion. Bobby, Please take Word Twister's vicious insults with a grain of salt and "consider the source." Since he refuses to see things your way, he must be suffering from a severe case of "cognitive dissonance." It's obvious that he's just trying to distract you. Your buddy, --Tommy LOL Edited February 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now