Proof of Motorcade Stopping?

[Thomas Graves]

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

Bobby,

"Is there any reason these scenes could not have been staged at a later date?"

I assume you mean the clips by Robert Hughes and postal worker Jack Martin showing Billy Lovelady wearing his plaid red shirt and smoking a cigarette in front of the TSBD a few minutes after the assassination, and also the clip showing Oswald being taken past Lovelady (sitting in a chair inside the police department) a couple of hours later?

Well, Bobby, my answer is kinda short and a tad rhetorical.

Here it is:

"Are You Absolutely 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 somehow implicates him in the dastardly deed?

5 ) Isn't there enough other evidence -- for example Vicki Adams' not seeing or hearing Oswald on the wooden stairway between the 4th and 1st floors after the shots rang out, and 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 kinda "get off on" proving to yourself that so darn many films and photos were "altered" or secretly "staged?"

And here's the brand new bonus question!

7 ) How is your particular "four shot theory" helping us solve the JFK assassination? Do you hope to pinpoint where the shots came from and then discover 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 the most important question of all, Bobby. Here it is:

Why are you so obsessed with the photographic "alterations" and indications of "stagings" you think you've discovered, Bobby? Does your psyche thrive on the negative feedback loop (kinda like an addictive drug I guess) which is involved in and reinforced by your "observations" and "discoveries" and "proofs" of the bad, bad things that must have been done, and done by so many corrupt authority figures types and so many people with so much money and so much power and, well, the types of people that you just don't like very much?

If so, perhaps you should consider getting some help, you know, from a someone who isn't (in your humble opinion) suffering from a nasty 'ol case of "cognitive dissonance" himself or herself. 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 "CD" aren't they?. Well, in that case I guess you'd just have to find a professional who is willing to agree in advance to "see things your way!"

(That is, of course, only if you thought you actually needed professional help...)

--Tommy

PS--

I've noticed that you're always talking about "distractions," Bobby. "Oswald is a distraction." "Edwin Walker is a distraction." "Reality is a distraction...."

Well, 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 that you are a disinfo agent who was sent here to distract us!

LOL

How you like 'dem apples, Bobby?

Well Bobby, I hate to disappoint you but I ain't 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, as you say, "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

Bumped for Bobby Mady!

My recently-added question # 7 is another Parthian Shot for ya, Bobby.

I decided to double back and try to lure you out.

Ever heard of the Parthians, Bobby? How about the Scythians? Okay then, how about Geronimo?

--Tommy

Edited February 21, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

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.

...

Well, Bob, I didn't mean to suggest that "a follower of Mae Brussell" was name-calling. I just took a guess, and it looks like I missed your point.

It's informative to me to know that you don't follow anyone. It tells me who I'm speaking with. Good to know.

Since you've been candid with me, Bob, I'll share something extra, too. Some years ago, when I was initially studying Edwin Walker, I was very impressed with Mae Brussell's theory of Edwin Walker.

Of course, her theory involves the Invisible Fourth Reich, but for a while she really had me going -- I really thought she was onto something major. I'm still impressed -- really -- and I still keep an open mind about this -- it just might turn out that Mae Brussell was right about Walker, and I just couldn't see it.

Let me summarize from the top.

Mae Brussell stunningly observed in the Warren Report that Edwin Walker in the wee hours of the morning after the JFK murder, initiated a series of phone calls to Germany -- to speak with a close contact of his, the Editor of the right-wing German newspaper, the Deutsche-Nationalzeitung, namely, Dr. Gerhard Frey.

Mae Brussell noted immediately that Gergard Frey had also been an editor for the Third Reich. When Hitler lost the war, Frey continued in his trade of newspaper editor, still on the rightist side of politics.

Frey's news writer was Helmet Muench, who used the alias, Hasso Thorsten. (This was confirmed by the German BND; their FBI). On that morning, Edwin Walker told the Deutsche-Nationalzeitung newspaper that Lee Harvey OSWALD had been his shooter back in April, but that RFK had prevented OSWALD from being prosecuted.)

Dr. Frey edited the interview, and made it into two interviews. Since his newspaper was a weekend edition, the article was published on Friday 29 November 1963. Naturally, the Warren Commission learned about this, and demanded to know from Walker how he could possibly know this eleven full days before the FBI heard about it from Marina Oswald.

Now, without going into Walker's story here -- but to get back to Mae Brussell -- she decided that Walker had proved his connections to the Nazi Party with this phone call -- and specifically with the Invisible Fourth Reich, which she believes killed JFK.

I still think this is interesting. I don't believe in an Invisible Fourth Reich, but I can't deny, as she tried to show, that the far-right political spectrum was front and center in the JFK murder.

I agree with her to a point. Yet in my theory, the Nazi Party LOST World War II, and although the USA and the USSR competed to see how many world-class scientists and engineers they could appropriate from a fallen Germany; nevertheless -- all these Germans in the USA that Mae Brussell suspects -- they were really converted by Western ideologies to cooperate with the victors of World War II. Their wings were clipped, Mae. Our own bad guys are bad enough.

I have evidence that Edwin WALKER lied under oath before. I do wonder, though, if he lied when he told the WC that he didn't speak German.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Brancato]

Paul - an interesting post. Some clarification - were there two stories about Walker published in the nov 29 edition of the German paper? Did one or both mention RFK? Did either Walker or Frey ever clarify what Walker told Frey early morning on nov 23rd? I seem to remember some prevarication and lack of clarity on this. Its logical to assume that Walker told Frey that LHO had been his shooter. But did he confirm that he told Frey, or did Frey confirm that Walker told him that? It would be helpful if you could be very clear when you talk about this particular possibly very important set of details, since we have no record from before nov 22 that anyone knew or thought they knew who shot at Walker. And please clarify what exactly we can prove about RFK appearing in that article.

Mae Brussell's theory about a fourth reich goes a lot deeper than your summary indicates. In the first place the evidence she pointed to was global in nature. Secondly, she also pointed out that certain factions of our business elites supported Hitler before the war, and maintained ties during the war.

I agree that we had our own bad guys, and I think when we use labels like Nazi it makes it too easy to dismiss evidence of collusion. What does it matter what we call our Dulles brothers, and our Bushes?

[Robert Mady]

Paul T., Very interesting post concerning WALKER, thank you for sharing.

I will certainly be more aware to consider carefully the details concerning WALKER going forward.

As I was reading your post I could not help but wonder why WALKER talked to a German newspaper and not an American newspaper, particularly one in Texas.

I have heard that hours after the assassination an Australian newspaper already had in depth knowledge on OSWALD, where did this information come from?

Part of the CIA's method of introducing propaganda is known to be thru foreign newspapers, this way they remain disconnected from the news, yet the false news seeps into the public realm.

It appears that WALKER's call could have been a part of this disinformation system and WALKER knowingly and with malice spread this disinformation.

It actually strengthens my resolve that OSWALD was not part of the shooting and that WALKER may have been more involved in the assassination and cover-up.

The part of RFK preventing OSWALD from prosecution is absolutely ridiculous and seems to be intended to strengthen the fallacy that the White House was either out of control or was their own worst enemy, it also points the blame at RFK, for if he had done his job and prosecuted OSWALD his brother would have not been killed. Same type of B.S. propaganda JC claimed in the hospital, ultimately blaming the American people for the murder of KENNEDY.

If you listen to the news broadcasts on 11/22/1963, these points where scripted for the networks.

1) KENNEDY was reckless, moving into crowds to shake hands, against SSA protocol.

2) KENNEDY openly displayed, riding in his open limo

3) KENNEDY carelessness is to blame (this was later reinforced by SSA disinformation that because of KENNEDY's vanity he ordered them off the bumper of the limo, they couldn't do their job, not their fault)

4) White House not in control after the shooting

5) White House consisting of "spoiled rich kids' jet setters gallivanting around the world

6) All cabinet members on a meeting 'vacation' in Hawaii (irresponsible).

Edited February 21, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Greg Burnham]

I have evidence that Edwin WALKER lied under oath before. I do wonder, though, if he lied when he told the WC that he didn't speak German.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Let's see. This has to do with Proof of the Motorcade Stopping how? Perhaps Walker, dressed as a DPD Officer, stepped into the street on Elm and shouted: "Hör auf!" at Greer who obeyed his command.

[Thomas Graves]

I have evidence that Edwin WALKER lied under oath before. I do wonder, though, if he lied when he told the WC that he didn't speak German.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Let's see. This has to do with Proof of the Motorcade Stopping how? Perhaps Walker, dressed as a DPD Officer, stepped into the street on Elm and shouted: "Hör auf!" at Greer who obeyed his command.

Impossible, Greg.

Greer didn't speak German.

He obviously didn't know Walker was gay and simply misunderstood him to say "They's sure some nice-lookin' hoes out there!"

That's why Greer turned around and shot JFK and then sped away!

So in a way, Word Twister is right -- It was Walker's fault that JFK was assassinated.

--Tommy

Edited February 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Paul Trejo]

Paul - an interesting post. Some clarification - were there two stories about Walker published in the nov 29 edition of the German paper? Did one or both mention RFK? Did either Walker or Frey ever clarify what Walker told Frey early morning on nov 23rd? I seem to remember some prevarication and lack of clarity on this.

Its logical to assume that Walker told Frey that LHO had been his shooter. But did he confirm that he told Frey, or did Frey confirm that Walker told him that? It would be helpful if you could be very clear when you talk about this particular possibly very important set of details, since we have no record from before nov 22 that anyone knew or thought they knew who shot at Walker. And please clarify what exactly we can prove about RFK appearing in that article.

Mae Brussell's theory about a fourth reich goes a lot deeper than your summary indicates. In the first place the evidence she pointed to was global in nature. Secondly, she also pointed out that certain factions of our business elites supported Hitler before the war, and maintained ties during the war.

I agree that we had our own bad guys, and I think when we use labels like Nazi it makes it too easy to dismiss evidence of collusion. What does it matter what we call our Dulles brothers, and our Bushes?

Well, Paul B., by the numbers again:

(1) There were two articles in the 29 November 1963 issue of the German newspaper, Deutsche Nationalzeitung -- a short one introducting the interview, and then a longer one, reflecting the interview itself.

(1.1) The shorter one was the headline. Here is an English translation of the headline story, found among Walker's personal papers:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_Deutsche_NZ.jpg

(1.2) And here's the envelope associated with this English translation, also found among Walker's personal papers -- addressed to DPD Chief Jesse Curry:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19631129_DNZeitung.JPG

(1.3) As you can see, Paul B., the notation about RFK appears only in the headline.

(1.4) The remark about RFK was removed from the full interview -- it was decided at some point that the RFK remark would be attributed to Dr. Gerhard Frey, and not to Edwin Walker.

(1.5) When the German BND (FBI) arrested reporter Helmet Muench (because they knew his alias was Hasso Thorsten), Muench broke down and told them the truth. Walker told this to him personally, said Muench -- but Dr. Gerhard Frey chose to edit the interview, and would personally take credit for the RFK remark.

(2.0) Dr. Frey, to the best of my knowledge, was not interviewed by the German BND.

(2.1) Dr. Frey never commented on the article, to the best of my knowledge, and the German BND sent their information to J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI.

(2.2) The Warren Commission asked Walker about it much later -- in July 1964.

(2.3) Edwin Walker admitted there was an interview, but said that the Germans are very advanced out there, and "just guessed it."

(2.4) The Warren Commission attorneys accepted Walker's explanation.

(3.0) It's a matter of whom to believe. I happen to believe the German BND. Their report says that Edwin Walker told Helmut Muench (alias Hasso Thorsten) that RFK protected Lee Harvey Oswald on 10 April 1963 after the Walker shooting.

(3.1) The Mary Ferrell site has all this data -- including the whole Deutsche Nationalzeitung article and interview.

(4.0) In my opinion, we can prove exactly nothing about RFK from Walker's paranoid claim (and yes, I believe Walker was suffering from a mild paranoia).

(4.1) I do not believe that RFK was the sponsor of Lee Harvey Oswald in the shooting at Edwin Walker.

(5.0) Mae Brussell has a ton of "evidence" her side, but it is all at the level of a Peter Dale Scott -- very general, "structural," high-level, speculative -- and mostly guess-work.

(5.1) It is common knowledge that even in the months before a war begins, businessmen will continue to invest in questionable foreign countries, on the chance that everything might change at a moment's notice, and friendship will rise again, and their stock will soar.

(5.2) Even JFK's own father, Joseph Kennedy, had investments in Germany -- and this is one reason he quit his job as US Ambassador to England -- Joe Kennedy openly said that he believed Hitler was going to win this one.

(5.3) That is no proof that Joe Kennedy (or any other capitalist of the period who was still invested in Germany as the war was starting) was a Nazi. It was all about the money -- not the politics for them (most of the time, anyway).

(5.4) Any capitalists who secretly continued to invest in Germany during World War II simply lost their shirts. Germany lost badly. Mae Brussell seems to seriously underestimate that part.

(5.5) In my opinion, there is no Invisible Fourth Reich, and our Dulles brothers, and our Bushes were and remain red-blooded Americans -- invested in US power, not German power.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

P.S. We might consider moving this discussion of Edwin Walker to the Edwin Walker thread at some point...

Edited February 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T., Very interesting post concerning WALKER, thank you for sharing.

I will certainly be more aware to consider carefully the details concerning WALKER going forward.

As I was reading your post I could not help but wonder why WALKER talked to a German newspaper and not an American newspaper, particularly one in Texas.

I have heard that hours after the assassination an Australian newspaper already had in depth knowledge on OSWALD, where did this information come from?

Part of the CIA's method of introducing propaganda is known to be thru foreign newspapers, this way they remain disconnected from the news, yet the false news seeps into the public realm.

It appears that WALKER's call could have been a part of this disinformation system and WALKER knowingly and with malice spread this disinformation.

It actually strengthens my resolve that OSWALD was not part of the shooting and that WALKER may have been more involved in the assassination and cover-up.

The part of RFK preventing OSWALD from prosecution is absolutely ridiculous and seems to be intended to strengthen the fallacy that the White House was either out of control or was their own worst enemy, it also points the blame at RFK, for if he had done his job and prosecuted OSWALD his brother would have not been killed. Same type of B.S. propaganda JC claimed in the hospital, ultimately blaming the American people for the murder of KENNEDY.

If you listen to the news broadcasts on 11/22/1963, these points where scripted for the networks.

1) KENNEDY was reckless, moving into crowds to shake hands, against SSA protocol.

2) KENNEDY openly displayed, riding in his open limo

3) KENNEDY carelessness is to blame (this was later reinforced by SSA disinformation that because of KENNEDY's vanity he ordered them off the bumper of the limo, they couldn't do their job, not their fault)

4) White House not in control after the shooting

5) White House consisting of "spoiled rich kids' jet setters gallivanting around the world

6) All cabinet members on a meeting 'vacation' in Hawaii (irresponsible).

OK, Bob, by the numbers once again:

(1) Why did WALKER tell a German newspaper and not a Texas newspaper? It is my opinion that WALKER was bursting with pride about the JFK murder, and he had to tell somebody.

(1.1) But WALKER could not admit the truth to the American public, because he had made a deal with all this accomplices -- they must remain anonymous.

(1.2) IMHO, WALKER's signature mark over the JFK murder would always be this -- that Lee Harvey OSWALD had been WALKER's April shooter. WALKER repeated this story for the rest of his life.

(2.0) I know of no Australian newspaper with an in-depth story on OSWALD -- but Oliver Stone tells of an in-depth story on OSWALD in a New Zealand newspaper.

(2.1) In Stone's movie, JFK (1992), Fletcher Prouty's character tells Jim Garrison that he was in New Zealand on 11/22/1963, and only three hours after Oswald was arrested -- not even charged -- the New Zealand newspaper (The Christchurch Star) featured a studio photo of OSWALD, and a full bio.

(2.2) Fletcher Prouty was certain that this was the modus operandi of a standard CIA 'black operation.'

(2.3) The US General who sent Prouty to the South Pole at that time was Edward Lansdale -- which prompted Oliver Stone to portray Lansdale (as General "Y") as a key conspirator in the JFK murder.

(2.4) So, Bob, I think that may be what you're thinking of.

(2.5) Larry Hancock thinks that Fletcher Prouty may have been mistaken in his suspicions about General Edward Lansdale. I'll give Larry Hancock the benefit of my doubt.

(2.6) IMHO, the person who controlled a confederate inside the Army Intel Unit to hand over Lee Harvey Oswald's file to the Dallas Police Department, was the same person who controlled a confederate mole at the New Zealand newspaper, The Christchurch Star -- namely, Ex-General Edwin WALKER.

(2.7) There is no mystery about why the JFK murder had all the professionalism of a military and paramilitary operation -- Edwin WALKER was highly trained in 'special operations.'

(3.0) Bob, I'm delighted that you sincerely consider the possibility that Edwin WALKER could have been "a part of this disinformation system."

(3.1) Your views and mine completely agree on this point.

(3.2) My key difference with you is on another point -- WALKER was never involved the JFK Cover-up known as the Warren Commission. WALKER testified before the Warren Commission, and he insisted that the Lone Shooter theory was backward, and he demanded that the WC realize that Lee Harvey OSWALD was clearly a Fidel Castro loving Communist.

(4.0) Although I do agree with you that the part about RFK protecting OSWALD for the WALKER shooting is silly -- I don't believe it was merely "disinformation".

(4.1) In my analysis of WALKER so far, he seems to have been suffering from a mild form of paranoia (and there are two medical psychiatrists who both gave that opinion).

(4.2) In my analysis of WALKER, he truly, truly believed that RFK had sent OSWALD to kill him in April 1963.

(4.3) This, IMHO, was WALKER's main motivation for using OSWALD as his Patsy to kill JFK. Here is only one of many examples of this belief of WALKER in his personal papers:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19811212_Walker_on_JFK_1.JPG

http://www.pet880.com/images/19811212_Walker_on_JFK_2.JPG

http://www.pet880.com/images/19811212_Walker_on_JFK_3.JPG

(4.4) And here's the last article he wrote on the topic -- only months before he died:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf

(5.0) I agree with you, about the points scripted for the networks -- but IMHO the points were scripted by the FBI, and never by the JFK Killers.

(5.1) I say that WALKER wanted us to believe that the Communists killed JFK -- while the FBI and the Cover-up Team insisted we believe in the "Lone Nut". Those two interpretations are opposed -- they are mutually exclusive.

(5.2) IMHO, the Truth is that the right-wing killed JFK.

(5.3) However, the Cold War transformed the Truth into a serious National Security problem.

(5.4) The Cold War ended in 1990 when the USSR officially gave up the ghost.

(5.5) In 1992 President GHW Bush signed the JFK Records Act, which changed the date that Earl Warren had set to release the Truth about JFK to the American people.

(5.6) Supreme Court Chief Justice Earl Warren gave the date: 2039 (75 years after the Warren Report).

(5.7) President GHW Bush gave the date: 2017, that is, 22 years shaved off. This is hard evidence, IMHO, that my theory that the "Lone Nut" fiction is linked to the Cold War, has merit.

(5.8) First the Cold War ended (1990) and then Bush's JFK Record Act (1992) removed 22 years from the censorship of the Truth about JFK. Direct connection, IMHO.

(6.0) Finally, all this remains related to JFK's limo slowing down or stopping by the Grassy Knoll because Ex-General Edwin WALKER, and his confederates inside the Dallas Police Department (including Roscoe WHITE, JD TIPPIT and Jesse CURRY, who was the lead limo driver) controlled the Grassy Knoll, its monument, and the area behind it.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Thomas Graves]

Paul T., Very interesting post concerning WALKER, thank you for sharing.

I will certainly be more aware to consider carefully the details concerning WALKER going forward.

As I was reading your post I could not help but wonder why WALKER talked to a German newspaper and not an American newspaper, particularly one in Texas.

I have heard that hours after the assassination an Australian newspaper already had in depth knowledge on OSWALD, where did this information come from?

Part of the CIA's method of introducing propaganda is known to be thru foreign newspapers, this way they remain disconnected from the news, yet the false news seeps into the public realm.

It appears that WALKER's call could have been a part of this disinformation system and WALKER knowingly and with malice spread this disinformation.

It actually strengthens my resolve that OSWALD was not part of the shooting and that WALKER may have been more involved in the assassination and cover-up.

The part of RFK preventing OSWALD from prosecution is absolutely ridiculous and seems to be intended to strengthen the fallacy that the White House was either out of control or was their own worst enemy, it also points the blame at RFK, for if he had done his job and prosecuted OSWALD his brother would have not been killed. Same type of B.S. propaganda JC claimed in the hospital, ultimately blaming the American people for the murder of KENNEDY.

If you listen to the news broadcasts on 11/22/1963, these points where scripted for the networks.

1) KENNEDY was reckless, moving into crowds to shake hands, against SSA protocol.

2) KENNEDY openly displayed, riding in his open limo

3) KENNEDY carelessness is to blame (this was later reinforced by SSA disinformation that because of KENNEDY's vanity he ordered them off the bumper of the limo, they couldn't do their job, not their fault)

4) White House not in control after the shooting

5) White House consisting of "spoiled rich kids' jet setters gallivanting around the world

6) All cabinet members on a meeting 'vacation' in Hawaii (irresponsible).

OK, Bob, by the numbers once again:

(1) Why did WALKER tell a German newspaper and not a Texas newspaper? It is my opinion that WALKER was bursting with pride about the JFK murder, and he had to tell somebody.

(1.1) But WALKER could not admit the truth to the American public, because he had made a deal with all this accomplices -- they must remain anonymous.

(1.2) IMHO, WALKER's signature mark over the JFK murder would always be this -- that Lee Harvey OSWALD had been WALKER's April shooter. WALKER repeated this story for the rest of his life.

(2.0) I know of no Australian newspaper with an in-depth story on OSWALD -- but Oliver Stone tells of an in-depth story on OSWALD in a New Zealand newspaper.

(2.1) In Stone's movie, JFK (1992), Fletcher Prouty's character tells Jim Garrison that he was in New Zealand on 11/22/1963, and only three hours after Oswald was arrested -- not even charged -- the New Zealand newspaper (The Christchurch Star) featured a studio photo of OSWALD, and a full bio.

(2.2) Fletcher Prouty was certain that this was the modus operandi of a standard CIA 'black operation.'

(2.3) The US General who sent Prouty to the South Pole at that time was Edward Lansdale -- which prompted Oliver Stone to portray Lansdale (as General "Y") as a key conspirator in the JFK murder.

(2.4) So, Bob, I think that may be what you're thinking of.

(2.5) Larry Hancock thinks that Fletcher Prouty may have been mistaken in his suspicions about General Edward Lansdale. I'll give Larry Hancock the benefit of my doubt.

(2.6) IMHO, the person who controlled a confederate inside the Army Intel Unit to hand over Lee Harvey Oswald's file to the Dallas Police Department, was the same person who controlled a confederate mole at the New Zealand newspaper, The Christchurch Star -- namely, Ex-General Edwin WALKER.

(2.7) There is no mystery about why the JFK murder had all the professionalism of a military and paramilitary operation -- Edwin WALKER was highly trained in 'special operations.'

(3.0) Bob, I'm delighted that you sincerely consider the possibility that Edwin WALKER could have been "a part of this disinformation system."

(3.1) Your views and mine completely agree on this point.

(3.2) My key difference with you is on another point -- WALKER was never involved the JFK Cover-up known as the Warren Commission. WALKER testified before the Warren Commission, and he insisted that the Lone Shooter theory was backward, and he demanded that the WC realize that Lee Harvey OSWALD was clearly a Fidel Castro loving Communist.

(4.0) Although I do agree with you that the part about RFK protecting OSWALD for the WALKER shooting is silly -- I don't believe it was merely "disinformation".

(4.1) In my analysis of WALKER so far, he seems to have been suffering from a mild form of paranoia (and there are two medical psychiatrists who both gave that opinion).

(4.2) In my analysis of WALKER, he truly, truly believed that RFK had sent OSWALD to kill him in April 1963.

(4.3) This, IMHO, was WALKER's main motivation for using OSWALD as his Patsy to kill JFK. Here is only one of many examples of this belief of WALKER in his personal papers:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19811212_Walker_on_JFK_1.JPG

(4.4) And here's the last article he wrote on the topic -- only months before he died:

http://www.pet880.com/images/19920119_EAW_Oswald_arrested.pdf

(5.0) I agree with you, about the points scripted for the networks -- but IMHO the points were scripted by the FBI, and never by the JFK Killers.

(5.1) I say that WALKER wanted us to believe that the Communists killed JFK -- while the FBI and the Cover-up Team insisted we believe in the "Lone Nut". Those two interpretations are opposed -- they are mutually exclusive.

(5.2) IMHO, the Truth is that the right-wing killed JFK.

(5.3) However, the Cold War transformed the Truth into a serious National Security problem.

(5.4) The Cold War ended in 1990 when the USSR officially gave up the ghost.

(5.5) In 1992 President GHW Bush signed the JFK Records Act, which changed the date that Earl Warren had set to release the Truth about JFK to the American people.

(5.6) Earl Warren gave the date at 2039 (75 years after the Warren Report).

(5.7) President GHW Bush gave the date at 2017 -- 22 years shaved off. This is hard evidence, IMHO, that my theory has merit -- the Cold War ended and the JFK Record Act removed 22 years from the censorship of the Truth about JFK. Direct connection.

(6.0) Finally, all this is related to JFK's limo slowing down or stopping by the Grassy Knoll because Ex-General Edwin WALKER, and his confederates inside the Dallas Police Department (including Roscoe White, JD Tippit and Jesse Curry) controlled the Grassy Knoll, its monument, and the area behind it.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Jesse Curry admitted early on that the Dallas police department couldn't prove that Oswald was at the sixth floor window with that rifle.

Jesse Curry also "spilled the beans" (and incurred Hoover's wrath for life) when he said that the Dallas Police Department had allowed most of the at-that-time basically un-inventoried evidence to go to FBI headquarters during the night of 11/22/63 (or perhaps more correctly during the early morning hours of 11/23/63 or maybe even the next day--whatever). The FBI kept all those things for 72 hours and then returned (at least some of) them to the Dallas Police Department.

By saying what he did, Jesse Curry was basically admitting that the chain of custody for all of that evidence was all messed up and that those things probably wouldn't be "admissible" even if Oswald were to survive long enough to "have his day in court."

It's clear that Jesse Curry wasn't the big "conspirator" you claim he was.

--Tommy

Edited February 23, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Robert Mady]

Paul T.

New Zealand Newspaper - yes that looks correct.

FBI - controlling the newspapers, doubt this, based on CIA boasting that it had people placed in significant positions within newspapers to control the news, the FBI has never admitted they control media. Also my analysis of the news on 11/22/1963 does not show just confusion or misinformation being broadcast it shows a uniformity between networks to disseminate disinformation which I believe was intended to confuse and confound the public so that we could not develop a realistic perception of what was taking place, hence there could be no uniform public reaction to the coup. This was not news it was a steady stream of carefully contrived propaganda with a purpose, this is in the domain of CIA not FBI.

The disinformation that was broadcast on 11/22/1963 produced confusion about what had just taken place, the fact that the majority of public relied on the newsreaders to provide only truth betrayed us, we didn't even question these bold faced liars even when the murder weapon mysteriously overnight transformed from a Mauser to a MC. We had been told so many lies to that point, one more evidently did not make an impact we may have been too numbed to take notice.

The uniformity between networks of broadcasted disinformation demonstrates that this was a concerted effort, produced by foreknowledge as to what roll the media would play in the aftermath of the murder to control public opinion. The media had foreknowledge of the coup and had bought into the necessity to remove KENNEDY from leadership roll. WALKER could not have had the clout to organize media.

You said it yourself WALKER was a nut, only a few fringe people follow a nut.

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T.

New Zealand Newspaper - yes that looks correct.

FBI - controlling the newspapers, doubt this, based on CIA boasting that it had people placed in significant positions within newspapers to control the news, the FBI has never admitted they control media. Also my analysis of the news on 11/22/1963 does not show just confusion or misinformation being broadcast it shows a uniformity between networks to disseminate disinformation which I believe was intended to confuse and confound the public so that we could not develop a realistic perception of what was taking place, hence there could be no uniform public reaction to the coup. This was not news it was a steady stream of carefully contrived propaganda with a purpose, this is in the domain of CIA not FBI.

The disinformation that was broadcast on 11/22/1963 produced confusion about what had just taken place, the fact that the majority of public relied on the newsreaders to provide only truth betrayed us, we didn't even question these bold faced liars even when the murder weapon mysteriously overnight transformed from a Mauser to a MC. We had been told so many lies to that point, one more evidently did not make an impact we may have been too numbed to take notice.

The uniformity between networks of broadcasted disinformation demonstrates that this was a concerted effort, produced by foreknowledge as to what roll the media would play in the aftermath of the murder to control public opinion. The media had foreknowledge of the coup and had bought into the necessity to remove KENNEDY from leadership roll. WALKER could not have had the clout to organize media.

You said it yourself WALKER was a nut, only a few fringe people follow a nut.

Well, Bob, I'm glad we're settled on the New Zealand paper. Yet we still have some points of discussion:

(1) Although the CIA could control some foreign newspapers, this was based mainly on the power to "leak" information.

(2) The FBI was also experienced in "leaking" news to to the Media -- for example, the "Lone Nut" theory of J. Edgar Hoover was leaked to the Media starting in December 1963, and continued throughout 1964, e.g. LOOK magazine and others. The conclusion of the Warren Commission was well-known long before the conclusion was published.

(3) Yet the FBI and the CIA are not the only entities in the world that can "leak" news. Edwin Walker tried to "leak" the news about OSWALD being his April shooter -- first to the Deutsche-Nationalzeitung, then to the National Enquirer, IMHO.

(4) Yet even on Saturday, the day after the JFK murder, one news reporter asked Jesse Curry, "could this be the same shooter who tried to kill Walker back in April?" Jesse Curry said, "I don't know." (We have this on film.) IMHO, Edwin WALKER and Robert Allen SURREY tried to leak this suspicion to the Media, days before Marina Oswald told the FBI about it on 3 December 1963. It didn't fly too well.

(5) It was intended to be part of the WALKER Cover-up plan -- to ensure that the USA believed the COMMUNISTS killed JFK.

(6) But it also served to link the names of JFK-OSWALD-WALKER in the public mind -- which WALKER wanted as his "signature" for the JFK murder. I believe the JFK Records Act due on 26 October 2017 will confirm my suspicions.

(7) There was no coup d'etat in the USA in 1963 -- although there was an *attempted* coup d'etat. It was foiled by LBJ, J. Edgar Hoover, Earl Warren and Allen Dulles.

(8) The steady stream of disinformation that the Media showed from 11/23/1963 through 11/23/1964 was simply the "Lone Nut" theory -- which was an FBI mandate. Hoover was behind all of this. The CIA cooperated, but the FBI ran that propaganda. It was NOT planned before 11/22/1963. It was a hasty job -- which is why it breaks down in so many places.

(9) The lies were ALWAYS, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, forged to serve a "Lone Nut" scenario. No matter what evidence showed up to prove that there were multiple shooters -- the FBI would never accept it.

(10) No matter how many witnesses showed up to prove that there were multiple shooters (or that OSWALD had accomplices, like "Leopoldo and Angel", the FBI would stomp on it until it was a frazzle (e.g. they said Silvia Odio was a mental case).

(11) The uniformity of Network broadcasting on issues involving the FBI should never be surprising to us. NBC, ABC and CBS were all formed by US Government licenses, and they are all always obliged to push the US Government line, at any time.

(12) The Media had ZERO foreknowledge of any "coup". That is a mistake made by many since the days of Jim Garrison.

(13) You continue to get this point wrong, IMHO, Bob -- when you say that the JFK Cover-up was done to protect the JFK Killers. It was not. It was done to FOIL the JFK Killers. There was no plot to do the JFK Cover-up -- it was a reaction, an afterthought, flying by the seat of their pants. That's why it broke down so many times.

(14) Although it is true that only a few fringe people follow a "nut" like WALKER, it is clear to me that JFK was killed by "a few fringe people" who followed WALKER.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

<edit typos>

Edited February 23, 2015 by Paul Trejo

[Robert Mady]

Paul T.. I am not talking about just leaking disinformation to the press, I am talking about controlling the press or the media.

Analysis of the news on 11/22/1963 can demonstrate a high level of continuity between the networks in the dissemination of disinformation , this is an indication of solitary control of the all major network news. If you believe this was just coincidental uniform confusion let us leave the discussion here because this is an insurmountable difference of opinion which on one side proves foreknowledge, conspiracy and active government controlled cover-up verses a surprised and confused media that merely passed on identical misinformation because they were unprepared to deal with an event that was news worthy and never recovered their composure and have since continued to insist they got it right while the overwhelming majority of Americans simply got it wrong.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Robert Mady]

Paul T. in the National Press Pool Car were representatives of the National Media, according to MALCOLM KILDUFF the vehicle they were riding in was turning the corner and along side of the TSBD when the first rifle shot was heard, there were 4 journalists in the vehicle, MERRIMAN SMITH, JACK BELL, ROBERT BASKIN and BOB CLARK as well as the driver, where are their testimonies. FBI reports, Affidavits or news articles?

Where is the interview on National TV of any one of the persons that rode in this vehicle recorded on 11/22/1963. These men could have told the world no shots came from the TSBD, that the shots came from the monument area, they all kept their mouths shut and the media ignored the reality of their existence adjacent to the TSBD during the gunfire.

The media lied from the moment they went on the air and have continued to maintain the lie at all costs ever since.

The reluctance to understand the media was and still is corrupt is a limiting element in seeing clearly the active role the media played in the assassination and cover-up and in addition that the media still controls the minds of those who look to the media as if it were fountains of truth.

Also of note in case you missed the point, by MALCOLM KILDUFF claiming the vehicle he was riding in was along side the TSBD at the moment of the first rifle shot heard equates to Altgens #6 being taken prior to the first rifle shot being heard and that the first rifle shot heard in reality occurred after the limo passed MARY MOORMAN, just as she claimed and corroborated by a majority of witnesses. But never mind the facts, we know how the assassination occurred even though it cannot be supported by significant portions of evidence.

Edited February 23, 2015 by Robert Mady

[Paul Trejo]

Paul T.. I am not talking about just leaking disinformation to the press, I am talking about controlling the press or the media.

Analysis of the news on 11/22/1963 can demonstrate a high level of continuity between the networks in the dissemination of disinformation , this is an indication of solitary control of the all major network news. If you believe this was just coincidental uniform confusion let us leave the discussion here because this is an insurmountable difference of opinion which on one side proves foreknowledge, conspiracy and active government controlled cover-up verses a surprised and confused media that merely passed on identical misinformation because they were unprepared to deal with an event that was news worthy and never recovered their composure and have since continued to insist they got it right while the overwhelming majority of Americans simply got it wrong.

Well, Bob, I think you're overlooking the obvious -- ALL the suppression of evidence, starting at 3PM CST 11/22/1963 was motivated by US Government mandates to suppress all news and information inconsistent with a "Lone Shooter" scenario.

That was indicated to the Media as a matter of National Security.

It didn't require any planning -- it was a REACTION to a crisis. Hoover and LBJ gave the order around 3PM CST, and all branches of the FBI, the Federal Government and the Mass Media rallied to this cause.

The Truth was dead -- the justification was National Security.

There was no PLOT before 3PM CST for this to happen.

I repeat: The JFK Kill Team had a plot planned since April 1963. The JFK Cover-up Team had no plot -- they only reacted with the "Lone Shooter" gambit starting at 3PM CST on 22 November 1963.

That's why the JFK Cover-up has so many holes. Still -- all branches of the Mass Media tried to obey this mandate. Same with the FBI and the Federal Government.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

[Robert Mady]

Paul, lets let it go.

It was not the truth was killed, the fact is the truth was never told at any point in any broadcast.

I suggest you listen to the ABC, NBC and CBS news broadcasts from when the news took over the airwaves till about 3:00 and list and analyze the disinformation broadcast by each network, then compare what each network reported and when they reported it, maybe you will be surprised to see the consistency of the disinformation broadcast as well as the timing of disinformation disseminated.

Thanks for the discussion.

Bob Mady

Edited February 23, 2015 by Robert Mady