November 22, 1963

In Dallas, Texas the President was assassinated in open daylight by the Military Industrial Complex.

I was just 16 the day of the coup in Dallas. I was sitting in high school French class when an announcement came over the intercom for all of the teachers to prepare to meet a messenger at the door of their classroom in the next moments. The teacher went to the door and stepped out. it was just a couple moments and she came back in. She was sobbing. She had everyone’s undivided attention. She gathered her composure as best she could and said simply; “the president has been shot in Dallas.” There was an audible gasp from the whole room. She continued to tell us school was out for the day, and the rest of the week.

I felt a deep connection to John Kennedy. Almost as if he were a personal friend. Then I admired the man as a juvenile would. I have come to admire him more as I matured and came to understand the vicious system that killed him.

It was in a class in high school the next year that I came to understand that there were adults that had other views of what had happened in Dallas than the mainstream story from TV. In my humanities class we started our lessons with reading Shakespeare’s ‘Julius Caesar’. Without saying anything directly about the JFK assassination, the teacher made it subtly clear why the subject matter of the play had a direct bearing on the “issues of the day”, as he put it.

By the time I graduated from high school I was on the trail of the assassins, and have been ever since.

I own personally at least 20 books on the subject of the assassination/coup d’etat, and have read countless more. Of course this issue leads into the whole concept of deep political events, and eventually the revelation of the false paradigm that we live within.~Willy Whitten – 11/22/2013

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Confronting the John F. Kennedy Assassination

Where Do We Find Hope When A Peacemaking President Is Assassinated?

By James W. Douglass, author of acclaimed book JFK and the Unspeakable

I believe this experiment we are doing into the dark truth of Dallas (and of Washington, D.C.) can be the most hopeful experience of our lives. But, it does require patience and tenacity to confront the unspeakable. We, first of all, need to take the time to recognize the sources in our history for what happened in Dallas on November 22, 1963.

‘Plausible deniability’

The doctrine of “plausible deniability” in an old government document provides us with a source of the assassination of President Kennedy. The document was issued in 1948, one year after the CIA was established, and 15 years before JFK’s murder. That document, National Security Council directive 10/2, on June 18, 1948, “gave the highest sanction of the [U.S.] government to a broad range of covert operations” — propaganda, sabotage, economic warfare, subversion of all kinds — that were seen as necessary to “win” the Cold War against the Communists. [1]

In the 1950s, under the leadership of CIA Director Allen Dulles, the doctrine of “plausible deniability” became the CIA’s green light to assassinate national leaders, conduct secret military operations, and overthrow governments that our government thought were on the wrong side in the Cold War. “Plausible deniability” meant our intelligence agencies, acting as paramilitary groups, had to lie and cover their tracks so effectively that there would be no trace of U.S. government responsibility for criminal activities on an ever-widening scale.

Truman warns about the CIA

The man who proposed this secret, subversive process in 1948, diplomat George Kennan, said later, in light of its consequences, that it was “the greatest mistake I ever made.” [2] President Harry Truman, under whom the CIA was created, and during whose presidency the plausible deniability doctrine was authorized, had deep regrets. He said in a statement on December 22, 1963:

“We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.” [3]

Truman later remarked: “The CIA was set up by me for the sole purpose of getting all the available information to the president. It was not intended to operate as an international agency engaged in strange activities.” [4]

One assumption behind Kennan’s proposal unleashing the CIA for its war against Communism was that the Agency’s criminal power could be confined to covert action outside the borders of the United States, with immunity from its lethal power granted to U.S. citizens. That assumption proved to be wrong.

During the Cold War, the hidden growth of the CIA’s autonomous power corresponded to the public growth of what was called a fortress state. A democratic national security state is a contradiction in terms.

The insecure basis of our security then became weapons that could destroy the planet. To protect the security of that illusory means of security, which was absolute destructive power, we now needed a ruling elite of national security managers with an authority above that of our elected representatives.

So from that point on, our military-industrial managers made the real decisions of state. President Truman simply ratified their decisions and entrenched their power, as he did with the establishment of the CIA, and as his National Security Council did with its endorsement of plausible deniability.

Kennedy sacks CIA leaders

We know how JFK reacted to the CIA’s setting him up. He was furious. When the enormity of the Bay of Pigs disaster came home to him, he said he wanted “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.” [5]

He ordered an investigation into the whole affair, under the very watchful eyes of his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. He fired CIA Director Allen Dulles, Deputy Director Richard Bissell, Jr., and Deputy Director General Charles Cabell. That was a huge decision — firing the top of the CIA’s hierarchy, including the legendary leader who had come to personify the agency, Allen Dulles.

The president then took steps “to cut the CIA budget in 1962 and again in 1963, aiming at a 20 percent reduction by 1966.” [6] He was cutting back the CIA’s power in very concrete ways, step by step.

JFK alienates CIA and Pentagon

JFK had to confront the unspeakable in the Missile Crisis in the form of total nuclear war. At the height of that terrifying conflict, he felt the situation spiraling out of control, especially because of the actions of his generals.

The White House tapes show Kennedy questioning and resisting the mounting pressure to bomb Cuba coming from both the Joint Chiefs and the Executive Committee of the National Security Council. At the same time, John Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev, the two men most responsible for the Cuban Missile Crisis, seemed locked in a hopeless ideological conflict. The U.S. and Soviet leaders had been following Cold War policies that now seemed to be moving inexorably toward a war of extermination.

Kennedy and Khrushchev: Two enemies become peacemakers

Yet, as we have since learned, Kennedy and Khrushchev had been engaged in a secret correspondence for over a year that gave signs of hope. Even as they moved publicly step by step toward a Cold War climax that would almost take the world over the edge with them, they were at the same time smuggling confidential letters back and forth that recognized each other’s humanity and hoped for a solution. They were public enemies who, in the midst of deepening turmoil, were secretly learning something approaching trust in each other.

On what seemed the darkest day in the crisis, when a Soviet missile had shot down a U2 spy plane over Cuba, intensifying the already overwhelming pressures on Kennedy to bomb Cuba, the president sent his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, secretly to Soviet Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin. RFK told Dobrynin, as Dobrynin reported to Khrushchev, that the president “didn’t know how to resolve the situation. The military is putting great pressure on him… Even if he doesn’t want or desire a war, something irreversible could occur against his will. That is why the President is asking for help to solve this problem.” [6]

In his memoirs, Khrushchev recalled a further, chilling sentence from Robert Kennedy’s appeal to Dobrynin: “If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power.” [7]

At a moment when the world was falling into darkness, Kennedy did what from his generals’ standpoint was intolerable and unforgivable. JFK not only rejected his generals’ pressures for war. Even worse, the president then reached out to their enemy, asking for help. That was treason.

When Nikita Khrushchev had received Kennedy’s plea for help in Moscow, he turned to his Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko and said, “We have to let Kennedy know that we want to help him.”

Khrushchev stunned himself by what he had just said: Did he really want to help his enemy, Kennedy? Yes, he did. He repeated the word to his foreign minister:

“Yes, help. We now have a common cause, to save the world from those pushing us toward war.” [8]

How do we understand that moment? The two most heavily armed leaders in history, on the verge of total nuclear war, suddenly joined hands against those on both sides pressuring them to attack. Khrushchev ordered the immediate withdrawal of his missiles from Cuba, in return for Kennedy’s public pledge never to invade Cuba and his secret promise to withdraw U.S. missiles from Turkey — as he would in fact do.

When President Kennedy stood up to the Pentagon, the CIA, and the military-industrial complex, he was treated as a traitor. His attempt to save the planet from the weapons of his own nation was regarded as treason. The doctrine of “plausible deniability” allowed for the assassination of a president seen as a national security risk himself.

Committing heresy for peace

At American University on June 10, 1963, President Kennedy proposed an end to the Cold War. Kennedy’s rejection of “a Pax Americana” was an act of resistance to the military-industrial complex. The military-industrial complex was totally dependent on “a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.” [9]

That Pax Americana policed by the Pentagon was considered the system’s indispensable, hugely profitable means of containing and defeating Communism. At his own risk, Kennedy was rejecting the foundation of the Cold War system.

Kennedy said he wanted to negotiate a nuclear test ban treaty with the Soviet Union in Moscow — in their capitol, not ours — as soon as possible. To clear the way for such a treaty, he said he was suspending U.S. atmospheric tests unilaterally.

Kennedy’s strategy of peace penetrated the Soviet government’s defenses far more effectively than any missile could have done. The Soviet press, which was accustomed to censoring U.S. government statements, published the entire speech all across the country.Soviet radio stations broadcast and rebroadcast the speech to the Soviet people. In response to Kennedy’s turn toward peace, the Soviet government even stopped jamming all Western broadcasts into their country.

His speech was received less favorably in his own country. The New York Times reported his government’s skepticism: “Generally there was not much optimism in official Washington that the President’s conciliation address at American University would produce agreement on a test ban treaty or anything else.” [10]

In contrast to the Soviet media that were electrified by the speech, the U.S. media ignored or downplayed it. For the first time, Americans had less opportunity to read and hear their president’s words than did the Russian people. A turn-around was occurring in the world on different levels. Whereas nuclear disarmament had suddenly become feasible, Kennedy’s position in his own government had become precarious.

Nuclear test ban treaty

President Kennedy’s next critical conflict with his national security state, propelling him toward the coup d’etat he saw as possible, was the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty that he signed with Nikita Khrushchev on July 25, 1963, six weeks after the American University Address. The president had done an end run around the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He negotiated the Test Ban Treaty without consulting them, because they opposed it.

On September 20, Kennedy spoke to the United Nations. He suggested that its members see the Test Ban Treaty as a beginning and engage together in an experiment in peace:

“Two years ago I told this body that the United States had proposed, and was willing to sign, a Limited Test Ban treaty. Today that treaty has been signed. It will not put an end to war. It will not remove basic conflicts. It will not secure freedom for all. But it can be a lever, and Archimedes, in explaining the principles of the lever, was said to have declared to his friends: ‘Give me a place where I can stand — and I shall move the world.'” [11]

JFK reaches out to Cuba

In the month leading up to the assassination, Kennedy and Castro actually began a dialogue on normalizing U.S.-Cuban relations, through the mediation of French journalist Jean Daniel who personally visited both men. Daniel was actually eating lunch with Castro in his home on November 22, conveying Kennedy’s hopeful words, when the Cuban premier was phoned with the news of Kennedy’s death. Castro’s somber comment to Daniel was: “Everything is changed. Everything is going to change.” [12]

JFK’s top-secret order to begin withdrawal from Vietnam

Kennedy decided on his policy of withdrawal from Vietnam, against the arguments of most of his advisers, at a contentious National Security Council meeting on October 2. When Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was leaving the meeting to announce the withdrawal to the White House reporters, “the President called to him, ‘And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots, too.'” [13]

In fact, it would not mean that at all. After JFK’s assassination, his withdrawal policy was quietly voided. In light of the future consequences of Dallas, it was not only John Kennedy who was murdered on November 22, 1963, but 58,000 other Americans and over three million Vietnamese, Laotians, and Cambodians.

The Steel Crisis

In a head-on confrontation with the ruling elite of Big Steel, JFK ordered the Defense Department to switch huge military contracts away from the major steel companies to the smaller, more loyal contractors that had not defied him. After the big steel companies bitterly backed down from their price raises, JFK and his brother, Robert, were denounced as symbols of “ruthless power” by the Wall Street power brokers at the center of the military-industrial complex.

In an editorial titled, “Steel: The Ides of April” (the month in which Kennedy faced down the steel executives), Henry Luce’s Fortune magazine called to readers’ minds the soothsayer’s warning in Shakespeare of the assassination of Julius Caesar. Fortune was warning Kennedy that his actions had confirmed the worst fears of corporate America about his presidency, and would have dire consequences. As interpreted by the most powerful people in the nation, the steel crisis was a logical prelude to Dallas. It was another Bay of Pigs.

JFK reaches out to third world

Yet another Bay of Pigs was Kennedy’s diplomatic opening to the fiery Third-World leadership of President Sukarno of Indonesia. Sukarno was “the most outspoken proponent of Third World neutralism in the Cold War.” He had actually coined the term “Third World.” The CIA wanted Sukarno dead. It wanted what it saw as his pro-communist “global orientation” obliterated. During Eisenhower’s presidency, the CIA repeatedly tried to kill and overthrow Sukarno but failed.

Most significantly, three days before his assassination, President Kennedy said he was willing to accept Sukarno’s invitation to visit Indonesia the following spring. His visit to Indonesia would have dramatized in a very visible way Kennedy’s support of Third World nationalism, a sea change in U.S. government policy.

JFK’s Indonesian policy was also killed in Dallas, with horrendous consequences. After Lyndon Johnson became president, the CIA finally succeeded in overthrowing Sukarno in a massive purge of suspected Communists that ended up killing 500,000 to one million Indonesians.

Kennedy’s proposal for a joint U.S.-Soviet moon landing

In his September 20, 1963, speech to the United Nations, JFK once again stated his hope for a joint expedition to the moon. However, neither American nor Soviet military leaders, jealous of their rocket secrets, were ready to accept his initiative. Nikita Khrushchev, siding with his own rocket experts, felt he was still forced to decline Kennedy’s proposal.

That further visionary step to end the Cold War also died with Kennedy. The United States went to the moon alone. U.S. and Soviet rockets continued to be pointed at their opposite countries rather than being joined in a project for a more hopeful future. Sergei Khrushchev said, “I think if Kennedy had lived, we would be living in a completely different world.”

JFK meets the Quakers

In the final weeks of his presidency, President Kennedy took one more risky step toward peace. It can be seen in relation to a meeting he had the year before with six Quakers who visited him in his office. Among their challenges to him was a recommendation that the United States offer its surplus food to the People’s Republic of China. China was considered an enemy nation. Yet it was also one whose people were beset by a famine.

Kennedy said to the Quakers, “Do you mean you would feed your enemy when he has his hands on your throat?” [14]

The Quakers said they meant exactly that. They reminded him it was what Jesus had said should be done. Kennedy said he knew that, and knew that it was the right thing to do, but he couldn’t overcome the China lobby in Washington to accomplish it.

Nevertheless, a year and a half later in the fall of 1963, against overwhelming opposition, Kennedy decided to sell wheat to the Russians, who had a severe grain shortage. His outraged critics said in effect to him what he had said to the Quakers: Would you feed an enemy who has his hands on your throat?

Vice President Lyndon Johnson said he thought Kennedy’s decision to sell wheat to Russia would turn out to be the worst political mistake he ever made. Today JFK’s controversial decision “to feed the enemy” has been forgotten. In 1963, the wheat sale was seen as a threat to our security — feeding the enemy to kill us. [For solid evidence Johnson’s involvement in the JFK assassination, see the History Channel documentary available here.]

The violent reaction to his decision was represented on Friday morning, November 22, 1963, by a threatening, full-page advertisement addressed to him in the Dallas Morning News. The ad was bordered in black, like a funeral notice. Among the charges of disloyalty to the nation that the ad made against the president was the question: “Why have you approved the sale of wheat and corn to our enemies when you know the Communist soldiers ‘travel on their stomach’ just as ours do?”

JFK talks about assassination

JFK read the ad before the flight from Fort Worth to Dallas, pointed it out to Jacqueline Kennedy, and talked about the possibility of his being assassinated that day. “But, Jackie,” he said, “if somebody wants to shoot me from a window with a rifle, nobody can stop it, so why worry about it?” [15]

Peacemaking was now at the top of his agenda as president. That was not the kind of leadership the CIA, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the military-industrial complex wanted in the White House. Given the Cold War dogmas that gripped those dominant powers, and given Kennedy’s turn toward peace, his assassination followed as a matter of course.

So how can the why of his murder give us hope? Where do we find hope when a peacemaking president is assassinated by his own national security state?

The why of Kennedy’s assassination encircles the earth. Because John Kennedy chose peace on earth at the height of the Cold War, he was executed. But because he turned toward peace, in spite of the consequences to himself, humanity is still alive and struggling. That is hopeful, especially if we understand what he went through and what he has given to us as his vision.

A profile in courage

The void of the unspeakable is the dark abyss, the midnight reality of plausible deniability, that we face when we peer into our national security state’s murder of President Kennedy. And that is precisely where hope begins.

At a certain point in his presidency, John Kennedy turned a corner and didn’t look back. I believe that decisive turn toward his final purpose in life, resulting in his death, happened in the darkness of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Although Kennedy was already in conflict with his national security managers, the missile crisis was the breaking point.

At that most critical moment for us all, he turned from any remaining control his security managers had over him toward a deeper ethic, a deeper vision in which the fate of the earth became his priority. Without losing sight of our own best hopes in this country, he began to home in, with his new partner, Nikita Khrushchev, on the hope of peace for everyone on this earth. He made that commitment to life at the cost of his own.

What a transforming story that is.

And what a propaganda campaign has been waged to keep us Americans from understanding that story, from telling it, and from re-telling it to our children and grandchildren.

Because that’s a story whose telling can transform a nation. But when a nation is under the continuing domination of an idol, namely war, it is a story that will be covered up. When the story can liberate us from our idolatry of war, then the worshippers of the idol are going to do everything they can to keep the story from being told. From the standpoint of a belief that war is the ultimate power, that’s too dangerous a story. It’s a subversive story. It shows a different kind of security than always being ready to go to war.

It’s unbelievable — or we’re supposed to think it is — that a president was murdered by our own government agencies because he was seeking a more stable peace than relying on nuclear weapons. It’s unspeakable. 

For the sake of a nation that must always be preparing for war, that story must not be told. If it were, we might learn that peace is possible without making war. We might even learn there is a force more powerful than war. How unthinkable! But how necessary if life on earth is to continue.

That is why it is so hopeful for us to confront the unspeakable and to tell the transforming story of a man of courage, President John F. Kennedy. It is a story ultimately not of death, but of life — all our lives. In the end, it is not so much a story of one man as it is a story of peacemaking when the chips are down. That story is our story, a story of hope.

[Note: Hybridrogue is Willy Whitten]



    • Thank you for this video contribution Veritable,

      The J. Edgar Hoover-LBJ nexus in the assassination is an important element in understanding the act, and the cover-up, which is ongoing to this very day.

      “OFFICIAL AND CONFIDENTIAL: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover, by Anthony Summers, is a treasure trove of information on this strange cat-fellow Hoover. It goes into the relationship with Johnson, and other strange doings in the mind of this weirdo and cross-dressing psyco-freak.


  1. So the dreamscape turned into a tight-scrape that closed tighter with each passing year. The scaffolding of the maximum security state rises higher with the inmates under constant surveillance.


  2. Disputing the Official Theory that Lee Harvey Oswald was the “Lone Assassin”
    By Dr. Gary G. Kohls – Global Research, November 20, 2013

    “Once the neo-fascists became bold enough to slay the President on the street, they showed their hand. They showed how arrogant they had become.
    (America) has to hang on through a period of the military and the CIA who have a blank check trying to sell fascism. If she can hang on long enough, Americans may yet live in the country in which they were born. And that is the country structured by Tom Paine and Tom Jefferson.” ~Mort Sahl – 1968
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
    Spook Terms:

    secret: not intended to be known, seen, or found out
    undergrowth providing cover: a thicket, or undergrowth, in which game can shelter or hide
    shelter: a shelter or hiding place

    supporting facing on structure: a facing added to a structure such as a wall or building that provides additional support.
    barricade: a barricade constructed to protect against damage or injury.

    Modified Limited Hangout
    A limited hangout, or partial hangout, is a public relations or propaganda technique that involves the release of previously hidden information in order to prevent a greater exposure of more important details.

    It takes the form of deception, misdirection, or coverup often associated with intelligence agencies involving a release or “mea culpa” type of confession of only part of a set of previously hidden sensitive information, that establishes credibility for the one releasing the information who by the very act of confession appears to be “coming clean” and acting with integrity; but in actuality, by withholding key facts, is protecting a deeper operation and those who could be exposed if the whole truth came out. In effect, if an array of offenses or misdeeds is suspected, this confession admits to a lesser offense while covering up the greater ones.

    A limited hangout typically is a response to lower the pressure felt from inquisitive investigators pursuing clues that threaten to expose everything, and the disclosure is often combined with red herrings or propaganda elements that lead to false trails, distractions, or ideological disinformation; thus allowing covert or criminal elements to continue in their improper activities.

    Victor Marchetti wrote: “A ‘limited hangout’ is spy jargon for a favorite and frequently used gimmick of the clandestine professionals. When their veil of secrecy is shredded and they can no longer rely on a phony cover story to misinform the public, they resort to admitting—sometimes even volunteering—some of the truth while still managing to withhold the key and damaging facts in the case. The public, however, is usually so intrigued by the new information that it never thinks to pursue the matter further.”

    A contingency plan with multiple layers and revetments.
    On the 50th anniversary of the John F. Kennedy assassination, countless theories attempt to explain this tragic event. Yet few have taken the painstaking efforts needed to carefully document all of the facts related to the many steps taken by Kennedy which greatly upset the establishment in the lead-up to his assassination. Author James Douglass has now done that in his highly acclaimed JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters. This may be the most definitive book ever on the many facts and theories surrounding the Kennedy assassination.
    The below concise summary of the painstaking work by Douglass both captivates and inspires. With references and links to verify his statements, Douglass presents numerous revealing facts and powerful evidence that John F. Kennedy took far too many steps towards peace and away from the secret agendas of his war-hungry generals and rich industrialists. His behavior simply could not be tolerated by those who stood to lose billions of dollars from his ever-growing resolve to create more peace in our world.

    ‘Plausible deniability’
    The doctrine of “plausible deniability” in an old government document provides us with a source of the assassination of President Kennedy. The document was issued in 1948, one year after the CIA was established, and 15 years before JFK’s murder. That document, National Security Council directive 10/2, on June 18, 1948, “gave the highest sanction of the [U.S.] government to a broad range of covert operations” — propaganda, sabotage, economic warfare, subversion of all kinds — that were seen as necessary to “win” the Cold War against the Communists.
    In the 1950s, under the leadership of CIA Director Allen Dulles, the doctrine of “plausible deniability” became the CIA’s green light to assassinate national leaders, conduct secret military operations, and overthrow governments that our government thought were on the wrong side in the Cold War. “Plausible deniability” meant our intelligence agencies, acting as paramilitary groups, had to lie and cover their tracks so effectively that there would be no trace of U.S. government responsibility for criminal activities on an ever-widening scale.



    We are getting a combination of ‘argument vebosium’ and ‘argument from authority’ here. Fetzer has written all of these articles. He has shown us ‘where to go’ to get his argument made “clearer”. 
    These are the same types of chump-apples he offered during the 9/11 debates on your blog. And one can spend gawdawful hours sorting through all of this oink to finally hit the moneymaker — that it is an op.
    I know you think I am speaking “personalities”…but I am talking about a known and detailed MO that this guy has. And it’s going to piss me off to a high lather if this turns out as I think it does – having seen another version of this movie before.
    — email to Craig today

    Well it seems that Craig is censoring my comments – three so far:

    DECEMBER 13, 2013 – 5:20 PM
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Ruffadam makes some good points on December 13, 2013 – 2:47 PM.

    I recall years ago, before digital editing became common, reading an article that was illustrated with visual references to the points being made, that showed some very clumsy “painting” on several frames. Some of it was of Jackie’s face, and the ‘blob’ at Kennedy’s right temple area. And these were from the National Archives.

    So the Z-film has had controversy from at leas that far back. But the stuff detailed was obviously amateur faking. There was none of this high-class stuff we are talking about today.

    Something tells me Adam is on to something here, about this new imagery being perhaps the work of others with newer more sophisticated tools. There is something fishy about this whole expedition. If a agitprop campaign is being waged, it would be something of deep complexity like were are facing with this situation.

    Yes, maybe “the government” is behind this — but in a far different manner than we are being led to believe. {???} I have problems and suspicions about this…

    Some of it has to do with ‘anonymous sources’ who are said to have seen some entirely different film. Hearsay always puts up a red flag for me. And certain “known” sources raise those red flags as well.
    . . . . . . . . .
    DECEMBER 13, 2013 – 5:45 PM
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    “And is there some point at which you are actually going to address the proofs that the film has been altered instead of distracting and baseless questions about the chain of custody?”~Fetzer

    Since when is chain of custody a “baseless question”? Unless that is known we have no way to tell who made these alterations. The point is that we can suppose that there was early alterations made in the 60s, before anyone had seen the film. But we have no way of knowing what further alterations may have taken place later, when digital editing became so ubiquitous . That is the problem with all of this web stuff and YouTubes. We are NOT looking at original film footage – we are looking at things ANYBODY could have made…
    Like that missile hitting the Pentagon that was such a rage for a time.
    . . . . . . . .
    DECEMBER 12, 2013 – 10:33 PM
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    Dennis asks this question of Fetzer,
    “let’s assume that everything you say in the article and links above are true and accurate, “what the *uck are you gonna DO about it?”

    I think I know the answer to that, and as cynical as it may seem, it is true – whether it is his only motivation is only for Fetzer to know. But Fetzer is a professional conspiracy theorist, and what he is going to do is make money on it. That is what he does, through book sales, writing articles, doing radio, etc. And for that it doesn’t even have to be true and accurate it just has to be new and plausible.

    But to be fair, Groden and others are doing the same thing, their pros. It is the professional disputes that we read so much about when trying to figure these things out. I spent hours going through Costella’s page on his analysis of the Z-film…almost the whole thing was addressed to “the Gang” with large doses of ridicule — it gave me heartburn.

    I have one last thing to say on this thread, and I’m out until next topic. I have been accused of ‘childish behavior’ by our champion conspiracy theorist here. Anyone with an extant knowledge of his argumentation in disputes throughout the blogosphere knows very well that this is a matter of the pot calling the kettle black. Anyone who has read past Truth and Shadows Threads understands this as well.

    I suspect that the Z-film is fraudulent in some manner. But I am not going to be part of this dialog, that I see as an attempt to rehabilitate Fetzer as a genuine truth seeker. Even a conman will sell quality merchandise from time to time.

    And I want to say clearly that none of my remarks here are meant to reflect on Mr McKee, who I do see as a genuine person and truth seeker.
    . .. . . .


    • Well just as I went back to the Truth and Shadows “Fetzer thread”, I found that Craig had actually posted my two later ones – just not the last comment I ended with, which is still under moderation. That is okay…sorta


  4. “Craig, I think that anyone who resorts to crude ad hominems and views “Bullshit!” as an argument has no place on a civilized forum. I have not said a word about him until now, but I regard him as a disgrace to “Truth and Shadows”, which is for adults, not children.”
    ~James Henry Fetzer – DECEMBER 10, 2013 – 10:34 PM

    “Well, I am hardly surprised that someone like you would want to play a game.. ”
    “It is unsurprising that Ruffadam and this other person would cling to something that is sufficiently intangible they can attempt to make a case, even when that case has no basis in fact.”~Jim Fetzer – DECEMBER 13, 2013 – 8:20 PM

    And this, directed to my comment just above it at DECEMBER 13, 2013 – 8:17 PM:

    “I have explained all of this–and only a nitwit or a shill would post a comment of the inferior quality of those coming from this despicable source.”~Jim Fetzer – DECEMBER 13, 2013 – 8:50 PM


  5. The Complexity of Faking the Zapruder Film

    Creating a blue screen composite image STARTS by photographing a subject in front of an evenly lit, bright, pure blue (or green) background.

    Does anyone here grasp the significance of this fact of special effects? Because what is being asserted here is that these shots were starting with a full composition of elements in the shot. This complicates the procedure significantly. One has to now go in and REMOVE elements. This entails creating masks for all moving objects in the field of vision.

    For instance, the car and occupants – both Kennedy and Jackie are above the edge of the open limo. So creating a mask of the moving car is one thing in itself – but you also have the portions of the people in the car moving in their various positions.

    To create a successful effect, you have to create a mask of all of the movement in the foreground action that is then used to lay over and create a blockage of the background – so that it does not ‘bleed through’ the images in the foreground. This would be the street, the curb, and the people moving around in the grassy area, as well as the grass background. If this mask isn’t perfect, you will see the background movement in the objects in the foreground. The edges have to be perfect or parts of the people in the foreground will be cut-off.

    So it must be understood that ‘blue screen’ is not a possibility for this sequence. The mask has to be hand done, one frame at a time. You have to make a silhouette of the whole of the car and occupants. The next step is to use this mask to make a shot of the background with this blanked out area traveling along in front of it. So you are now, two generations away before you make your final pass of adding the car and occupants over the prepared background. That is three generations of added grain to your shot.

    This is not to say that I do not think the footage was doctored in some areas. What I am trying to do is to give some indication of the technical difficulties in achieving what is being asserted.

    You have a lot of incidental movement in both the foreground and background to deal with.

    The Technique of Special Effects Cinematography Raymond Fielding’s classic


    Douglas Horne, who served as the Senior Analyst for Military Affairs of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), a five-member civilian panel that Congress entrusted with the authority to declassify documents and records related to the death of JFK held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government agencies, where only the President could over-ride its decisions, recently published INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), a five-volume study of the efforts of the board to declassify documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, the Secret Service, and other government organizations related to the assassination of JFK.
    (2009); on Wednesday,  24 February 2010, “Post-Mortem Surgery”, “Witnesses were Present”, “Humes and Boswell Lied”, and “How to Sort Things Out”; and then again on Wednesday, 31 March 2010, on.

    As a former government official, historian, and author, he is speaking out to disabuse the public of any lingering belief that THE WARREN REPORT (1964), THE HSCA FINAL REPORT (1979), Gerald Posner’s CASE CLOSED (1963), or Vincent Bugliosi’s RECLAIMING HISTORY (2007) represent the truth about what is known about the assassination of our 35th president, even remotely! Indeed, in relation to a new article, “Birds of a Feather: Subverting the Constitution at Harvard Law”, Horne has made a forceful declaration to set the record straight:
    “I know, from my former role as a government official on the staff of the ARRB (from 1995–1998), that there is overwhelming evidence of a government-directed medical cover-up in the death of JFK, and of wholesale destruction of autopsy photographs, autopsy x-rays, early versions of the autopsy report, and biological materials associated with the autopsy. Furthermore, dishonest autopsy photographs were created; skull x-rays were altered; the contents of the autopsy report changed over time as different versions were produced; and the brain photographs in the National Archives cannot be photographs of President Kennedy’s brain—they are fraudulent, substitute images of someone else’s brain.”
    Over and beyond the medical evidence, however, Horne—in Vol. IV of INSIDE THE ARRB (2009), has also demonstrated that the home movie of the assassination known as “the Zapruder film”—and others that correspond to it, such as the Nix and Muchmore films—have been massively edited to remove indications of Secret Service complicity in the crime and to add other events to these films in order to sow confusion and conceal evidence of the true causes of death of John F. Kennedy. For those unfamiliar with this question, see “Kennedy Assassination Questions”, in which I explain how even the consistent testimony of Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who rushed forward to assist Jackie during the shooting in Dealey Plaza, confirms it. {Fetzer}
    INSIDE THE ARRB, Vol. IV, pages 1226 and 1227:
    “Analysis: First of all, we can now say with certainty that the NPIC never copied the Zapruder film as a motion picture, even though for years the NPIC notes had mislead some researchers into believing that it had. However, Homer McMahon’s rock-solid certainty that the film brought to him was an original, unslit 16 mm wide, double 8 movie—and that it came from a classified CIA photo lab run by Kodak at Rochester—implies that McMahon and Hunter were not working with the true camera original developed in Dallas, but were instead working with a re-created, altered film masquerading as ‘the original.’ I suspected in 1997, and I am more certain than ever today at this writing in 2009, that ‘Bill Smith’ told the truth when he said that the film he couriered to NPIC was developed in Rochester—after all, how could he possible make a mistake about something so elementary, since he brought it from Rochester to Washington, D.C. himself? He was only lying about one thing: it could not have been the original film exposed inside Abe Zapruder’s camera, because we know from the Dallas Affidavit trail, and from the interviews Rollie Zavada conducted with the surviving personnel from the Dallas Kodak lab, that the original film was indeed developed in Dallas on Friday, November 22, 1963. If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated ‘original’ created with an optical printer at the CIA’s secret film lab in Rochester.”~Doug Horne


  7. “I’m just a patsy.” ~Lee Harvey Oswald

    “This fellow Kellerman … he was about as loyal a man as you could find. But he was about as dumb as an ox.” ~LBJ

    “Most of the people writing conspiracy theory books don’t make any sense to me. If they are not going to deal with facts, then I don’t want anything to do with it.” ~Clint Hill [on C-SPAN with Gerald Blaine]

    “I rode with Kennedy every time he rode [in the Tampa motorcade]. I heard no such order [to remove Agents from the rear bumper]. As I remember it the agents rode on the rear bumper all the way. Kennedy was very happy during his visit to Tampa.” ~Handwritten note from Congressman Sam Gibbons for Vince Palamara, dated Jan 15, 2004

    Frank G. Stoner on January 17, 2004:
    … former agent Stoner, who served in the Secret Service from January 1945 until 1969, said that Manchester was “probably trying to sell books” when he suggested that Kennedy ordered the agents off the back of the limousine. In fact, the 84-year-old former agent laughed at the mere suggestion. Stoner also agreed with several of his colleagues that JFK was “very personable”: “He was an old Navy man. He understood security. He wouldn’t have ordered them off the car.” – [Survivor’s Guilt, page 36]

    See: Secret Service Protocol, below:

    “The Secret Service did not canvas buildings beforehand. They didn’t insist windows along the motorcade route be closed. They didn’t warn building owners how to handle strangers. They didn’t scan the building roofs with a helicopter. They didn’t use all the available manpower. [Nineteen on-duty Dallas Deputy Sheriffs listed in the Warren Commission Exhibits were close enough to the assassination to hear the gunshots of JFK’s assassination, but not one of them was assigned to JFK’s security.]

    The Secret Service did not keep spectators off the bridge that the limo was going under at the end of Elm Street. They choose a dubious route to the Trade Mart (going down Elm Street) when an alternate, safer route was just just as direct. The Secret Service agents said they were scanning the windows of buildings yet not one of the 16 agents in the motorcade saw what a number of untrained witnesses in a sparse crowd saw: a gun barrel sticking out the window in the TSBD.”


  8. “Those CIA bastards…I’ll get them if it’s the last thing I do.”~John F. Kennedy

    See: Joan Mellen – A FAREWELL TO JUSTICE
    Many would likely say, “too bad, the CIA got JFK first”. But that would be to truncate history, which in fact is still in progress. And that progression has shown that Kennedy DID get the CIA, that he is getting them still posthumously, because researchers have dug up enough evidential material on the Assassination as to prove conclusively that it was a CIA operation and a coup d’etat.

    There are important caveats that delve into a deeper milieu, and that is that the CIA is actually an extension of Wall Street {lawyers-bankers nexus”}, and it is this matrix which is revealed as a larger global conglomerate; and the Orwellian New World Order, wherein the meme of ‘nation states’ is merely theater in a global production by the Central Banking Cartel.~ww

    David Bruce
    “In an attempt to help Truman define the new intelligence agency that was being proposed by James Donovan, Allen Dulles and James Forrestal, Bruce published an article in the Summer 1946 issue of the Virginia Quarterly Review. It was titled “The National Intelligence Authority.”
    Bruce is emphatic. He asserts that the function of the new agency under consideration should be the “procurement and evaluation of information of major importance.” Such efforts, Bruce wrote, would produce “jewels, the precious gems of intelligence.” Bruce lamented that the intelligence division of the Navy had “always occupied a position well below the salt,” a locution he borrowed from Henry VIII. To sit at table below the salt was not an influential place to be. Over the years it would be Admirals and officers of the Navy who would chastise CIA for its many illegal and criminal activities. Bruce came to fear that CIA might evolve into what he called an “American Gestapo.”
    Bruce’s caution regarding a “national intelligence authority” was prescient. Within a year, Allen Dulles had commandeered the diplomat George Kennan, who had served in Moscow during the war, in 1948 to write a National Security Directive, known as 10/2. Famously, 10/2 enabled CIA to behave like the “American Gestapo” David Bruce had feared it might become. President Truman’s first Director of Central Intelligence, Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter, believed that even CIA’s use of psychological warfare required Congressional authorization.
    No matter, 10/2 afforded to CIA powers that ranged from black propaganda, murder, assassination, and a multitude of lesser illegalities, crimes and misdemeanors that included the very psychological warfare that Admiral Hillenkoetter believed should require the approval of Congress.
    Dulles, Kennan, Gladio
    CIA was granted the power to engage in “propaganda; economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolitions, and evaluative measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance movements, guerrillas and refugee liberation groups.” Paramilitary and terrorist methods were from the start acceptable as part of covert political warfare.
    Years later, Kennan was contrite: Testifying before the Church committee, he said: “It did not work out at all the way I had conceived it…I regret to say operations of this nature are not in character for this country.” (Today, of course, they are the defining norm). In 1989 Kennan told a biographer that his authorship of 10/2 was “the greatest mistake I ever made.”
    By the time George Kennan wrote up National Security Council directive 10/2, CIA had already begun OPERATION GLADIO subverting the elections in Italy, and seeing to it that the Christian Democrats defeated a coalition of socialists and Communists. GLADIO included paramilitary operations, “black bag” operations, and the enlistment of veterans of Mussolini’s secret police, joined by Mafia stalwarts.
    CIA chief counsel Lawrence Houston told Admiral Hillenkoetter, who had raised questions about the legality of GLADIO, “You do not have the authority.” Although Allen Dulles was not employed officially by the Agency until 1951, we can see how influential he was in shaping the identity of CIA. In 1992 a CIA apologist named F. Mark Wyatt would justify Operation GLADIO as having “save[d]” the Italians even if it meant “going beyond our charter.” 10/2 rendered GLADIO legal.

    “In September 1948, Frank Wisner requested the “cooperation and assistance of the FBI,” promising to keep the FBI informed of CIA’s domestic activities. “Going back to OSS days,” James Angleton admitted to the Church committee in 1975, “we’ve had operations that were domestic.” CIA never was what David Bruce had suggested it should be: an organization dedicated to the collection of foreign intelligence.

    President Eisenhower appointed General James Doolittle, a pilot famous for having bombed Japan in 1942 in retaliation for Pearl Harbor, to write a “Report on the Covert Activities of the Central Intelligence Agency.”
    In 1954, Doolittle produced a 69 page text written “with the very active support and cooperation of Allen Dulles.” The import of the text was that CIA should enjoy carte blanche, financial and otherwise.
    “Hitherto acceptable norms of human conduct do not apply,” Doolittle wrote. He argued that American history was “stained with blood” and that America had been created by “fundamentally repugnant wars” such as Indian wars, the American Revolution, the Mexican War and the Civil War. The CIA-engineered wars were no different.

    Appalled by the Doolittle report, Eisenhower appointed a Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities. To this committee, he appointed the aforementioned David K. E. Bruce. Then Eisenhower re-assigned this task of writing a report on the clandestine services to David Bruce, whom he was about to appoint to be Ambassador to Germany.
    The Bruce-Lovett Report (Robert Lovett, Truman’s Secretary of Defense worked on the report with Bruce) is devastating in its condemnation of the clandestine services. Bruce excoriates “the increasing mingling in the internal affairs of other nations” by CIA in its “King-making propensities” and its “rogue elephant” operations. He corrects the Cold War mythology about the Soviets, to noting that the Soviet Union, which had lost twenty-eight million people to Hitler, was less about expansion than about survival. Then Bruce argues that under the guise of “frustrating the Soviets, almost any [covert] action can be and is being justified.”
    Bruce deplores CIA secrecy. “No one, other than those in the CIA immediately concerned with their day-to-day operations, has any detailed knowledge of what is going on,” he wrote. Meanwhile – and this was something President Kennedy would oppose too, CIA was enjoying “almost unilateral influence…on the actual formulation of our foreign policies.” Ambassador Bruce knew from his own experience that CIA’s activities were “sometimes completely unknown to the Ambassador or anyone.”
    He adds that supporters of George Kennan’s 10/2 “could not possibly have foreseen the ramifications of the operations which have resulted from it.” The Directorate for Plans was operating “on an autonomous and free-wheeling basis in highly critical areas,” its actions “in direct conflict with the normal operations being carried out by the Department of State.”
    Bruce concluded that CIA’s clandestine services had led America to a “virtual abandonment of the international golden rule” and were “responsible for stirring up the turmoil and raising the doubts about us that exist in many countries of the world today.” He could have been thinking of the Islamist movement day when he asked: “Where will we be tomorrow?

    This document, dated February 10, 1992, is from J. Kenneth McDonald, then the Chief of CIA’s History Review Group. It’s part of the result of the history staff’s survey of CIA records from the House Select Committee. On page two, under number 7, “CIA Complicity?” while denying “any CIA involvement with Oswald,” CIA includes the following: “These records reveal, however, that Clay Shaw was a highly paid CIA contract source until 1956.” (Another CIA document, more accurate with regard to the end date of Shaw’s service, and dated June 28, 1978, describes Clay Shaw’s service to CIA as running from 1949 through 1972. This document emerged from the Office of Security, that most sensitive of CIA components).
    It is irrefutable that Shaw did for Oswald in New Orleans what George de Mohrenschildt, that international man for sale, did in Dallas and Fort Worth. Two large CIA Office of Security files resting at the National Archives are of interest in this regard. They date from 1967 and are brimming with more than two hundred documents and photocopies of clippings pertaining to the Garrison case and Clay Shaw. The file jackets, however, are not marked “Garrison” or Shaw.” Instead they read: “George de Mohrenschildt.” It is in the Garrison investigation that CIA left ineradicable footprints.

    Just to complete the point, and these facts have long been part of the record, J. Walton Moore, who headed up the Dallas field office of CIA, was the person who recruited George de Mohrenschildt to, in de Mohrenschildt’s words, “keep tabs on” Oswald. Moore had long been acquainted with de Mohrenschildt as the recipient of de Mohrenschildt’s reports for the International Cooperation Administration, a CIA entity abroad. We know, famously, from Victor Marchetti’s revelation, Richard Helms’ remark, are we doing enough for that guy down there? referring to Shaw, that Shaw was well known to at least two CIA components, the clandestine services and also the Office of Security.”~Mellen


    • The US Secret Service is under the Department of Treasury. Their two most important tasks are to investigate counterfeiting and to protect the President.

      The Department of Treasury is under the control of the private Federal Reserve and IRS. Kennedy had just issued billions of government backed Treasury dollars.
      The stance of the FED is that the President has no authority to go against their policy.
      So this cabal in direct control of the Central Bankers had as much motive as the other parts of the corporatist system to approve a hit on JFK. The consensus had to have been very complete for an action as extreme as the assassination of a sitting president.
      In essence November 22, 1963 was a systemic hit and coup d’etat.

  9. The assertion that powerful men and groups join together in private to plan and create a system that they retain power over is disputed by those who cannot see this obvious situation and call it “Conspiracism”, a conscious slur and epithet made in derision.

    They are pretenders, liars and dupes of the PR that the system drowns the minds of the population in. They can be referred to as TVZombies, Homo Vishnu Ignoramus, or any other moniker that describes this prefab automaton service widget for the System. The vast sea of humanity roils and foams with these enchanted creatures.

    A tempest of madness stirs.

    • “Tragedy” conveys a sense of ‘fate’, of fragility in human nature. It means a goat’s play; foolishness, jejune, juvenile.

      “Crime” is altogether different, malum in se, a crime with a perpetrator and victim. It is vicious, based in bad intent, the victim bears no blame.


  10. CIA Document 1035-960: Foundation of a Weaponized Term

    “Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate. Especially in the United States raising legitimate questions about dubious official narratives destined to inform public opinion (and thereby public policy) is a major thought crime that must be cauterized from the public psyche at all costs.”~James Tracy


    • COINTELPRO (an acronym for COunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and at times illegal,[1][2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveying, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting domestic political organizations.[3] National Security Agency operation Project MINARET targeted the personal communications of leading civil rights leaders, Americans who criticized the Vietnam War, including Senators (e.g., Frank Church and Howard Baker), journalists, and athletes.[4][5]

      The official COINTELPRO label took place between 1956 and 1971.[6][7] The FBI’s stated motivation was “protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order.”[8]

  11. “I feel your pain..” ~Slick Willy Clinton.

    Unsaid was, ‘I like it, it makes me feel powerful, strong and above you sniveling dogs’. His whole blablabla is empty feel-good rhetoric to appease the masses, dialog on a teleprompter designed by masters at PR.

    Clinton is just another toadyboy for the high oligarchy, the Central Banking Cabal.

    No one joins the club of those granted the appearance of power, the actors orating the official line of the script of power. The “service intellectual”, as James Tracy calls them.

  12. Half a century ago today, the Warren Commission released its comprehensive 888-page report, concluding that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating President John F. Kennedy. Since then, exhaustive investigations, such as those by Gerald Posner (Case Closed, 2002) and especially Vincent Bugliosi (Reclaiming History, 2007) have backed up that original finding: Oswald acted alone. Nevertheless, according to a 2009 CBS News poll, between 60 and 80 percent of Americans believe that President Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy; that is, that there was more than one shooter in Dealy Plaza that November day in 1963.”Michael Shermer – TIME magazine 9/24/2014

    Shermer is one of the most infamous shills for the establishment pissing on “conspiracy theory”.


    The Warren Commission Report is so full of holes you could drive a bullet riddled limo through it.

  13. THE GRAND SYSTEMIC CONSPIRACY is hardly just a “theory”, it is standing before you, right before your eyes. It is only your PR manufactured incredulity that keeps you from seeing it.

  14. So in just a few short days it will be FIFTY ONE YEARS since the coup d’etat in Dallas.

    The ramifications of that day effect and infect us to this day. If the people of this country would have been smart enough to stand up against the obvious bullshit cover story of Oswald as a “lone nut shooter”, we may have avoided ending up in this fascist maximum security state.

    Who ever knows “what might have been”?

  15. Jim Fetzer’s Campaign of Disinformation

    “Here’s a sampling of email messages I have received regarding the esteemed Dr. Fetzer.
    Careful, though…some are ugly…”~Clint Bradford

    By 1996, I had lost all faith in [Fetzer’s] integrity. He is a parasite, not a researcher. He tried to ride the medical evidence to fame, but was frustrated by his inability to use Harrison Livingstone. He went on to find others more easily manipulated, and picked Zapruder alteration as his new “cause.”

    For all of his talk of science, he told one researcher that he begins by deciding what is the truth, and then marshals evidence (selectively) to support that “truth.” This is the opposite of scientific method. In my opinion, Fetzer is clearly a quack, using the language of his field to advance fraudulent premises.

    Whether his motives go beyond his own inflated ego, I don’t know, but he has done considerable damage by his glory-seeking con-artist parody of JFK research.

    I would think a serious researcher of the case would be embarrassed NOT to be on Fetzer’s “disinformation” list.

    Fetzer is a playground bully, using his academic credentials and his aggressive approach to intimidate those who question his “expertise.” Like a bully, he responds with assaults, then cowardice when someone refuses to be intimidated, and demolishes his absurd claims.

    [Fetzer] seems to have convinced a growing core of people that “he may have something,” using his usual smoke and mirrors, and the phony pretense of science. Insane? No. I believe he is an unscrupulous opportunist, a sociopath unconcerned about what damage he does.

    Fetzer’s article – “Signs of Disinformation” – is a perfect example of Fetzer’s tactics:
    1) He provides the reader with the Fetzer definition of disinformation, without regard to any form of reality.

    2) He avoids direct accusation, but seeks to tar his critics with vague smears: “who may or may not be gainfully employed by some ‘shadowy government agency’.”

    3) He reports their claims are “too strong to be true.” In other words, if a position (like “Fetzer is peddling nonsense”) is stated strongly, that is a “sign of disinformation.” How convenient. You are only NOT a disinformationalist if you are as vague and slippery as Fetzer, apparently.

    4) An “unrelentingly negative” review seems to be another “sign of disinformation.” If something is crap, an unrelentingly negative review seems like a reasonable response.

    5) He describes “The Innocent Man Script” (which I’ve never heard of) and his own book (without mentioning it is his) as “fascinating works, in my view, that contribute considerably to illuminating” the case…

    6) Josiah Thompson’s criticism of Murder in Dealey Plaza is characterized as “trashing.”

    7) He associates himself with the idea of a rear exit wound, as though a great many of his critics don’t also believe this, and then adds his own phony conclusions as though they were natural consequences of the first premise: that the brain “cannot be the brain of JFK, and the X-rays from the autopsy must have been fabricated.” These are things which don’t necessarily follow, but he presents them as though they are inevitable. He then ignores all previous work, and attrubutes all this to his earlier book, Assassination Science (again not identifying it as his own book).

    8) He then states triumphantly that “the former has nine contributors, the latter eleven,” as though the number of contributors has the slightest thing to do with the credibility of the two books. He compounds this nonsense by asking “How likely is it that noe of the work of these contributors is meritorious, save for that of someone with whom he associates?” In fact, association with Fetzer may be an indicator of “lack or meritorious” work, though he does mix in some good work with the amazing crap. He later addresses this approach as though it were something being done by others, not him. In reality, if ten people write junk articles, and they are collected in a book, the fact there are ten of them has nothing to do with the quality of book. It is still junk.

    9) He then says “Consider the source,” but proceeds not to talk about any source. Presumably he means the reader to dismiss Josiah Thompson, the “source” previously mentioned.

    10) He states that “the object so disinformation is less to convince anyone of the false than it is to create a set of conditions under which everything can be believed but nothing can be known.” Fetzer has accused me in the past, after I had stated a string of things that I indicated very definitely could be known, of arguing that “nothing could be known.” It had no relation to what I had said, but fitted his image of his critics, so it didn’t matter whether I had said anything that supported the claim – he knew it must be true, so he stated it as a fact. It is, in fact, people like Fetzer who are sowing confusion about what can be known, by tossing out cascades of red herrings, resuscitating discredited theories like the Bill Cooper “Greer shot JFK,” and manufacturing new nonsense to add to the confusion.

    11) He then targets Posner – none easier – and it gives him a chance to imply that all of his critics are “Posners,” … even though most of us dismantled Posner long before Fetzer did.

    12) He indicates the need to go back to the basic evidence, but then argues that the basic evidence has been forged. His stated intent is to “reconstruct the case from the bottom up.” Without the basic evidence, of course, we are to begin by going back to the basic evidence and throwing it out.

    13) He again praises his own books without mentioning they are his books, and proceeds to greatly inflate their importance. They “are threatening to those who oppose the discovery of truth because they take us back to the basics in order to sort out what evidence is authentic and what is not.” NOT, it seems, includes the films, photographs and autopsy evidence pretty much in toto.” They thereby enable us to know what is credible and worthy of belief” (Fetzer certified) “and what is not” (inconvenient to Fetzer’s claims).

    14) Although Peter Dale Scott has raised no objection to the name of Walt Brown’s journal, Fetzer has the effrontery to do so in Peter’s behalf. The journal is critical of Fetzer, and thus tarnishes “the name of Peter Dale Scott.”

    15) “Notice…..” what Fetzer wants you to think. “Notice…..” how Fetzer wants you to assume what he’s saying has a sinister connotation, such as Tink praising Gary Mack (who Fetzer’s crowd wants to paint as an evil tool of The Sixth Floor Museum “crowd”) or something by Todd Vaughan (who has done some good work, though we disagree on many things) or encourages Walt Brown (whom Fetzer has already “explained” is peddling disinformation).

    16) He then throws out four other names without any details, saying they have “an axe to grind.” Notice that, he says. That would be Clint, myself, Barb and Pamela Brown (apparently he doesn’t like her exposure of Doug Weldon’s sloppy work on the limo). Anyone who doesn’t buy his crap has “an axe to grind.”

    17) “Notice when claims are too strong to be true.” After saying disinformation seeks to create “a state of confusion,” he now says anyone making a strong claim should be suspected of disinformation. “too strong to be true”? What exactly does that mean? To quote a song, “Absolutely nothing.” Fetzer uses a lot of those phrases that sound profound and mean nothing. Something learned in the academic wars, one would assume.

    18) “Notice,” he says, when “sources are not cited” – an easy way to discredit newsgroup postings, and sources are often not cited – one needs only to apply the criticism to the posts with which one disagrees. If sources ARE cited, Fetzer just ignores them, thus having it both ways.

    19) “Notice when….quotations are taken out of context” (as defined by Fetzer) “edited selectively” (ditto) “or words removed” (note that he imples any removal of words is suspicious, though often words are removed to shorten something WITHOUT altering the meaning of what is cited, merely to remove extraneous material). “These are signs,” he tells us.

    20) Then he backtracks. Wouldn’t want anyone to think he was making a libelous allegation: “I am not suggesting that any of them works for the NSA, the CIA for the FBI” and “I have no idea why they are doing what they are doing.” They couldn’t be criticizing Fetzer because he is totally full of shit, because that’s not within the range of acceptable possibilities for him. After all, he’s “revealing the truth.” If the subject matter were different, this would be a religious cult.

    21) Then some more obfuscatory phrasing: “there are ample grounds based on past experience eo believe they are abusing logic and language to mislead and deceive others about the state of research on the death of JFK.” What grounds? Whose past experience? Any sources cited? Nope, though failure to cite sources is one of Fetzer’s proclaimed “signs of disinformation.” Of course, if he cites sources, he has to make specific allegations against people, and perhaps open himself to legal action, something he’s careful to avoid. He says only “On the basis of my experience with them, I believe this is deliberate.” That must the the “past experience” he mentioned–experience being criticized by the folks mentioned. “Their function appears to me to be obfuscation”–again the careful phrasing, “appears to me to be.” No libel there, just an opinion.

    22) His next paragraph implies that all of those cited are conspiring against him. “They seem to have a lot of interaction.” His evidence? Bradford cited Thompson on his website.

    23) Then another wild and spurious accusation: “It repeats the absurd suggestion that those who are most qualified have no more to contribute than those who are least qualified.” This claim, previously made on the newsgroups, takes a lot of chutzpah–it is, after all, Fetzer who is making the ridiculous claim that David Mantik (a physician) is “the world authority on the Zapruder film,” elevating Jack White (with a background in advertising) to the position of expert photo analyst, and making other such bizarre claims, while dismissing authentic experts like Roland Zavada as lacking in credibility. Taking this baloney as proven simply by being stated, he goes on to draw conclusions from it, and tie it in to the tactics (his own) which he is projecting onto others.

    24) “If the least simpleton should be taken as seriously as the most distinguished scholar” (close to Fetzer’s own work) “then there is nothing for them to fear.” In fact, it is Fetzer who is fleeing from real expertise, and elevating people with llittle or no background in the fields where he proclaims them “leading authorities,” with the exception of Robert Livingston. He says “Even the most important discoveries” (presumably the junk science he is championing) “can be readily discounted merely by denial” (a nice way to avoid confronting the fact those claims have been blasted to scrap by the evidence).

    25) He then adds the non-sequiter: “But perhaps that’s what we ought to expect from someone who graduated from Yale.” This is another sleazy Fetzerism. To those who know many CIA people are Yalies, he is impying that Thompson is “one of them.”

    26) “There is a serious disinformation movement afoot.” Yep, he’s leading it, and the best defense is a good offense.

    27) His ego then soars again, “one that finds the work of those they attack to be to good to ignore.” Please.

    28) He then cites Tink as “perhaps the best” example of disinformation.

    29) He closes with a call to arms against his critics: “Let us all do our best to expose and combat it” (criticism of Fetzer and his claims, that is). “The cause of justice demands no less.” Of course it does, Jim. How can “justice” prevail if his bullshit isn’t accepted as the received wisdom of the case?


    • I have been thinking of Fetzer ever since T&S had that anniversary special with Fetzer’s Zapruder film alteration hypothesis. Especially as this theory puts the timeline of the shots in question. A lot of analysis relies on the timeline found on the Zapruder film.

      I am concerned because of Fetzer’s MO in the 9/11 case; many of the comments above express what I have found to be true of Fetzer: a tireless self promoter, arrogant and nasty with those who disagree with him, a lack of understanding some very basic science, and on and on. He is certainly an opportunist and a quack salesman for many screwy ideas on 9/11 – why should he be trusted in the JFK arena?

      It got to the point on the T&S thread that I came to accept some of the hypothesis offered, not Fetzer’s, but some of the analysts he was promoting. Looking back now, maybe I made a mistake there.

      More on the issue here:

      • I have run Fetzer through the wringer many times on 9\11 threads. literally put his back up against the wall in proving he hadn’t the slightest comprehension of applied physics.There are certain things people can say that put permanent cleat marks as ever visible scars on their tongues. Fetzer did that by claiming that an object at rest can have the property of vector and momentum. That is so utterly stupid that it instantly dismisses one from the class with an F.

        As hard as it may be to accept that a guy with a PhD in ‘Philosophy of Science’ can be that clueless in 101 physics, it is proven so. Therein is the suspicion that Fetzer is a TOTAL FRAUD and didn’t write his own papers for university … ghost written by others who were ship dipping this mole.

        The only thing Fetzer excels at is the art of Public Relations and spurious rhetoric.

        Fetzer spent weeks on T&S misinterpreting Newton; confusing Newton’s general theory of relativity [to do with objects in the vacuum of weightless space] with his special theory of relativity as given in the frame of a planet with gravity and the resistance (drag) due to air pressure.

        This is the root of where his assertion that “batting the plane with the building would have the same results as the plane hitting the building” – true in a weightless environment like space – not true on Earth with its gravity and atmosphere. It is the building’s attachment to the planet via foundations that give it the state of inertia at rest. The only movement possible, other than collision by a moving object or earthquakes, is the concurrent movement with the planet as it spins.

        This is not rocket science here, it is 99% common sense! I explained these things carefully to the blog and to Fetzer, and he still tried to blubber his way through rebutting me. But it was close on the heels of that debate that he virtually disappeared from T&S.

        That is until the thread on JFK and the Z-Film that was why Fetzer is brought up here.


      • In a recent email to me, Professor Fetzer wrote:

        “A study that appears in ASSASSINATION SCIENCE [states that] the film appears to have been in the hands of the National Photographic Interpretation Center run by the CIA already Friday night, where an original and three copies were struck and then returned to Dallas in time for a small group of reporters, including Dan Rather, to view the film in a preliminarily-edited version.”

        The study referred to is by Mike Pincher and Roy L. Schaeffer. These writers manufacture out of whole cloth a flight of “at least the original and one copy” from Dallas to Andrews Air Force Base on the night of the 22nd and a return flight of the altered film to Dallas in the early morning hours of November 23rd. They do this without a single fact to support their fancy. They even cite the Max Phillips note (quoted above), but never tell the reader that Phillips also pointed out that “Mr. Zapruder is in custody of the ‘master’ [read ‘original’] film.”

        They – and apparently Professor Fetzer – have simply misinterpreted the socalled “CIA 450 Documents” discovered by Paul Hoch in the early 1980s.

        These documents recount the preparation of four photo briefing boards for government officials based upon NPIC’s analysis of the film. The question at issue is the timing of the shots. The selection of frames for the briefing boards makes clear that NPIC is looking at the same film we see today.

        Telltale information is found on page six of the documents which refer to the December 6, 1963 issue of LIFE. Hence, the examination was carried out not on November 22nd – but sometime in December 1963. The copy of the film analyzed was the Secret Service copy, whose agents stayed with the film while the briefing boards were prepared. AARB located and interviewed two former employees of NPIC who stated that internegatives were made of only single frames to be mounted on briefing boards and that they never “reproduced the film as a motion picture.” ~Josiah Thompson, 11/98

  16. I am not going to address this on the current T&S thread because Bridges is likely already choking on a door-nob over the number of comments I have made there.

    But Craig said something on the previous thread to do with him understanding how I feel about Jim Fetzer.

    The truth is I have no ‘feelings’ about Fetzer one way or the other. I have thoughts about his assertions, and disdain his spurious methods of argumentation. I do consider him in the main to be a charlatan, a fraud, and pretender. But these thoughts have nothing to do with my emotional response to Fetzer. They have to do with my analysis and reason when applied to what he has produced.

    I know the 9\11 material more deeply than the JFK after spending the last 14 plus years dedicated to 9\11 study, and it is in this arena that I see Fetzer as a disinforment. A blatant one!

    • Yes, “slowed down” – BUT no complete stop! The same thing is indicated in all three films when closely examined.

  17. In none of the three most well known videos of the JFK assassination does the limo come to a complete stop; that is the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films.

    So we have this hyperbolic hypothesis that the Zapruder film was essentially ‘remade’ almost in toto. To what purpose? If it were to hide the fact that the limo came to a standstill in front of the Grassy Knoll, then it must also be asserted that the other two films have been altered. Where is that concurrent analysis?

    I do not buy the totality argument put forth by the Fetzer cabal. I don’t see anomalies in any of the surface details, It is said there is monkey business with the blood spray (perhaps sloppy animation) Although it is from an different POV, from the opposite side of the street; the Muchmore film has no dramatic blood spray at the time of the shot. The same seems to hold true for the Nix footage.
    [NOTE: Upon further investigation I don’t think there are any anomalies in the surface details either — certainly not the blood spray – and closer inspection of the Nix film, a better quality one, does have the blood spray but the POV does not lend prominence to it.]
    . . . . . . . . . . . .

    On the other side of the fence, it is discovered that the analysis by Zavada for the ARRB that the actual “Direct from Camera” Zapruder film was not available for study – being in the possession of the Zapruter family. Zavada examined the LIFE magazine ‘first first off’ and two ‘first-off’ copies held by the Secret Service. One of the SS copies had been spliced and stressed by heat at various frames that was caused by halting the film to study single frames (as posited by Zavada). Zavada also presumes that this same film was spliced into “loops” for the same sort of scrutiny by the Secret Service.

    None of this however, seems to attend to the assertions made by the Festzer camp. However the date that Fetzer claims the special work was done – the night of the 22nd is disputed by the Josiah Thompson, 11/98 paper; wherein he claims that event happened “sometime in December 1963. The copy of the film analyzed was the Secret Service copy, whose agents stayed with the film while the briefing boards were prepared.” [See my entry of, November 19, 2014 at 3:31 am, above]
    * * * * * * * * *
    At this point I think that it is highly improbable that all three of these films were altered as per the claim for the Z-film.
    Therefor my working hypothesis at this time is that the limo slowed down for the fateful head-shot, but did not come to a complete stop. I doubt the ‘totality theory’ totally.

    Another note: Fetzer is claiming that since the Z-film is a fake, the other two agreeing with it must be fake as well. This is a circular argument with no material foundation. It also contradicts another contention of Fetzer’s; that the Nix film is tampered with as well, but does NOT agree with the Z-film. Trying to have it both ways and splitting it down the middle is a disingenuous position to hold.

    • Watch this one above and note, the movements of everyone; passengers, bystanders, motorcycle-men, match in each film. The limo is travelling very slowly – breaks are applied but it never comes to a stop.

      On the enhanced Nix film below we do see a spray of blood shoot up at the time of the bullet’s impact as well. Bystanders are in the way in the Muchmore film and block the exact moment of the hit.

      For myself this indicates that no frames are missing from the Zapruder film, as all of the films match in sequence and movements.


    Reading this transcript from the Garrison trial of Clay Shaw/Bertrand is just infuriating!
    All the wrangling and bullshit objections from Shaw’s lawyers sent me through the roof… I cannot imagine being Zapruder and having to go through that shit.
    Reverse engineered railroading of the prosecution to protect the fucking CIA and FBI.

  19. Enemy of the Truth, Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination
    By Sherry Fiester

    Sherry Fiester is a retired Certified Senior Crime Scene Investigator and law enforcement instructor with 30 years of experience. She has testified as a court certified expert in crime scene investigation, crime scene reconstruction, and bloodstain pattern analysis in Louisiana Federal Court and over 30 judicial districts in the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Florida. Author of numerous articles in professional publications, Fiester is recognized as an instructor in her field at state and national levels.

    Fiester has presented forensic findings at the Coalition on Political Assassinations Conference (COPA) in Washington, DC in 1995, the Dealey Plaza Echo Annual Kennedy Assassination Conference in the United Kingdom in 1996, and at JFK Lancer November in Dallas Historical Research Conferences since 1996. Fiester is a recipient of the prestigious JFK Lancer-Mary Ferrell New Pioneer Award, presented for advancing a better understanding of evidence in the Kennedy Assassination through innovative research.

    Now retired from police work, Fiester is a prominent author, lecturer, and educator. “Enemy of Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the JFK Assassination” is her first in a series of upcoming publications utilizing various forensic disciplines to address important subjects of interest to Americans in the 21st century. Her next book, “Demystifying Mind Control” is slated for release in late 2013.

    The Forensics
    “Enemy of the Truth,” by Sherry Fiester reveals compelling new information supported by the weight of scientific validity by examining assassination evidence with contemporary research and established forensic investigative techniques, including:

    The mechanics of head wound ballistics
    Utilization of high-speed photography
    Fracture sequencing studies of human skulls
    Beveling in relation to projectile directionality
    Blood spatter pattern analysis
    Target movement in gunshot injuries
    Trajectory analysis for the fatal head shot
    Written from the perspective of a court certified forensic investigator, this exceptional piece of scientific work looks the assassination as a major crime, revealing truths that meet today’s standard of evidence required to support a criminal conviction.

    • The mist of blood that is seen in the Zapruter film and claimed to be unnatural by the Fetzer crowd, is now recognized as what is called “Backspatter”, which is blood that sprays out of the entry wound as more or less a mist, and it does indeed dissipate within a split second. It proves the shot was from the front.

      According to Ms Fiester’s forensic investigation the shot came from the opposite area of the Dealy Plaza towards the triple-underpass, not the grassy knoll. This is not to say that shots did not come from knoll area. This according to modern Trajectory Reconstruction techniques.

      • “No FBI bogus fact and no Warren Commission bogus evidence is needed to establish that frame 312 and 313 display a distinctive blood spatter pattern which explains the slight forward movement and proves, together with the dramatic back and to the left subsquent movement, a fatal shot from the front.”~David S. Brown, review of “Enemy of Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the JFK Assassination” by Sherry Fiester

      • “Picture if you will the unspeakable evil of a government which would produce an intelligence operative replete with demonizable legend, position him as patsy to conceal the Jackal-like elimination of the inconvenient temporary occupant of the White House and parade an endless procession of Stephen King clowns in official drag to insist the impossible is the case: that one man with a defective weapon accomplished fantastic ballistic feats and the lack of any conspiracy dictates records will remain sealed in service to a national security defined in a world created by Lewis Carroll.”~Sherry Fiester

      • “This makes things confusing. There seemed to be three possible explanations:

        1. He was hit by two bullets at almost the same time (one from behind and then one from the front).

        2. He was hit from behind, and a jet of brain matter exploding from the front caused his head to recoil backwards.

        3. He was hit from behind and some sort of muscle reaction caused his head to fly backwards.

        People tried to figure this out for three decades. Instead of clearing up the mystery, Zapruder’s film just made things more confusing.

        In the 1990s, researchers started to realize that there was a fourth possible explanation. Zapruder’s film might also be a part of the lies and cover-up that agencies of the U.S. Government had weaved around the JFK assassination!”~John Costella

        . . . . . . . . . .

        The actual scientific and forensic reason for the slight head movement forward and the spray of blood accompanying it is explained by CSI Fiester’s forensic investigation, which concludes this is the result of a hit from the front.

  20. Josiah Thompson: The Untrue Fact by Sherry Fiester

    At this site, by going to the blog button pulls up a marvelous forensic analysis of the shot to JFK’s head seen in the Zapruter film, and buttressed by the autopsy X-rays from Bethesda:

    “When a projectile strikes the skull, radial fractures are created which extend outward from the wound. Internal pressure from temporary cavitation produces concentric fractures create that are perpendicular to the radial fractures. Research addressing the sequencing of radial and concentric of skull fractures in gunshot injuries indicates the radial fractures stem from the point of entry (Viel, 2009; Karger, 2008; Smith, 1987; Leestma, 2009). The Clark Panel observed extensive fracturing in the autopsy X-rays. The panel report specified there was extensive fragmentation “of the bony structures from the midline of the frontal bone anteriorly to the vicinity of the posterior margin of the parietal bone behind”. The report goes on the state, “throughout this region, many of the bony pieces have been displaced outward; several pieces are missing”. The Clark Panel report indicates the majority of the fracturing and displaced bones fragments are closer to the location they described as the exit wound; this is in direct conflict with scientific research concerning skull fractures resulting from gunshot injuries. The Kennedy autopsy report stated multiple fracture lines radiated from both the large defect and the smaller defect at the occiput, the longest measuring approximately 19 centimeters. This same fracturing pattern was discussed in the Assassinations Records Review Board deposition of Jerrol Francis Custer, the X-ray technician on call at Bethesda Hospital the night of the Kennedy autopsy. Custer testified the trauma to the head began at the front and moved towards the back of the head (CE 387 16H978; ARRB MD 59:10). Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays have distinct radial fractures propagating from the front of the head, with the preponderance of concentric fractures located at the front of the head. Current research indicates fracturing patterns of this nature correspond with an entry wound located in the front of Kennedy’s head.”~Fiester

    • Movement into the force: Once the bullet enters the skull, if the design of the projectile limits penetration by distortion or fragmentation, the bullet immediately loses velocity. The loss of velocity results in the transfer of kinetic energy demonstrated by the instantaneous generation of temporary cavitation. The higher a projectile’s velocity upon impact, the more kinetic energy is available to transfer to the target. The amount of kinetic energy transferred to a target increases with faster projectile deceleration. This initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire. The greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008; Coupland, 2011;l Radford, 2009). (page 245)~Fiester

      NOTE: “instantaneous generation of temporary cavitation” – this results as an implosion.

    • Wound Ballistics
      Dr in forens. sci. Beat P. Kneubühl, MD h. c.
      M. in Mathematics, , Dr Robin M. Coupland MB, BChir, FRCS, Prof. Dr Markus A. Rothschild, Prof. Dr Michael J. Thali

      Interdisciplinary – THE reference work for wound ballistics
      Fundamentals, specialized knowledge reference work
      NEW: the latest diagnostic and simulation methods, plus the latest types of rounds
      The practice and application of wound ballistics in forensic medicine, surgery (esp. emergency and combat surgery) and in international conventions
      The definitive interdisciplinary reference work for wound ballistics

      Fundamentals in Physics, arms and ammunition, ballistics

      Simulating gunshot wounds: Virtopsy – a virtual autopsy method, combining CT, MRT and surface scanning and Materials that reproduce the interaction of soft tissue, bone and blood vessels with a bullet that penetrates the body.

      Wound ballistics for Short-range and long-range weapons, fragments, such as those from bombs and hand grenades, gas jets from blanks, gas weapons, etc., “Non-lethal” weapons as used by the police, in military operations or in urban settings

      Specialist knowledge and reference detailed tables: ballistic tables for typical ammunition, ballistic values for numerous types of ammunition, including older types, materials properties, plus additional, hard-to-find data. Most tables are in both metric and U.S. units., an extensive trilingual glossary of specialized terminology in German, English and French

      NEW: the latest diagnostic / simulation methods and the latest types of ammunition

      The practice and application of wound ballistics in forensic medicine. surgery – especially emergency and war surgery and International conventions.

      Content Level » Professional/practitioner


  21. More from the above cited article:

    “When examining the Zapruder film frame by frame, it is readily apparent the President Kennedy’s head moves forward slightly for one frame before his head and shoulders move backward in response to the gunshot wound to the head. German wound ballistic researcher Bernd Karger, states initial transfer of energy causes the target to move minutely into the force and against the line of fire, prior to target movement with the force of the moving bullet. Karger found greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008). Wound ballistic researcher Robin Coupland used high-speed photography to confirm and document the forward movement into the line of fire referenced by Karger (Coupland, 2011). Researchers Karger and Coupland noted the force in a moving bullet is energy of motion, or kinetic energy. Upon impact, the bullet pushes against the head, and initially, as the weight of the head is greater than the weight of the bullet, the head moves against the line of fire. As the projectile slows, more kinetic energy transfers to the target. A overcoming the weight of the head with a sufficient transfer of energy causes the target to move with the continued direction of force of the moving bullet. Application of contemporary wound ballistics research to the movement observed in the Zapruder film indicates a minute forward motion followed by more pronounced rearward movement—consistent with a single shot from the front.

    The distribution of bullet fragments begins near the point of entry and continues in the direction of the bullet trajectory in an ever-widening path as it moves away from the entry wound. A lateral view of the same pattern will reveal a conical shape to the fragment distribution. The apex of the pattern is closest to the entry wound and the wider portion of the fragment cone is closest to the exit wound (Rushing, 2008; Fung, 2008; DiMaio, 1998). The House Select Committee on Assassinations heard testimony concerning the characteristics of bullet fragment patterns when Larry Sturdivan testified the majority of metallic fragments are typically deposited nearest the entry wound (HSCA 1: 402). Clark Panel Report also stated the majority of fragments were located in the front and top of Kennedy’s head (ARRB MD59:10-11). Multiple forensic publications indicate X-rays fragment patterns display the majority of fragments near the entry wound. Kennedy’s autopsy X-rays depict the majority of bullet fragments in the front and top of the head, which indicates a frontal shot.

    Back spatter is blood ejected from the entry wound and travels against the line of fire, back towards the shooter. Although forward and back spatter pattern display some common features, there are also dissimilarities. Studying forward and back spatter patterns created during a singular incident identifies those differences. By differentiating between forward and back spatter in shooting incidents, the identification of the direction of the origin of force is possible (James, 2005).
    Scientific journals, books, and research published since the late 1980s indicate the blood observed in the Zapruder film displays the pattern shape of back spatter. It also extends from the wound area a distance characteristic of back spatter, particularly when correlated to blood documented elsewhere on the scene. The timing for the pattern creation and the dissipation rate identifies it as back spatter. In fact, all available information concerning the blood spatter pattern in the Zapruder film corresponds in every measurable manner with back spatter replicated in forensic laboratories and described in peer-reviewed publications since the late 1980s. Consequently, the only possible conclusion is the back spatter in the Zapruder film is genuine. Identifying the blood in the Zapruder film as back spatter signifies a shot from the front of President Kennedy.

    Contemporary forensic research indicates of the five methods to determine the direction of travel of the projectile fatally wounding President Kennedy, four indicate a shot from the front. Importantly, they do so while meeting the evidentiary standard required to support a criminal conviction in today’s courtroom. If we eliminate the forward movement, and eliminate beveling, we still have conclusive proof of a front shot.

    So, if we know the shot came from the front, where is front? If you superimpose a protractor over a map of Dealey Plaza with the apex at the point where Kennedy received the head shot, at a ninety-degree angle to Zapruder’s location, and draw a line representative of the 115-degree turn relative to Zapruder, it becomes obvious “front” of Kennedy is not the Grassy Knoll. Front, for Kennedy, was the south end of the triple overpass and the adjacent parking lot on the opposite side of Dealey Plaza. While the exact steps of trajectory analysis is meticulously detailed in Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination, a graphic indicating possible locations for the shooter is demonstrated here:

    We all make decisions based on the information to which we have been exposed. The latest in contemporary forensic research, essential to our decades long struggle to interpret aspects of this horrendous event, has important information to tell us about what we thought we knew. All researchers do the best they can and no one blames anyone for mistaking the various stations and stages along the way as ultimate destinations. Our views change as we obtain new and better information. However, CSI has finally caught up with the nightmare of Dallas.

    The late Peter Drucker stated: We now accept the fact that learning is a lifelong process of keeping abreast of change. And the most pressing task is to teach people how to learn.”~Fiester

    • “We can now scientifically prove a single, front head shot from a location near the south end of the triple overpass.”~Fiester

    • “We in this country, in this generation, are–by destiny rather than choice–the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of “peace on earth, good will toward men.” That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength”
      (From the speech JFK was to deliver in Dallas on November 22, 1963).

      As quoted by Sherry Fiester

    • Sherry Fiester has written a masterpiece on the JFK assassination that embraces the scientific method, not just the same theory-driven work we see time and again from countless authors, well meaning and otherwise, on this case. “Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination” will challenge the reader to come to terms with the actual truth of various events and topics related to the Kennedy assassination…and that is a very good thing. Imagine a very well written college textbook or law school compendium without the dry and clinical (or boring) approach these volumes usually entail and you have a general feel for “Enemy of the Truth”…but it is so much more than that.

      Jim Marrs, who wrote the Foreword, states that Sherry Fiester presents “a foundation in the forensic sciences”- so true. By keeping and open mind and allowing oneself to become immersed in the scientific method, the reader will find themselves parting with some tired myths on the case while becoming emboldened by the corroboration Sherry provides on much more solid areas of study and interest. I truly wish more prospective authors and researchers would embrace her methodology.

      A host of luminaries have sung the praises of Sherry’s book. I echo their sentiments. In addition, this is NOT a book you will read once and then consign to the dust bin of history; far from it. “Enemy of the Truth” is a fine work that you will find yourself refering to again and again, to both strengthen your own convictions and to bolster (or debunk) those of others. Highly recommended- another remarkable book from JFK Lancer!”~Vince Palamara – Amazon review, January 21, 2013

      • A better question about the “Harper Fragment” than what part of the skull it came from is; why did Billy Harper discover it? It was over 24 hours AFTER the murder, just laying on top of the ground in Dealey Plaza. Why was this tiny area of the crime scene not taped off and fully examined by forensic experts?

        Obviously all real investigation was squelched. Like 9/11 the JFK Assassination had to wait for independent investigators and researchers to put the facts together.

      • Thanks for this information on Sherry and her book, HR1.

        As fate would have it, yesterday afternoon, after reading through your recent entries here, I went downtown (Dallas) to the Adolphus Hotel to the Lancer meeting. to lend a hand to the North Texans 9/11 group.
        (They rent a table and pass out free 9/11 DVDs and talk to Kennedy researchers about this other deep state event in the book room). As authors and researchers got settled in, lo and behold, who should set up shop across from us but Sherry Feister. (Jim Marrs’ table was to the left.)

        I’ve not done a lot of Kennedy research, such that three days ago I didn’t know who Sherry was. Now I’ve got an autographed copy of her book thanks to your postings here. I’m looking forward to reading it.

        There’s another meeting going on in Arlington TX today with a lot of well known names in the Kennedy researcher community. Your buddy Jim Fetzer is supposed to be one of them. If I can make it, and run into him, I’ll be sure to tell him you say “hello”.

      • Great Hadmatter,

        So cool you got an autographed copy of Sherry’s book!

        Lol, yes if you run into Fetzer be sure to give him my love … and condolences, grin

        Thanks for posting here, tell me more about the book when you have read some of it.

      • Hello again, HR1

        Another year come and gone, as well another Lancer meeting in downtown Dallas.

        Once again I went downtown to help out with the North Texans 9/11 group and their 9/11 outreach effort, and once again we wound up set up at a table across from Sherry Feister (though this time she was just hanging out, prepping for her presentation before the lunch break on Saturday).

        I chatted her up a bit, and mentioned that last year, shortly after the Lancer meeting, I was following an argument on a blog between a long time JFK researcher (guess who) and Jim Fetzer. When I told her said researcher began beating Mr. Fetzer over the head with citations from hers and Roland Zavala’s JFK books she smiled. Big grin. Sherry was very pleased.

        Anyway, for what it’s worth.

      • Thanks for letting me know that Hadmatter! That is very cool to know. Wish I would have been there. I’ve read some accounts of this years conference on JFKfacts.
        It’s great to know that Sherry is still involved in the case.\\][//


    Outline of a Presentation to the Movie Machine Society Toronto Conference, 10/24/98
    by Roland J. Zavada

    The camera used is not untypical of several models that position the film with its claw moving in an aperture cutout area adjacent to the image forming picture area. Consequently, scene information falls into this unmasked area due to the excess (circular) imaging area produced by the lens. For normal home movie projection this additional recorded scene information would be of no consequence as the projector aperture would hold back or mask-out this area.

    We have the typical camera aperture area (i.e. the images that would be viewed by standard projection), and an additional area where the image extends into the area between the perforations and adds to the total scene content. To some students of the assassination, the Zapruder original film contains several image anomalies – almost all being related to the scene information recorded or imaged into the area between the perforations. (See sample frames below shot in Dealey Plaza.)

    There is great significance attached to this area by various researchers who speculate that the anomalies may represent not the peculiar optics of Zapruder’s Bell & Howell camera but rather, evidence of film alteration. It is important, therefore, to understand how the camera optics record images in this area and why certain anomalies are present – which is part of the objective of this study.

    Overview of Image Anomalies:

    The image characteristics that have been identified as “those of concern” are inconsistencies; i.e. they are not the same density, color and quality as those contained in the primary image area. The cause of those inconsistencies thus provides a focus for our review of camera characteristics. A look at a few frames from the Zapruder “in camera” original, provide a “picture” of the image characteristic that will be the bases of detailed discussions. (See Photo from the Warren Commission Exhibit.)
    Image anomalies or characteristics that were addressed are:

    Claw Shadow -Between the perforations there is a broad bar where the image has more density (darker) than the primary image area.

    Claw or aperture Flare – Sometimes adjacent to the dark (claw shadow) bar and between it and the primary image is a “streak” lighter than the dark bar and the adjacent image.

    Multiple Exposure Areas Adjacent to Perforation – Sometimes there appears a lighter image area resembling images of perforation holes.

    Ghost Images – Sometimes there appears to be “ghost” images such as a motorcycle fender. These are real images, which because of the design of the claw cutout area occur simultaneously above and below the perforation holes of the primary image being formed.

    First Frame Overexposure – Occurs in the Zapruder original with his first exposure of the motorcade and at least twice in his filming of the first half of the roll. The possible causes of the fogged or lesser density first frame are reviewed, to the best extent possible – recognizing the limitation that we could not conduct a practical test with the Zapruder B&H 414 PD camera.

    Recognized Image Anomalies in the Zapruder Original Film

    Image Penetration between the Perforations:

    The characteristics and depth of the image penetration are not always seen the same but do follow a consistent and repeatable pattern. The pattern is directly related to the effective image area from the exit window of the Varamat lens, the focal length of lens and in some cases, the aperture setting. We can show and conclude that:
    The telephoto lens setting consistently produces the maximum image penetration into the perforation area;

    Normal lens focal length produces some but not full penetration into the perforation area; and

    Wide-angle lens focal length produces the least penetration into the perforation area.

    Claw Shadow

    One of the image anomalies seen is a darker (higher density) band or wide bar in the image area between the perforations. This anomaly can be noted in the Zapruder frames as well as my practical test, photos. This higher density (band or streak) can be explained as being caused by the shadow of the intermittent claw (and its supporting arm) as it moves upward over the film to engage the following perforation and pull down the next frame. The pull-down is with the shutter closed, but the upward movement of the claw out of the perforation, over the area between the perforations, into the next perforation hole is done while the shutter is open and the film is being exposed. The claw movement over the area between the perforations reduces the amount of light reaching the film causing more density. (Less light is more density on a reversal film.) The reduction in exposure to the area behind the claw is not linear. The claw functions with a shutter crank pin engaging the claw slot giving a sinusoidal time relationship to the pulldown ratchet reentry action.
    Claw or Aperture Flare:

    Claw flare appears to be a very real image anomaly often, but not always, seen adjacent to the dark bar caused by the claw shadow and the normal image area. In addition, when the 8mm image is viewed normal, the bottom of the upper perforation may show some flare-like density difference. It is this perforation that “sees” the bottom of the claw arm as it enters the perforation hole and pauses before beginning its rapid positioning stroke. (See also cover photo.)

    Optical/Image Characteristics
    Varamat Zoom Lens:

    The 3: 1 zoom lens of the 414 camera series had eleven elements and reported to be of excellent quality. That quality position was confirmed in correspondence from the former Director of Engineering of the Optical Division, Mr. Rudolf Hartmann. He related: “the Varamat had an unusually flat resolution curve across its picture format (9 field position, 3 focal lengths, full aperture), yielding more than 60 lp/mm (line pairs per millimeter) resolution. Visual (air-image) resolution was 225 I/mm min. at any test position.”
    Any attempt on my part to provide details on the lens or the zoom mechanism would be redundant. Dr. Cox and Mr. Mellberg confirmed that their patents, Cox #3074317 and Mellberg #3059533, are directly applicable to the 414 camera series.

    “Windows” of the Lens:
    In simplest terms the entrance window of a lens defines the area of the object we are looking at; and the image in the lenses following it is called the exit window, since this defines the area of the image seen. To determine if the exit window size varied, the aperture plate was removed and a light was imaged through the lens onto frosted acetate to observe (as close as possible to the film plane) any change in exit window size with changes in focal length. We observed that there were changes. Although the full exit window remained almost the same, the effective illumination area changed by the presence of dark peripheral rings at the wide angle through normal lens setting. These dark rings began at a diameter slightly greater than the image area diagonal. (See drawing and photos on cover page.)

    Electric Eye and Iris Diaphragm:

    An article, A Direct Drive Automatic Iris Control, by LaRue, Bagby, Bushman, Feeland and MacMillin was published in the September 1958 issue of the SMPTE Journal and gives the reader design and engineering details on the automatic exposure system. The exposure sensing is achieved by feedback from two photo-voltaic (Se) cells, one sensing overall scene illumination and the other sensing paraxial luminance for backlight compensation. (Hence the “D” in 414PD relates to dual electric eye.)
    The iris diaphragm in the 414 camera series uses two overlapping disks each of which has a wedge shaped angular slot. The intersection of the two slots forms the variable aperture. Gear teeth are formed on the periphery of the disks that engage a gear mounted on the meter coil. (See drawing below.)

    Unusual Iris Shapes:

    Because the cut of slots in the two iris blades are not linear (as shown), unusual patterns can be formed as seen from the series of photographs of aperture openings. The subject of iris patterns and its effect on the resulting image is well documented in the literature on optical physics. Its significance here is the question of whether or not the possible unusual patterns yielded image artifacts. If the subject is not in focus inversion, multiple images, etc. can and do occur. However, if the image is focused properly, the iris pattern makes no difference. The question presents itself – are Mr. Zapruder’s images in focus? By examination they appear to be. Did an unusual iris pattern contribute to any of the artifacts seen? In my opinion, I doubt it.

    Multiple Exposure Areas – Perforation-Like Images

    Within the perforation area, adjacent to a perforation above or below or both, an image occurs that resembles a perforation. The images simply represent multiple, i.e. double exposure of the area of the “excess” aperture cutout for the intermittent claw action. Above the upper and below the lower perforation hole, the excess aperture cutout allows an image to be formed concurrent with the primary image. When the succeeding image is formed it adds light to that previously formed causing multiple or double exposure. The shape that this image area takes, and importantly whether it exists at all, is directly dependent on the size of the exit window of the lens based on the chosen focal length together with the influence of scene content. Not all exposure conditions produce the phenomena, however telephoto in bright lighting conditions does. With blank frames between some test target exposures, the phenomenon is visible and multiple exposures adjacent to the perforations are easily seen. (See photo below.)

    Ghost Images:

    In the Zapruder motorcade scene, below the perforation, you were shown a white object heading toward a bystander in the primary image. This so-called ghost image has caused a lot of speculation and questions from many that examined the Zapruder film. Now, by our understanding of the multiple exposure around the perforations explained above, it is reasonable to conclude the cause as simple double exposure of a primary image super imposed on the excess image of the preceding frame. (See ghosting on test chart below.)

    First Frame Over-Exposure:

    The first frame of advance motorcade scene shows an over exposure condition, known as “first-frame-overexposure.” In my discussions with M.E. Brown, former Manager of the 16mm and 8mm Department at Eastman Kodak, the condition was undesirable and a development/design problem to be avoided, but a not uncommon occurrence.
    Mr. Zapruder’s camera appears to have been prone to the problem. The Secret Service copies of his family pictures show two other occurrences of first frame over exposure. With my test cameras, I had one, #3, that consistently had a noticeable first frame over exposure by about one-third of a stop. We were not given the opportunity to run a practical test with Zapruder’s camera to determine if the first frame artifact was a consistent problem or unique to the assassination film roll.


    It is my conclusion that all the inter-perforation image anomalies identified can be explained by the design and image capture characteristics of the Bell & Howell 414PD Camera.

    ~Roland J. Zavada, 10/24/98


    • Biography of Roland Zavada

      Mr. Zavada retired, as a Standards Director for Imaging Technologies, from Eastman Kodak in March 1990. His past responsibilities included coordinating the activities of the Consumer Video and Broadcast Telecine Television Evaluation Laboratories, a product engineer on reversal motion picture films, and as a principal member of the teams that introduced Kodachrome II, Ektachrome Commercial and Kodachrome int Film and that developed the Super 8 system.

      He has a BS from Purdue University, a degree in Photo Science from the Rochester Institute of Technology, and a MBA from the University of Rochester.

      He began his standards activity with the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) in 1962. In 1966, he assumed responsibility for the National and International Standardization of the Super 8 system, becoming chair of the SMPTE’s 16mm and 8mm Technology Committee, chair of the Super 8 Technology Committee of the ISO TC-36, and subsequently became chairman of several national and international committees including leader of the United States delegation to ISO-TC36 – Cinematography. Work with the Society culminated with four terms as the Society’s Engineering Vice President, 1976-1983.

      Mr. Zavada received recognition for his technical contributions by receiving Fellowships from the SMPTE, the British Kinematographic Sound and Television Society, the Audio Engineering Society, and the Rochester Engineering Society.

      In 1985, Mr. Zavada received the SMPTE Progress Medal for Technical Achievement and was awarded the Leo East Award as Rochester’s 1985 Engineer of the Year. In 1986, he received the SMPTE Agfa Gevaert Gold Medal for outstanding Achievement in film and video imaging interface.

      In 1994, Mr. Zavada was elected as a Life member of the Foundation of Motion Picture Pioneers Inc.

      In 1995, The Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers conferred its highest award and greatest distinction of Honorary Membership to Mr. Zavada.

  23. There are two issues here; 1) whether the Zapruter Film is an accurate portrayal of the assassination, and 2) what does the evidence therein indicate, what practical information do we draw from these images.

    Now we come to the issue of Fetzer’s MO, and how this links his assertions on both the JFK assassination and the 9/11 events. He has attempted to eliminate the visual evidences of both cases with his arguments of ‘no-planes’, ‘video fakery’ and even the use of aerial projected holograms (totally unfeasible technologically). He also attacks the best physical evidence of nano-thermite being used to destroy the WTC. And now he attacks the veracity of the Z-film, which is the time-clock of the events on Elm Street that day. In both cases he claims he is proving that the deep state were the perpetrators, while at the same time trying to extinguish the best evidence that proves the deep state perpetrated these crimes.

    Can it be mere coincidence that Fetzer has chosen to make such a campaign not just on one of the most critical issues of our times, but on two of the most critical issues of post modern history? I find the idea preposterous, and assert that Fetzer is a charlatan and a sheep-dipped deep-cover operative for the deep state himself.

    • “Veteran JFK researcher Jim Fetzer, in a Truth and Shadows interview, says this is absolutely what we must do to get to the truth about what happened in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. And he shares this view with a number of prominent researchers who have analyzed the “Zapruder film” and found it to have been altered if not entirely fabricated.

      “That means all the years and years of toil based on the presumption that the Zapruder film is a reliable clock for the timing of the sequence of the shots has been largely unproductive, because so much of it has been removed,” he says.”

    • I tend to agree with this statement Willy I have a number of reasons related to other work Fetzer has done on issues such as Sandy Hook. In a nut shell though I believe in the saying “By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?” What have been Fetzers fruits?

      I think your comment about MO is spot on and I have noticed the same from Fetzer as well. The fact that he is pushing Mini Nukes too is more evidence in my mind that he is intentionally or perhaps unwittingly leading people astray.

      • Thanks Adam,
        So glad to see you here!
        I just saw and responded to your comment on the latest T&S thread.

        Do stay tuned here. And speak up here more often!

      • Yes I will stay tuned and I hope to have more time soon to blog more here. I consider myself very well educated on the JFK assassination but since you have gone to the expert level on this I have a question for you. What is your opinion of the “confession” from E. Howard Hunt as told by his son?

      • Hey Adam,

        I think the E. Howard Hunt confession is authentic. I draw a lot of my research from Fletcher Prouty, who is certainly at expert level as far as his position and knowledge of that time. Prouty had the opinion that Hunt was involved as far back as his first lectures and writings about the assassination. Frank Sturgis is another, he has a history running parallel to Hunt.

        I happened to just watch a video with Jim Marrs and Hunt’s son wherein they went over his father’s revelations. I find Marrs very credible in his JFK research. By the way, Marrs wrote the introduction to Sherry Fiester’s book on the ballistics of the kill shot.

        One thing I am not certain of is whether that is Hunt in the pics of the “Three Tramps”, I won’t say that is isn’t for sure either. I would have to review those shots again. But I recall my doubts when I last studied them.

      • As far as the ‘Three Tramps’, looking further into it the last half day, I would be of the opinion that these guys have been identified and none are Hunt and Sturgis.

        Let’s face it if Hunt and Sturgis were in Dealy Plaze (a real likelihood) they would have had a pro extraction from the area and wouldn’t have been hiding in a railroad car.

        Prouty did ID Landsdale in one of the photos as he walked by the so-called tramps. Likely Landsdale was making sure none were his guys. it is my opinion, based on Prouty’s work that Landsdale was at the top of the food-chain in the planning and execution of the Dallas coup, along with Ted Shakley and the JMWave group based in Miami.

      • Interesting indeed, so you surmise that none of the three tramps was Hunt and he was spirited away quickly? That makes a lot of sense to me that he would be swiftly extracted. I think Prouty is legit as well and I would like to read up on him when I get some time. Of course I do know the Mr. X character in Oliver Stone’s JFK was based on Prouty and I have seen a few tidbits of video on him but really I need to go into it a lot deeper.

      • Yea Adam,

        Hunt was a much younger man in 1963 than this old dude in the photos. As far as the one pinned as Sturgis, no way either, Frank was a very Latin looking guy, much heavier face than the ‘tramp’. At any rate all of them were finally identified later, and Prouty seems to accept that.

        Like I said, one guy that Prouty ID’s with certainty is Landsdale, who was in the area when the photo’s of the three tramps was taken.

  24. I read Lifton’s book ‘BEST EVIDENCE’ years ago when his first soft cover edition came out. In fact I met him and spoke to him briefly at the bookstore. I went there to buy the new hardbound book by Jim Marrs, ‘CROSSFIRE’. Jim and I had a long talk together and shared contact info and spoke on the phone quite a few times as well as letters to one another.

    I was fascinated by Lifton’s book, and didn’t read it critically, I just took it for what it says. I agreed with the hypothesis for years. However, recent research leads me away from such agreement and I find myself at odds with Lifton. I don’t think JFK’s body was stolen and altered between Parkland and Bethesda now. I do agree that the autopsy at Bethesda was botched and under control of the perpetrators of the killing – the military. Any “alterations” to the body took place right there during the autopsy, and procedures that should have been performed were left out.

    I think the X-rays and autopsy photos are authentic as well. Just like I think the Z-film is authentic.

    These opinions in no way mean that I believe the official story and the Warren Commission fraud. It is obvious to me that Lee Harvey Oswald was a patsy, and that there were several teams of shooters in Dealy Plaza shooting at Kennedy.

    Looking back over the years and all of my searching and research, I realize that there were and are many wacky theories put forth. Some by opportunists, some by propagandists to muddy the waters, some by fruitcakes, many differing motivations. 9/11 has been an eyeopener as to the extant of such distortion and bullshit being mixed in with legitimate research

    Both cases are complex and need to be sorted out carefully with a critical eye. One has to learn to recognize and differentiate between the bullshit and the authentic.

    The short critique of Lifton’s book below makes some prescient points. I don’t know the author’s opinion on the assassination. But I do think he makes a good case against the body of JFK being stolen in route to Bethesda:


    • I just pulled CROSSFIRE out of my bookshelf. I had forgotten whether I had the presence of mind to have Jim sign it at the bookstore – Yup!

      He wrote; “To Willy, Always question Authority! Best regards, Jim Marrs”.


    • HR, I don’t believe Lifton says the body was stolen. He does say that it was altered between Dallas and Bethesda, but why do you say stolen?

      • Lifton says that the body was taken to another location to do the alterations. That would be “stolen”, even if for the time it took to do the alterations. That is the whole deal about it being in another casket, than the elaborate bronze casket that the body actually arrived to Bethesda in.
        Does that jar your memory any?
        The gray shipping casket story, the body bag story…??

  25. Harper Fragment
    Dr. Joseph Riley, and neuroanatomist and conspiracy-oriented researcher, has done a more thorough and extensive examination of the issue. On the basis of several distinctive and identifying features, he judges the Harper Fragment to be parietal bone. These features include:
    A pattern of vascular grooving consistent with parietal bone and inconsistent with occipital bone.
    A lack of the deep “sulci” (grooves) found in occipital bone.
    A smooth inner surface, mild curvature, and relatively uniform thickness.
    Parietal foramina — vascular perforations of a type that occur only in parietal bone — visible in photos of the Harper Fragment.
    Thus, in spite of the initial judgment by Cairns, the clear weight of medical expertise sides with the Harper Fragment being parietal bone, and not from the back, but rather from the top and side of the head.
    A long and convoluted accounting of the container containing the “gorss materials” ie; JFK’s brain. The bottom line is the fact that it is indeed missing. It is presumed that Bobby Kennedy destroyed or hid the materials.
    As a physician, I have encountered numerous passages in BEST EVIDENCE that I
    consider to be errors of fact and interpretation of the medical evidence. It
    seems to me it is these errors is what led David Lifton to reach conclusions
    he has made in BEST EVIDENCE. Some of those opinions which I consider to be
    erroneous are posted below. I invite David and other readers to discuss these
    with me, and I urge all readers of these notes to take the claims made in BE
    to and my counter opinions to any medical authority for independent
    evaluation. Unless indicated otherwise, all quotes are from Best Evidence, by
    David Lifton, the Carroll and Graf paperback edition, twelfth printing 1992.
    (white cover, red letters, with picture of JFK pointing)~Bob Artwohl
    [Note: This entire article is important reading for anyone who still buys Lifton’s BEST EVIDENCE story. ww]
    David Lifton’s Body Alteration Theory by David R. Wrone


  26. The difficulties in arriving at conclusions about how the wounds were inflicted results from paradoxical evidence about the dimensions and locations of the wounds. The availability of autopsy photographs and eyewitness testimony has only muddled matters because they don’t agree. For example, it seems that virtually all close witnesses to the head wounds, from the secret service agent Hill, possibly the first observer of this wound, to Jackie Kennedy, to the Parkland physicians, and even to the witnesses in the morgue, gave descriptions of the head injury as a rear skull/scalp defect. Despite the disparate sources, the many descriptions of JFK’s skull wound are in surprising and overwhelming agreement. These descriptions, however, are quite inconsistent with the autopsy photographs and X- rays. Those images have thus taken on a central position in the controversy as they were authenticated by the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in 1977, and so they are supposed to be reliable representations of JFK’s wounds. These hard pieces of evidence, therefore, comprise the “best evidence” — evidence more reliable, according to some, than human recollections.

    That JFK’s head wound was on the right side of his head is universally accepted. With a single exception, all witnesses placed JFK’s major skull defect on the right side, and given the frequency of witness error, this suggests good witness reliability in this case. The most peculiar aspect of JFK’s wounds is that of the 46 witnesses I whose opinions I have examined between Parkland and Bethesda, 45 of whom correctly claimed that the skull defect was on the right side, 44 were apparently wrong by the “best” evidence to claim that the wound was in the right-rear, rather than the right-front. The “authenticated” photographs, the originals of which were twice examined by author Aguilar at the National Archives, show no rear defect at all, only an anterior-lateral defect, and so, if valid, the images prove that not a single witness accurately described JFK’s fatal wound, and that even the autopsy report fails to accurately describe the skull defect visible in the images!~Gary L. Aguilar, MD

  27. 2) ROBERT McCLELLAND, MD In testimony at Parkland taken before Arlan
    Specter on 3-21-64, McClelland described the head wound as, “…I
    could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right
    posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted. It had
    been shattered…so that the parietal bone was protruded up through
    the scalp and seemed to be fractured almost along its right posterior
    half, as well as some of the occipital bone being fractured in its
    lateral half, and this sprung open the bones that I mentioned in such
    a way that you could actually look down into the skull cavity itself
    and see that probably a third or so, at least, of the brain tissue,
    posterior cerebral tissue and some of the cerebellar tissue had been
    blasted out….” (WC–V6:33) Later he said, “…unfortunately the loss
    of blood and the loss of cerebral and cerebellar tissues were so great
    that the efforts (to save Kennedy’s life) were of no avail.”
    (Emphasis added throughout) (WC–V6:34) McClelland made clear that he
    thought the rear wound in the skull was an exit wound (WC-V6:35,37).
    McClelland ascribed the cause of death to, “…massive head injuries
    with loss of large amounts of cerebral and cerebellar tissues and
    massive blood loss.” (WC–V6:34)

  28. MALCOLM PERRY, MD In a note written at Parkland Hospital and dated,
    11-22-63 Dr., Perry described the head wound as, “A large wound of the
    right posterior cranium…” (WC–V17:6–CE#392) Describing Kennedy’s
    appearance to the Warren Commission’s Arlen Specter Dr. Perry stated,
    “Yes, there was a large avulsive wound on the right posterior
    cranium….” (WC- V3:368) Later to Specter: “…I noted a large
    avulsive wound of the right parietal occipital area, in which both
    scalp and portions of skull were absent, and there was severe
    laceration of underlying brain tissue…” (WC–V3:372) In an interview
    with the HSCA’s Andy Purdy in 1-11-78 Mr. Purdy reported that “Dr.
    Perry…believed the head wound was located on the “occipital
    parietal” (sic) region of the skull and that the right posterior
    aspect of the skull was missing…” (HSCA- V7:292-293) Perry told Mr.
    Purdy: “I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table
    and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely
    avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some
    cerebellum seen…” (Emphasis added throughout) (HSCA-V7:302-interview
    with Purdy 1-11-78.


    It should be obvious even from Aguilar’s account that Perry was in no
    position to see a wound to the back of the head. Aguilar quotes him
    telling Purdy: “I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the
    table and noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely
    avulsive and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some
    cerebellum seen….”

    Aguilar does this to stress “cerebellum,” but Perry makes it clear
    that he had no way of seeing the back of the head blown out. There is
    no mention of examining the back of the head, or manipulating or
    lifting Kennedy’s body. Rather he explicitly says that he “looked at
    the wound briefly by leaning over the table.”

    But Aguilar *omits* a part of this passage that makes it even clearer
    that Perry did not examine the wound, and could not have seen the back
    of Kennedy’s head blasted out.

    Let me quote the passage Aguilar used, and restore the part he omitted
    in ALL CAPS.


    I looked at the head wound briefly by leaning over the table and
    noticed that the parietal occipital head wound was largely avulsive
    and there was visible brain tissue in the macard and some cerebellum


    Earlier in the interview, when Perry is talking about the tracheostomy
    incision, he notes that “I noticed the head injury, but I didn’t
    examine it at the time.” 7 HSCA 300.

  29. Man, my head is spinning about this JFK thing … I don’t know what all the hard core ‘conspiracy theorists’ are going to think – but my thinking on this has really evolved from the last time I looked closely into it.
    A lot of stuff doesn’t wash for me anymore – mostly about the “fakery” angle of things – not just the films, but the X-rays and the autopsy stuff.

    This Crime Scene Investigator Sherry Fiester has shown a whole new light on the event – according to her analysis the frontal shot ends up actually being verified by the X-rays; they are as to be expected from a high speed high caliber bullet. The autopsy itself was botched – absolutely.
    But from what I have been learning the last few days the whole David Lifton BEST EVIDENCE theory is utterly fantasyland bullshit. Just as the ‘Oswald did it crowd’ misinterpreted the forensics – so do a great many researchers who argue against. So both sides ended up cherry picking.

    I am trying my best to summarize these new revelations on this 50th Anniversary page. But to follow it one is going to have to click the links and read the full arguments on those pages.

    As I said, a lot of firmly held beliefs by longtime assassination researchers seem to be wrong.

    If this argument ever does get going on T&S, I have a feeling a lot of rotten tomatoes might very well be launched my way … But I can’t do anything but call it as I see it, so WTF.

    … Several hits on the 50 Year thread are referrals from T&S … so there are some previewing this already.

    Movement into the force: Once the bullet enters the skull, if the design of the projectile limits penetration by distortion or fragmentation, the bullet immediately loses velocity. The loss of velocity results in the transfer of kinetic energy demonstrated by the instantaneous generation of temporary cavitation. The higher a projectile’s velocity upon impact, the more kinetic energy is available to transfer to the target. The amount of kinetic energy transferred to a target increases with faster projectile deceleration. This initial transfer of energy causes the target to swell or move minutely into the force and against the line of fire. The greater the transferred energy, the more pronounced the forward movement (Karger, 2008; Coupland, 2011;l Radford, 2009). (page 245)~Fiester

    This has to do with the proposition that there were two shots to the head almost simultaneously. This is not so, the single front shot caused the slight movement forward until the power of the shot threw Kennedy back. This is explained in greater detail above.

  30. There is the very improbable success due to the cascade trap, which is attendant to all untruths and manipulations of evidences thereof. Simply illustrated as: If the Z-film is posited as faked, then the Muchmore & Nix films that show the exact same timing of the event from other angles ‘must have been faked as well’. That is a small cascade, but then there are all the hundreds of other photos taken in Dealy Plaza that day. This is why it is dangerous for anyone to lie – the necessity to keep a running record of the lies that eventually must attend the first – the lies and manipulation become like rows of dominoes – tip one over and the rest fall…
    You know just like Communist South East Asia!! Grin.

    The chain of custody of the Z-film from Zapruter to the “CIA lab” that “faked” it’s contents seems nonexistent [see: Josiah Thompson, 11/98], and there are zero proofs or even claims of how the other two known films of the assassination were faked. Furthermore Zapruders original IN CAMERA film was donated to the Assassination Museum in Dallas and copies of that have been released and analyzed – they show the same thing as the historically shown Z-film.

    This final issue seems to me the final death knell of the ‘fakery issue’. That plus the fact that the head shot in the Z-film actually proves forensically a front shot!

  31. Lovelady in doorway of Book Depository

    This is Lovelady – not Oswald as some will claim. I would put my visual acuity up against anybody’s and my opinion is it is Lovelady. He has his right shoulder high bracing himself on the inner wall while leaning on the door frame, his left shoulder is low in counterbalance to his right.

    Note where his shirt collar tips are in the photo, that is the angle of his clavicle. His left arm is forward and reaching tightly in front of him his left hand is likely resting on the wall he leans against.
    [Note: Clare Kuehn has made the argument that the black man in profile just below Lovelady is pasted in. Look closely at the photo. Lovelady is BEHIND the black gentleman, you can see his shirt collar in front of Lovelady’s lower arm. This is not pasted in.]

    You can change your shirt but you can’t change your face.
    There is a distinctive notch in the center of Lovelady’s receding hairline, that stands out clearly in the photo above.

      • The pic to the right is absolutely Lovelady. It is too obviously him, one would have to be blinded by delusional bias not to recognize him.

      • Prosopagnosia

        Prosopagnosia /ˌprɒsəpæɡˈnoʊʒə/ (Greek: “prosopon” = “face”, “agnosia” = “not knowing”), also called face blindness,[1] is a cognitive disorder of face perception where the ability to recognize faces is impaired, while other aspects of visual processing (e.g., object discrimination) and intellectual functioning (e.g., decision making) remain intact.

    • Part of the problem with the above pic of Lovelady in the doorway is the grain. This is a blow up of a tiny section of a larger photo – the doorway is far off in the photo. Notice the grain in the suit coat the guy in the background is wearing, the same grain pattern there as interrupts the actual patterning on Lovelady’s shirt. One cannot determine from this photo whether that shirt is striped or checkered or some other pattern, the grain obscures it.

      The full Altgens photograph is just below..

      • Oswald and Lovelady do not look that similar at all. I get the feeling that more people suffer from varying degrees of prosopagnosia than might be guessed at.
        I ran across this with the Boston Bombing discussions and Sandy Hook as well, all these assertions by people such as Dallas Goldbug and his fans. Too many people fall for this sort of crap. And asserting that the perpetrators are doctoring these photo’s in so many instances becomes absurd.

        Again we get to the point where the “photo fakery” crowd is attempting to put all of the photo evidence into question, this happened in 9/11, and now it is going on with the JFK Assassination. What this tactic does is put everything up in the air, sowing confusion where there should be none – that reads as a covert operation in my book. So again I must mention Fetzer’s MO here, and the fact that Clare Kuehn is his disciple gives her the same MO. She argued this bullshit along with Fetzer on the 9/11 debates as well.
        Whether she is just a dupe persuaded by her mentor, or whether she is disingenuous herself is of little matter, she is a bullshit salesperson along with big daddy Fetzer.

  32. Recognizing that it is Lovelady in the doorway in that photo is not the same as claiming Oswald was the shooter and that he was on the 6th floor at the time the shots were fired.
    Testimony puts Oswald in the lunchroom having a Coke mere moments after the shots were fired. There is plenty of other evidence that Oswald was a patsy and could not have been a shooter in Dallas.

    All of the hysterical hyperbole spewing from the image fakery crowd tells me they are grasping at straws – not to find the truth, but to sell their own prized version of the event.

  33. Parkland Doctors

    – this shows McClelland, Jenkins, Peters with their hands on their heads indicating location of head wound, BUT none of these are as far down and to the back as the attendant sketch of the blowout. None have their hands on the occipital protuberance.
    To be more to the point, I think the blurb that comes with this illustration misleads. The placement of the Parkland doctors hands to their heads is simply not that far removed from the autopsy photo to the left of their pictures. What is substantially different from both the doctor’s positioning is the drawing of the wound shown below.

    • This is the drawing:

      Now if I were asked to show where I saw the wound illustrated in the drawing above, I wouldn’t put my head down and place my hand anywhere near the top of my head. I would turn my head to the left and reach just beyond my ear to cup the right occipital area.

  34. “Photogrammetry?” What’s That?”~Jack White

    Jack White first made a name for himself by trying to show that the famous photographs (e.g., Fig. 1) of accused Kennedy assassin Lee Harvey Oswald holding a rifle in his back yard had been falsified. Claiming, among other things, that he had found discrepancies between the measurements of that rifle taken from the photo, and other photographs of the rifle recovered from the Texas School Book Depository, White maintained that Oswald was holding a different rifle than the one believed to be used to shoot President Kennedy.

    Unfortunately under examination before the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations White’s evidence completely fell apart. He demonstrated almost no understanding of the mathematical and geometrical principles of photogrammetry. He admitted to having received no training in photogrammetry or the forensic analysis of photographs.

    His embarrassment before Congress did not stop White from continuing his research on the Kennedy assassination, although his findings remain questionable. Some researchers into Kennedy’s assassination consider White something of a crackpot.

    Jack White admitted he isn’t a scientist or a physicist, and that he wasn’t able to account for perspective effects in his JFK analysis. So much for what he isn’t. He must have some professional qualifications. What are they?

    He holds a bachelor of arts degree in journalism with a minor in history from the Texas Christian University. (Proceedings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations vol. 2, p. 322.)
    “A group of conspiracy theorists — including Jack White, James Fetzer, and David Mantik — now claims that, based on the “lines of sight” in the photo, she must have been actually standing in the street. And that has very radical implications. If Moorman was standing in the street when the presidential limo passed, that means the Zapruder film is faked! And given the technical expertise necessary to pull off such an astounding act of fakery, the U.S. government and top technical experts in government security agencies must have been involved.

    But is this claim credible?”


    • As you all know I have been delving into “the other side” of these issues and sometimes that other side is very biased towards, and uses the term “conspiracy theorist” as a derogation. It makes it difficult sometimes to quote their works, even when I can grasp the reasoning of their points; their language is often troublesome and insults even myself.

      I imagine that my detractors might have a field day with some of my current findings based on that. But I am looking for the truth of this complex case, and I have found that a lot of what has gone down in the last 50+ years is questionable on ‘both’ sides of the isle. There are even aspects of Jim Marrs’ works that are rather ludicrous in hindsight when reviewing them.

      The issues of ‘confirmation bias’ indeed infects both the independent research and the official narratives and those who chose sides on each.



      The 3D co-ordinates define the locations of object points in the 3D space. The image co-ordinates define the locations of the object points’ images on the film or an electronic imaging device. The exterior orientation of a camera defines it’s location in space and it’s view direction. The inner orientation defines the geometric parameters of the imaging process. This is primarily the focal length of the lens, but can also include the description of lens distortions. Further the additional observations play an important role: With scale bars, basically a known distance of two points in space, or known fix points, the connection to the basic measuring units is created.
      Each of the for main variables can be an input or a result of a photogrammetric method.

    • I think it is obvious that the Photo’s purported to be Oswald in his backyard with the rifle is a fake. His head added to someone else’s body. The splice line at the chin gives this away. Jack White succeeded only in muddying the waters by discrediting the whole argument and the House hearings. Mission Accomplished?

      The reason I ask that is because people like White, and Fetzer, with their crazy over the top bullshit do discredit legitimate research and findings. This is why they need to be exposed.

      After this recent reexamination of these issues I am more convinced than ever that Fetzer is a charlatan. White is too, but I don’t know if he is just a dupe or a nefarious operator. I think it is Fetzer’s real job though, to stir bullshit into the pot – it is his intent in my opinion.

  35. Another problem in this research area is when an author misuses other researchers’ work. The way that Mantik characterizes Vince Palamara’s article from The Third Decade (page 51) leaves the impression that Palamara claimed (and that Mantik concurs) there were at least 48 witnesses who said that the limousine stopped on Elm Street. This is incorrect. When you actually read Vince’s article for yourself, you can see that Vince clearly admits at the beginning of the article that he is lumping together ALL witnesses, including some who said that the limo had come to a complete stop, some who said that the limo had slowed down, and those who said that the limo did not accelerate until after the head shot. Mantik did not dare to quote Vince’s article so that you could find this out for yourself. I will:

    “. . . the vast number of witnesses who testified that the Presidential
    limousine, driven by veteran Secret Service driver William R. Greer,
    slowed, stopped or, at the very least, failed to accelerate until only
    after the fatal head shot had found its mark.”

    So, out of 47 witnesses listed in Vince’s article, how many actually stated that the limousine made a complete stop? I went through his article and noted how many actually stated that the limousine made a complete stop. I had to throw out a few witnesses because it was not clear that they meant the limousine when they talked about the ‘party’ or the ‘cavalcade’ stopping. We know that some witnesses were referring only to the rest of the motorcade, and the photographic evidence shows that several cars further back in the motorcade did stop in the middle of Elm Street. Out of the remaining 41 witnesses, only 14 actually stated that the limousine stopped. 19 of the 41 only stated that the limousine had slowed down, and 8 of the 41 only stated that the limousine had waited until after the head shot to accelerate. I have drawn up a chart (see below) which places the witnesses in the various categories. The chart has no statistical significance, but it seems evident that more witnesses only stated that the limousine slowed down than those who were sure that it stopped. The Zapruder film itself, as well as other films, corroborates that the limousine was going very slowly when it rounded the corner onto Elm Street. And the Zapruder film itself, as shown by the Alvarez study, corroborates that the limousine had suddenly slowed down at about Z-300 from about 12 MPH to about 8 MPH.
    Mantik’s obvious errors are another reason why a book like Assassination Science suffers from the lack of proofreading and fact checking (just like Posner’s Case Closed). The innocent reader would not have the means to spot such obvious errors and thus would be impressed by the false conclusions based on faulty data.”~Anthony Marsh


    • Proof that the Zapruder film is authentic

      “One of the central arguments in the book Assassination Science is that the Zapruder film is not authentic. Various researchers argue that frames had been cut out for some conspiratorial motive. On pages 310 to 315 Dr. Mantik discusses the strange ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area. He does not know what caused them and suspects that they indicate tampering. Balderdash. To date, no one has correctly explained what those images are and how they were created. For many years I have puzzled over them and discussed them with other researchers, but never reached a firm conclusion due to the very poor quality of the Zapruder film versions we have had. Now MPI has released the original Zapruder film with the sprocket hole areas intact. Within 5 seconds of viewing this new videotape release of the Zapruder, I knew instantly what the sprocket hole images are and exactly what caused them. You, gentle reader, will be among the first people to learn the truth. Since the publication of this article this summer I have received positive feedback from Internet readers which has allowed me to figure out what more of the ghost images are. I have revised and updated this article from this point to reflect the new information.
      The Zapruder film proves itself to be authentic. There is no possibility that any frames could have been cut out of the film. Every time a frame was exposed, part of the background scene was exposed onto the next frame and the previous frame in their sprocket hole areas. The ghostlike images in the sprocket hole area are double exposures. Real objects faintly visible. The cause is the particular design of the inner workings of the Bell & Howell camera. When a frame is being exposed, there is an aperture plate which covers the frames above and below the current frame so that they do not get accidentally exposed. Some 8 mm cameras leave open the sprocket hole area of the current frame, which allows information to be recorded there, but that area is normally not projected. Some 8 mm cameras have a notch in the top of the aperture plate where the claw finishes its stroke when pulling down the next frame. Bell & Howell designed the aperture plate to use a groove in the middle of the aperture plate instead of a notch at the top. The illustration on the left is from a standard reference on film making which shows what an aperture plate looks like with a typical notch. The illustration on the right is what the aperture plate would look like if the notch had been changed to a groove. I also suspect that the corners are actually rounded instead of sharp. After exposure of the current frame, the claw grabs the current frame’s sprocket hole and pulls the current frame down to bring in the next frame.

      Now, what are the implications of this discovery about the Zapruder film? For one thing, it makes it extremely unlikely that anyone could have tampered with the film and reproduced the ghost images perfectly. When you consider that no one else, not even the best camera experts in the world, realized the mechanism which caused the ghostlike images for over 34 years, it seems highly unlikely that the conspirators would know about this characteristic of Zapruder’s camera and be able to duplicate it within a few hours. If someone were to remove a frame or two here and there, the ghost images in the tabs would not line up properly with the new adjacent frames and would expose the alteration. It is time for everyone who has doubted the authenticity of the Zapruder film to realize that the Zapruder film is genuine and authentic, and now move on with their research.”~Anthony Marsh

      [Also see: Zavada report, above.]

      • “One of the problems with the book Assassination Science is that some authors misuse or misquote eyewitness testimony. It is bad enough that eyewitness testimony is already acknowledged to be the most unreliable form of evidence. But it is made worse when sloppy researchers misquote eyewitness testimony to support insupportable conclusions. But it is even worse when a researcher simply makes up an eyewitness statement from his imagination in order to support his pre-conceived conclusion. On page 214 Jack White lists his observations of the Zapruder film which he thinks prove that the film is a fake. In Observation 5, Jack White states that, “Connally said he turned to his left to look at the President, then turned to his right. The film does not show this.” Jack White does not provide any footnotes for his chapter, so the reader can not find out where this statement came from. After repeated questioning Jack finally admitted that he had based that on an article by Milicent Cranor. He did not bother to fact check it himself.”

  36. A friend of mine ask me by email if I saw any connections, direct connections between the group that killed Kennedy and 9/11. This is my answer:

    “Continuity of Government”
    The System will choose men who do the System’s bidding.

    It is the System, the apparatus. So YES. There are generations; familial – a lot centered around Yale and Skull and Bones, but not exclusively – deeper, more extant. By that I mean global at the apex of the pyramid:
    The central banking cabal. All Intelligence agencies feed back up the food chain to them. That’s how they call the shots. This system works very smoothly, all of the chaos is directed theater.

    Yes a “whale of a tale but true” just like explained by Kirk Douglas in 20 THOUSAND LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA … Or maybe that was 7 DAYS IN MAY.

      • What I found interesting in the discussion of the film 7 DAYS IN MAY is that “Mount Weather” and the concept of “Continuity of Government” was alluded to in that film.
        And Rod Serling wrote the screenplay – what an amassing of talent!

        MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE, also directed by John Frankenheimer, indicates his dedication to deep state issues. That Kennedy himself, who was friends with Frankenheimer encouraged him to make 7 DAYS is really remarkable in itself.


    This discusses the a similar optical illusion I discussed during the Shack arguments about the antenna atop the World Trade Tower that seemed to be at different angles as it fell in different videos. Shack concluded that the films were different due to CGI manufacturing of phony video. This is not the case, the videos were actually shot from slightly different angles and distances, giving the appearance that it was falling towards differing directions.

    John Costella makes a similar mistake in claiming that sign poles in the Zapruder film were doctored in by composite work done to fake the film at Hawkeye works, a CIA film lab.

    • Remember here that the Z-film is not only visual evidence, but the film and the camera it was shot in are also physical evidence. Any discussion of the film has to include this aspect of the dual nature of the film as both physical and visual evidence, to grasp the mechanics of its initial production. The subsequent mechanics of its development is then examined in light of that.

    • I have read some more arguments on the YouTube channel claiming that the Nix film shows the limo coming to a complete stop.


      These arguments rely on the relationship of other objects in movement in the scene. One of these is that “the follow up car almost rear-ended the limo”. That is indeed a fair representation. But a car slowing down dramatically in front of a faster moving car will show the same result. The ONLY way to tell if the limo came to a complete stop in the films is to compare its movement to the stationary objects in the scene, the background and foreground. When doing this we see that the limo did slow dramatically as Greer glances backward. In the Nix film, we see the left brake light flash. This is the moment we see the occupants rocked forward in the Z-film. And yet none of the films show a total and complete stop.

  38. I want to make note here, primarily for myself and any others who have listened to Fetzer’s interview with Doug Horne. In that interview Horne goes on to great length about a “Hollywood Research Group” that was making hi-res HD scans of the high quality prints from the JFK museum. He claimed that several of the group had found “obvious blacking out of the back of Kennedy’s head wound”
    That interview can be heard here, near bottom of page:

    This interview with Horn took place in 2010. It has now been 4 years, and there has been no more mention of the results this “Hollywood Research Group” has come up with.

    Where is it? Did they just fade away and forget about it? Did they ever actually exist?

    I am most concerned about this, first of all because of the shit that both Fetzer and Horne talked about Zavada, implying that he was being disingenuous in his findings in his report on the Zapruder camera, and the extent of supposition used by both Fetzer and Horne in their discussions.

    At this point I am more inclined to doubt Horne than Zavada, Especially as Horne has linked up with Fetzer’s PR firm to promote his books.

    • A note on the interview from the URL above. Pay close attention to Fetzer’s gushing emotional praise of Horne. From the way his voice begins to crack it sounds as though he is on the verge of tears.

      “Vindication!!” screams from his subtext. These “proofs” offered by Horne overwhelm Fetzer’s ego causing such effusive flattery to spew from him that it becomes an embarrassing tsunami, as though Horn is a golden winged angel transporting him to Conspiracy-Theorist Heaven.

      And what does this in turn do for Horne’s ego? He is pumped, and he and Fetzer share a soul fusion, solidly emotional comrades.

      It all takes on the dynamic of flaming woowoo.

  39. sign in Z-filmSign

    Horne writes: “Frame 220 depicts JFK’s limousine emerging
    from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign. In the HD scan of this frame, the
    upper right corner of the sign looks as though it had been cut off by a
    razor blade (i.e., it does not have a rounded edge as it does in other
    . . . . .
    This is an optical illusion caused by shadows in the background blending with the hue of the color of the sign. Note the brightest red motorcycle light is below the darker hue than the sign strip running to the edge where we see Jackie Kennedy’s head and hat at the spot where the sign’s curved corner is. That whole area seems to be a blend of “ghost image” (double exposure) over the real image of the shot as the sign itself seems to step-up in the line extending from that brightest red motorcycle light to Mrs Kennedy’s head.

    To really study the above frame shot, one needs to copy it to one’s own picture viewer and blow it up to see the details I speak to here.

  40. Jeffy”s cognitive difficulties become more than his personal problem when he exhibits them so profusely on a serious blog such as T&S. Should someone be censored for stupidity? The question is whether that would properly be considered “censorship”, and not simply an editors discretion. It is as annoying and distracting as any other type of distraction we might name, even though it is unlikely purposeful on Jeffy’s part, he has no idea of how mundane his commentary is.

    See his remarks here:

    November 25, 2014 at 9:47 pm
    Well, I still believe the Z film has been altered big time. Until I see the part of the Limo driving into the plaza and the clearer version of the fatal shot, I’m ain’t buying any of that crap !

    The reason Zapruder didn’t catch the limo coming around the corner is that the motorcycles were so far in advance that he wasn’t sure when the motorcade would come in view, he was concerned about having enough film. So he stopped filming until he saw the limo, it took just a couple seconds for him to begin shooting again. Analysis of the film shows only that the camera stopped recording and then began recording again – nothing can be said to have been cut out at that point.

    A “clearer version of the head shot” may be desired, but it is what it is, and that is pretty clear and dynamic. That it doesn’t match the preconceptions that Jeffy has drawn from the psychobabble of Fetzer and crew is the real issue.

  41. A note on aerial printing, that is shooting on an animation stand, and using a clear cell to paint changes on a photo underneath:

    A photograph used as the background for this process would be a 2nd generation in the subsequent rephotograph.

  42. “…If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film the weekend of the assassination, and if it was really developed in Rochester at a CIA lab run by Kodak (as he was unambiguously told it was), then the extant film in the Archives is not a camera original film, but a simulated ‘original’ created with an optical printer at the CIA’s secret film lab in Rochester.”~Horne
    . . . . . .
    “If McMahon was correct that he had viewed an original, 16 mm wide, unslit double 8 movie film..”

    What if McMahon is not correct? He was interviewed July 14, 1997. That is close to 34 years after the events he is recalling. For myself, that is enough to give pause to accepting his memory is correct.

    My note on aerial printing [process printer] is relevant to this situation. This 16mm dupe in itself would be a 2nd generation film.

  43. “Second, Richard Stolley’s recollection that the original film went to LIFE’s printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, for immediate processing, obviously requires reexamination ….

    . Third, the Secret Service and the CIA, obviously working together on the project, must have rushed the 8 mm camera original film from Washington, D.C. to the “Hawkeye
    Plant” in Rochester by air, immediately after Bill Banfield’s photo technicians had run off the last enlargement prints for the McCone briefing boards, just prior to dawn on Sunday morning. The CIA’s Kodak-staffed lab in Rochester would have had most of the day (probably about 9 or 10 hours), using an optical printer such as the Oxberry commonly used by Hollywood’s special effects wizards, to remove whatever was objectionable…”~Horne

    . . . . . .
    Horne’s tale of the original film being intercepted is built primarily on conjecture. So there is also the possibility that the original film did go to LIFE’s printing plant in Chicago on Saturday, November 23rd, and the film used at the processing plant was a 2nd generation copy that we know the Secret Service already had. That would then make the product of the step printer a 3rd generation copy.

    • Oxberry Optical Printer


      As in any analog process, every optical “pass” degraded the picture, just like a photocopy of a photocopy (although the degradation can be greater with contact printing than with optical printing).[2] Also, since a new, different piece of film was exposed and printed, matching the exact colors of the original was a problem. Usually the printer work was limited to only the parts of a dissolve needing the effect. The original footage was spliced mid-shot with the optically-printed portion, often resulting in an obvious change in image quality when the transition occurs.

      Other problematic artifacts depend on the effect attempted, most often alignment inaccuracies in matte work. For this reason, shots intended to be manipulated via optical printer were often shot on larger film formats than the rest of the project. Otherwise obsolete formats, such as VistaVision, remained in use for many years after they had been abandoned for the conventional shooting of scenes because their larger frame size provided greater clarity, reduced grain size when reprinted and any alignment problems were not as conspicuous.
      . . .
      So there are a few issues to address here.

      One is that it isn’t purported that the Z-film was printed in a larger format. It is said that a new 16mm unsplit version was the product of the ‘manipulation’. The effects are said to have been done by rephotographing the large prints made for the presentation boards.

      Secondly creating travelling mattes for the special effects is not simply a matter of using an optical printer. Such travelling mattes must be created as a second and more time consuming process. Asserting that the presentation prints were used would entail an animation table, not a process printer. This would mean hand painting the travelling matte one cell at a time. And if only certain sections were to be done this way, the problem arises as to matching that work with the sections not animated.

      These problems combine into a situation wherein it is almost impossible to believe it could be accomplished in that 9 to 10 hour window – which is itself in doubt.

      On top of this all of these issues become moot when the ghost-image situation is added into the equation. That is explained in detail here already, but the bottom line is ANY splicing or mixing films together to create the ‘effects’ cannot have happened because of the flow of the ghost images as a portion of the image before it proceeds uninterrupted. This proves there were no splices in the film whatsoever. I refer you back to Roland Zavada and Anthony Marsh once more.

  44. Now knowing Fetzer, he will throw a tantrum and bawl about my reassessment from the last time we went through the Zapruder material. That would be to no avail however. So he should skip that jejune prologue and deal with the criticisms of the issues I have brought up.

    Thus far only Care Kluehn has made any response to last years T&S thread on the issue. As Fetzer is her mentor I would assume that she may alert him to it. But apparently not yet.

  45. The JFK assassination research community now faces a critical dilemma. That being in that so much effort has been put to disproving the Autopsy Photographs and X-rays. The dilemma the community faces is that all the while it was thought that the results of such faking proved a rear shot, or attempted to. However using the most modern scientific forensic knowledge, it has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that those very documents X-rays and photos in fact prove a single shot from the front killed Kennedy.

    Sherry Fiester, CSI has shown using these most up-to-date scientific methods in her book:
    ‘Enemy of the Truth: Myths, Forensics, and the Kennedy Assassination’.

    It is the information provided in this book that has brought me to this point of reassessing many of my previously held views, which seemingly were based on myths compiled upon mistakes and misdirection.

    I am satisfied that I am on the right track here in my review of the record as far as I have gotten so far. But I don’t see an end to this is in sight. It has been after all some fifty years now, and a review of something that large will take a great deal of time and effort.

    In rejecting some of these long held beliefs by the research community, I will surely be confronted with “disbelief” by many in the community with vested interests in their own strongly held views and research.
    I gladly invite such criticisms and will do my best to answer such. Having said that there are certain personages that I will not tolerate posting on this particular blog. I will meet their criticisms in other venues, such as T&S. That place has a much larger readership at any rate, and it is already an open forum format which this blog was not intended to be.

    So I will continue here on this page into the future, perhaps not with the same zeal as the last few weeks, but there is so much more to cover, so I must press on.

    • jfetzer2012 — November 27, 2014 at 3:12 pm
      “As though we needed any more proof that this guy is a complete fraud, here is an earlier article I published, “Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More proof of JFK film fakery” on VT at And his massive ignorance about research on the film could not be more manifest than his remarks about the ghost panels, which John Costella, Ph.D., analyzed and explained in THE GREAT ZAPRUDER FILM HOAX (2003). To recreate the ghost panels, they had to reshoot each frame at Hawkeyeworks, which is the reason the film as a whole is a fabrication. There is no need for anyone to ever take this guy seriously again. He is pathetically corrupt and inept.”~Fetzer

      ….. ……
      My answer there:

      “As though we needed any more proof that this guy is a complete fraud… And his massive ignorance about research on the film could not be more manifest than his remarks about the ghost panels…There is no need for anyone to ever take this guy seriously again. He is pathetically corrupt and inept.”~Fetzer

      Fetzer is not explaining what I asked him to explain, which is why the ghost-images are within the same flow throughout the film.

      Although there is nothing to be done about his arrogant squalling and insults, I am not going to accept Fetzer continuing to cite himself here in this present argument.
      He cannot pretend he doesn’t know what I am asking. He cannot pretend that the technicians at Hawkeyeworks had any idea of what caused the ghost panels 34 years prior to that revelation coming known by Zavada’s investigation of Zapruder’s camera.

      • hybridrogue1 — November 27, 2014 at 5:39 pm

        Again, I have a very simple question. Do you not understand it Jim?

        The sprocket of the camera allowed light into the camera creating ghost images to bleed into the next frame of each successive frame. If there were any splices the ghost image would not be of the prior frame, it would be of the prior frame that had been cut out.

        Do you grasp this Jim? In the Zapruder film it is a steady flow of each frame showing a ghost image of the frame just prior to it. In no instance is there a frame with a ghost image of a frame several frames before it.

        Furthermore no one at the time of this supposed faking knew what caused these ghost images, they would therefore not realize that they had to then somehow blend a new ghost image in to the new area that shows a ghost image of the image at the beginning of the splice. This makes the entire process much more complex than what you are attempting to present here.

        As I said I am not going to accept being led to long expositions that go over the same material you have presented before. You are here now, can’t you make an argument in the here and now Mr Fetzer?

      • hybridrogue1 — November 27, 2014 at 6:18 pm

        Mr Fetzer,

        You have not answered the question I have asked. This escalating hyperbole is not going to suffice. Saying, ” You are truly despicable,” is not argument it is simply ad hominem.

        I will give you one more chance to answer my question.

  46. This is my position on the authenticity of the Zapruder Film:

    The sprocket mechanism of the Zapruder camera allowed light into the camera creating ghost images to bleed into the next frame of each successive frame. If there were any splices the ghost image would not be of the prior frame, it would be of the prior frame that had been cut out.

    In the Zapruder film it is a steady flow of each frame showing a ghost image of the frame just prior to it. In no instance is there a frame with a ghost image of a frame several frames before it.

    It was 34 years later that these ghost-images were explained to be the result of the mechanism of Zapruder’s particular camera. Therefore no one at the time of this supposed faking knew what caused these ghost images, they would not have realized that they needed to somehow blend a new ghost image in to the new area that shows a ghost image of the image at the beginning of the splice.

    As there are no instances of a ghost image from any but the previous frame in the procession of the film, there cannot have been a splice anywhere in the film.

    The Zapruder film is authentic.

  47. These quotes are right from JFK Horsemen itself:

    Harges: “slowed down almost to a stop” (1971) “He wasn’t completely stopped”

    Martin at Garrison trial: “Yes sir, it was after the third shot it had almost come to a stop….it was going very slowly.”

    Harges: “slowed down almost to a stop” (1971) “He wasn’t completely stopped”

    Martin at Garrison trial: “Yes sir, it was after the third shot it had almost come to a stop….it was going very slowly.”

    Garrison trial:
    Oser: “what did the limousine do then?” (after the head-shot)
    Simmons: “It paused and then accelerated real fast after the motorcycle got out of the way.”

    Ellis: “Well no it didn’t stop, it almost stopped”

    Larry Rivera also repeats the slur that Jackie Kennedy was trying to get out of the car. It is firmly established that she was trying to reach for a piece of her husbands skull that had hit the trunk.

    Courson gave an interview FIFTY YEARS LATER, that said he saw the limo stop. This is too long from the event to take seriously.


  48. hybridrogue1
    November 28, 2014 at 11:04 pm
    Ms. Kluehn,

    First of all, I am not here for a ‘reorientation class’.

    And yes it is all too obvious that “Jim is upset”, his hysterical blather and bullying can hardly go unnoticed.

    As per “new evidence”, the new evidence coming to my attention that I find most compelling is the new forensic treatment given by a real and experienced Crime Scene Investigator, with special expertise in ballistics and blood splatter analysis. This analysis proves with the most modern forensic science that the shot that killed Kennedy is from the front in the area of the Grassy Knoll just next to the triple underpass.

    Further this analysis shows that the Autopsy X-rays of the skull display further confirmation of this trajectory analysis.

    It is not happenstance that the Fetzer Crowd has attacked this new analysis by Sherry Feister CSI, with the first tactic being a “critique” by Mantik, which is a hit-piece grounded in spurious rhetoric.

    Now to be perfectly frank, I don’t think that Fetzer is sincere. I have profiled his MO as an agent provocateur as far back as the 9/11 debates between us. You may be shocked! Yes shocked! to be informed that I am hardly the only one who has come to this conclusion. In fact I would assert that those possessing good critical thinking skills have figured this out for themselves. I won’t give the links to the many sites where Fetzer’s MO is analyzed, those with any interest can find such for themselves

    I will end with this note on the meaning of the term “stealing thunder”, which is oft times the most formidable shield for an agent provocateur, that of calling your opponent that which you yourself are. Fetzer consistently accuses me of being an “op”. This is preposterous, and anyone knowing my background knows that I simply have zero connections to the deep state, nor with mainstream academia.

    You choose to keep this dialog alive Ms. Kuehn, giving me the opportunity to respond. If you are unhappy with my response, keep in mind you initiated it yourself.

  49. Hypocrisy on a dull stick:

    James Henry Fetzer — December 10, 2013 at 10:34 pm

    “Craig, I think that anyone who resorts to crude ad hominems and views “Bullshit!” as an argument has no place on a civilized forum. I have not said a word about him until now, but I regard him as a disgrace to “Truth and Shadows”, which is for adults, not children.”~Fetzer


  50. Craig McKee — November 29, 2014 at 3:35 pm
    “For everyone on this or any other thread on Truth and Shadows, please keep your comments focused on substance and not gratuitous personal attacks. Frankly, they are tedious to read and they do damage to what could otherwise be an important discussion about the JFK assassination and the Zapruder film. Thank you.”
    . . . . .

    Good! Since Fetzer cannot seem to make a single post without the inclusion of bluster and insult, he likely will have nothing more to say there. It turned in to a circus carousel long ago anyway.

  51. This past couple of weeks has been very interesting. The experience on the JFK thread on T&S was educational for me. First of all, having to put ones thoughts down and articulate them always requires focusing that energy to express what you really mean, and this is translating what you have learned from the intervening period between the end of the last discussion and the current one.

    Having stepped back and reexamining many of my long held opinions became a transformative experience in itself, attempting to express the new POV that developed sharpened my understanding further.
    Perhaps the thread looks like a ‘bust’ to you, an unfortunate state of affairs. And though I can see that in a certain sense; for me there was another level. The conflict and combativeness became a distraction to the calm discussion, yes. But it also provides a lesson in itself. Because it highlights that there is something going on besides simple counterargument.

    Clare Kuehn gives us a clue in this phrase she used; “simple reorienting arguments”. I responded that I was not interested in taking a reorientation class. The term “reorientation” is a loaded word, one that has been used in the psychology of propaganda and persuasion, it is a PR term. And if you understand it’s use in manipulation, and become aware of the underlying agenda, you can surmise that Ms Kuehn has been educated in such techniques.

    Many times it is not the product sold, but the way it is sold that tells you more than the technical details in the product’s literature. What is illustrative of this is that when you look at this particular product literature, that is the ‘Alterationist’ literature, and compare it to the sales pitch to sell that product, (the acceptance of the Alterationist POV – or ‘orientation’), you come to realize that the sales pitch and the literature are divergent. That is that the product being sold is not as described by the sales pitch.

    I described it in one of my posts as an internal inconsistency within the literature, such as the claim that the limo stopped with “proofs” of quotes that simply did not say the limo stopped! Quotes that said outright, “No it did not come to a complete stop but was moving very slowly.” But the advertising said that all of these witnesses said the limo stopped.

    So this discovery that I can now go back and analyze, focus on, and articulate here, makes the discussion very much worth the time, regardless of the ‘bar brawl’ nature it took on.

  52. Clint Bradford Points out Mantik errors:

    1 >Mantik quotes Baker and Chaney as stating that the limousine stopped.
    Unfortunately, though, Baker’s statement was hearsay – he was only
    quoting what was told to him by Chaney.

    2>Mantik cites Chaney’s statement as “Warren Commission testimony.”
    Please tell me where

    3> But what Mantik DOESN’T offer
    us is Earle Brown’s “retraction” during that SAME session of testimony:

    Brown: Actually, the first I noticed the car was when it stopped…
    After it made the turn and when the shots were fired, it stopped.

    Ball: Did it come to a complete stop?

    Brown: That, I couldn’t swear to.

    Ball: It appeared to be slowed down some?

    Brown: Yes; slowed down.

    Mantik replies:

    1. You are correct that Marrion L. Baker was quoting Chaney about the
    limousine stopping (3H266).

    2. You are correct that my citation for Chaney (3H221) is in error.

    3.You point out that Officer Earle Brown offered a “retraction” to my
    citation of his initial statement that the limo had stopped and you
    quote him as subsequently saying that the limo may not actually have
    stopped, but that it had slowed down. I have no objection to this.
    . . . . .
    From Kennedy’s Horsemen:
    Harges: “slowed down almost to a stop” (1971) “He wasn’t completely stopped”

    Martin at Garrison trial: “Yes sir, it was after the third shot it had almost come to a stop….it was going very slowly.”

    Harges: “slowed down almost to a stop” (1971) “He wasn’t completely stopped”

    Martin at Garrison trial: “Yes sir, it was after the third shot it had almost come to a stop….it was going very slowly.”

    Garrison trial:
    Oser: “what did the limousine do then?” (after the head-shot)
    Simmons: “It paused and then accelerated real fast after the motorcycle got out of the way.”

    Ellis: “Well no it didn’t stop, it almost stopped”

    5 officers cite’d incorrectly for complete stop:

    1 .Ellis
    2. Harges
    3. Martin
    4. Brown
    5. Chaney
    >>”More importantly, however, my own position has never depended on a
    >>complete stop; a significant slowing (which was widely reported) is
    >>quite enough to disagree (disconcertingly) with the extant version of
    >>the Z film.”~Mantik

    “This is where we both disagree. I have over a dozen renditions of the
    Zapruder film (mentioned above) that all show the exact “significant
    slowing” of the Presidential limo.”~Clint Bradford

    “I sincerely believe that we have to dismiss witness’ statements of “the
    limo stopped” – as well as “slowed down” – if they were BEHIND the limo
    during this sequence. Just leave them out of the “number crunching.”
    Here’s why.

    Something dramatic is happening. People sense something’s wrong. The
    Presidential limo is moving directly AWAY from them. At a downward
    angle. And the brake lights come on…

    We cannot hold eyewitnesses’ testimony to be entirely accurrate in that
    situation – the difference of “slowing” and “stopped” in that situation
    just might be beyond the depth perception capabilities of humans.”~Clint Bradford
    * * * * * * * *
    I am satisfied at this time that the Zapruder film is authentic. What I am looking into now are the claims by the Fetzer crew of witnesses who testified that the limousine came to a complete stop. In the short time I have been researching this I have already eliminated 5 of the witnesses Fetzer et al have cited. Is a pattern arising here?

    • Now I already presented Fetzer with the information above concerning Mantik, and which Mantik admitted himself were mistakes. the following was Fetzer’s November 28, 2014 at 11:32 am reply:

      >>”But what Mantik reported was true and has been confirmed by the new work of Larry Rivera.”

      The first thing that is blatantly obvious is that Fetzer is not talking about the Mantik erroneous citations, because the officers in Rivera’s film are different officers than those discussed by Mantik and Bradford.

      The second thing is that Fetzer himself was in the email exchange with Mantik and Bradford, and acknowledged the issue and agreed to publish apology and Errata. Instead of doing this, Fetzer now repeats the citations as valid, and confuses who’s citations he is talking about.
      . . . . . . . . . .

      “Mantik cites “Warren Commission testimony” from someone who NEVER TESTIFIED to the WC…he mis-quotes others…attributes a statement to the wrong source…I have problems accepting any of his “thesis” when the basic facts are hard for him to absorb and recite.”~Bradford

      This same criticism is duly charged to Fetzer as well, but with malice of forethought. Fetzer is not merely mistaken he is prevaricating, and hand-waving.

  53. Notes from ‘JFK Horsemen part 2:

    “In the telephone conversation not long before he died Curry confirmed to me that another police officer had witnessed [second hand testimony] the motorcade came to a virtual halt on the *access ramp to the Stemmens*. Patrolman Earl Brown was on the railroad overpass which spans Stemmons (not the triple underpass) and saw the cars come to a complete stop for nearly 30 seconds as it approached him.
    He told this information to Earl Golz of the Dallas Morning News, and repeated it to me when I called him for verification. Unknown to me was that Jim Bowles, in his reconstruction had already allowed for 15-20 seconds for the temporary stop in addition to the time it took from the Plaza to the access road.
    Curry told me they slowed down for two reasons: to find out from motorcycle officer if anyone was hurt, and to inform the Secret Service of the location of the nearest hospital.”

    NOTE: The access ramp to the Stemmons FWY is some 700 feet beyond the Pavilion where Zapruder filmed the JFK head shot – and some 400 feet beyond the triple underpass. Earl Brown was 400 feet to the right on another railroad overpass.

    This has ZERO RELEVANCE to the scene of the shooting, and the assertions that the limousine stopped in front of the pavilion.

    • “What could be more powerful proof that the limo stopped and the film is a fake?”~Fetzer (speaking to JFK Horsemen part 2)

      Lol… What could this possibly have to do with the Zapruder film? It had ended even before the limousine got to the underpass. This entire testimony has to do with what was observed at the Stemmons FWY access ramp some 700 feet beyond the Pavilion on the Grassy Knoll and totally out of view from there.

  54. Speaking to Whitney, Ellis says; “…and ah, one or two agents then were on there (limousine) … I believe – I know we had one and possibly two.”

    As per piece of bone said to have been handed to a Secret Service man [27:25 Horsement] Ellis said, “No I didn’t see him put it in there at all (limousine) … one of my men saw him do it.

    miller photo

    So here we have no definite testimony of more than one men (Hill) on the limousine on Elm, and second hand testimony about the kid handing the agent a piece of bone and throwing it in the limo at the time.

    • Note on the Miller photograph above, the Fetzer gang tries to assert this is a left foot. I just blew it up in my picture viewer and it is certainly a right foot.

      Fetzer claims that Hill is not wearing his sunglasses in this photo – so it is someone else…
      Horseshit, you can see the gleam of the lense clearly in the B&W photo to the right.


  55. Bill Greer’s Impossible Head Turn
    James R. Gordon

    “One of the biggest mistakes made in the creation of the film was the depiction of the driver of the presidential limousine, Secret Service agent William Greer.” — John Costella (TGZFH P. 193)

    So begins John Costella in the section of his article “A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication” where he deals with the twin head turns of Bill Greer. It is a short section, comprising of only four pages. There is no analysis of the images concerned and Costella’s main reference is Noel Twyman’s book “Bloody Treason” pages 127-129 and Twyman’s Exhibts C2 + C3.

    In the section of this article, entitled “Replicating the Twyman experiment at home” he says:

    “I decided that it would be simple enough to replicate this experiment for myself – and, indeed, it is not too difficult for most people to perform.” TGZFH P.194

    John Costella’s main contribution to the book is entitled “A Scientist’s Verdict: The Film is a Fabrication”. Within this article Costella develops a section within which he comments on, and supports, an observation that is contained within Noel Twyman’s book “Bloody Treason”; that twice in the Zapruder film driver Bill Greer turns both back and forward at a speed that is not humanly possible. John Costella might suggest, within his title, that his contribution to TGZFH is that of a scientist, however this “scientist” did not do the most elementary item of research: to check whether infact Twyman was correct in his initial hypothesis regarding these turns. The simple answer is that he (Twyman) is not correct and what is interesting is that the very images of the Zapruder film which Twyman includes in his book demonstrate that he is wrong. If the reader looks at the colour plate on which Twyman has a copy of Z 317 which he (Twyman ) also annotates and comments on how by this frame Bill Greer is facing forward, as well as indicating how impossible it would be for him to do so, it will be seen that at this frame Bill Greer is not facing forward. How Noel Twyman ever concluded from this frame [ which he included in his book ] that his subject ( Bill Greer ) is facing forward at this point is beyond this writer’s comprehension. As pointed out, this elementary item of research [ checking whether the hypothesis was indeed accurate to begin with ] was evidently not carried out by John Costella, however he did continue to describe this error not only as a truth but a further proof that the Zapruder film had been fabricated.
    Z-film - gif

    The basic hypothesis which Twyman expounded and which John Costella appears to completely support, is that between two Zapruder film sequences:

    i. Z 302 – Z 303

    ii. Z 315 – 317

    Bill Greer’s head turns by approximately 120 -140º. There is dispute between researchers as to how great this turn actually is. Approaching a third of John Costella’s comment on these turns is taken up with some complex mathematical calculations that underline just how impossible it would be to the human body to make either of these turns within the time he specifies. It is a pity this scientist did not take an equal, or even greater time, to analyse whether the hypothesis, he is now supporting, stands up to serious scrutiny.

    What follows is a description of the twin turns Bill Greer made just before and just after the fatal head shot. Within the description I will illustrate and comment on the errors that John Costella both made himself and failed to detect within the work of Noel Twyman.”

  56. It is obvious that Fetzer is allergic to the slightest hint of dissent or criticism of his assertions. He goes ballistic, attacking like an enraged bull rather than making cogent counter arguments to his critics. These are the tactics of a juvenile delinquent and thug, not a scholar and “professor emeritus”.

    And thugs such as he are often candidates for intelligence agencies


    It appears that here again, proponents of Z-film alteration believe
    that the creation of all the required steps to achieve special effects in
    theatrical motion picture are easily and equally applicable to 8mm film
    taken with amateur consumer quality cameras rendered in such a way as
    to replicate an original “in-camera” film without tell-tale image structure
    characteristics. Nothing is farther from the truth and the author’s choice
    of the word “created” may well be significant.
    The reader of this dissertation is cautioned to consider the
    complex characteristics of typical special effects cinematography.
    Simply stated, to achieve special optical effects, it is necessary to
    begin with a “family of film types”. Kodak designed camera original color
    films to work compatibly with laboratory intermediate films and print films
    as spectral dye “sets”. !Professional camera negative films were never
    viewed directly and their transmission spectrum matched the spectral
    sensitivity of intermediate (and print) films and the transmission dye set
    of the intermediate films matched the spectral sensitivity of the final
    print films. The print films dye transmission had reasonable visual
    response with arc (or if printed properly) with tungsten projection.
    In the case of the Zapruder film, the spectral sensitivity of a
    daylight camera original Kodachrome reversal film was balanced for about
    5900 deg. Kelvin with nominally parallel curves having gammas of about
    1.8. Because it was a reversal (i.e. it yielded a positive image) the
    spectral transmission characteristics of the dyes were designed for visual
    response when projected with 32-3400 deg Kelvin illumination. !The film
    was not designed for printing response so that its dye set matched the
    spectral sensitivity of laboratory intermediate negative or positive films.
    A reversal duplicating film was available, but that was for direct simple
    copies, and not expected to be used as an intermediate. Further the
    film’s daylight sensitivity; contrast and spectral characteristics do not
    render it receptive for use as a “print” medium – hence, one “hell-of-a”
    problem for someone trying to replicate a Kodachrome original (Note: the
    goal now being to create a “Kodachrome original”) by using special
    optical effects!
    The goal to create a “Kodachrome original provides further
    insurmountable challenges. Special optical effects for the cinema are
    designed to fulfill story telling support in scenes rendered in such a way
    that they are not obvious or disturbing to the audience. The author
    wishes us to believe that unknown persons with unknown advanced
    technology and film resources were able: to create a “Kodachrome
    original” that would be subject to undetectable microscopic examination
    and evaluation by multiple researchers. The “evidence” offered are scene
    content anomalies and an a priori technical capability and expertise.
    The limited comments above do not even begin to address image
    structure constraints of grain; contrast and modulation transfer function
    losses. However another constraint requires comment and that is the
    requirement in optical effects of maintaining “cancellation” of film
    positioning variables due to: positioning/repositioning the film in the
    camera and optical bench projectors; processing shrinkage; relative
    humidity controls and heat control from projector light sources. Pilot pin
    registration is the typical method used and required for 35mm films.
    Sixteen-millimeter films also use “edge and point guiding” as a possible
    method for very limited effects. Either of the above requires a reference
    perforation(s) or edge and a perforation reference for adequate image
    positioning for the required masks.
    With the Zapruder film you have neither. The reference edge (i.e.
    fixed rail side in the camera) is lost after slitting as the spring-loaded
    guides are adjacent to the images being formed on the double-8 (16mm
    width film raw stock). Add to this the manufacturing (standardized)
    tolerances of: variation of slit width and perforation size and the required
    tight tolerances for optical special effects of scene content or as implied
    “alteration”, cannot be achieved.
    A further complication in the equation derived by the author is that
    the final result is “printed” onto Kodachrome II daylight raw stock with
    the appropriate manufacturing marking and processing laboratory codes.
    Any commercial source of the film would not suffice, as it would contain:
    product code, date and strip number. I am not aware of the film source
    implied by the author – i.e. possibly involving a major film manufacturer in
    the implied conspiracy, or trying to derive an unmarked 8mm width slit
    (extracted) from within wide gage film – now requiring the perpetrators of
    alteration to have slitting and perforating equipment.
    Other researchers have addressed the “time-line” and the fact that
    the “same-day” copies would have also required “matched alteration”.
    I’m exhausted envisioning the logistics of this purported set of “miracles”.
    Further, the author also references “sent out for processing (and
    to a Kodachrome plant, such as Hawkeye works)”!I know of no
    Kodachrome processing available at Hawkeye (an equipment division). At
    Kodak, all processing was done through the unified film processing
    division. Kodachrome II required a complex multiple tank process.
    However, if processed at a Kodak lab other than Dallas, the “X” Lab’s ID
    and date would appear on the film – not Dallas! If the lab code printer
    were turned off, then another image reproduction issue is introduced into
    the equation. I am unsure if the author addresses this constraint or its
    purported solution.

    Click to access zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf


  58. >>Q. Second:!“This point is crucial: in the case of the supposed camera
    original, there is not just “some image” in the sprocket hole area (the
    image doesn’t‚ just “bleed over” a little bit); rather, the image goes all
    the way to the left! !To the left margin of the film!
    That this is so can clearly be seen even on the frames of the
    Zapruder film published in Volume 18 of the 26 volumes. But is that
    possible? !Can the Zapruder lens do that? !Can it put an image on the
    film that is full flush left?”~Lifton

    . . . . . .
    Under the correct circumstances of lens and light – yes the image
    can fill the area between the sprockets. !See my test shots; Study 4,
    figure 4-28 and Study 3, Figure 3-12. The Red Truck was taken in Dallas
    the same day in the same camera as the shots of Carol. Also in my
    report to the Movie Machine Society & SMPTE the upper right test
    targets, I show a test target with the image in the preceding and the
    following frame. To ensure this is available, I am emailing a couple of jpg
    images showing this inter-sprocket image characteristic with full
    penetration to the limit of the camera aperture cutout.~Zavada
    . . . . . .

  59. Doug’s comments about the inter-sprocket images surprise me.
    He was an extremely busy man near the time of the deadline for our
    report but always a great help. Obviously he did not see my multiple
    camera test results and apparently did not remember my conclusions
    about the inter-sprocket area. He apparently also forgot how the failure
    of the ARRB to exercise expected initiative with the DOJ caused months
    of delays and unnecessary rewriting (in the summer of ’98) of the report
    format that was subsequently acceptable. Doug’s role helped resolve the
    problem so he should have remembered the reasons for the last minute
    “midnight oil”. However in retrospect: SO WHAT – the complete report
    was delivered ON TIME!

    In the work agreement with Kodak, the ARRB’s request to analyze
    image content of the “Z” film was not accepted and the ARRB expressly
    acknowledged that there would be no “statement of authenticity”
    required because of the “analysis of evidence” nature of the study.
    Let’s put the Kodak report to the ARRB in proper perspective.
    WHAT WE DID WAS: provide a knowledge and factual database. !Thus,
    using our report, the Archives, the DOJ, researchers and students can
    make their own authenticity determination. (i.e. we gave them “Tools” for
    Our Program of Work was structured as studies to address the:
    Medium – vintage of the films
    Method – processing technology and markings
    – printing technology and characteristics
    – camera image capture characteristics
    When combined, there is a high degree of assurance that the film
    identified by the archives as the “Zapruder in-camera-original” —- is!!!

    The Kodak study did not address – in writing – characteristics
    about the technical constraints or expected visual detectability of any
    possible alteration scenarios. The probability of alteration by applying
    laboratory optical effects or simple A-B printing techniques (to remove
    selected frames) after transfer of the original to an intermediate as
    proposed by some researchers was also reviewed. These topics were
    discussed and reviewed with NARA and Doug Horne of the ARRB while at
    NARA. !Further, my careful viewing of multiple scenes and my knowledge
    of optical effects technology convinced me (at that time) that a
    dissertation on the probability of alteration was not needed.

    Note: subsequent to my report being filed with the ARRB I had
    another opportunity to further examine the “In-camera original” with the
    NARA subcommittee on preservation which further confirmed my beliefs.

    When my contract with Kodak expired, I was in a position to
    express my personal views. Simply stated “There is no detectable
    evidence of manipulation or image alteration on the Zapruder in camera
    original and all supporting evidence precludes any forgery thereto.”

    The film that exists at NARA was received from Time/Life, has all
    the characteristics of an original film per my report. !The film medium,
    manufacturing markings, processing identification, camera gate image
    characteristics, dye structure, full scale tonal range, support type,
    perforations and their quality, keeping shrinkage and fluting
    characteristics, feel, surface profile of the dye surface. !It has NO
    evidence of optical effects or matte work including granularity, edge
    effects or fringing, contrast buildup etc.
    ~Rollie Zavada, 9/23/03

  60. Fetzer has claimed that he has no memory of our debates on the 9/11 issue herein. I have left it for the end of this thread to remind him of such, because there is linkage here between what is an obvious agenda displayed in Fetzer’s MO – the attempt to discard and do away with the most crucial evidence in both the 9/11 case and the JFK case. So to refresh his memory:

    The reminder begins with this comment I made on the following T&S thread:

    ‘I think the strongest evidence of the WTC case is the visual evidence, which you seem so desperate to discard.
    And it is this desperation to discard the strongest evidence in this case that raises my personal suspicions as per your actual agenda here.’~ April 22, 2012 at 9:33 pm
    . . . . . .
    And this is where the actual agenda butts up to the JFK issue and Fetzer attempting once again to discard the strongest evidence – in both cases the visual evidence. He is asserting in the 9/11 case that the videos of the planes impacting the towers are faked, just like he is asserting that the Zapruder film is fake.

    This cannot be framed as mere coincidence that in both cases Fetzer has been at the forefront of an attack on the visual evidence in both of these disparate cases. It is evidence of a single concerted agenda.

    Now this dispute between the two of us is not limited to just these two threads, but spanned through a great many debates on this issues of No-Planes, Video Fakery, Holograms, DEW, and Nukes at WTC, All of the preposterous scenarios applied to the 9/11 case, Fetzer has been at the lead of.

    During these debates he proved his inadequacies in video and image analysis, in applied physics, and in critical thinking and argumentation; which he proves again on the issue of the Zapruder film.

    It is these first hand experiences with Fetzer that leave no doubt in my mind that he is a charlatan, an infiltrator, and an agent provocateur for the deep state,

    ~Willy Whitten – \\][//


    Click to access bj190.pdf

    The probability of the Single Bullet Theory, and let’s remember
    it was and remains only a theory, depends on more than “a” bullet’s
    ability to inflict multiple wounds in two men and emerge in
    relatively good shape. There is more, a lot more, involved in
    making that theory fly. Experimental support is a stretch, in my
    opinion. Not that “a” bullet couldn’t, perhaps, accomplish the feat,
    but because there is a convergence of evidence that says President
    Kennedy and Governor Connally were hit by separate bullets less
    than two seconds apart. The Warren Commission had a timing
    problem as regards to their lone gunman.
    HARTMANN: About frames 190 to 200 there is a strong
    blur reaction initiated. So having concluded that this is in
    fact, that the blur sequence around 313 to 319 is in fact a
    response to the gunshots, I would think that the logical
    inference would be that the blur sequence, the blur episode
    running typically from 190 to 200 is also a response to a
    possible gunshot. And we know that the President emerged
    from behind the sign somewhat later, some frames later,
    showing in fact a reaction to such a wound. So this could
    very well be the blur or startle reaction to the gunshot that
    caused the back wound to the President. (HSCA,Vol. 2:15)~Barb Junkkarinen

  62. The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination
    by David R. Wrone

    “Wrone has done an amazing job of tracing the Zapruder movie step-by-step from its exposure in Dealey Plaza; its development and duplication; its publicity and provenance; and the steps through which it became widely available to nearly everybody in this media age.

    This documentation, heavily relying on multiple statements by myriad witnesses, shows that there was no time during which the film and its copies went unsupervised or unwatched; this precludes the theories of some, such as James Fetzer and his crew, that the film has been changed or replaced. (See the Fetzer-edited book The Great Zapruder Film Hoax.)”~Mark Alfred – Amazon review


  63. Clay Shaw

    In 1979, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Clay Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly to Latin America.[19]

    In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that the Committee was “inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton [Louisiana] in late August, early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw,”[20] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana “established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the assassination”

  64. In order to bring a nation to support the burdens of maintaining great military establishments, it is necessary to create an emotional state akin to war psychology. There must be the portrayal of external menace.–John Foster Dulles secretary of state in the Eisenhower administration.

    “The greatest crime since World War II has been US foreign policy.”~William Ramsey Clark

  65. Anthony Marsh dissected Palamara’s work, and comes up with 14 witnesses who stated “stopped” and 19 who stated “slowed down”, and yet the Fetzer Cabal repeats the fallacious “close to 60 witnesses to a limousine stop”, to this very day. But worse than this, Fetzer asserts that this stop may have lasted up to five minutes or more. Such exaggeration based on pure unfounded speculation can not be interpreted as simply a mistake; it is obviously a flat out lie.

    I continue to be astonished that anyone who is lucid can find this “professor” credible at all.
    I was never convinced by anything Fetzer himself said. Rather I found Horne to be credible, as his position at the ARRB gave him access to and first hand experience with the materials to the House inquiry into assassinations. It was only later after going back into the issues of the Zapruder film again that I began to see that both Horne and Fetzer were attempting to disparage Zavada, who in fact is the top expert on the Zapruder film and the camera that took it. Reading Zavada’s analysis of the camera and he film convinced me that Horne has questionable motives in his work. This plus the fact that he has hooked up with Fetzer’s PR firm to promote his works seals it for me.

    Of course it was the work Sherry Feister CSI which caused me to step back and reconsider the whole affair. I am forever grateful for her expert forensic analysis making sense of the trajectory and ballistics of the head-shot that killed Kennedy.


  66. “Josiah “Tink” Thompson, the author of Six Seconds in Dallas and a believer that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot that killed John F. Kennedy, says that the key evidence in the assassination is the photographic record, because “it authenticates itself.”
    You know, because you can see it; that means it has to be real. Just like we know that Sam Neill and Laura Dern have almost been eaten by dinosaurs on several occasions.”~Craig McKee

    McKee’s comment that begins as an introduction is based on the biased point that Thompson is: “a believer that Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot that killed John F. Kennedy”

    It in fact makes no difference what Thompson’s conclusion is if his reasoning as per the authenticity of the Zapruder film is sound. I have read that reasoning myself and conclude that it is indeed sound. This however is not to say that the conclusion he draws, that ” Lee Harvey Oswald fired the shot that killed John F. Kennedy,” is correct. The issues are distinct.

    The Zapruder film does not prove that Oswald was the assassin, it in fact proves the opposite upon a true forensic examination of the film and the other evidence shown in the case.

    • In ‘Six Seconds in Dallas’ (January 1967), Thompson argued that there was a conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy. Thompson claimed in the book that three men fired four shots at Kennedy in Dealey Plaza: the first shot was fired from the Texas School Book Depository and struck Kennedy in the back; the second shot was fired from the Dallas County Records building and struck Governor John Connally; the third and fourth shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository and the “grassy knoll” and almost simultaneously struck Kennedy in the head.

      In 1991, Bob Hoover of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote that Six Seconds in Dallas “remains one of the most plausible explanations for the line of fire in Dealey Plaza.”
      . . . . . . . . .
      So it isn’t so simple as saying Thompson believes that Oswald fired the fatal shot, because Thompson also asserts there was a conspiracy as well. In fact Thompson claimed that the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository and the Dallas County Records building, which does not necessarily mean Oswald was the shooter – although that was his conclusion.

      Considering that this book was published only about 3 years after the event, I think these harsh criticisms against Thompson are misguided. It was a very good start as a popular text showing a conspiracy.


  67. Summing up the medical evidence

    [] Autopsy X-rays are consistent with the autopsy photographs.
    [] None of the Parkland doctors place their hands on the occipital protuberance.
    [] The sketch of the head wound is at the occipital protuberance in variance with the photos of hand placement of doctors.

    Conclusion: The Parkland doctors who were in a position to observe the head wound is consistent with the autopsy X-rays and photographs.

    The Throat Wound is described as an entrance would by the Parkland doctors before tracheotomy performed that left a larger slit area. The Bethesda doctors did not have the original wound to examine.
    [Humes was told by unnamed officers in the gallery not to dissect the throat]
    [*] “The fact that the autopsy doctors did not observe a bullet path from the back wound to the throat wound is evident in their descriptions of the back and throat wounds. They said the back wound was “presumably” a wound of entrance, and the throat wound “presumably” a wound of exit. If they had seen a track from the back wound to the throat wound, they wouldn’t have had to “presume” anything. Even lone-gunman theorist Dr. John Lattimer admitted there is only “circumstantial” evidence of a bullet track between the back wound and the throat wound. The back wound was not dissected, and only dissection of the wound through the body would have provided us with conclusive proof of the missile’s path.”

    The wound to the back said to be shallow may have been mistaken as the body was going into rigor mortis, and had laid on its back from Parkland through the flight to Bethesda. Because of the position on the autopsy table only a cursory probe was attempted. The performing doctor was advised to move on by “other officers” in the gallery. The wound may have entered the lung – not known – the performing doctor was advised not to partition and examine the lungs.
    [*] “Dr. Pierre Finck, admitted that the autopsy team was ordered by a general or admiral not to dissect the back wound. Since no dissection took place, it is obvious that no bullet track was ever revealed at the autopsy.”



  68. Addressing Señor’s post on T&S of December 5, 2014 at 4:45 pm

    As far as Señor’s assertions that I agreed to any of the claims of video fakery is simply false.
    As far as the Orb goes my opinion at the time was that the orb (the most simple form to model digitally) was not from an original attempt to mask in a plane where there was nothing – it was an after the fact tampering with the shot of the plane coming in, and the orb had simply been inserted where the plane actually was.

    >>”The first paraphrased was that the experts didn’t know what caused the ghosting until much later. The second paraphrased was that this film couldn’t be faked because of the ghosting. Unfortunately, these, together with the stamp of authentication, expose a chink in our visual effects expert.”~Señor

    Señor misframes this argument grossly. Any one who wishes to can go back through the thread and see that it was Fetzer’s original misframe that Señor now repeats as my words.
    I did not say ” until much later” – I said specifically it was not until 34 years later that anyone knew the cause of the ghost frames. And I have made the argument fully as to why this point disproves tampering with the original Z-film.

    The issue here is that Señor has no more understanding of film, video or special effects than Fetzer.

    >> “Mr. Rogue demonstrated a strong unwillingness to mine (for example) September Clues for other nuggets of truth in this vein and right up his alley of expertise. Once Mr. Rogue had convinced himself that the over-arching concept of “no planes at the WTC” (NPT) was disinformation, he exerted no more effort to find other instances of imagery manipulation”~Señor

    I in fact “mined” the Clues forum extensively and found not a single instance of anything even approaching expertise in their so-called “video analysis”.

    As far as NPT, it connects to video fakery but is not the same issue. My critique of video fakery was substantial and to my (yes expert) opinion, false beyond any reasonable doubt.

    As far as NPT,Señor himself finally came to reject the “theory” – is he now retracting such rejection?
    . . . . .
    And as far as the rest of Señor’s post, it is simply the result of his almost total ignorance of film, video and special effects. Señor is in the same shoes as Fetzer and his minions, they don’t know what they are talking about when it comes to the issues of film and special effects’

  69. My Assessment of Douglas P. Horne

    Douglas P. Horne served on the staff of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) during the 1990s. But Horne served on this staff as a manager and essentially a librarian of the records being reviewed. He is not an expert on cinematography, nor special effects thereof. He is not an expert on film, camera’s or any other form of movie machinery. He is not an investigator, but a record keeper.

    Therefore his opinions on whether the Zapruder film is authentic or not is immaterial as far as his expertise is concerned. He certainly cannot be compared to Rolland Zavada in a favorable light.

    “Everybody wants some, I want some too!”~Van Halen

    I think what happened with Horne, was as he attended to his duties at ARRB, he found himself with a treasure trove of documents. He also had the opportunity to mix with people in the research community that had made quite a bit of money writing books on the JFK Assassination.

    Upon further reflection the idea above struck him … “I want some too”.

    This is not to say that Horne’s contribution to history is not substantial in presenting the documentation and records he managed and still had access to. The data is indeed of vast importance to the history of the “investigations” into the assassinations. But as my post above outlines, Horne’s expertise does not qualify for assessing the data he provides, and many of his opinions are faulty for this very reason. He has no qualifications whatsoever to challenge the work of a top expert on film and movie making machinery, Rolland Zavada. Nore has he any qualification for opinions regarding special effects cinematography.

    As well he has no real experience as an investigator, forensic or other. As has been pointed out by others, he has misinterpreted much of the evidence for the proposition that the Zapruder film was ever out of the custody of Zapruder himself, beyond the fact of Life magazine acquiring it. These issues are gone into detail by Marsh, Thompson and others.

    Finally, the fact that Horne ended up with Fetzer’s PR firm to promote his books shows a certain lack of judgment on his part. His fallacious portions of opinion are now promoted over the historical significance of those works. Yes “everybody wants some” but what is given up in taking the path that Horne has taken is his own integrity – he sold out for the fame and money that the charlatans of PR have put into his starry eyes.

  70. CSI Feister gives a very good presentation here – but it is frustrated by the goofball host’s silly quips and antics:


  71. While President John F. Kennedy’s assassination is the most studied murder investigation in American History, it remains plagued by a variety of theories that have developed into myths. In a comprehensive and science based analysis of the assassination evidence, “Enemy of the Truth” debunks the following prevailing myths—not with biased counter opinion, but with forensic truths.

    The Myths:
    >Dallas Police Department followed protocol
    >Ear witnesses are reliable
    >The blood in the Zapruder home movie is faked
    >Ballistic test prove a single shooter
    >The limousine stopped
    >The fatal head shot originated from the Grassy Knoll
    >There are two simultaneous head shots
    >The single bullet theory is correct

    ~Sherry Fiester CSI

  72. Jerrol Francis Custer was the radiology technician at the JFK autopsy. Interviewed by William M Law;
    “I asked flat out what his feelings were regarding John Kennedy’s assassination: “I think he was set
    up by a CIA hit squad . ..” I was taken aback by his candor.”~Law

    Now I am going to give an opinion that I know will enrage many JFK researchers; I don’t think there is anything nefarious about the shipping casket. I think that this was done officially and that Jackie and Bobby and Kennedy’s personal physician Dr. Burkley, all knew about it. It was a decoy ambulance and casket. Kennedy’s body was carried in by Sibert and O’Neill with others at the loading dock, and Sibert and O’Neill watched as the casket was opened, and the body placed on a gurney and wheeled to the autopsy table.

    Click to access In_The_Eye_Of_History.pdf


    • Custer:
      The only possible way to tell exactly where the defect is, is by taking a lateral film. Here’s that area you were looking at (indicating the darkened area in photo 8). The fragments are traveling front to back and outward. It lifted everything up ((motioning right to left to indicate the direction in which he feels the bullet fragments were traveling — —overlapped everything. Take a hard-boiled egg, run it in your hands. That’s exactly what the skull fragments were like.

      Law: By the way, is this an actual X-ray you took?

      Custer: This is the actual X-ray I took

      Law: And you remember it being this way that night?

      Custer: Absolutely!

      Law: Okay. Is there anything else of interest about this X-ray that you can tell us?

      Custer: Massive destruction. They wanted to make sure this man was dead.
      And they did a good job of it.
      . . . . . .
      Custer: Basically, the wound on the neck, a tracheotomy wound. When we took pictures of the neck, we took two views of the neck. A straight-on view and a side view. Now, in the straight–on view, in that area, you actually saw bullet fragment, also bone fractures where the bullet had gone through. Same thing on
      the lateral, but it showed you the different perspective. Like I stated before, a good way to tell the depth of a specific fragment is by taking two planes of interest, and then measuring the distance.
      When I first saw the body, the neck was exactly like this (photo 1); there were no suture marks. It was a big gaping hole.

      Law: And in your opinion was that man-made?

      Custer: Absolutely. You could see where this was man-made. Where they had taken a scalpel and went across and down you can see the down marking cut right here (pointing to the bottom portion of the wound; photo la, arrow C).

      Law: So, in effect you think that’s a scalpel mark?

      Custer: Right.

      Law: You don’t think that’s a part of a bullet entry wound?

      Custer: No.

      Law: Many researchers have said that—what you see down here—this little part right here (photo la, arrow C) is part of a bullet-entrance wound.

      Custer: You could see the skin where the skin was separated. If a bullet fragment came through there—a bullet went through there —it would be separated, irregular. This was nice and neat like the skin was separated, like somebody took a ruler and just separated the skin. There were no serrations on it at all. It was perfect. This is one thing for the books.

      –Custer 117
      . . . . . . .

    • Palamara: But I’ve heard that you did say that the back of the head appeared to
      be gone, there was no scalp there…

      Custer: Here’s where a lot of researchers screw up. Not the back of the head.
      Here’s the back of the head (indicating the area of the head in contact with the
      head-holder, photo 2). The occipital region. The defect was in the frontal-temporal region. Now, when you have the body lying like that, everybody points to it and says, “That’s the back of the head.” No! That’s not the back of the head (poining to the top of Kennedy’s head in photo 2)! That’s the top of the head!

      Law: Now, explain to me: there’s been a lot of controversy, and this is why some
      researchers point to forgery, that the back of the head was blown out. If the back
      of his head was blown out, how can the head rest on that [head-holder]?

      Custer: Because the back of the head wasn’t blown out. This was still intact (pointing to the lower portion of the back of the head in photo 2). It may not have been perfectly intact, there were fractures in there of course with all the destruction. If the back of the head was gone, there would be nothing there to hold the head up.

      Law: But there was a…

      Custer: This [head-holder] would have been all inside.
      . . . . . . . .

  73. “Jean Hill, Hugh Betzner, Bill Newman, Mary Woodward, Roy Truly, Phil Willis, Alan Smith, DPD patrolmen Earle Brown and J. W. Foster, and DPD motorcyclists Bobby W. Hargis and James Chaney.”

    Are all verified witnesses to the car stop, according to Douglas Horne.

    ” Hugh Betzner—“…I looked down the street and I could see the President’s car and another one and they looked like the cars were stopped..”
    Betzner was to the rear and far down the street. His testimony here is inconclusive: “looked like the cars were stopped.” It is not clear that he was talking about the presidential limousine or the procession. It is known that the procession halted as the cars up in front of them were moving so slowly. anyone experienced in stop and go traffic is familiar with similar scenarios.

    J. W. Foster (police officer on overpass): “Immediately after Kennedy was struck… the car pulled to the curb.”

    In reading Vince Palamara’s ‘Fifty-nine Witnesses: Delay on Elm Street’, I see enough controversy between “the car slowed down” to “the car stopped momentarily” to conclude that choosing which testimony is correct is a matter of the bias of the person attempting to make a case one way or the other.


    Mark Oakes “Eyewitness Video III” 1998 [from 6/26/95]—Regarding the blood/ debris from JFK’s head: “It hit me, it got Billy Joe Martin; it showered everything in the car behind it [indicating]” (this corroborates Sam Kinney’s statements to Palamara); “I had a piece of skull on my lip…piece of his brain, piece of his bone…my motorcycle had stufff all over it” including his helmet.; “one [shot] hit his head…busted his head wide open.” Hargis pointed to his right temple twice; Regarding Greer: “That guy slowed down, maybe his orders was to slow down…slowed down almost to a stop.” Believes Greer gave Oswald the chance to kill JFK.
    . . . . .
    early 1970’s interview with Fred Newcomb and Perry Adams for “Murder From Within” (pages 60, 66, 71, 89, 90, 93, and 96 [see also “Killing Kennedy” by H.E.L., pages 144 and 152)—“Mr. Connally was looking back toward me. And about that time then the second shot went off. That’s the point when I knew that somebody was shooting at them because that was the time he [Con-nally] got hit—because he jerked. I was looking directly at him…he was look-ing…kind of back toward me and…just kind of flinched.”; Jackson “stated that he was not hit [with blood/ debris]. This is possible because Jackson had begun to lag behind the limousine and was about ten feet away from it at the time of the fatal shot.”; “…that car [JFK’s limo] just all but stopped…just a moment.”
    . . . . .
    4/21/71 interview with Gil Toff for “Murder From Within” [see also “Best Evidence”, pp.370-371n] —saw a bullet hole in the windshield at Parkland Hospital.


    Secretary of State

    Secretary of Defense

    Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    SUBJECT: South Vietnam

    At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.

    The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3)* of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

    After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved the instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.

    McGeorge Bundy
    Copy furnished:

    Director of Central Intelligence

    Administrator, Agency for International Development

    B. Recommendations.

    We recommend that:
    1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965. This review would consider the need for such changes as:
    a. A further shift of military emphasis and strength to the Delta (IV Corps).
    b. An increase in the military tempo in all corps areas, so that all combat troops are in the field an average of 20 days out of 30 and static missions are ended.
    c. Emphasis on “clear and hold operations” instead of terrain sweeps which have little permanent value.
    d. The expansion of personnel in combat units to full authorized strength.
    e. The training and arming of hamlet militia to an accelerated rate, especially in the Delta.
    f. A consolidation of the strategic hamlet program, especially in the Delta, and action to insure that future strategic hamlets are not built until they can be protected, and until civic action programs can be introduced.

    2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.

    3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.

    . . . . . .

    • National Security Action Memorandum #273 reverses Kennedy’s order to withdraw troops from Vietnam. It also calls for heightened operations in Laos.

      Also in the works was “Operation Plan 34-63”, later and better known as OPLAN 34A, which involved aggressive covert raids against North Vietnam. The “Gulf of Tonkin” “incident(s)” of August 1964 were part of these operations.
      . . . .
      “On Nov 26, 1963, President Johnson signed a National Security Action Memorandum #273, the highest level national security document, as guidance for future Vietnam plans and policy. This brief directive most significantly initiated changes reversing Kennedy’s Vietnam policy of NSAM #263, Oct 11, 1963. Kennedy had decreed then that “the bulk of U.S. personnel would be out of Vietnam by the end of 1965.”

      Strangely, this NSAM #273, which began the change in Kennedy’s policy toward Vietnam, was drafted on Nov 21, 1963…the day before Kennedy died. It was not Kennedy’s policy. He would not have requested it, and would not have signed it. Why would it have been drafted for his signature on the day before he died; and why would it have been given to Johnson so quickly? Johnson had not asked for it. On Nov 21, 1963 Johnson had no expectation whatsoever of being President on Nov 26th.”~Fletcher Prouty


      • “Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.” ~James Jesus Angleton

        I think anyone who has made a serious study of CIA would find it ludicrous that anybody would balk at the idea that the ‘Agency’ would lie.

        Naivete is not innocence, it is dangerous ignorance.

    • personnel n.
      1. (used with pl. verb) The people employed by or active in an organization, business, or service.

      Personnel, Law & Legal Definition
      “Personnel generally means a body of persons employed in an organization or workplace. The term is generic and doesn’t typically distinguish between classifications of those employed, such a full or part-time, temporary or permanent, etc. Precise definitions vary by entity.”

    • Papers reveal JFK efforts on Vietnam
      By Bryan Bender, Globe Staff | June 6, 2005

      “WASHINGTON — Newly uncovered documents from both American and Polish archives show that President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet Union secretly sought ways to find a diplomatic settlement to the war in Vietnam, starting three years before the United States sent combat troops.

      Kennedy, relying on his ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith, planned to reach out to the North Vietnamese in April 1962 through a senior Indian diplomat, according to a secret State Department cable that was never dispatched.

      Back-channel discussions also were attempted in January 1963, this time through the Polish government, which relayed the overture to Soviet leaders. New Polish records indicate Moscow was much more open than previously thought to using its influence with North Vietnam to cool a Cold War flash point….”
      Read more at:

      • Daniel Ellsberg, a former Pentagon official and coauthor of the Pentagon Papers, the secret history of US policy toward Vietnam, added that the documents ”show a willingness to negotiate [a pullout] that LBJ didn’t have in 1964-66.” But, Ellsberg added, ”he might not have been able to do it.”

        I hate to have to state the obvious here but Kennedy wasn’t able to do it – they blew his brains out to assure that they would get the war they wanted,
        McNamara was a bald faced liar as well.

      • Have a look at this interview with Prouty. Therein he explains the whole thing in great detail.

        “Prouty claimed he helped write the McNamara Taylor Report in Krulac’s office.”~Bill Clark

        Yes, think about it, Taylor and McNamara were on a whirlwind tour of Vietnam, constantly on the move, they had no time to put together such a professionally packaged presentation as the document they supposedly delivered to Kennedy the day they got back.

        The fact of the matter is that Kennedy was monitoring the entire construction of this document while consulting with Taylor and McNamara by phone and had control of the whole report from start to finish so that he could officiate the policy that he wanted put in place. Kennedy was in effect the editor in chief of this document which was produced as a beautiful bound document in DC and delivered to McNnamara and Taylor on their stop in Hawaii on the way back from Vietnam. They had about eight hours to study it and get familiarized with it, before landing back on the mainland and “delivering” it back to Kennedy in an act of public theater.
        . . . .
        Public Myth:
        “The M/T report was written by Mac Bundy on the plane flying back from Vietnam. He speaks of his difficulty in writing it due to lack of sleep.”~Bill Clarke

        Take a close look at what was delivered to Kennedy. To believe this was not only written by one man on an airplane, but that it was then produced as such a professionally bound package as would be produced by a full service publishing house is preposterous.

        View the video I offer above. It is my opinion that anyone watching this who comes away thinking Prouty is some kind of crank and impostor is simply hooked on the myths of Lollipop History.

        I’ll tell you Bill, I have been studying, not only the JFK Assassination, but deep history, and the techniques of propaganda, and the perception manipulation of society for many years. To grasp the totality of the architecture of modern political power, one must step back for a panoramic view, as well as constructing that view by detailed analysis of the parts.
        I would posit that one must become familiarized with the modern techniques of psychological public relations as developed by Walter Lippmann and Edward Bernays. A study of the history of how the Prussian school of “training” and “regimentation” rather than “education” was brought to the US in the early 19th century.
        I would add to this that one must also grasp the psycho-biological effects of electronic media, especially television on the individual viewer and the mass psychology of a society made up of such a TV audience.

        In other words Bill, the technocratic society is one that is engineered through the use of ‘public myth’ presented as history and current events.

        If used as a doorway, research into the JFK assassination can lead to the discovery of this larger over arching paradigm.

      • Col. L. Fletcher Prouty
        (Jan 24th 1917 – June 5th 2001)

        Col. Prouty spent 9 of his 23 year military career in the Pentagon (1955-1964): 2 years with the Secretary of Defense, 2 years with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and 5 years with Headquarters, U.S. Air Force. In 1955 he was appointed the first “Focal Point” officer between the CIA and the Air Force for Clandestine Operations per National Security Council Directive 5412. He was Briefing Officer for the Secretary of Defense (1960-1961), and for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

        At times he would be called to meet with Allen Dulles and John Foster Dulles at their home on highly classified business. He was assigned to attend MKULTRA meetings. In this capacity Col. Prouty would be at the nerve center of the Military-Industrial Complex at a time unequalled in American History. He has written on these subjects, about the JFK assassination, the Cold War period, and Vietnamese warfare, and the existence of a “Secret Team”. He backs up his his work with seldom seen or mentioned official documents – some never before released.

        Fletcher Prouty offers a rare glimpse of the “Power Elite” as described by Buckminster Fuller, or “The High Cabal” as Winston Churchill refered to them; and how they really operate. Those who have not been in a position to witness events such as these from the inside would not understand how invisible but ultimately effective they and their power structures are.


        The Pivotal Operation of the JFK Era

        by L. Fletcher Prouty

        “Few, if any, international events of the Twentieth Century have been so misunderstood and so viciously misrepresented by the media and by “historians” as that which is popularly known as the anti-Castro “Bay of Pigs” operation that took place when a Brigade of about 1,400 U.S. supported Cuban-exiles landed on the shores of the island of Cuba at dawn on April 17, 1961.

        Because of the passage of years and the growing mass of untrue and contrived reporting, few people have had an opportunity to discover the truth behind this notionally “Clandestine” operation that was created and directed by the CIA. Furthermore, to fully understand this operation, it is imperative that one becomes aware of its antecedent roots that grew so profusely in the mire of underground operations during the fifties. We need to understand the concealed, and frequently distorted, events many of which had their origin during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations. The “Bay of Pigs” plan did not originate during the Kennedy administration. It had been inherited, full-blown. During the last few months of 1958, it had become clear that the Cuban President/Dictator Fulgencio Batista y Zaldivar, was being forced to flee; and that Fidel Castro was leading his band of well financed rebels out of the Sierra Maestra mountains into Havana, unchecked. By late December 1958, Castro was close to Havana. The country was his to take.

        At that time, on the Washington Mall near the reflecting pool beside the Jefferson Memorial there were several World War II “Tempo” buildings that had been hastily converted into offices for the clandestine services of the CIA. Here, during the last week of December 1958, the CIA had called together an inter- departmental task force under J.C.King, the Chief of its Western Hemisphere Division, and his deputy Jake Esterline. Its objective was to be ready to move American armed forces instantly if/when the U.S. Government decided to stop Castro before he reached Havana.

        As the representative of the U.S. Air Force I was there, among five or six others in the Alcott Building, during the long night of New Year’s Eve ’58, awaiting the order that would have caused thousands of American troops to be landed in Cuba to block Castro’s entry. However, shortly after midnight…as the festive New Years Bells were ringing all around town…the Government decided to take no action at that time. Castro entered Havana undeterred. Batista had fled, and Washington remained cautious and undecided.

        [ NOTE: Some may recall that the CIA had mounted its biggest “Clandestine” operation against the government of Sukarno in Indonesia during that same year, 1958; and that the agency’s active support of more than 42,000 anti-Sukarno rebels ended in an ignoble defeat at the hands of General Nasution of the loyal Indonesian army.
        NOTE: Because so much of the “historical record” is erroneous, contrived and weakened by omissions, I am for the most part using a copy of the original “Letter to the President” dated 13 June 1961 written and signed by Maxwell D. Taylor in response to an earlier letter written to him by President Kennedy dated April 22, 1961…the day after the surrender of the Brigade. The President’s letter charged General Taylor in association with Attorney General Robert Kennedy, Admiral Arleigh Burke and Director of Central Intelligence Allen Dulles, i.e. The Cuban Study Group…
        At this point it must be made clear that it was during the administration of Eisenhower that the United States Government had, in 1954, for the first time, defined and approved the concept of “Covert Operations.” That decision led to the establishment of the policy structure for such an activity. The measures that were taken during 1960 and 1961 in support of the Anti-Castro program were strictly in accord with the limits of that National Security Council directive.

        The approval of NSC 5412, “National Security Council Directive on Covert Operations” on March 15, 1954 marked the first official recognition and sanctioning of anti-Communist covert activities by the U.S. Government throughout the world. The NSC had determined that the overt foreign activities of the U.S. Government should be supplemented by covert operations. This had not been done by the National Security Act of 1947 that had established the National Security Council and the Defense Department, and had created the CIA.

        NSC 5412 defined “covert operations” as:

        “all activities conducted pursuant to this directive which

        are so planned and executed that any U.S. Government

        responsibility for them is not evident to unauthorized

        persons and that if uncovered the U.S.Government can

        plausibly disclaim any responsibility for them.”

        To provide a mechanism for the approval and coordination for most covert operations, NSC 5412 directed the establishment of the “5412 committee,” (later the “303 committee,” and the “40 committee”). To conceal its purpose it was generally known only as the “Special Group.” This “5412 Committee” consisted of the Deputy Under Secretary of State, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, the President’s Special Assistant for National Security Affairs and the Director of Central Intelligence, who also was designated as the “Action Officer.” During 1957, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff became a member.

      • As a personal aside,

        My family came very close to moving to Indonesia in 1962. My stepfather worked for Lockheed in those days and was offered a position there at quite a handsome salary. My mother eventually vetoed the idea, and we ended up staying in Southern California.

        I was disappointed in missing out on such an adventure at the time. But the more I learned of history later, I think I was lucky not to have been put in that situation as a teenager.

        My stepfather next became involved in work at Groom Lake in Nevada. He would be flown there for the workweek in a plane with blacked out passenger windows. But from the climate, and his good sense of direction, he figured out where he was being taken. He was working on the U-2 spy-plane at this time a top secret operation.

        I never knew this at the time, and my step dad only told me about it years later.

  76. The James Angleton Phenomenon

    “Cunning Passages, Contrived Corridors”: Wandering in the Angletonian Wilderness
    David Robarge

    “Angleton was CIA’s answer to the Delphic Oracle: seldom seen but with an awesome reputation nurtured over the years by word of mouth and intermediaries padding out of his office with pronouncements which we seldom professed to understand fully but accepted on faith anyway.” — David Atlee Phillips1

    “There’s no doubt you are easily the most interesting and fascinating figure the intelligence world has produced, and a living legend.”— Clair Booth Luce

    “Mr. A. is an institution.”— William Colby

    From this biography, Angleton’s portrayers have drawn frequently contradictory and unverifiable information and assertions that almost seem too great for one person to embody. Angleton, some of them say, was a paranoid who effectively shut down Agency operations against the Soviet Union for years during his Ahab-like quest for the mole in CIA. He received copies of all operational cables so he could veto recruitments and squelch reports from sources he delusively thought were bad. He had a “no knock” privilege to enter the DCI’s office unannounced any time he pleased. He ordered the incarceration and hostile interrogation of KGB defector Yuri Nosenko. And he had a bevy of nicknames that included “Mother,” “Virginia Slim,” “Skinny Jim,” “the Gray Ghost,” “the Black Knight,” “the Fisherman,” and “Scarecrow.” None of these claims is completely true or demonstrable.


  77. Josiah Thompson

    Be sure to catch the end of this where the dictabelt recording of the shots is played synchronized with the film. This is the final nail in the coffin for the Alterationists; the audio/video synch proves the film is authentic as the shots we hear line up perfectly with the visuals of the hits.

    • Thompson didn’t do the Synchronization of Zapruder Film and DictaBelt Tape:


      Mathematical Synchronization of Zapruder Film and DictaBelt Tape

      1. Synchronization:
      In order to achieve synchronization of the acoustic impulses of the DictaBelt with the Zapruder film, the gunshot impulses need to synchronize – to within hundredths of a second – with each event captured in a precise place on the Zapruder film.
      As most of you know, for synchronization to work, the limousine has to be in the exact location in Dealey Plaza that is shown in the Zapruder film, ast the precise moment each impulse was recorded. Moreover, the acoustic impulses need to correspond to the specific Zapruder frames where wounds and damages were incurred.
      2. News:
      Although not new news to some in the Researcher’s group, I have successfully synchronized the film and the acoustic recording. They correspond, to within hundredths of a second – in every one of these instances. Most astonishingly, two of the gunshot impulses are within 1/4 second of one another, and their origins and impact times correspond precisely to the previously enigmatic forward-and-backward movement of JFK’s head that were identified in the ITEK study. (FYI: ITEK was a highly regarded CIA contractor, working on programs that included Top Secret photo reconnaissance.)
      Further, Zapruder consistently blurred his film with predictable mathematical precision based upon his distance from the site of origin of each gunshot. Zapruder’s blurs, and the visible reactions of others on the film, confirm that actual sound waves were propagating across Dealey Plaza in an entirely predictable manner.”
      ~Mathematical Synchronization of Zapruder Film and DictaBelt Acoustic Tape.
      by Dr. Randolph Robertson © 2013. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

    • Audio/Video Sync

      5 shots:
      shot 1. a miss,
      shot 2. JFK throat hit (frontal shot),
      shot 3. Kennedy hit in back (shot from rear) ,
      shot 4. Connally hit in the back (shot from rear),
      shot 5. Kennedy head-shot (frontal shot).

      Graph below is an approximation of adding just a couple seconds for a limo stop:
      [A] > ___________|___________|___________|___________|___|
      [V] > ___________|___________|___________|___________|___|
      [L S]>___________|___________|[Limo stop]___________|___________|___|

      You will note that when out of sync, the shots would be heard after the actual visual hits and as the limo is already speeding away out of the scene.
      . . . .

    • Violent Soviet-Era Textbooks Complicate Afghan Education Efforts
      By Joe Stephens and David B. Ottaway

      Washington Post Staff Writers
      Saturday, March 23, 2002; Page A01
      “Published in the dominant Afghan languages of Dari and Pashtu, the textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.

      During that time of Soviet occupation, regional military leaders in Afghanistan helped the U.S. smuggle books into the country. They demanded that the primers contain anti-Soviet passages. Children were taught to count with illustrations showing tanks, missiles and land mines, agency officials said. They acknowledged that at the time it also suited U.S. interests to stoke hatred of foreign invaders.”

    RICHARD COLE , Associated Press — Nov. 22, 1994 12:04 PM ET
    UNDATED Undated (AP) _ The Secret Service was told of a possible plot to shoot President Kennedy from an office building with a rifle at least a week before his assassination, files released by the Miami Police Department confirm.
    The right-wing organizer who revealed the alleged plot also told a police informant the day after the Nov. 22, 1963, assassination that Lee Harvey Oswald would never talk about it.
    The day after that interview, Nov. 24, Oswald was shot and killed by Jack Ruby in the basement of the Dallas police department.
    The Miami police files confirm and add to an account by a retired police intelligence officer, Lt. Everett Kay, who said three years ago that he learned of an assassination plot from informant William Somersett. The FBI and Secret Service would not comment at the time.
    A newly released Nov. 15, 1963, memo from Miami detective S.J. Hebert shows the Secret Service was aware of the alleged plot before the assassination.
    Milteer wouldn’t tell Somersett how he knew of a plot beforehand, but said there was ”a lot of money” involved and that Oswald would not disclose anything, Somersett related.
    ”He will just not say anything, and nobody has any worry,” Somersett quoted Milteer as saying, according to his police debriefing.
    Milteer also told Somersett that Oswald’s ostensibly pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba group had been ”infiltrated by the patriot underground and arranged from there to have the execution carried out and drop the responsibility right into the laps of the Communists.”
    In the debriefing, Somersett said Milteer had indicated that ”ground work was being set, maybe, in five to six different states to kill the president.” Somersett didn’t elaborate, but said at another point in the interview that Milteer told him the anti-Kennedy forces were organized in several Southern states including Texas. –Oswald Frame-up

  79. Royal Society of London has been publishing pseudoscience its from inception. Sir Francis Galton, the father of Eugenics was a prestigious member who spent his life writing pseudoscientific racist theories including the use of anthropometry to class human intelligence: Phrenology, purported to determine character, personality traits, and criminality on the basis of the shape of the head, at the turn of the 19th century

    The Lancet is the world’s leading independent general medical journal published a fraudulent paper,
    that paper was published in the Lancet on 28 February 1998 – retracted in March 15, 2011

    But there is much bigger money than $800 when it comes to corporate influence in fraud:
    Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
    John P. A. Ioannidis

    Can peer review police fraud?
    Science is a communal enterprise built on trust. Referees and editors generally take data at face value and assume that the authors have honestly reported and analyzed their results. Reviewers are asked to judge whether a report’s conclusions are solid based on the data and not whether the data themselves are fraudulent.

  80. According to his Marine score card (Commission Exhibit 239), Oswald was tested twice:
    In December 1956, after “a very intensive 3 weeks’ training period” (Warren Commission Hearings, vol.11, p.302), Oswald scored 212: two marks above the minimum for a ‘sharpshooter’.
    In May 1959, he scored 191: one mark above the minimum for a ‘marksman’.

    Colonel Allison Folsom interpreted the results for the Warren Commission:
    The Marine Corps consider that any reasonable application of the instructions given to Marines should permit them to become qualified at least as a marksman. To become qualified as a sharpshooter, the Marine Corps is of the opinion that most Marines with a reasonable amount of adaptability to weapons firing can become so qualified. Consequently, a low marksman qualification indicates a rather poor “shot” and a sharpshooter qualification indicates a fairly good “shot”.(Warren Commission Hearings, vol.19, pp.17f)

  81. A curious side note to the “Bertrand” affair concerns a document from the files of the New Orleans Police Department.

    When Clay Shaw was arrested, he was booked and fingerprinted by Officer Aloysius Habighorst of the NOPD. Seventeen months later, Habighorst informed the District Attorney that when he had routinely asked Shaw for any aliases he may have used, Shaw had responded, “Clay Bertrand.”(76) Habighorst produced the card, upon which the officer had typed that name.

    Shaw adamantly denied saying any such thing. He insisted under oath at trial that Habighorst had not questioned him at all during the booking procedure and that the form had been blank when he signed it. He testified that Officer Habighorst had informed him he had to sign the card if he expected to be allowed to post bail.(77)
    . . . . . .
    The question arises; what possible motive would Officer Habighorst to make this story up, and have the form itself with the name Clay Bertrand as a Shaw alias?

    Garrison later wrote a book about his investigation of Clay Shaw and the subsequent trial called On the Trail of the Assassins. In the book, Garrison states that Shaw had an “extensive international role as an employee of the CIA”.[17] Shaw denied any such connections.[18]
    In 1979, Richard Helms, former director of the CIA, testified under oath that Clay Shaw had been a part-time contact of the Domestic Contact Service of the CIA, where Shaw volunteered information from his travels abroad, mostly to Latin America.[19]

    In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations stated in its Final Report that the Committee was “inclined to believe that Oswald was in Clinton [Louisiana] in late August, early September 1963, and that he was in the company of David Ferrie, if not Clay Shaw,”[20] and that witnesses in Clinton, Louisiana “established an association of an undetermined nature between Ferrie, Shaw and Oswald less than three months before the assassination”.


    • You can try to diminish the fact that Shaw had connections with CIA, but you cannot deny that it is indeed a fact.

  82. “Habighorst produced the card, upon which the officer had typed that name.” This is prima facie evidence.

    Prima facie. Latin for “at first sight.” Prima facie may be used as an adjective meaning “sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted;” e.g., prima facie evidence.


    The problem here Vanessa is that Photon misrepresents my views with generalized metaphorical platitudes. He has turned my opinions on the Zapruder film totally upside down and backwards. As you know I have been defending the Z-film as authentic in every thread the issue has been brought up here.
    Photon attempts to portray me as unreasonable when it comes to assessing history, and cannot seem to grasp that much of what is taught as history in the US is public myth. I am hardly alone in making such assessments. I have cited such authors as Carroll Quigley and his masterpiece TRAGEDY & HOPE, which utterly destroys the popular view of the Cold War as portrayed in popular history. Antony Sutton reinforces this view in his “Wall Street” books, and his final coup de grâce, SKULL & BONES.
    Photon challenged me to provide sources for three quotes I posted early in my participation here. He hasn’t seemed to have noticed that I provided them, so I will repeat here:

    >”We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”~ William Casey (CIA Director)
    “I am the source for this quote, which was indeed said by CIA Director William Casey at an early February 1981 meeting of the newly elected President Reagan with his new cabinet secretaries to report to him on what they had learned about their agencies in the first couple of weeks of the administration.
    The meeting was in the Roosevelt Room in the West Wing of the White House, not far from the Cabinet Room. I was present at the meeting as Assistant to the chief domestic policy adviser to the President. Casey first told Reagan that he had been astonished to discover that over 80 percent of the ‘intelligence’ that the analysis side of the CIA produced was based on open public sources like newspapers and magazines.
    As he did to all the other secretaries of their departments and agencies, Reagan asked what he saw as his goal as director for the CIA, to which he replied with this quote, which I recorded in my notes of the meeting
    as he said it. Shortly thereafter I told Senior White House correspondent Sarah McClendon, who was a close friend and colleague, who in turn made it public.” Barbara Honegger
    Barbara Honegger was a member of the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign team and Reagan White House policy analyst. Since 1995, she’s been Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School.

    >“Deception is a state of mind and the mind of the State.”~James Jesus Angleton
    Source: ‘Deception: The Invisible War Between the KGB and the CIA’ – By Edward Jay Epstein
    Epstein’s books Legend (1978) and Deception (1989) drew on interviews with retired CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Jesus Angleton

    >“The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media.” –William Colby, former CIA Director, quoted by David McGowan, “Derailing Democracy” (2000) These words attributed to Colby certainly encapsulate what he said at the Church Committee Hearings. McGowan didn’t cite his source for this ‘quote’, so there is controversy.

    Reply to Photon:

    Educator John Taylor Gatto’s book, “The Underground History of American Education,” describes how the system came to America:

    “A small number of passionate ideological leaders visited Prussia in the first half of the 19th Century, fell in love with the order, obedience, and efficiency of its educational system and campaigned relentlessly thereafter to bring the Prussian vision to our shores. To do that, children would have to be removed from their parents and inappropriate cultural influences.”

    The next step was to sell the new system to the American public in the name of equality by convincing each respective state to adopt a compulsory government school system to ensure a uniform education for the masses. The primary goals of this system were not intellectual training but rather conditioning the students for obedience, subordination and collective life.”
    Also see: Horace Mann.
    Also see: Antony Sutton; ‘Skull & Bones’
    Also see: Charlotte Iserbyt; The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America
    Also see:

    • This is great…as half of the story. These same industrialists created the Soviet Union as well. Yes, the Hegelian Dialectic. Fund both sides for double the profits.

      • This story line goes away back where in this picks it up is with the creation of the Carnegie, Harriman, Rockefeller ,JP Morgan emergence all backed by the cabal financed out of the City Of London. As we’ve discussed many times, the links go back to time immemorial. As we pick the story line up here, it’s about a piracy that is deeply rooted in the psyche of us, the whole broad spectrum of humanity.

    • I’m sorry but the speaker looses me with his assertions of a “storm drain shooter”, the bogus alterationist theory of the Z-film. And the so-called forensic identification of George Bush Sr. as the man in the crowd.
      The first portion of the film was very well put together – but it takes a dive into fantasy near the end.

      • I haven’t gotten to the end of it but I’ve seen much of the JFK incident from many angles. My perspective was firmed up by a video series called “Evidence Of Revision” that presented the background to the assassination from news footage of the time with commentary before the story was spun by TPTB.
        It’d be interesting to see if this’ll be cause of a greater realization through the general population.

  85. “In 1891, [Cecile] Rhodes organized a secret society with members in a “Circle of Initiates” and an outer circle known as the “Association of Helpers” later organized as the Round Table organization. In 1909-1913, they organized semi-secret groups known as Round Table Groups in the chief British dependencies and the United States. In 1919, they founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs. Similar Institutes of International Affairs were established in the chief British dominions and the United States where it is known as the Council on Foreign Relations. After 1925, the Institute of Pacific Relations was set up in twelve Pacific area countries. They were constantly harping on the lessons to be learned from the failure of the American Revolution and the success of the Canadian federation of 1867 and hoped to federate the various parts of the empire and then confederate the whole with the United Kingdom. … There does exist and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates to some extent in the way the Radical Right believes the Communists act. In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.
    “I am now quite sure that ‘Tragedy and Hope’ was suppressed although I do not know why or by whom.” ~Carroll Quigley

    • “By the middle of the 19th century, Germany had developed a new concept in the sciences which they termed “psycho-physics”, which argued that people were in fact complex machines. It was the ultimate materialist extension of science that would parallel the mechanistic view of the universe already under way. This new view of people became more or less institutionalized in Germany, and by the 1870’s the “field” of experimental psychology was born. The ultimate purpose of experimental psychology was to discover the nature of the human machine and how to program it.”~Majordomo

  86. Pardon my philosophical approach to the issues being discussed on these forums. I have found it profitable personally to ‘think about thinking’. In academic terminology, is speak to Epistemology. How do we know what we know? This may seem a trite question to some, however if this question remains unanswered, or vaguely understood, there is no basis, or foundation of the things we think we know. This means taking things on faith. Skipping over the Cartesian reflection to arrive at a “down to Earth” Space/Time Continuum perspective, we arrive at the acceptance of being housed in a package of meat, and consider the mortal aspect of being. This is the proximate moment for self inquiry, a consideration of the human condition. It is essential to survival to firmly grasp the situation at hand. How much before you do you actually know yourself, and how much of it have you simply assumed because, “everyone knows THAT is true!”

    How old were you when they pinned you to a chair-desk and told you to sit down, shut up and listen to ‘Them’? Of course for the majority of people this was put in much more gentle terms, said “lovingly” by parents and loved ones who had gone through the same indoctrination you were about to experience. And it is ‘compulsory’ you know. “Juvenile Delinquents” are “criminals” you see.
    So what happens if you just happen to be the type who just-so-happens to have the overwhelming urge to think for yourself? What if you are interested in things, you have talent blooming and it fascinates you?
    Well it depends on how clever you are and how much self esteem you have. One can be didactic and make it through the gauntlet of compulsory education Those who have their own goals at a tender age have a great advantage in life ahead.

    I was exceptionally perceptive at a very young age. I was a born artist having advanced sense of spatial recognition. I know this because I was tested by a child psychologist just after the first grade, and I remember his enthusiasm at my artistic skills and innate intelligence. Forgive me yet again if I have lost the need for false modesty. I have to say that although I liked some adults, I was yet of the opinion that most of them I met were crazy. I thought my step dad was nuts. He was a bit strict, but that is now what formed my opinion of him. He was one of those people who go along to get along. Appearances were important to him in a desperate way. He grew up during the Great Depression, and was very poor, He had to struggle to get by. I was told all about it as I grew up in the middle class suburban 1950’s lifestyle. He had a deep angst and feelings of insecurity that he wore on the back of his hand.

    [To Be Continued…]

  87. Another of Fetzers lunatic rages hits the dust. That is his insistance that the wings of the plane at the Pentagon would have been ripped off upon hitting the light poles…

    Light poles
    A frangible light pole base is designed to break away when a vehicle strikes it. This lessens the risk of injury to occupants of the vehicle. Frangible supports are also used for Airport Approach Structures.

    The FHWA adopted Section 7 of the 1985 AASHTO publication entitled “Standard Specifications for Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires, and Traffic Signals” for implementation beginning in July 1990. This section requires more stringent breakaway characteristics. TxDOT’s previous design of roadway illumination assemblies (based on a 1975 AASHTO specification) does not meet these requirements.

    Breakaway light poles rely on frangible transformer bases to provide the breakaway feature. The 1985 AASHTO specification provides for a maximum change in momentum of a 1800 pound car to break the pole away. The 1975 AASHTO specification provided for a similar change in momentum except that the test vehicle weighed 2,250 pounds.

    • If that’s the best Fester can do then he should use his diploma for what it would only be good for by wiping his ass with it. The wings came off when hitting the light poles with two huge very heavy engines and thousands of gallons of av fuel in them? Explain where they went without bursting into a huge fireball and leaving big parts all over the place Houdini.

  88. The Zapruder film was aired on TV for the first time on “Good Night America” March 6 1975. This in itself is an outrage, to leave the public in the dark for close to 12 years due to corporate interests. If the death of the President does not take precedence over corporate interests, then what does? “Nothing” is the obvious answer.

    These interests were determined that the public would never see the motion picture! “Life magazine” owned it, and could do anything it pleased with the film according to commercial interests. Nothing trumps commercial interests in a corportatist state. And this is the manner in which the film was suppressed, and was meant to be suppressed for all time in the mind of those in power.

    So it is a very strange tale that is now being promoted, that the film was actually altered and is not really the authentic representation of the assassination. This begs the question of why this clandestine handy-work would be hidden for 12 years? And this question is just the first of many when it comes to the assertion that the Zapruder film was altered. The allegations of the ‘when, who, what, & where?’ of this matter must be parsed, untangled and all the twists of spin ironed out, before the truth can be determined.

    As the extant film in existence today is damning evidence of multiple shooters and a head-shot from the front. One must wonder why it wasn’t simply destroyed when there were only two or three copies in the whole world? Those who claim alteration assert that the CIA had the original film in their possession at Hawkeyeworks, and there were only three copies of the film that had been made up to that time.
    If this evidence was meant to be hidden, surely the most simple thing to do would be to destroy the original and all the copies that very night.

    Of course this is all rhetorical now. There is the kitchen, there is this heat, there are these strange chefs with their new recipes and tales of brave Ulysses in Wonderland.

    [+] The combined points of evidence and deductive analysis thereof is then adduced as “Ultimate Fact”.

    Full Definition of ULTIMATE FACT: “a basic fact essential to maintain a cause of action or to establish a defense thereto as distinguished from the subsidiary individual facts that are offered in evidence as tending to prove a basic fact”

    The individual points of evidence that the Zapruder Film is authentic are laid out in detail in the body of my essay on the film [above]. These basic technical facts are then buttressed by the commentary that follows.

    The final, and Ultimate Fact that the Zapruder Film in the National Archives is authentic is summed up by the exposition of the distinction between ‘daylight’ and ‘artificial light’ and their disparate effects on various chemical dye emulsions.

    However in the preceding deductive phase in my commentary, I have gone into deep detail as to the complex problems an alterationist would encounter in using the techniques of special effects cinematography, and how the proponents seem to be woefully ignorant of these processes.

    I have also addressed numerous issues, including the spurious treatment of eye & ear witnesses, and the unwarranted certainties applied to these testimonies.

    Also I have given a good deal of attention to the rifle shot impulses from the police dictabelt, and especially the perfection with which this synchronizes with the Zapruder Film.

    All of this adduces to the Ultimate Fact that the Zapruder Film is authentic, beyond reasonable doubt.
    ~Willy Whitten \\][//

  90. “Members of informationally and socially isolated groups tend to display a kind of paranoid cognition and become increasingly distrustful or suspicious of the motives of others or of the larger society, falling into a “sinister attribution error.”~Sunstein et al (pg 14)

    The central point here hinges on the assertion of, “sinister attribution error.” So the real question here is whether sinister attribution is actually an error. As we have seen throughout this essay by Sunstein, all of his assertions are based on assumptions such as this; such as it is “error” to attribute sinister acts, and a sinister agenda. What is needed for Sunstien’s argument is evidence and proofs that there is no sinister agenda. Sunstien avoids this issue entirely, the whole time building a circular argument that is in essence an argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ab auctoritate; the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Misleading Authority.

  91. The interlocking agenda of CIA and Life magazine precludes the need for an actual in-house CIA agent . Life magazine OWNED the film and took possession of it from Zapruder the next day. It was in their pocket as far as they were concerned. Arrogance very often evolves to the point of hubris; a state of overconfidence that the status quo is invincible. The owners of Life magazine simply could not imagine loosing control of such a property. The Z-film would never see the light of day by their calculations.

    Hubris is often outfoxed by Nemesis… or in street language, “shit happens”. Such as bootleg copies, dirty copies that lacked detail, but nevertheless gave the general idea — and the most obvious ‘to the left and back’ reaction of Kennedy. Damage control worked for a good many years, long enough for the principals in the plot to kill Kennedy and cover it up, and get away with it.

    The probability of them getting away with it even longer is assisted by the attempt now to disparage the authenticity of the Zapruder film, injecting false controversy where none actually exists.

  92. Добрый День Коллеги!! Хотелось бы Вам узнать

    Где Купить кассовый аппарат ???
    Как выбрать кассовый аппарат для ИП ?
    Как выбрать надежный кассовый аппарат ?
    Как выбрать Кассовый аппарат для ЕНВД ?

  93. Twenty-First Century Index Expurgatorius

    (1) Dallas motorcycle patrolmen Stavis Ellis and H. R. Freeman both observed a penetrating bullet hole in the limousine windshield at Parkland Hospital. Ellis told interviewer Gil Toff in 1971: “There was a hole in the left front windshield…You could put a pencil through it…you could take a regular standard writing pencil…and stick [it] through there.” Freeman corroborated this, saying: “[I was] right beside it. I could of [sic] touched it…it was a bullet hole. You could tell what it was.” [David Lifton published these quotations in his 1980 book, Best Evidence.]

    (2) St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Richard Dudman wrote an article published in The New Republic on December 21, 1963, in which he stated: “A few of us noted the hole in the windshield when the limousine was standing at the emergency entrance after the President had been carried inside. I could not approach close enough to see which side was the cup-shaped spot which indicates a bullet had pierced the glass from the opposite side.”

    (3) Second year medical student Evalea Glanges, enrolled at Southwestern Medical University in Dallas, right next door to Parkland Hospital, told attorney Doug Weldon in 1999: “It was a real clean hole.” In a videotaped interview aired in the suppressed episode 7 of Nigel Turner’s The Men Who Killed Kennedy, titled “The Smoking Guns,” she said: “…it was very clear, it was a through-and-through bullet hole through the windshield of the car, from the front to the back…it seemed like a high-velocity bullet that had penetrated from front-to-back in that glass pane.” At the time of the interview, Glanges had risen to the position of Chairperson of the Department of Surgery, at John Peter Smith Hospital, in Fort Worth. She had been a firearms expert all her adult life.

    (4) Mr. George Whitaker, Sr., a senior manager at the Ford Motor Company’s Rouge Plant in Detroit, Michigan, told attorney (and professor of criminal justice) Doug Weldon in August of 1993, in a tape recorded conversation, that after reporting to work on Monday, November 25th, he discovered the JFK limousine – a unique, one-of-a-kind item that he unequivocally identified – in the Rouge Plant’s B building, with the interior stripped out and in the process of being replaced, and with the windshield removed. He was then contacted by one of the Vice Presidents of the division for which he worked, and directed to report to the glass plant lab, immediately. After knocking on the locked door (which he found most unusual), he was let in by two of his subordinates and discovered that they were in possession of the windshield that had been removed from the JFK limousine. They had been told to use it as a template, and to make a new windshield identical to it in shape – and to then get the new windshield back to the B building for installation in the Presidential limousine that was quickly being rebuilt. Whitaker told Weldon (quoting from the audiotape of the 1993 interview): “And the windshield had a bullet hole in it, coming from the outside through…it was a good, clean bullet hole, right straight through, from the front. And you can tell, when the bullet hits the windshield, like when you hit a rock or something, what happens? The back chips out and the front may just have a pinhole in it…this had a clean round hole in the front and fragmentation coming out the back.”

  94. The Good Spy
    By Jefferson Morley

    “It was 1:30 in the morning of Nov. 23, 1963, and John F. Kennedy had been dead for 12 hours. His corpse was being dressed at Bethesda Naval Hospital, touched and retouched to conceal the ugly bullet wounds. In Dallas, the F.B.I. had Lee Harvey Oswald in custody.
    The lights were still on at the Central Intelligence Agency’s headquarters in Langley, Va., John Whitten, the agency’s 43-year-old chief of covert operations for Mexico and Central America, hung up the phone with his Mexico City station chief. He had just learned something stunning: A C.I.A. surveillance team in Mexico City had photographed Oswald at the Cuban consulate in early October, an indication that the agency might be able to quickly uncover the suspect’s background.

    At 1:36 am, Whitten sent a cable to Mexico City: “Send staffer with all photos of Oswald to HQ on the next available flight. Call Mr. Whitten at 652-6827.” Within 24 hours Whitten was leading the C.I.A. investigation into the assassination. After two weeks of reviewing classified cables, he had learned that Oswald’s pro-Castro political activities needed closer examination, especially his attempt to shoot a right-wing JFK critic, a diary of his efforts to confront anti-Castro exiles in New Orleans, and his public support for the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba Committee. For this investigatory zeal, Whitten was taken off the case.”

    • Of course uncle J knew not at the time that the classified cables he was reading were forged by his very own agency.

  95. TEMPORARY addresses:

    Willy Whitten
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    January 19, 2015 at 9:58 am
    “Altering a film in this manner takes only one pass through an aerial optical printer—that is, one round of photography with the process camera.”~Douglas Horne

    Yes, but ONLY when the mattes have been produced beforehand, which is the laborious process that both Healy and Horne do not seem to comprehend.

    This “one round of photography with the process camera,” can only take place AFTER the mattes and counter mattes have been produced. This production is complicated by the fact that the “special effects” sequence in planned effects shots BEGIN with individual elements being produced specifically for a shot, whereas the Zapruder film begins with a complete composition in each frame, that must first be deconstructed post-production. Each element must be separated from the other – frame-by-frame, before any reconstruction can begin.

    The overwhelming evidence of US government complicity found valid by the jury includes:

    US 111th Military Intelligence Group were at Dr. King’s location during the assassination.
    20th Special Forces Group had an 8-man sniper team at the assassination location on that day.
    Usual Memphis Police special body guards were advised they “weren’t needed” on the day of the assassination.
    Regular and constant police protection for Dr. King was removed from protecting Dr. King an hour before the assassination.
    Military Intelligence set-up photographers on the roof of a fire station with clear view to Dr. King’s balcony.
    Dr. King’s room was changed from a secure 1st-floor room to an exposed balcony room.
    Memphis police ordered the scene where multiple witnesses reported as the source of shooting cut down of their bushes that would have hid a sniper.
    Along with sanitizing a crime scene, police abandoned investigative procedure to interview witnesses who lived by the scene of the shooting.
    The rifle Mr. Ray delivered was not matched to the bullet that killed Dr. King, and was not sighted to accurately shoot.

    This is certain and specific proof of the Modus Operandi of the so-called “government”, adding strength to the assertions that the same perpetrators were responsible for all three of he high profile assassinations of JFK, MLK, & RFK.

  97. 15. Constraints That Preclude Alteration Of The Zapruder 8mm Film as Described in Chapter 14

    “There is no known film production history that would provide a technology reference for the use of an 8mm KODACHROME II camera film as a printing master to allow subsequent significant optical special effects into selected scenes and then reconstitute the adjusted images on to an 8mm KODACHROME II daylight film ‘indistinguishable’ from the camera original. Typically, laboratory practices deal with camera original negative films as the primary material for a host of post-production applications to yield a positive projectable print.
    The magnitude of this issue – 8mm original > postproduction added/deleted image effects > reconstituted 8mm ‘original’ – mandates that we re-examine and address a number of detailed sub-parts to support a non-alteration conclusion. It’s like a game of “what-if” to identify the scope of special optical effects that would be required to achieve the purported alteration, and in doing so expose the multiple constraints, including venue and time, which make your professed alteration impossible.”~Rolland Zavata, peer reviewed by special film effects icon Raymond Fielding

    Click to access RJZ-DH-032010.pdf


  98. Dear Mr. O’Toole:
    As you requested, I have analyzed
    with the Psychological Stress Evaluator
    the tape recordings you provided
    of the voice of Lee Harvey Oswald.
    Oswald’s comments regarding the
    circumstances of his arrest and his
    statements that he had been denied
    legal representation show considerable
    situation stress. When he is
    asked, “Did you kill the president?”
    his reply, “No, I have not been
    charged with that,” shows no harder
    stress than that found in his earlier
    comments. In replying to the question,
    “Did you shoot the president?” his reply,
    “No, I didn’t shoot anybody, no
    sir,” contains much less stress than I
    found in his earlier statement regarding
    legal representation, made only
    moments before this.
    My PSE analysis of these recordings
    indicates very clearly that Oswald
    believed he was telling the truth
    when he denied killing the president.
    Assuming that he was not suffering
    from a psychopathological condition
    that made him ignorant of his own actions,
    I can state, beyond reasonable
    doubt, that Lee Harvey Oswald did not
    kill President Kennedy and did not
    shoot anyone else.
    Lloyd H. Hitchcock
    . . . . . .

    L H. “Rusty” Hitchcock is a former army
    intelligence agent and one of the most experienced
    polygraph examiners in the country.
    Since he graduated from the army’s polygraph
    school at Fort Gordon in 1954, lie
    detection has been his specialty. Besides
    conducting thousands of polygraph investigations,
    he has also carried out basic research
    in lie detection and is an expert on
    the phenomenon of the galvanic skin response
    and the effect of hypnosis on polygraph
    results. He is the author of many training
    manuals and procedural guides used by
    army polygraph examiners. Hitchcock is, of
    course, well-known in professional polygraph
    circles and, although he now embraces
    the heretical Psychological Stress
    Evaluator, he is still held in high regard by
    most of his fellow members of the American
    Polygraph Association. He is retired and
    spends most of his time raising cattle on his
    Georgia ranch, but he occasionally serves
    as a consultant to law-enforcement agencies
    and private security firms.

    Click to access Item%2021.pdf

    Validation Studies

    From 1978-1979, the Chanute Police Department in Kansas used a federally funded field study of the PSE (LEAA Grant #77-A-3412-2-8). 159 tests were done by the request of 24 separate police departments in the 9 county area around Chanute. After the study, the Chanute Police Department stated “this (PSE) instrument is one of the best investigative tools available at any price. We base this judgment on the PSE’s versatility, ease of operation, simplicity, accuracy, and relatively short training period. We have not found anyone that the PSE would not work on.” The 70 investigators stated that the crimes would not have been solved without the PSE.

    On December 17, 1979, the PSE and the polygraph had a face-off in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina. A defendant had been convicted in State Court and had been given a life sentence, based largely on an unfavorable polygraph examination. A favorable PSE examination had not been admitted. An American Polygraph Association expert witness appeared for the prosecution and PSE expert witness for the defendant. Most of the testimony at this hearing involved the presentation of the study done on the PSE and polygraph.

    Because of the data presented, the Federal Court found: “This court is satisfied from the evidence that both polygraph and Psychological Stress Evaluator provide substantially reliable methods of evaluating psychological stress, and the Psychological Stress Evaluator is at least as reliable as the polygraph, and possibly more reliable.”

    The court ruled: “Based upon that evidence and upon review of the lengthy trial record, I am of the opinion that petitioner was unconstitutionally denied a fair trial when the court admitted evidence of an unfavorable lie detection report but excluded evidence of a favorable lie detection report, and that he should have a new trial.”

    In 1972 a study was conducted for the Howard County, Maryland Police Department in which 43 criminal suspects took lie detection examinations that were instrumented simultaneously with a polygraph and a PSE. The test of validity was provided by a comparison of the examiner’s conclusions for which complete and concrete corroboration was, or later became available, the PSE proved 100 percent accurate. The polygraph, in the same examinations, produced two cases of “un-testable subjects” and two cases of “inconclusive results.” Comparison with the conclusions of a second, independent examiner produced agreement for 100 percent of the PSE findings and 93 percent for the polygraph.

    In 1979, Dr. Israel Nachshon, Bar Ilan University, Israel, and Tuyva Amsel conducted a study entitled PSE-Polygraph Study, a PSE Validation Study. They conducted the PSE study using tapes made during polygraph examinations of criminal suspects by Israeli Police. Independent corroboration was not used in this case; rather the polygraph findings were assumed to be true. Agreement between the PSE and polygraph occurred in 94 percent of the cases.

    The Nachshon and Amsel study was carried two steps further. In the first step, blind chart reading was employed. The Polygraph examiners read their charts and the PSE examiner read his without being able to identify the subject or make use of global impressions available with the original polygraph calls. In the second step, the PSE and polygraph charts were similarly dissected to remove the control-test patterns of responses so calls could be made simply on stress determination. In both cases, the PSE bettered the polygraph in agreeing with original polygraph findings. As a result, Dr. Nachshon stated, “I was convinced that the PSE is as good as the polygraph as an instrument to detect lies.”

    Click to access Kradz-Book.pdf


    • The Dektor website for additional details is here you can find many articles and studies on the PSE and Voice Stress Analysis. Here you can instantly read the famous 200 page book written in 1969 by Mr. Michael Kradz. Mr. Kradz was Chief of Investigations for the State of Maryland during the 1960’s. His book proved the complete reliability, effectiveness and validity of the PSE system. The website has an 8 minute video explaining the PSE-7010 system, including screenshots. The website proves why the PSE is vastly superior in truth verification over polygraph, imitation “voice lie detectors” and other methods of lie detection.
      Only PSE has validation by the U. S. government for 40 years. Only PSE qualifies to EEOC validation standards for employment screening or law enforcement and government personnel.

  99. Fetzer Claims these two have viewed the images of Horne’s ‘Hollywood Group”:

    Ned Price – Vice President of Mastering at Warner Bros. in Burbank.
    Paul Rutan Jr. – Visual Effects | Miscellaneous Crew :
    I am getting the sense that this image that they have blown up digitally does in fact have evidence of alteration. If this is so, I would propose that such alteration was done after the 35 mm frame was purchased by Wilkerson. That is that the image has been altered after the fact by those who are in possession of this particular image. I think that the subterfuge is recent, and that this is not an artifact from the original Zapruder film footage.
    To prove such, another party or group should acquire the another copy of this image from the same source that Wilkerson got hers, and repeat the enlargement process to test whether the “matte” is on the original frame or the product of tampering with the evidence by the Fetzer-Horne cabal.

    Experiments such as this should be repeatable. If a second test isn’t done, too much trust is being put on a single source. I have had enough experience dealing with Fetzer to conclude that he is a government mole inserted into the truth communities of both the 9/11 and JFK cases. In both of these cases Fetzer has been at the forefront of attempts to extinguish the most crucial visual evidence of each.

    Fetzer is a proven charlatan. This has been shown to be the case over and again. Anything he is involved in is suspect.

    Baker and Truly confront Oswald in the small vestibule with the Coke machines…

    “When they reached the second-floor landing on their way up to the top of the building, Patrolman Baker thought he caught a glimpse of someone through the small glass window in the door separating the hall area near the stairs from the small vestibule leading into the lunchroom. Gun in hand, he rushed to the door…..” ( Report, Chap. 1, pg. 5 )

    As they ran up the stairs, Truly was in front of Baker. Truly’s testimony that he did not see anyone entering the vestibule seems to indicate that Oswald entered it from a different direction.

    Mr. BELIN. Now when you say you ran on to your left, did you look straight ahead to see whether there was anyone in that area, or were you intent on just going upstairs?
    > Mr. TRULY. If there had been anybody in that area, I would have seen him on the outside.

    For Baker to have caught a “glimpse” of Oswald in the vestibule from the bottom of the stairs, as the Commission claims he did, Oswald had to have entered it from either the office area or the hallway and thus COULD NOT HAVE DESCENDED FROM THE SIXTH FLOOR VIA THE REAR STAIRS.

    This issue of where Oswald was just moments after the shooting. He was eating lunch in the lunchroom of the TBDB and had gone to get a Coke in a small vestibule just off the lunchroom when encountered by Truly the manager of TBDB, and officer Baker – the first policeman to enter the building. This gives a firm alibi to Oswald not having been on the 6th floor where the ‘snipers nest’ is located.
    I remember discussing this with Jim Marrs years ago, both of us agreeing that this point alone proves Oswald’s innocence.

    Reconstructing this scene as per testimonies; Baker saw someone in the vestibule through the small glass window in the door from the hallway. Truly testifies that if anyone had been in the hallway moments before, he would have seen him go through that door. The only alternative route to the vestibule is from the lunchroom. up a short flight of steps. Oswald was therefore eating in the lunchroom as per his testimony, and had gone to fetch a Coke for the meal he was having. The lunchroom is on the second floor. The snipers nest is on the sixth. For Oswald to have come down four flights of stairs from the snipers nest is an impossible feat given the timeline of Bakers entry into the building. The “nest” was enclosed and had to be squirmed out of, another round had been chambered in the rifle, it was then hidden among boxes heavy with books, that he would have to move to get through to the spot the rifle was hidden, he would have had to then replaced the heavy boxes before finally exiting and taking the stairs down. This is simply an impossible timeline, one that was juked by the WC to try to make it fit the official narrative.
    See more detail here:

  101. “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past.” (Ingsoc)
    ~George Orwell


    • “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
      ~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

      Congressman Louis McFadden, House Committee on Banking and Currency Chairman (1920-31), stated: “When the Federal Reserve Act was passed, the people of these United States did not perceive that a world banking system was being set up here. A super-state controlled by international bankers and industrialists…acting together to enslave the world…Every effort has been made by the Fed to conceal its powers but the truth is–the Fed has usurped the government.”

      You know, “the government” is no less a fictitious entity than a corporation or Batman.


  102. The crux of the argument from the Warren Commission supporters is an appeal to illegitimate authority.
    Several commentators on this site (JFKfacts) are also fond of Argumentum Ad Verecundiam. The Latin noun verecundia means “modesty” or “shame”. It attempts to make those who lack authority feel shame about discussing issues they lack credentials of expertise in, and back out of an argument.

    [An integral part of the appeal to authority is the cognitive bias known as the Asch effect.
    >Grootendorst, Robert (1992), Argumentation, Communication, and Fallacies: A Pragma-dialectical Perspective, p. 158
    Jump up ^ McLeod, Samuel (2008), Asch Experiment, Simply Psychology
    Jump up ^ Webley, Paul, A partial and non-evaluative history of the Asch effect, University of Exeter]

      • Yes, I am convinced this air crash was an assassination of Hunt’s wife.
        That is NOT George Bush in the photo in Dealey Plaza however.

        The downfall of Nixon was a CIA plot as well. The Watergate burglary was compromised on purpose. A complex story…

  103. The Warren Commission was hopelessly stilted at the start.

    1. Earl Warren never wanted to head the Commission and had to be blackmailed into taking the job.

    Due to the declassified records made available by the ARRB, we now know that Chief Justice Earl Warren initially declined to helm the Commission. After he did so, President Johnson summoned him to the White House. Once there, LBJ confronted him with what he said was evidence that Oswald had visited both the Cuban and Russian consulates in Mexico City. Johnson then intimated that Oswald’s previous presence there, seven weeks before the assassination, could very well indicate the communists were behind Kennedy’s murder. Therefore, this could necessitate atomic holocaust, World War III. Both Johnson and Warren later reported that this warning visibly moved the Chief Justice and he left the meeting in tears. (See James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable, pgs. 80-83; James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, pgs. 358-59)

    2. Clearly intimidated by his meeting with Johnson, Earl Warren had no desire to run any kind of real investigation.

    Due to the declassification process of the ARRB, we now have all the executive session hearings of the Commission. Because of that, we know how effective Johnson’s chilling warning to Earl Warren was. At the first meeting of the Commission, Warren made it clear that he 1.) Did not want the Commission to employs its own investigators. 2.) They were just to evaluate materials produced by the FBI and Secret Service. 3.) He did not want to hold public hearings or use the power of subpoena. 4.) He even intimated that he did not even want to call any witnesses. He thought the Commission could rely on interviews done by other agencies. He actually said the following: “Meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation.”

    As the reader can see, Johnson’s atomic warning had cowed the former DA of Alameda county California, Earl Warren. He had no desire to run a real investigation.

    3. Warren communicated Johnson’s warning about the threat of atomic warfare to his staff at their first meeting.

    At the Commission’s first staff meeting, attorney Melvin Eisenberg took notes of how Warren briefed the young lawyers on the task ahead, i.e. trying to find out who killed President Kennedy. Warren told them about his reluctance to take the job. He then told them that LBJ “stated that rumors of the most exaggerated kind were circulating in this country and overseas. Some rumors went as far as attributing the assassination to a faction within the Government” that wanted to install LBJ as president. These rumors, “if not quenched, could conceivably lead the country into a war which could cost 40 million lives.” (Emphasis added, Memorandum of Eisenberg 1/20/64)

    Warren then added “No one could refuse to do something which might help to prevent such a possibility. The President convinced him that this was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles.” (Emphasis added) In discussing the role of the Commission, Warren asserted the “importance of quenching rumors, and precluding future speculation such as that which has surrounded the death of Lincoln.” Warren then added this, “He emphasized that the Commission had to determine the truth, whatever that might be.”

    It is those 14 words that Commission staffers, like the late David Belin, would dutifully quote for The New York Times. We now know that, by leaving out the previous 166 words, Belin was distorting the message. Any group of bright young lawyers would understand that Warren was sending down orders from the White House. The last 14 words were simply technical cover for all that had come before. When Warren said, “this was an occasion on which actual conditions had to override general principles”, he could not be more clear. In fact, that phrase is so telling that, in his discussion of the memo, Vincent Bugliosi leaves it out of his massive book Reclaiming History. (See Bugliosi, p. 367, and Reclaiming Parkland by James DiEugenio, pgs. 253-54)

    But there is further certification that the staffers got the message and acted on it. For in her first interview with the Church Committee, Sylvia Odio talked about her meeting with Commission lawyer Wesley Liebeler. After taking her testimony in Dallas, he told Odio, “Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.” (Odio’s Church Committee interview with Gaeton Fonzi, of 1/16/76)

    4. Hoover closed the case on November 24th, the day Ruby Killed Oswald.

    On that day, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover called Walter Jenkins at the White House. He said that he had spoken with assistant Attorney General Nicolas Katzenbach already, and that they both were anxious to have “something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.” (The Assassinations, edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease, p. 4)

    It was on this day that Oswald was killed by Jack Ruby live on television. How could Hoover have completed an investigation of that particular murder on the day it happened? To do such an inquiry, Ruby’s entire background would have to be checked, all the people he dealt with and spoke to in the preceding weeks would have to be located and spoken to, the Dallas Police force would have to be interviewed to see if he had help entering the City Hall basement, and all films, photos and audio would have to be reviewed for evidentiary purposes. This point would be crucial: if Ruby was recruited, this would indicate a conspiracy to silence Oswald. That whole investigation was done in less than a day?

    Nope. And, in fact, not only was the murder of Oswald not fully investigated at the time Hoover closed the case, but just 24 hours earlier, Hoover had told President Johnson that the case against Oswald for the JFK murder was not very good. (ibid) This all indicates that Hoover was making a political choice, not an investigatory one. It suggests everything the Bureau did from this point on would be to fulfill that (premature) decision. Which leads us to the next point.

    5. The FBI inquiry was so unsatisfactory, even the Warren Commission discounted it.

    In fact, you will not find the FBI report in the Commission’s evidentiary volumes. Even though the Commission relied on the Bureau for approximately 80% of its investigation. (Warren Report, p. xii) Why? First, Hoover never bought the Single Bullet Theory. That is, the idea that one bullet went through both President Kennedy and Governor John Connally, making seven wounds, smashing two bones, and emerging almost unscathed. The Warren Commission did end up buying into this idea, which later caused it so many problems.

    But second, the FBI report sent to the Commission was inadequate even for the Commissioners. We know this from the declassified Executive Session transcript of January 22, 1964. The Commissioners were shocked about two things. First, the FBI is not supposed to come to conclusions. They are supposed to investigate and present findings for others to form conclusions. But in this case, they said Oswald killed Kennedy and Officer J. D. Tippit without accomplices. That Ruby killed Oswald with no accomplices or aid. And the two didn’t know each other. In other words, this report was a fulfillment of Hoover’s message to Walter Jenkins of November 24th. (See Point 4) The Commissioners, who were lawyers, saw that the FBI had not run out anywhere near all the leads available to them. As Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin exclaimed, “But they are concluding that there can’t be a conspiracy without those being run out. Now that is not my experience with the FBI.” (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 219)

    In other words, in his zeal to close the case, Hoover broke with established FBI practice not once, but twice. In sum, the FBI report was so poor, the Commission decided it had to call witnesses and use subpoena power.

    6. Hoover knew the CIA was lying about Oswald and Mexico City. He also knew his report was a sham.

    President Johnson relied on the CIA for his information about Oswald in Mexico City. As we saw in Point 1, he used it to intimidate Warren. As we saw in Points 2 and 3, Warren then communicated this fear to the Commission and his staff.

    But what if that information was, for whatever reason, either wrong, or intentionally false? Would that not put a different interpretation on the information, its source, and Johnson’s message to Warren?

    Within seven weeks of the murder, Hoover understood that such was the case. Writing in the marginalia of a memo concerning CIA operations within the USA, he wrote about the Agency, “I can’t forget the CIA withholding the French espionage activities in the USA nor the false story re Oswald’s trip to Mexico, only to mention two instances of their double dealings.” (The Assassinations, p. 224, emphasis added) In a phone call to Johnson, Hoover revealed that the voice on the Mexico City tape sent to him by the Agency was not Oswald’s, “In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there.” (ibid) Needless to say, if Oswald was being impersonated in Mexico, this transforms the whole import of Johnson’s original message to Warren.

    Knowing this, Hoover went along with what he knew was a cover-up. And he admitted this in private on at least two occasions. He told a friend, after the initial FBI report was submitted, that the case was a mess, and he had just a bunch of loose ends. In the late summer of 1964, he was asked by a close acquaintance about it. Hoover replied, “If I told you what I really know, it would be very dangerous to this country. Our political system would be disrupted.” (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 222)

    7. Nicolas Katzenbach cooperated with Hoover to close the case almost immediately.

    As we saw in Point 4, on November 24th, Hoover had closed the case. But he had also talked to Acting Attorney General Nicolas Katzenbach that day about getting something out to convince the public Oswald was the sole killer. As we saw, Hoover did this with his makeshift FBI report.

    Katzenbach also did this with the famous Katzenbach Memorandum (
    As one can see, there is evidence that Hoover actually drafted the memo for Katzenbach. It says that the public must be satisfied Oswald was the lone killer and he had no confederates still at large. It does not say Oswald was the lone killer. After all, Ruby had just killed him the day before. How could there be any conclusions reached about the matter in 24 hours? Katzenbach wants to rely on an FBI report to convince the public Knowing that the previous day Hoover had told him he was closing the case already. This memo was sent to the White House, and Katzenbach would later become the Justice Department liaison with the Commission. In fact, he attended their first meeting and encouraged them to accept the FBI report. Which they did not. (Executive Session transcript of 12/5/63)

  104. 8. Howard Willens actually thought the CIA was honest with the Warren Commission.

    As the Commission liaison, Katzenbach appointed Justice Department lawyer Howard Willens to recruit assistant counsel to man the Commission. Willens then stayed with the Commission throughout as an administrator and Katzenbach’s eyes and ears there.

    In his journal, on March 12, 1964, Willens wrote the following: “I consider the CIA representatives to be among the more competent people in government who I have ever dealt with. They articulate, they are specialists, and they seem to have a broad view of government. This may be, of course because they do not have a special axes (sic) to grind in the Commission’s investigation.”

    Recall, former Director Allen Dulles sat on the Commission for ten months. He never revealed the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Richard Helms also was in direct communication with the Commission. He did not reveal the existence of the plots either.

    CIA counter-intelligence chief James Angleton was designated by Helms to be the point person with the Commission on Oswald. Tipped off by Dulles, he rehearsed with the FBI to tell the same story about Oswald’s lack of affiliation with both agencies. (Peter Grose, Gentleman Spy, pgs. 547-48) Today, of course, many informed observers believe that Oswald was an agent provocateur for the CIA and an informant for the FBI. There is ample evidence for both. (See Destiny Betrayed, Chapters 7 and 8, and John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA.) But you will not find any of it in the Warren Report.

    9. When senior lawyers started leaving, Howard Willens hired law school graduates to finish the job.

    As noted in Point 8, Howard Willens hired most of the counselors for the Commission. Surprisingly, many of these lawyers were not criminal attorneys. They had a business background or education e.g. David Belin, Melvin Eisenberg, Wesley Liebeler. But beyond that, by the summer of 1964, many of the senior counselors started to leave. Mainly because they were losing money being away from private practice. To replace them, Willens did a rather odd thing. He began to hire newly minted law school graduates. In other words, lawyers who had no experience in any kind of practice at all. In fact, one of these men, Murray Lauchlicht, had not even graduated from law school when Willens enlisted him. (Philip Shenon, A Cruel and Shocking Act, p. 404) His field of specialty was trusts and estates. When he got to the Commissions offices, Lauchlicht was assigned to complete the biography of Jack Ruby. Another recent law school graduate who had clerked for one year was Lloyd Weinreb. The 24 year old Weinreb was given the job of completing the biography of Oswald. (ibid, p. 405)

    Needless to say, these two aspects of the report, the biographies of Oswald and Ruby have come to be suspect since they leave so much pertinent material out. In fact, Burt Griffin told the House Select Committee on Assassinations, senior counsel Leon Hubert left because he did not feel he was getting any support from the Commission administrators, or the intelligence agencies, to understand who Ruby really was. (HSCA, Volume XI, pgs. 268-83) Obviously, someone who had not even graduated law school would not have those kinds of compunctions. Willens probably knew that.

    10. The two most active members of the Commission were Allen Dulles and Gerald Ford.

    As we have seen from Points 1-3, from the moment that Johnson conjured up the vision of 40 million dead through atomic warfare, Earl Warren was largely marginalized as an investigator. He was further marginalized when he tried to appoint his own Chief Counsel, Warren Olney. He was outmaneuvered by a combination of Hoover, Dulles, Gerald Ford and John McCloy. Not only did they manage to jettison Olney, they installed their own choice, J. Lee Rankin. (Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, pgs.41-45)

    Within this milieu, with no effective leadership, the two most active and dominant commissioners turned out to be Dulles and Ford. (Walt Brown, The Warren Omission, pgs. 83-85) Which is just about the worst thing that could have happened. As we have seen, Dulles was, to be kind, less than forthcoming about both Oswald, and the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. As has been revealed through declassified records, Ford was, from almost the outset, a Commission informant for the FBI. (Breach of Trust, pgs. 42-44)

    Later on, in the editing of the final report, Ford did something unconscionable, but quite revealing. In the first draft, the report said that the first wound to Kennedy hit him in the back. Which is accurate. Ford changed this to the bullet hit Kennedy in the neck. (ibid, p. 174) Which reveals that he understood that the public would have a hard time accepting the trajectory of the Single Bullet Theory. When the HSCA made public some of the autopsy photos, it was revealed the bullet did hit Kennedy in the back. Lawyers, like Vincent Bugliosi, call an act like that “consciousness of guilt”.

    11. The Warren Report only achieved a unanimous vote through treachery i.e. tricking its own members.

    One of the best kept secrets of the Commission was that all of its members were not on board with the Single Bullet Theory. In fact, as we know today, there was at least one member who was not ready to sign off on the report unless certain objections were in the record. The man who made these objections was Sen. Richard Russell. Sen. John S. Cooper and Rep. Hale Boggs quietly supported him behind the scenes. These three not only had problems with ballistics evidence, they also questioned the FBI version of just who Lee and Marina Oswald actually were. Russell was so disenchanted with the proceedings that he actually wrote a letter of resignation-which he did not send-and he commissioned his own private inquiry. (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 258)

    Realizing that Russell was going to demand certain objections be entered into the record at the final meeting, Rankin and Warren did something extraordinarily deceitful. They stage-managed a presentation that featured a female secretary there; but she was not from the official stenography company, Ward and Paul. (McKnight, p. 294) She was, in essence, an actress. Therefore, there is no actual transcript of this meeting where Russell voiced his reservations.

    This fact was kept from Russell until 1968. Then researcher Harold Weisberg discovered it. When he alerted Russell to this internal trickery, the senator became the first commissioner to openly break ranks with his cohorts and question what they had done. (ibid, pgs. 296-97) Russell was later joined by Boggs and Cooper. Hale Boggs was quite vocal about the cover-up instituted by Hoover. He said that “Hoover lied his eyes out to the Commission.” (Reclaiming Parkland, p. 259)

    12. In its design and intent, the Commission was a travesty of legal procedure, judicial fairness and objectivity.

    One of the boldest lies in the Warren Report appears in the Foreword. There, the Commission declares that although it has not been a courtroom procedure, neither has it proceeded “as a prosecutor determined to prove a case.” (p. xiv) No one who has read the report and compared it with the 26 volumes believes this. For the simple reason that, as many critics pointed out, the evidence in the volumes is carefully picked to support the concept of Oswald’s guilt and Ruby acting alone. Sylvia’s Meagher’s masterful Accessories After the Fact, makes this point in almost every chapter. The Commission ignored evidence in its own volumes, or to which it had access, which contradicted its own predetermined prosecutorial conclusions.

    A good example, previously mentioned, would be what Gerald Ford did with the back wound. (See Point 10) Another would be the fact that in the entire report–although the Zapruder film is mentioned at times–there is no description of the rapid, rearward movement of Kennedy’s entire body as he is hit at Zapruder frame 313.

    Although it was helmed by a Chief Justice who had fought for the rights of the accused, the Commission reversed judicial procedure: Oswald was guilty before the first witness was called. We know this from the outline prepared by Chief Counsel Rankin. On a progress report submitted January 11, 1964, the second subhead reads, “Lee Harvey Oswald as the Assassin of President Kennedy.” The second reads, “Lee Harvey Oswald: Background and Possible Motives.” (Reclaiming Parkland pgs. 250-51) This was three weeks before the hearings began! Clearly, the Commission was arranged at this time as an adversary to Oswald. But there was no defense granted to the defendant. None at all.

    This is a point that the Commission again misrepresents in its Foreword. They write that they requested Walter Craig, president of the ABA, to advise whether or not they were abiding by the basic principles of American justice. And he attended hearings and was free to express himself at all times. As Meagher pointed out, this arrangement lasted only from February 27th to March 12th. And not once did Craig make an objection in Oswald’s defense. (Meagher, p. xxix) After this, Craig and his assistants did not participate directly. They only made suggestions. Further, neither Craig nor his assistants were at any of the hearings of the 395 witnesses who did not appear before the Commission, but were deposed by Warren Commission counsel.

    As more than one writer has noted, the Nazis at Nuremburg were provided more of a defense than Oswald. This fact alone makes the Warren Report a dubious enterprise.

    13. As a fact finding body, the Commission was completely unsatisfactory.

    For two reasons. First, usually, as with congressional hearings, when such a body is assembled, there is a majority and minority counsel to balance out two points of view. That did not happen here. And it was never seriously contemplated. Therefore, as we saw with Russell in Point 11, there was no check on the majority.

    Second, a fact finding commission is supposed to find all the facts, or at least a good portion of them. If they do not, then their findings are greatly reduced in validity in direct proportion to what is missing from the record.

    To cite what is missing from the Warren Report would take almost another 26 volumes of evidence. But in very important fields, like the medical evidence and autopsy procedures, like Oswald’s associations with American intelligence, as with Ruby’s ties to the Dallas Police and to organized crime, in all these areas, and many more, what the Warren Report left out is more important than what it printed. In fact, there have been entire books written about these subjects-respectively, William Law’s In the Eye of History, John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA, Seth Kantor’s Who was Jack Ruby?-that completely alter the depiction of the portraits drawn of those subjects in the report. And when we get to other specific subjects, like Oswald in New Orleans, or the Clinton/Jackson incident, Mexico City, or the killing of Oswald by Ruby, the Warren Report today is completely and utterly bereft of facts. Therefore, its conclusions are rudderless since they have no reliable scaffolding.

    Conclusion from Plaque One: The Warren Commission was hopelessly biased against Oswald from its inception. Actually before its inception, as we have seen with he cases of Warren, Hoover and Katzenbach. And since each of those men had an integral role to play in the formation and direction of the Commission, the enterprise was doomed from the start. As a criminal investigation, as a prosecutor’s case, and as a fact finding inquiry. The Commission, in all regards, was like the Leaning Tower of Pisa: structurally unsound at its base. Therefore, all of its main tenets, as we shall see, were destined to be specious.
    ~James DiEugenio

  105. The head wound is also wrong. Humes and Boswell placed Kennedy’s head in a much more anteflexed position than the Zapruder film shows. In fact, Josiah Thompson exposed this as a lie when he juxtaposed the Rydberg drawing with a frame from the film. (Thompson, p. 111) Beyond that, the Rydberg drawing of the head wound shows much of the skull bone intact between the entrance, low in the rear skull, and the exit, on the right side above the ear. Yet, in Boswell’s face sheet, he described a gaping 10 by 17 cm. defect near the top of Kennedy’s skull. When Boswell testified, no one asked him why there was a difference between what he told Rydberg and what he wrote on his face sheet. (WC Vol. 2, p. 376 ff)
    ~James DiEugenio

  106. 26. The Warren Commission changed the bullet in the Walker shooting to incriminate Oswald.

    There was no previous firearms violence in Oswald’s past to serve as behavioral precedent for the murders of Kennedy and Tippit. General Edwin Walker had been shot at in April of 1963. The case was unsolved by the Dallas Police as of November, and Oswald had never even been a suspect. In fact, his name appears to have never even been brought up. But if one turns to the Warren Report, one will see that the Commission uses the Walker incident to “indicate that in spite of the belief among those who knew him that he was apparently not dangerous, Oswald did not lack the determination and other traits required to carry out a carefully planned killing of another human being…” (WR, p. 406)

    There is one major problem with this verdict (among others). If Oswald misfired at Walker, it would have to have been done with a rifle different than the one the Commission says he used in Dealey Plaza. Because the projectile recovered from the Walker home was described by the Dallas Police as being a steel-jacketed 30.06 bullet. (See Gerald McKnight, Breach of Trust, p. 49 and the General Offense Report of 4/10/63 filed by officers Van Cleave and McElroy.)

    There is no evidence Oswald ever had this kind of rifle. And the Warren Report never notes this discrepancy in the ammunition used in the Walker shooting versus the Kennedy murder.

    • Gaeton Fonzi quotes Vince Salandria: “Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: ‘We are in control and no one – not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official – no one can do anything about it.’ It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless.”

  107. In early 1977, Burkley’s attorney, William F. Illig, contacted HSCA counsel Richard A. Sprague. Sprague’s needlessly suppressed memo recounts that Burkley wanted to get some information to the Select Committee. Namely, as Sprague put it, that “although he, Burkley, had signed the death certificate of President Kennedy in Dallas, he had never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.”[378] Given Burkley’s central vantage point, this was a hot investigative prospect if there ever was one. The staff of the HSCA wasn’t interested. But it did more than just ignore the lead. It shielded its own forensic consultants from the existence of this contact.

    January 1978, two HSCA counsels, D. Andy Purdy and Mark Flanagan, contacted Burkley. Their purpose was to extract an affidavit saying that that no one could have intercepted JFK’s body before it got to the morgue, and that JFK’s wounds had not been altered between Dallas and the post mortem.[379] Dutifully, Burkley wrote up an affidavit, declaring that, “[he, Burkley, had remained] in the ambulance with the President’s body in the casket and also on the plane; the casket was neither opened or disturbed in any way.” And also that, “There was no difference in the nature of the wounds” seen in Dallas compared to those seen in the morgue.[380]
    (And this affidavit from Burkley sinks the Liftonite/Horne ship – case closed)

    In discussing the media’s reaction to Oliver Stone’s movie, JFK, Sam Smith commented that, “It is one of contemporary journalism’s most disastrous conceits that truth can not exist in the absence of revealed evidence. By accepting the tyranny of the known, the media inevitably relies on the official version of the truth, seldom asking the government to prove its case, while demanding of critics of that official version the most exacting tests of evidence.”[382] (emphasis in original) Nowhere is this phenomenon more visible than in Kennedy’s medical/autopsy evidence. The original, official findings are accepted without serious scrutiny, as if the government was institutionally incapable of anything but impartiality. Challenges, by contrast, are run through the most withering gauntlet, perhaps for the obvious reason that it is the government that sits in judgment of the merits of the challenge.

    • The Distinction Between a ‘General Pathologist’ & a ‘Forensic Pathologist’:

      Forensic pathology, which for practical purposes deals with the postmortem investigation of sudden and unexpected death, is about as far from the mainstream of medicine as one can get, short of actually becoming Surgeon General or a medical school dean. The training of a forensic pathologist generally entails a complete five-year residency in anatomic and clinical pathology, followed by one or more years of fellowship training in a medical examiner’s office in a large city “fortunate” enough to have hundreds of homicides per year. A completely credentialed forensic pathologist is certified by the American Board of Pathology as both a general pathologist and as a subspecialist, following successful completion of the Board examinations in anatomic, clinical, and forensic pathology. For information on how to become a forensic pathologist, see Forensic Pathology Careers: Frequently-Asked Questions.

      The good forensic pathologist is an amalgamation of pathologist, detective, politician, and public relations person. Not only must one know the technical aspect of the discipline, but he/she needs to have the communication skills to acquire supportive information from law enforcement officers and explain the results of medical examinations to juries (which are specifically selected for technical ignorance) and other laypeople. Also, mediocre media operatives, desperate for expose’s when news is slow, find medical examiners to be quick and easy targets. Forensic pathology, because it involves no mean amount of educated guessing, lends itself well to glib Monday morning quarterbacking by amateurs.


      This is the cornerstone of forensic pathology. Terms used to describe traumatic lesions are somewhat more specific than analogous terms used in surgery and internal medicine.

      A. Laceration is a tearing injury due to friction or impact with a blunt object. The typical laceration has edges which are ragged3, bruised, and/or abraded. Generally, surgeons and ER physicians do not make a distinction between lacerations and incised wounds, calling them both “lacerations.”
      B. Incised wound is a cutting injury due to slicing action of a bladelike object. The wound edges are smooth. Serrated blades produce the same smooth edges as do nonserrated blades.
      C. Puncture is a penetrating injury due to pointed object without a blade, such as an ice pick.
      D. Abrasion is a friction injury removing superficial layers of skin, allowing serum to exude and form a crust. Abrasions may not be visible on wet skin; therefore, an abrasion not apparent when a body is first examined may appear the next day, after the wet body has had a chance to dry out in the morgue refrigerator.
      E. Contusion is a bruise due to rupture or penetration of small-caliber blood vessel walls. Contusions may be seen on the surfaces of internal organs (such as the brain or heart) as well as the skin and mucous membranes.
      F. Gunshot wounds represent a special form of trauma very important to forensic pathology. The types of determinations made on bodies include 1) type of firearm used (shotgun, handgun/rifle, or high-powered rifle), 2) distance of the gun from the victim at the time of firing, 3) whether a given wound is an entrance wound or an exit wound, and 4) track of the projectile through the body. Wounds may be classified by distance as follows:
      1. Contact wound: Muzzle of gun was applied to skin at time of shooting. Classic features include an impression of the muzzle burned around the entrance wound and absence of fouling and stippling (see below). Contact wounds over the skull may have a stellate appearance because of expulsion of hot gases from the barrel which are trapped against the outer table of the skull and blow back toward the exterior, ripping apart the skin around the entrance wound.
      2. Close range (6 – 8 inches): The entrance wound is surrounded by fouling, which is soot that travels for a short distance from the gun barrel to be depositied on the skin. There may also be stippling (see below).
      3. Intermediate range ( 6 – 8 inches to 1.5 – 3.5 feet): This is too far for soot to travel, so there is no fouling, but hot fragments of burning propellant (gunpowder) follow the bullet to the victim and produce stippling by causing pinpoint burns around the entrance wound. Of the two type of propellant, “ball” and “flake,” the former will produce stippling at a greater distance.
      4. Distant (greater than 1.5 – 3.5 feet): This is too far for either soot or burning propellant to travel, so the wound margins are clean, with neither fouling nor stippling. Entrance versus exit wounds represents an important distinction for the forensic pathologist to make. A grand jury may look with more favor on an assailant alleging self defense, if the victim has the entrance wound on the front and the exit wound on the back, rather than vice versa. Classically, the entrance wound has a rim of abrasion surrounding the wound, because the projectile “drags” the surrounding skin into the wound a bit, abrading it along the way. The exit wound lacks this abrasion, unless the victim was braced against a wall or other solid object that may secondarily abrade the margin of the exit wound as the projectile penetrates the skin and pushes it into the wall.

      Introduction to Forensic Sciences, Second Edition By William G. Eckert

    • It is clear that what happened at the Bethesda morgue on the night of November 22, 1963 was not a unbiased forensic autopsy, but a political autopsy. One performed by pathologists who were out of their league, beyond their specialties. This was a burlesque orchestrated by the perpetrators of the murder.

      It was a continuation of the inept crime scene investigation that began after the shots were fired in Dealey Plaza, and the prior actions by some of the same actors in setting up and framing Oswald.

      That the apologists for this charade continue to turn a blind eye to the evidence revealed proving this, is evidence of a deep seated pathology within this society.

  108. It may be noted here with some displeasure by the disciples, that I have not joined in on the deification of the new messiah of JFK research Doug Horne. It is my opinion that there is much of merit in Horne’s new testament. However there are other aspects that I find spurious and unfounded in fact. There is the acceptance of long series of presumptions offered by Lifton the baptist that dispute reason and logic itself. There is also an alignment with the Dark Side in Horne’s embrace of the demon Fetzer and his attendant archangels; White, Costella, Healy, and others in Lifton’s abysmal baptismal pool.

    If I am taken as a heretic to this new wave cult of personality, I make this choice freely and with confidence in my own research abilities.

  109. Maurice Bishop and “The Spook” Hal Hendrix
    Gaeton Fonzi has written a book that details his search for Maurice Bishop called The Last Investigation. To Fonzi’s detailed summary of reasons that David Atlee Phillips was indeed the Maurice Bishop that Veciana saw with Oswald, there is a more recent addition. In the back of his updated paperback version of Conspiracy, Anthony Summers tells of Jim Hougan’s talk with CIA agent Frank Terpil. Jim Hougan will be familiar to Probe readers from our last issue. He’s the author of the best book on Watergate, Secret Agenda.

  110. The Mighty Wurlitzer
    (the CIA’s propaganda machine)
    The CIAs Greatest Hits

    Deputy Director Frank Wisner proudly referred to the CIA’s worldwide propaganda machine as “the mighty Wurlitzer.” And indeed, the agency’s skill at murdering people is matched only by its ability to murder the truth.

    The CIA has published literally hundreds of books that spread its party line on the Cold War. It was particularly proud of The Penikovsky Papers, supposedly the memoirs of a KGB defector but actually completely ghostwritten by CIA scribes. A bit more embarrassing was Claire Sterling’s book which advanced the now-discredited theory that the Russians were behind the 1981 attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II. Even the popular Fodor’s Travel Guides started as a CIA front.

    The CIA also owns dozens of newspapers and magazines the world over. These not only provide cover for their agents but allow them to plant misinformation that regularly makes it back to the US through the wire services. The CIA has even placed agents on guard at the wire services, to prevent inconvenient facts from being disseminated.

    In 1977, famed Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein revealed that over 400 US journalists had been employed by the CIA. These ranged from freelancers who were paid for regular debriefings, to actual CIA officers who worked under deep cover. Nearly every major US news organization has had spooks on the payroll, usually with the cooperation of top management.

    The three most valuable media assets the CIA could count on were William Paley’s CBS, Arthur Sulzberger’s New York Times and Henry Luce’s Time/Life empire. All three bent over backwards promoting the picture of Oswald as a lone nut in the JFK assassination.

    Among prominent journalists who’ve worked knowingly with the CIA are National Review founder William F. Buckley, PBS interviewer Bill Moyers, the late columnist Stewart Alsop, former Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee and Ms. magazine founder Gloria Steinem.

  111. Gerald Hill and the
    Framing of Lee Harvey Oswald
    By Gokay Hasan Yusuf
    Gerald Hill was the only DPD officer who was [1] on the sixth floor of the Texas School book depository building following the assassination,[2] was allegedly at the murder scene of DPD officer J.D. Tippit (as I explain in the essay, it is doubtful that he ever was at the murder scene), [3 ] was at the Texas theater when Oswald was arrested for Tippit’s murder, and was inside the unmarked DPD car which escorted Oswald to DPD headquarters following his arrest. Finally, and most significantly of all, [4] Hill had possession of the revolver (WCE 143) which Oswald allegedly used to kill Tippit with, inside the car as Oswald was escorted to DPD headquarters (as explained in this essay under the subheading “The framing of Oswald inside the Theater,” Hill had by all likelihood framed Oswald for Tippit’s murder).

  112. “Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin”.
    — April 27, 1964 memo from Norman Redlich to J. Lee Rankin.

    • In 1963 J. Lee Rankin appointed Redlich as his special assistant on the Warren Commission in the investigation of the assassination of John F. Kennedy. According to The New York Times: “In that job, he and several other staff lawyers, including Arlen Specter, the future Pennsylvania senator, devised the single-bullet theory – which explained how Gov. John B. Connally of Texas and President Kennedy could have been struck almost instantaneously at one point, without there having been a second gunman.”

  113. Threats of violence against political figures happen all the time. The significance of the Chicago plot, if there was one, rested on its apparent similarities to the events in Dallas three weeks later. In particular, there were several similarities between the career of Lee Harvey Oswald and Thomas Arthur Vallee’s account of his own career:
    >Both were former Marines.
    >Both had served at Marine bases in Japan that hosted the U–2 spy plane: Oswald at Atsugi, Vallee at Camp Otsu.
    >Both had been involved with anti–Castro Cubans: Oswald in New Orleans, Vallee at a training camp at Levittown on Long Island, New York.
    >Both had recently started working at premises that overlooked the routes of presidential parades: Oswald at the Texas School Book Depository on Elm Street in Dallas, Vallee at IPP Litho–Plate at 625 West Jackson Boulevard in Chicago.

    There were two other curious coincidences:
    >The tip–off to the FBI about the assassination plot in Chicago came from an informant identified only as ‘Lee’. In the first few weeks after the assassination, there were rumours that Lee Oswald had been a paid informant of the FBI.
    >Thomas Vallee was arrested at 9:10am Chicago time, having been under constant surveillance since the previous day. Five minutes later, at 10:15 Washington time, President Kennedy’s press spokesman, Pierre Salinger, announced that the visit to Chicago had been cancelled. The decision to cancel the trip had presumably been made several minutes earlier. The timing has led some commentators to conclude that Vallee was allowed to remain on the streets until he was no longer required to perform his unwitting role as designated patsy.

  114. Tippit was shot by a shorter stocky man with shaggy hair wearing a long coat.He was firing a 380 auto pistol. The 38 Sp. was a plant, and the cartridges were switched while in evidence.

    Policeman J.M. Poe received two cartridge cases from witness Benavides at the scene. In an FBI report, Poe firmly stated that he marked the case with his initials, “J.M.P.” before turning them over to Dallas Crime Lab personnel. However, on June 12, 1964, the FBI showed Poe the four .38 Special cases used as evidence of Oswald’s guilt by the Warren Commission.

    The Bureau reported:

    “…He (Poe) recalled marking these cases before giving them to (lab personnel), but he stated after a thorough examination of the four cartridges shown to him…he cannot locate his marks; therefore, he cannot positively identify any of these cartridges as being the same ones he received from Benavides.”

  115. – Benavedes – Whaley – Callaway – Oswald imposter
    Oswald’s Doubles:
    How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat
    The following segments of Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable

    “Warren Commission counsel David Belin wrote: “The Rosetta Stone to the solution of President Kennedy’s murder is the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit.” From the Warren Commission’s standpoint, the killing of Tippit, who presumably challenged the assassin’s flight after he killed Kennedy, was said to prove “that Oswald had the capacity to kill.”~Jim Douglas

  116. The Oswald Doppelgänger Parade

    Oswald’s Doubles: How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat
    The following segments of Jim Douglass’ ‘JFK and the Unspeakable – Why He Died and Why It Matters’ examine the composite scapegoat served up to the world in the guise of Lee Harvey Oswald and the domestic intelligence network that was writing his story.

    • “John Kennedy’s story is our story, although a titanic effort has been made to keep it from us. That story, like the struggle it embodies, is as current today as it was in 1963. The theology of redemptive violence still reigns. The Cold War has been followed by its twin, the War on Terror. We are engaged in another apocalyptic struggle against an enemy seen as absolute evil. Terrorism has replaced Communism as the enemy. We are told we can be safe only through the threat of escalating violence. Once again, anything goes in a fight against evil: preemptive attacks, torture, undermining governments, assassinations, whatever it takes to gain the end of victory over an enemy portrayed as irredeemably evil. Yet the redemptive means John Kennedy turned to, in a similar struggle, was dialogue with the enemy. When the enemy is seen as human, everything changes.”~Jim Douglas

    • January 20, 1961: President Kennedy delivers his Inaugural Address, balancing Cold War statements with the hope “that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.”

      March 23, 1961: Over the opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the CIA, President Kennedy changes policy on Laos by ending U.S. support of anti-communist ruler General Phoumi Nosavan, whose government was installed by CIA-Pentagon forces under Eisenhower. At a news conference Kennedy says the United States “strongly and unreservedly” supports “the goal of a neutral and independent Laos” and wants to join in an international conference on Laos.

      April 15-19, 1961: A Cuban exile brigade, trained and commanded by the CIA, invades Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. As the Cuban army led by Premier Fidel Castro surrounds the invading force, President Kennedy refuses to send in U.S. combat forces. The exile brigade surrenders, and more than one thousand of its members are taken prisoner. President Kennedy realizes he has been drawn into a CIA trap designed to force him to escalate the battle by ordering a full-scale invasion of Cuba by U.S. troops. Kennedy says he wants “to splinter the CIA in a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds.”
      ~Jim Douglas

  117. “American Sniper”: Humanizing and Glorifying a Mass Murderer for the Empire

    “The theme that Kyle and the U.S. military are “sheep dogs” in the world runs throughout the whole movie. But sorry—the U.S. and its military aren’t sheep and they aren’t sheep dogs. They are, as Malcolm X put it, like “bloody-jawed wolves,” with the blood of the people of the world dripping from their fangs.” ~ Larry Everest

  118. “History is molded not entirely by events but by men’s judgment of them; the honest, unbiased, factual report of material plus the analysis and conclusions drawn by trained and diverse minds has not only discovered but in a sense created history in our time.”~Alfredda Scobey

    Unlike the Warren Commission Cult, independent minded researchers do not pray to dogma of any sort.
    And this document shows that the Warren Report was far from ‘honest, unbiased and factual’:

    Click to access solved.pdf

  119. January 27, 1964 transcript of Warren Commission executive session – see especially PDF pages 28 – 30.

    [Pg 28 pdf]
    Rep Boggs: You could disprove it, couldn’t you?
    Mr Dulles: No
    Rep Boggs: I know, ask questions about something…
    Mr Dulles: I never knew how to disprove it..
    Rep Boggs: ..did you ever have agents about whom you have no record whatsoever?
    Mr Dulles: The record might not be on paper. But on paper there would be hieroglyphics that only two people knew what they meant, and nobody outside of the agency would know and you could say this meant the agent and somebody else say it meant another agent.
    . . . .
    But it gets even better than the above as you go further into this conversation.~ww

  120. Panic in Executive City!!
    Warren Commission Executive Session of 22 Jan 1964
    “Lee Harvey Oswald, FBI agent – badge #179 ($200. pr mo from Sep 1962 to day of assassination) Source Wagner Carr Attny Gen Texas, info received from District Attorney Wade (former FBI)”

    Read the last page. You’re a fly on the wall witnessing the cover-up of the crime of the century:
    Boggs: This closes the case, you see. Don’t you see?
    Dulles: Yes, I see that.
    Rankin: They found their man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can all go home and that’s the end of it.
    Boggs & Dulles give away the show on the last page!
    Pg. 13:
    Boggs:…I don’t even like this being taken down.
    Dulles: Yes. I think this record should be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of all this?
    A: I don’t, except that we said we would have records of all the meetings and so we called in the reporter in the normal way. If you think that what we have said here should not be recorded, we can have it done that way. Of course it might….
    Dulles: I’m just thinking of sending around copies and so forth. The only copies of this record should be kept right here.
    Boggs: I would hope that none of these records are circulated to anybody.
    A: I hope so too.
    Rankin: We also give them to the commissioners. Now if you don’t want them, these are the only ones who get them but Sides himself: off the record.

    • The day after the JFK assassination, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover called Johnson around 10:00 a.m. ( the recording was erased, but a transcript survived at LBJ Library) and said about Lee Harvey Oswald: “We, of course, charged him with the murder, [but] the case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction.”
      Just after Jack Ruby killed Oswald on Sunday, Hoover reported to LBJ aide Walter Jenkins: “There is nothing further on the Oswald case except that he is dead.”
      Hoover remarked the need to have “something issued so we can convince the public that Oswald is the real assassin.”
      The Castro Allegations

      Castro found no rational explanation to close the case once the alleged assassin was eliminated,

      “As if it were a matter not of the President of the United States, but of a dog killed in the street.”

      The case was closed within 48 hours, when it was “more worthy of investigation from the judicial and criminal point of view.”

      From this standpoint, Castro argued some motions to the court of the public opinion. They actually became sound research issues:

      “It is implausible that a marksman equipped with a repeating carbine with a telescopic sight can hit the target three consecutive times in the lapse of five seconds, when he fires at a target that is moving at a distance of 80 meters [with a] rifle with telescopic sight, the target gets lost because of the shot, just because of the shot, and it is necessary to find it again quickly, moreover if the rifle has to be levered (…) In order to fire quickly, it’s much better with a rifle (…) with Lyman sight.”
      “All this seems to indicate that the rifle may have appeared there as part of the plot (…) This rifle should have been placed there; it is precisely a gun neither for shooting at 80 meters nor for firing three shots (…) It is really strange that anyone willing to kill from a distance of 80 meters, from a window, would purchase a rifle with telescopic sight, since any other without telescopic sight would have been more appropriate.”
      “It is supposed that an individual wants a rifle with telescopic sight in order to fire safety and accurately from a distance against a fixed target, not against a moving target (…) By using a telescopic sight, the individual would have been trying to get accuracy and safety. In this case of a moving target at 80 meters, the individual wasn’t seeking accuracy and the curious thing is that he wasn’t seeking safety either.”
      “Here we have the curious case that the accused, or the alleged assassin, fires from his workplace. Nobody who intends to escape (…) is willing to kill from his very workplace, where he is going to be identified and fiercely pursued within five minutes. He would have sought a roof on another building, or rented an apartment along the route, for positioning himself with his rifle with telescopic sight rifle at a distance which would have allowed him to escape.”
      “All these contradictory, illogical and inexplicable things lead to the alternative that either this individual is not guilty and was turned into guilty by the police, or this individual was actually the one who fired and then all his actions have no other logical explanation[:] An individual who kills and hopes to escape, but at the same time would be perfectly identified as the perpetrator.”
      “The latter would make sense only if the individual was perfectly trained to perpetrate the crime, under promise of escape from prosecution, in order to put the blame on others (…) It’s quite clear the thread here. Why did Oswald go to the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City? What pretext did he use? Asking for an in-transit visa to go on to the Soviet Union, although it would have been quicker and easier to go via England or France. If this man is the real assassin, it’s clear the masterminds were carefully planning the alibi[:] The sitting President of the United States murdered by an individual just after he went to the Soviet Union via Cuba and returned. It was the ideal gambit for making up the mind of the American public with a suspect who was a Commie, a Cuban and Soviet agent.”
      “Why did he have to come to Cuba, except for the only and exclusive purpose of leaving a trail, of spinning a web? Why did he get angry when he was told that it was impossible to get an in-transit Cuba visa if he didn’t have the Soviet visa? Why did he slam the door? Why did he leave? No friend of Cuba, no Communist does this while visiting our consulates. Nobody behaves in such a rude manner.”
      “He did not confess. He denied everything. [But] the surprising, the incredible, what increases the suspicion that the entire world has, is that barely 36 or 48 hours later, in the basement of a jail surrounded by police agents, he was murdered. This shows that the ones responsible for Kennedy’s death needed — they were compelled at all costs — to eliminate the accused.”~Fidel Castro

    • Captain Westbrook was the ranking officer at 10th & Patton and knew police procedure as well as anyone. If Westbrook was not the person who brought the wallet to 10th & Patton, then he should have insisted on police reports to establish a “chain of custody” for the wallet, written a detailed report about the wallet and its contents, entered the wallet into evidence at DPD headquarters, and discussed the wallet with the Warren Commission. But not a single police report was written about the wallet and neither Westbrook, Owens, nor Croy mentioned nor was asked about the wallet by the FBI, Secret Service, or the Warren Commission. The fact that Captain Westbrook totally ignored police procedure about a crucial piece of evidence is reason to believe that Westbrook was the person responsible for bringing the wallet to 10th & Patton and, according to FBI agent Barrett, it was Westbrook who kept the wallet. This wallet was the single most important piece of evidence ever found prior to Oswald’s arrest.

    • “They found their man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can all go home and that’s the end of it.”~Rankin, 22 Jan 1964

      By the same token, we have found our men, these members of the commission blatantly planning the framing of Lee Harvey Oswald. We should be able to all go home and that’s the end of it. BUT for the dupes who continue to argue in favor of this cover-up as a legitimate inquiry.

      There really is nothing more to argue about, the Commission let the cat out of the bag at one of the very first meetings they had. They tried to make that meeting a national security secret, but it snuck through the cracks. We know it now. It cannot be put back in the bag but through spurious disingenuous rhetorical gibberish.

        Letter to:
        Honorable Ji Lee Rankin
        General Counsel
        The Preidont’e Commission
        200 Maryland Avenue, Northeast
        Washington, D. C.

        “He (Oswald) stormed into the embassy, demanded the visa, and when it was refused to him, headed out saying, ‘I’m going to kill Kennedy for this.'” — attributed to Castro by an anonymous source.

        Click to access Item%2001.pdf


  121. Jingoberry Punks‘, hyper-patriotic psychokillers for god & country…yea most of the guys I grew up with were stuck in that mold. The indoctrination was heavy…”Back to Bataan! by gawd!” Everybody wanted to grow up John Wayne. So by the time they were out of high school they were ready to leave their B.B. guns at home and pick up an M-16 at Camp Pendleton.
    What a bunch of fuckin’ idiots.

    Me? I was a hippy and a singer in a rock’n’roll band.

  122. Editor of Major German Newspaper Says He Planted Stories for the CIA

    Becoming the first credentialed, well-known media insider to step forward and state publicly that he was secretly a “propagandist,” an editor of a major German daily has said that he personally planted stories for the CIA.
    Saying he believes a medical condition gives him only a few years to live, and that he is filled with remorse, Dr. Udo Ulfkotte, the editor of Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, one of Germany’s largest newspapers, said in an interview that he accepted news stories written and given to him by the CIA and published them under his own name. Ulfkotte said the aim of much of the deception was to drive nations toward war.
    Dr. Ulfkotte says the corruption of journalists and major news outlets by the CIA is routine, accepted, and widespread in the western media, and that journalists who do not comply either cannot get jobs at any news organization, or find their careers cut short.
    Dr. Ulfkotte is the author of a book currently available only in German, “Bought Journalists” (Kopp 2014.) Aged 55, he was also once an advisor to the government of German Chancellor Helmet Kohl.

  123. 9/11, JFK, and War: Recurring Patterns in America’s Deep Events
    Peter Dale Scott

    In American history there are two types of events. There are ordinary events
    which the information systems of the country can understand and transmit. There are also
    deep events, or meta-events, which the mainstream information systems of the country
    cannot digest. I mean by a “deep event” one in which it is clear from the outset that there
    are aspects which will not be dealt with in the mainstream media, and will be studied
    only by those so-called “conspiracy theorists” who specialize in deep history.

    The events I shall discuss today exhibit continuities with each other and with
    other deep events, notably the Iran-Contra affair of the mid 1980s and the Oklahoma City
    bombing of 1995. But the two I shall discuss today – the JFK assassination and 9/11 – are
    outstanding in this respect: that while they were attributed to insignificant and very
    marginal people, they had momentous impact, far more than most daily events by more
    important people, in redirecting American history.

    If history is what is recorded, then deep history is the sum of events which tend to
    be officially obscured or even suppressed in traditional books and media. Important
    recent deep events include the political assassinations of the 1960s, Watergate, IranContra,
    and now 9/11. All these deep events have involved what I call the deep state, that
    part of the state which is not publicly accountable, and pursues its goals by means which
    will not be approved by a public examination. The CIA (with its on-going relationships to
    drug-traffickers) is an obvious aspect of the deep state, but not the only one, perhaps not
    even the dirtiest…
    What I have learned over the years is that it is helpful to look at all these deep
    events together. This is true for both external reasons (how the nation and its media
    handle deep history) and for internal reasons (the content of deep events themselves).
    What is particularly disturbing, in the case of the JFK assassination (henceforward
    referred to as “JFK”) and 9/11, is the number of similarities that might seem to indicate a
    recurring modus operandi or scenario.

    While I myself am still open-minded as to how seriously we should interpret these
    similarities, we should also open our minds to the alternative: that it was not by chance
    that two major events were soon followed, first in 1965 and again in 2003, by America’s
    longest military involvements in the nation’s history.

    Click to access ProfScottJFK,911,andWar.pdf


    • “A symbol of the American way, our liberal concession is the existence in our midst of a minority group whose influence and membership is very limited and whose dangerous tendencies are sufficiently controlled by special government agents.
      The communist party U.S.A. bears little resemblance to their Russian counterparts, but by allowing them to operate and even supporting their right to speak, we maintain a tremendous sign of our strength and liberalism; harassment of their party newspaper, their leaders, and advocates is treachery to our basic principles of freedom of speech and press.
      Their views no matter how misguided, no matter how much the Russians take advantage of them, must be allowed to be aired. After all, communist U.S.A. have existed for 40 years and they are still a pitiful group of radical. (sic).”~Lee Harvey Oswald

      Warren Commission Hearings, Exhibit 102, Vol. 16, pp. 441-442 – handwritten notes for a late August 1963 presentation by Lee Harvey Oswald at the Jesuit seminary attended by his cousin Eugene Murret. These notes were later transcribed into printed text by the Warren Commission.

      • Richard Hofstadter was a Communist. He once wrote, “I hate capitalism and everything that goes with it.”

  124. “Shanklin said that from an initial examination of the photograph of the individual who visited the.Soviet Embassy In Mexico City on October 1, 1963 was heavier, and with more hair. Also the Agents who have talked to Oswald have listened to this tape provided by CIA of the call allegedly made by Oswald to the Soviet Embassy, and they do not think the Individual was Oswald, as his voice is different, and he spoke in broken English. I told Shanklin It Is imperative that we solve the question as to whether there Is another individual involved with Oswald. To this end, a check must be made of Oswald’s whereabouts on or about October 1, 1963, and we must resolve whether there is an A.J. Hidell.”~Tolson, November 23, 1963

  125. The twin October 10 memos meant that the CIA and FBI could now be blackmailed

    “In my mind, the twin October 10 memos are the most important documents that we have. Keep in mind that the CIA officers who created them were focused on capturing whoever had impersonated Oswald and Duran. However, the creation of these twin memos was an ideal blackmail device. This was a golden opportunity for someone like David Morales, who was a former CI chief himself. There was now a strong and robust paper trail between CIA HQ and the Mexico City station, filled with inaccuracies and half-truths about Lee Oswald.”~Bill Simpich

    DIR 74673 to State/FBI/Navy (excerpts).
    This cable passes on the false “Mystery Man”
    description of Oswald, along with orders to
    disseminate this description to the local offices
    of these agencies in Mexico City. Lee Oswald, 6′ athletic build 35 yrs old

    DIR 74830 to Mexico City Station (excerpts).
    This memo passes on the false Robert
    Webster-like description of Oswald, along
    with orders to disseminate this description to the
    Headquarters of the same agencies referenced
    in the previous memo. Lee Henry Oswald 5′ 10″, 165 lb

    Real Oswald -5 foot 9, 140 lb

    On 11/22/63, at 12:30 pm Central Time, President Kennedy was fatally struck by rifle fire to the head. At 12:43 pm, a sighting was alleged by a “white man” to Inspector Herbert Sawyer, and it immediately went out over the police radio. The description was similar to the “Robert Webster description” in the 10/10 memo sent to the Mexico City station: A man who was “5 foot 10 and 165 pounds” was seen firing from the Texas School Book Depository.
    The witness had no description of his clothing, which makes no sense. When a witness sees a man firing prone from a window ledge at waist height, the most important details would be provided from his clothing. How could anyone estimate the shooter’s height or weight, when his entire body was not even visible?
    Sawyer turned the witness over to an unknown sheriff’s deputy on the scene. Neither the supposed witness or the deputy were ever heard from again.

    • “The CIA advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above, and have listened to a recording of his voice. These special agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald.”

      The paragraph shown above comes from an FBI memo sent to both the White House and the Secret Service on November 23, 1963, the day after President Kennedy’s assassination. It was a follow-up to a phone call at 10:01 AM, in which Director Hoover informed Lyndon Johnson of the same fact. Lee Harvey Oswald, the alleged assassin of Kennedy held in police custody in Dallas, had been impersonated in phone calls to the Soviet Embassy in Mexio City.

      The fact that Oswald was impersonated less than two months prior to the Dallas shooting was obviously important news. What made the revelation even more stunning was that, in one such call, “Oswald” referred to a previous meeting with a Soviet official named Kostikov. Valeriy Kostikov was well-known to the CIA and FBI as a KGB agent operating out of the Embassy under official cover. But, far more ominously, the FBI’s “Tumbleweed” informant had previously tipped off the U.S. that Kostikov was a member of the KGB’s “Department 13,” involved in sabotage and assassinations.

      An otherwise inexplicable impersonation episode takes on an entirely new meaning in this light. The calls from the Oswald impersonator made it appear that Oswald was a hired killer, hired by the Soviet Union no less. This was a prescription for World War III.
      And more importantly this so-called “prescription for World War III” was used as an excuse by Johnson to bring in Earl Warren and scare him into heading a blue ribbon commission to make sure that no connections were revealed showing Oswald as being an intelligence agent, either Cuban, Soviet, or US. This Warren Commission was then convened to railroad Oswald as a “lone nut” assassin, by the machinations of Johnson, Hoover, and top officials of CIA.

    • Alright this Slawson memo goes into the record. But where? is it in the final Report, or is it in one of the 26 volumes?
      This makes all the difference in the world, because as has been discovered by research, that the 26 volumes do not in fact back up the official tale as put to the report. This is what has led to this whole discussion for these many years.
      Is the January 22, 1963 memo part of the final Report? No, it was classified and only turned up by chance. Was the Slawson memo part of that Report? If so what page. And if that page is from one of the 26 volumes it makes my point.

  126. Jean Davison – February 12, 2015 at 6:18 pm
    Context is everything. Did the WC “go home” in January 1964? No. You’re quoting an out-of-context remark on the possible FBI reaction if Oswald was in fact an FBI informant, as alleged in a newspaper article.

    The January 27 executive session also deals with the informant allegation.”
    “Did the WC “go home” in January 1963?”~Jean

    No, Jean of course not. This commentary is what is known as obiter dicta, which are remarks of a jurist which are not necessary to reaching a decision, but are made as comments, illustrations or thoughts.

    To read such a sentence literally is irrational. The remarks are said in such a way as “we might as well as”.~ww
    . . . .
    The context is not static in this conversation, it shifts during the conversation from the issue of Oswald as a possible informant to ‘what do we do with this information if verified?, and how would we fit that into the agenda?’ These men ALREADY knew the agenda was to find Oswald guilty, that was made clear from the very beginning.

    The contextual turning point is the page we have already been discussing. But the turning actually begins the page before, at this point:

    Rankin: To have anyone admit it, I’m sure that there wouldn’t at this point be anything to prove it.

    Dulles: Lee, if this were true, why would it be in their interest … I could see it would be in their interest to get rid of this man but why would it be in their interest to say clearly he is the only guilty one? I mean I don’t see that argument that you raise particularly shows an interest.

    Boggs: I can immediately…they would like to have us fold up and quit.
    [then on to next page]

    Let’s not forget this little reminder:
    “Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin”.
    — April 27, 1964 memo from Norman Redlich to J. Lee Rankin.

    I do not take umbrage that there may be those who disagree with my point. I just want it made perfectly clear what my point is. The answers I have gotten so far indicate to me that they are framed in such a way that they do not answer the point I am trying to make. That point is specifically that the January 22, 1963 session made it clear in no uncertain terms that the Commission was going to go along with the framing of Oswald as the lone gunman. The language is clear an unambiguous.
    Jean’s comment skirts that point by use of a ploy, saying they did not pack up and go home after that session. This clearly misses the point. The point being that they would stay and go along with the agenda. Their proper lawful goal should have been to follow the truth, but they admit that this is not the real agenda they were meant to serve. They chose to serve the hidden agenda rather than attend to the truth. If they had integrity, then they would have refused to serve and packed their bags and left. They didn’t and the result was a cover-up.

    • “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.” —Marcia Angell, MD (“Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

    • A roommate of Nelson Rockefeller’s at Dartmouth College in the late 1920s, Cantril took a doctorate in psychology at Harvard, coauthoring The Psychology of Radio with his doctoral mentor Gordon Allport in 1935. “Radio is an altogether novel medium of communication,” Cantril and Allport observed, “preeminent as a means of social control and epochal in its influence upon the mental horizons of men.”
      MDCCLXXVI = 1776

  127. In addition to the alleged Oswald visits to the Consulates, there were other telephonic contacts that may have been between Oswald, or an impostor, and the Consulates.
    1091/ Several details about Oswald’s visits to the Cuban Consulate, and telephonic contacts with both Consulates suggest that the-.individual involved may not have been Oswald . .
    Silvia Duran’s description of Oswald did not resemble Oswald’s true physical appearance . 1092/ This description, which appeared: early in the reporting of information obtained from Ms . Duran was deleted from subsequent reports and was not at all mentioned in the Warren Report . 1093/ (See Section V, C, for details .)
    Eusebio Azcue’s description of Oswald was similar . to Silvia Duran’s, but more detailed . 1094/ Perhaps the most remarkable thing about . These descriptions is their similarity to Elena Garra de Paz’ description of one of Oswald’s alleged companions . 1095 / Another possible indication that an impostor may also have visited the Consulate is the 9/28/63 intercepted conversation . 1096/ Silvia Duran adamantly denies that Oswald or any other American visited the Cuban Consulate on Saturday , September 28, 1963 . 1097/ In light of the CIA intercept of that date, Ms . Duran has either lied to the Committee or the individual who visited the Consulate on September 28 was not Oswald . 1098/ ….

    Click to access LopezRpt_2003_7_Analysis.pdf

    I have never read the phrase, “it is possible” repeated so many times in a single document as this one. The lack of certainty here is a beacon to the isle of suspicion! I don’t think it is proven that Oswald was ever in Mexico at all. This whole thing reads as a covert op by US intelligence.

  128. On March 18, 1969, the United States began a four year long carpet-bombing campaign in the skies of Cambodia, devastating the countryside and causing socio-political upheaval that eventually led to the installation of the Pol Pot regime.
    holiday in cambodia

    Rather than the crass and libertine Amerocentric jingoist apologia of the fantasy of Domino theory, let us speak to REAL atrocities and take that holiday in Cambodia for a picknick in the killing fields of Pol Pot. That this was a direct result of the massive carpet bombing campaign by the US, that the country was literally blasted back to the stone age and the barbarity of trauma induced lunacy is one of the major war crimes of the United States in the 20th century.

  129. “I knew before that Stringfellow’s superior officer, Captain W.P. Gannaway, was a member of Army Intelligence Reserve. Later Ed Coyle, himself a warrant officer of the 112th Intelligence Group, testified to the Assassinations Records Review Board that all the officers in the DPD’s Intelligence Section were in army intelligence.”~Peter Dale Scott

    — Edward J. Coyle, interview with ARRB staff person Timothy Wray, October 25, 1999 ARA Record 607/11093, 3.

    Those involved in the so-called ‘continuity of government’ organization were in a perfect position to create a secret ‘extension of government’ by their own direction.

  130. “The President is in a grave situation and does not know how to get out of it. We are under very severe stress. In fact we are under pressure from our military to use force against Cuba…. Even though the President himself is very much against starting a war over Cuba, an irreversible chain of events could occur against his will. That is why the President is appealing directly to Chairman Khrushchev for his help in liquidating this conflict. If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power. The American army could get out of control.”

    ~Robert Kennedy to the Russian ambassador, Anatoly Dobrynin (1962)

  131. Colonels at Dealey Plaza

    Colonels are the highest ranking officers on the battlefield – what the snipers call a HPT – High Priority Target – guys who take their insignia off before going out in the open. They are the – Go To guys the Generals personally give instructions and orders to carry out.

    On the chess board the Colonels are Bishops, Rooks and Knights and capable of maneuvering and striking from different directions and distances.

    There were three colonels at the Alamo – Colonel William Barrett Travis, Colonel Jim Bowie and Colonel David Crockett.

  132. When Dylan was looking for Dealey Plaza and the first few Dallas pedestrians couldn’t direct him to the spot, Dylan was perplexed, and then finally found a pedestrian who directed them to the site and said, “You mean where they killed that son-of-a-bitch?”

  133. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights….”~Thomas Jefferson, 1776

    Thus begins the proposal that goes forward to become the most eloquent statement of conspiracy theory ever penned by mankind.

  134. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition

    “Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:

    You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.

    Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

    Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation. BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

  135. Let me ask you this Fearfaxer, do you really think it is beyond the scheming minds of such a Power Elite to be able to analyze ‘The Treaty Alliance System’ in place before WWI, to create a plan to put this alliance system to work towards the goal of creating a war? This alliance system, once diagnosed and grasped would reveal a string of dominoes. It would become azure clear which the proper domino would be to begin the cascade.

    We see the same situation very much in the works today in the situation of the same sort of alliance system involving NATO and the BRIC nations and the forming alliance with Russia. Such analysis is being discussed all over the Internet, and especially by Michel Chossudovsky of Global Research.
    That sophisticated independent minds have analyzed the methods of design used by the “think tanks” working for the War System, as a counterbalance for the possibility of peace, is one more benefit of the World Wide Web.

  136. “A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.”~Disraeli

  137. The “thirteenth appendix” to the HSCA Report on the JFK assassination is a staff report entitled “Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City.” This report describes what the Committee learned about Lee Oswald’s trip to Mexico City less than two months prior to the assassination. Questions it grapples with include why the CIA was apparently unable to obtain a photo of Oswald from any of its photographic surveillance stations (and instead produced a photo of a “Mystery Man” who was clearly not Oswald), whether Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, and what credibility to attach to any of the indications and allegations of Communist conspiracy emanating from that city.
    The so-called “Lopez Report,” written by staffers Dan Hardway and Edwin Lopez, had a number of redactions removed in 2003. These included “CIA A” (Daniel Flores aka Luis Aparacio), “CIA B” (Thomas Keenan), “CIA F” (Robert Zambernardi), LICHANT/1’s true name (Manuel Carvillo), and the previously blacked-out crypts ZRSOLO and ZRJOINT. It also revealed the name of a Mexico City CIA Chief of Station, Larry Sternfield. Many redactions remain.

    The Lopez Report is a good starting place for grappling with some of the many mysteries of the Mexico City affair. Newly released files have provided new information not present in this report. The LBJ taped phone conversations for instance, include startling corroboration for the claim that audio intercepts of an Oswald impersonator were listened to by FBI agents in Dallas while Oswald was in custody. Declassified testimony of David Phillips, the Tarasoff couple who translated the tapes for the CIA, and others illuminate some areas and deepen the mystery in others.

  138. The most popular question we receive here at T&H is “Which Version is UNCENSORED?”, and most of these questions are based on my conversation with John Taylor Gatto during the Ultimate History Lesson. Here’s the comprehensive answer, since you cared enough to ask :

    Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time

    The Answer: The 2004 republished version of Tragedy and Hope by GSG Publishing is a faithful and complete version of Quigley’s 1966 First Edition prior to the printing plates for the book being destroyed. You can listen to a 1974 interview with Carroll Quigley to hear him describe in his own words how the book was suppressed and its marketing plan undermined.

    Purchase Options: You can purchase the 2004 GSG reprint of T&H via: InfoWars Store, G. Edward Griffin’s Reality Zone, and Dr. Stanley Monteith’s Radio Liberty; as well as You can also find first editions, but they are quite pricey; what’s important is that this book is read and understood by everyone, as it contains the history, context, and agenda for what’s shaping our world today.

    The Details: In 1966 Carroll Quigley published “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World In Our Time“, at which point the FIRST HALF OF THE BOOK WAS CENSORED. The SECOND HALF OF T&H was republished in 1968 under the title “The World Since 1939: A History”, (of which I have a rare copy, and is only 676 pages); which is a verbatim copy of pages from T&H, neglecting the context which brought it about. Due to this censorship, fellow historians attained a 1966 first edition of Tragedy and Hope and reprinted it without authorization; and many of these versions circulated throughout the world; the difference being that official 1966 copies of T&H have gold-colored page edges, and the bootleg versions have white page edges.

    The relevance of the omitted/CENSORED pages of T&H are this: The Bank of England (a Rothschild controlled entity) under Montagu Norman contracted with Hjelmar Schact, known as Hitler’s Banker, to create an international clearing house called The Bank for International Settlements in Switzerland. By manipulating the price of gold and the other markets, the acolytes of Cecil Rhodes (seeking to conquer the world through an Anglo-American Establishment) could leverage the Evolution of Civilizations and use Human Nature to control Human Beings, or as Norbert Weiner would later say “Human Use of Human Beings: Cybernetics”.
    Quigley argued that the Round Table groups were not World Government advocates but super-imperialists. He stated that they emphatically did not want the League of Nations to become a World Government. Yet Lionel Curtis, who according to Quigley was one of the leaders of the Round Table movement, wished for it to be a World government with teeth, writing articles with H.G. Wells urging this.[35][36]

    Although Quigley did not overtly condemn the Anglo-American financial coterie that he wrote about, he, according to an interview he gave,[37] and letters of his that were later published by the magazine Conspiracy Digest, had the plates of his book destroyed against his will by MacMillan, and believed that his work was being suppressed. One of the published letters stated the following:

    The original edition published by Macmillan in 1966 sold about 8800 copies and sales were picking up in 1968 when they “ran out of stock,” as they told me (but in 1974, when I went after them with a lawyer, they told me that they had destroyed the plates in 1968). They lied to me for six years, telling me that they would re-print when they got 2000 orders, which could never happen because they told anyone who asked that it was out of print and would not be reprinted. They denied this until I sent them xerox copies of such replies to libraries, at which they told me it was a clerk’s error. In other words they lied to me but prevented me from regaining the publication rights by doing so (on OP [out of print] rights revert to holder of copyright, but on OS [out of stock] they do not.) … Powerful influences in this country want me, or at least my work, suppressed.[38]}

    According to Gary North, in Conspiracy: A Biblical View, Gary Allen received a letter from a friend of Quigley’s who stated that Quigley had begun to view the group he profiled as a malevolent influence in political affairs by the end of his life.[39]

  139. FACT: For every case of measles in the country, there is 6500+ children with autism. That is the real epidemic the government ignores.

    FACT: Not one (ZERO) deaths from measles infection in last 10 years…108 Deaths in last 10 years from the MMR vaccines according to the VAERS and the CDC records.

    Robert Hennelly and Jerry Policoff

    If the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was one of the darkest tragedies in the republic’s history, the reporting of it has remained one of the worst travesties of the American media. From the first reports out of Dallas in November of 1963 to the merciless flagellation of Oliver Stone’s JFK over the last several months, the mainstream media have disgraced themselves by hewing blindly to the single-assassin theory advanced by the FBI within hours of the murder. Original, enterprise reporting has been left almost entirely to alternative weeklies, monthly magazines, book publishers, and documentary makers. All such efforts over the last 29 years have met the same fate as Oliver Stone’s movie: derision from the mainstream media. At first, the public bought the party line. But gradually, as more and more information slipped through the margins of the media business, and finally through the efforts of Congress itself, the public began to change its mind.
    “I think, however, that a statement that all the facts will be made public property in an orderly and responsible way should be made now. We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.”~Katzenbach to Bill Moyers

  141. “The past is never dead. It is not even past.” – William Faulkner
    Before the decision in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was read, Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite said “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are of the opinion that it does.” But that was not what the Court decided.

    Following Chief Justice Waite’s obiter dictum, Justice John Harlan delivered the court’s actual decision. The Court did not decide that artificial persons – corporations, property – are the equivalent of natural persons – human beings, citizens. The Court did not even issue an opinion about it, so there were no dissenting opinions on what would have been a monumental constitutional issue. The issue was not debated or discussed by the Justices in open court and corporate personhood wasn’t the issue on which the Supreme Court decided. But the first sentence of J.C. Bancroft Davis’ court reporter’s headnotes read: “The defendant corporations are persons with the intent of the clause in Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

    Headnotes are case summaries or personal commentary written by a court reporter who has no power to make, determine or decide law. They are not written by justices or judges. They are not law. They are as meaningless, legally, as obiter dicta.

  142. Gerald Ford’s Role in the JFK Assassination Cover-up

    Warren Commission member Congressman Gerald Ford pressed the panel to change its description of the bullet wound in President Kennedy’s back and place it higher to make “the magic bullet” theory plausible, enabling the Warren Commission to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. Ford was J. Edgar Hoover’s informant on the commission and did the FBI director’s bidding to squelch the investigation from naming other assassins. When a Dallas County deputy constable heard shots coming from the nearby grassy knoll, he rushed there to find veteran CIA asset Bernard Barker, posing as a Secret Service agent. No Secret Service agents had been assigned to cover the grassy knoll and all accompanied President Kennedy to the hospital.
    Boswell autopsy face sheet
    Dallas County deputy constable Seymour Weitzman also ran toward the top of the grassy knoll – where he found a man carrying Secret Service identification. Weitzman later identified this man as Bernard Barker, a CIA asset and the future Watergate burglar who would lead the four-man contingent of Cuban–born Watergate burglars from the Miami area. Barker was an expert at surreptitious entries, planting bugs and photographing documents. He was a close associate of Florida Mafia godfather Santos Trafficante, and of Mob-connected Key Biscayne banker Bebe Rebozo – Richard Nixon’s bosom buddy.

    Barker was a veteran CIA asset. Along with JFK assassination suspects Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis and David Ferrie, he had helped plan the unsuccessful 1961 CIA-sponsored invasion of Cuba, a mission fathered by Vice President Richard Nixon. The actual invasion was finally carried out at the Bay of Pigs under President Kennedy. The CIA recruited the Mafia to kill Cuban President Fidel Castro at about the same time the exile invaders waded ashore.

    Barker’s day job was a real estate agent on Key Biscayne. And he was a close friend and neighbor of fellow CIA asset Eugenio Martinez – the Watergate lock-picker. Martinez’s real estate firm had extensive dealings with Bebe Rebozo, and had brokered Nixon’s purchase of a house on Biscayne Bay.
    President Richard Nixon – later described the “Oswald did it by himself scenario” as “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.” Nixon’s assertion – contained in a tape of an Oval Office conversation with aide Bob Haldeman – was not made public until 2002.

    See Also:

  143. In the same conversation, Nixon gave new fodder for conspiracy theorists who question whether Lee Harvey Oswald was the only shooter involved in the assassination of President John Kennedy.

    The BBC’s Tom Carver listens to the 18 minute gap
    [An 18 minute gap remains on the tape]
    Referring to the report by the Warren Commission, “it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated,” Nixon said. He did not elaborate why he questioned the report.

    “It was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.”
    — President Richard M. Nixon, discussing the Warren Commission on May 15, 1972, the day presidential candidate George Wallace was shot.
    CORRECTION: This quote appears to have been a grave error on the part of BBC writer Kevin Anderson. According to a transcript on the CNN website, in describing “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated” Nixon was referring to the idea that the JFK murder was attributable to the John Birch Society. Even casual students of the assassination will note that the Warren Commission did not reach such a conclusion, instead declaring that Oswald acted alone. My apologies for passing along the BBC’s bizarre mistake.
    . . . . .
    So Jean, even the “correction” maintains that Nixon was talking about the JFK assassination.
    Mention that it was the day presidential candidate George Wallace was shot does not alter the fact as it continues ‘Nixon was discussing the Warren Commission”.

    “CORRECTION: This quote appears to have been a grave error on the part of BBC writer Kevin Anderson. According to a transcript on the CNN website, in describing “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetrated” Nixon was referring to the idea that the JFK murder was attributable to the John Birch Society.”

    So how is this now construed to mean that Nixon was not discussing the Warren Report, but meant the hoax was concerned with the attempt on George Wallace? This attempt could hardly be put in the magnitude of “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated.”

    There is in fact no “retraction” made in this “correction” at all!
    . . . . . .
    Meanwhile in the same segment of the tape, Nixon instructs Haldeman and Colson to blame the Wallace shooting on the Democrats, not the John Birch Society…

  144. Oswald acquired the job at the TSBD as a result of personal inquiries and direct actions made by Ruth Paine. Paine was the sister of a CIA employee, the daughter of a senior USAID official, and the daughter-in-law of the founder of Bell Helicopter, a major defense contractor. Paine secured the job for Oswald personally, and neglected to inform him about a better paying job from Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission.

    From Spartacus Educational: “After the assassination, DPD officer Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they “found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers.” James DiEugenio has argued that this “cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents in the Cold War against communism.””

    It’s a non-controversial matter of record that Paine had proximity to multiple intelligence officials and that she personally acquired the TSBD job for Oswald. And there’s strong circumstantial evidence to suggest that she was herself an intelligence asset.

    To summarize: Oswald was placed at the TSBD. He was placed there by a person with highly suspicious connections to American intelligence. He was placed there before the motorcade route was released.”
    ~J. Ian Roth – February 16, 2015 at 6:36 am

    Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson ran the Police Forensic Science Laboratory Identification Bureau for 25 years. He was also an president of the Evidence Photographers International Council and a fellow of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers, the Royal Photographic Society and the Institute of Professional Investigators. Here is the interview he gave on the backyard rifle photos:

    INTERROGATOR. Mr. Thompson would these photographs be acceptable as evidence in a British court of law?

    Mr. THOMPSON. No. I have examined these photographs and have established without doubt that there is retouching on them and it is a basic principle with a forensic photographer that he would never, never retouch a photograph in any form of litigation.INTERROGATOR. What would happen in a British court of law if photographs like this were produced as evidence in a murder case?

    Mr. THOMPSON. If they were produced in a murder case then the defending counsel without doubt would have an expert examine them and if retouching was found on them then they would not be included in the evidence.

    INTERROGATOR. Are you saying that if photographs like this were produced in a British court of law in a case, they would be thrown out?

    Mr. THOMPSON. I do. Yes. They would be thrown out.

    INTERROGATOR. What leads you to feel that?

    Mr. THOMPSON. Well primarily the retouching is very very obvious in certain parts of the picture but more in particular in a perpendicular pillar here which should be a straight line. When one comes to a point, the subjects chin, one finds that there is a bulge in a line. Without doubt that shows this area between the head and the retoucher has just not been careful enough to maintain the retouching he should which is within the pillar in what should be a shadow area. Now that is photograph B. In photograph A we do bit see as a straight pillar, it is not as if the wood has a flaw at that point there. The flaw is created in photograph B due to the fact that the retouching has extended over onto the pillar.
    . . . . . . . . . .

    • Why are geopolitics and cognition intimately connected?

      Geopolitics is the struggle for the earth’s resources of which the most important — even more important than oil, gold, fertile lands, and water — is human behavior, or more precisely ‘human agency’. Agency refers the capacity to initialize self-selected behavior. Without human agency none of the other resources would have any value. Since human agency is a topic of cognitive science, geopolitics and cognition are intimately connected.

      Who is at ultimo the beneficiary of your agency? Is that you and everything you love, feel associated with, and would like to support? Or will it be some anonymous group or influence who tricked you into participating in games that you neither fully oversee nor understand and that are, like a casino, set up to guarantee that you loose? So the question is will you thrive or whither? The Cypriots recently lost most of their life’s savings, and the Polish even more recently lost half of their pensions. So who have they been working and saving for? Definitely not as much for their own benefit as they thought.

      Actually it is up to you to decide whether you want to be exploited. If you decide to spend your life in a bubble of blissful ignorance and complacency, chances are that people will exploit your ignorance, gullibility, and complacency. This site argues you are exploited by the very influences that made you ignorant, gullible, and complacent in the first place. However in these times of economic and social upheavals, more and more people are realizing that blissful ignorance is a guaranteed loosing strategy.

      This site should provide a solid foundation for improved strategies.
      ~Tjeerd Andringa of the University of Groningen on cognition:

  145. 1.1 Self-empowerment and disempowerment


    Self-empowerment is something that you do to yourself. Others can facilitate self-empowerment in others, but eventually everyone can only empower oneself. It is like freeing a caged animal. You can open de door, but if the animal is too terrified to leave the only environment it knows, it will not take the freedom you allow it. So freedom is never given, it is essentially taken (and often without a door conveniently opened). The same holds for empowerment, it can only be developed by taking matters in one’s own hand. It requires the self-acquisition of experience and confidence and it demands ample interaction with a wide range of known and unknown aspects of the world.

    A safe “home-situation” to return to after success or failure and support during the process of learning to take matters in one’s own hand is very important. It is also important to be challenged to select your own decisions and to follow your developing conscience, to be stimulated to learn to understand the world, and be helped to develop a sound judgement. So a stimulating context is important. But in the end it is still you that have to experience all these facets and you have to synthesize all these experiences into a coherent and reliable understanding of the world. The result of self-empowerment is that you and your environment are structurally thriving.


    Disempowerment is something that is done to others. Disempowerment it is typically aimed at removing the factors that facilitate empowerment. These include corrupting the safety of the home situation, reducing the breadth and usefulness of experiences, ensuring that people are not or minimally exposed to positive role models and exposing them to false role models, punishing people for independence, individuality, and explorations beyond the norm, forced and uniform education/training (instead of curiosity guided and learner adapted education), representative democracy (which boils down to giving control away), etcetera, etcetera. Whatever form disempowerment takes, it leads invariable to you and your environment dwindle, perish, or otherwise struggle.


    How Americas Most Powerful News Media Worked Hand in Glove with the Central Intelligence Agency and Why the Church Committee Covered It Up

    During the 1976 investigation of the CIA by the Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by Senator Frank Church, the dimensions of the Agency’s involvement with the press became apparent to several members of the panel, as well as to two or three investigators on the staff. But top officials of the CIA, including former directors William Colby and George Bush, persuaded the committee to restrict its inquiry into the matter and to deliberately misrepresent the actual scope of the activities in its final report. The multivolurne report contains nine pages in which the use of journalists is discussed in deliberately vague and sometimes misleading terms. It makes no mention of the actual number of journalists who undertook covert tasks for the CIA. Nor does it adequately describe the role played by newspaper and broadcast executives in cooperating with the Agency.

    THE AGENCY’S DEALINGS WITH THE PRESS BEGAN during the earliest stages of the Cold War. Allen Dulles, who became director of the CIA in 1953, sought to establish a recruiting‑and‑cover capability within America’s most prestigious journalistic institutions. By operating under the guise of accredited news correspondents, Dulles believed, CIA operatives abroad would be accorded a degree of access and freedom of movement unobtainable under almost any other type of cover.

    American publishers, like so many other corporate and institutional leaders at the time, were willing to commit the resources of their companies to the struggle against “global Communism.” Accordingly, the traditional line separating the American press corps and government was often indistinguishable: rarely was a news agency used to provide cover for CIA operatives abroad without the knowledge and consent of either its principal owner, publisher or senior editor. Thus, contrary to the notion that the CIA insidiously infiltrated the journalistic community, there is ample evidence that America’s leading publishers and news executives allowed themselves and their organizations to become handmaidens to the intelligence services. “Let’s not pick on some poor reporters, for God’s sake,” William Colby exclaimed at one point to the Church committee’s investigators. “Let’s go to the managements. They were witting.” In all, about twenty‑five news organizations including those listed at the beginning of this article) provided cover for the Agency.

    In addition to cover capability, Dulles initiated a “debriefing” procedure under which American correspondents returning from abroad routinely emptied their notebooks and offered their impressions to Agency personnel. Such arrangements, continued by Dulles’ successors, to the present day, were made with literally dozens of news organizations. In the 1950s, it was not uncommon for returning reporters to be met at the ship by CIA officers. “There would be these guys from the CIA flashing ID cards and looking like they belonged at the Yale Club,” said Hugh Morrow, a former Saturday Evening Post correspondent who is now press secretary to former vice‑president Nelson Rockefeller. “It got to be so routine that you felt a little miffed if you weren’t asked.”

    CIA officials almost always refuse to divulge the names of journalists who have cooperated with the Agency. They say it would be unfair to judge these individuals in a context different from the one that spawned the relationships in the first place. “There was a time when it wasn’t considered a crime to serve your government,” said one high‑level CIA official who makes no secret of his bitterness. “This all has to be considered in the context of the morality of the times, rather than against latter‑day standards—and hypocritical standards at that.”

    Many journalists who covered World War II were close to people in the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime predecessor of the CIA; more important, they were all on the same side. When the war ended and many OSS officials went into the CIA, it was only natural that these relationships would continue. Meanwhile, the first postwar generation of journalists entered the profession; they shared the same political and professional values as their mentors. “You had a gang of people who worked together during World War II and never got over it,” said one Agency official. “They were genuinely motivated and highly susceptible to intrigue and being on the inside. Then in the Fifties and Sixties there was a national consensus about a national threat. The Vietnam War tore everything to pieces—shredded the consensus and threw it in the air.” Another Agency official observed: “Many journalists didn’t give a second thought to associating with the Agency. But there was a point when the ethical issues which most people had submerged finally surfaced. Today, a lot of these guys vehemently deny that they had any relationship with the Agency.”

    From the outset, the use of journalists was among the CIA’s most sensitive undertakings, with full knowledge restricted to the Director of Central Intelligence and a few of his chosen deputies. Dulles and his successors were fearful of what would happen if a journalist‑operative’s cover was blown, or if details of the Agency’s dealings with the press otherwise became public. As a result, contacts with the heads of news organizations were normally initiated by Dulles and succeeding Directors of Central Intelligence; by the deputy directors and division chiefs in charge of covert operations—Frank Wisner, Cord Meyer Jr., Richard Bissell, Desmond FitzGerald, Tracy Barnes, Thomas Karamessines and Richard Helms himself a former UPI correspondent); and, occasionally, by others in the CIA hierarchy known to have an unusually close social relationship with a particular publisher or broadcast executive.1

  147. Willy Whitten
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    February 16, 2015 at 10:17 pm

    My principles are hardly “knee jerk reactions”; they are long considered and established through research and analysis.

    I consider this current comment of yours an emotional outburst due to the fact that you cannot form a rational counter argument.

    This term “cult of individualism” comes straight out of the Communitarian playbook of Amitai Etzioni. Communitarianism by the way, is simply, ‘Communism’with seven extra letters to fool the gullible.

  148. Buddy Walthers took part in the search of the home of Ruth Paine. Walthers told Eric Tagg that they “found six or seven metal filing cabinets full of letters, maps, records and index cards with names of pro-Castro sympathizers.” James DiEugenio has argued that this “cinches the case that the Paines were domestic surveillance agents in the Cold War against communism.”

    Attempts were made by Jim Garrison to persuade Walthers to testify at the Clay Shaw trial. In June, 1968, Walthers reported a bombing outside his home in Oak Cliff. It has been suggested that this was an attempt to warn him off talking to investigators such as Garrison about what he knew about the assassination of John F. Kennedy. The Shaw trial was due to take place in February, 1969.

    On 10th January, 1969, Bill Decker sent Walthers and Alvin Maddox to a motel to question Walter Cherry, an escaped convict and a man suspected of a double murder. When the two detectives entered the room Buddy Walthers was shot dead by Cherry.

  149. Professor Skousen’s keen eye detected passages, sandwiched between
    lengthy discourses in Dr. Quigley’s book, that reflected a fascinating pattern
    of information, fitting neatly into many things he had learned in his years
    of intelligence work. He knew, for example, that certain very wealthy and
    powerful persons, both within this country and abroad, are and have been
    doing things in support of the Communist conspiracy throughout the world.
    Dr. Bella Dodd, a former member of the national committee of the U.S.
    Communist Party, told Skousen several years ago that she first became aware
    of some super leadership right after World War II, when the U.S. Communist
    Party had difficulty in getting instructions from Moscow on several vital
    matters requiring immediate attention.
    The portions gleaned by Professor Skousen from Dr. Quigley’s book
    relate to the secret powers operating behind the scenes to destroy our constitutional
    republic and our traditional freedom and to establish a one-world,
    socialist government. Dr. Quigley speaks as an insider of some twenty years
    standing. He approves wholeheartedly of the secret machinations of those
    who would destroy our nation and place the world under a socialist dictatorship.
    He sneers at those American patriots who are fighting Communism,
    stating that they have missed the right target — the secret group of insiders
    who would rule the world. He feels that it would be tragedy for the freeenterprise,
    constitutional Americans to win. On the contrary he believes
    that our real hope lies in the victory of the secret operators. Hence the title
    of his book, Tragedy and Hope.
    Dr. Quigley, however, believes that the real battle is finished and that
    his side has won. In effect, he believes that it is all over but the shouting and that it is now next to impossible to reverse the process. He traces the secret movement over the years, naming names and places. Some of the names will coma shock to many Americans. The secret moves will shock them further. Professor Skousen does an outstanding job of bringing together and crystalizing the important facts of Dr. Quigley’s book. The Naked Capitalist is a difficult book to put down. Skousen’s commentary is enlightening. The complete index and sub-index make it easy to trace the activities of men and organizations.
    ~The Naked Capitalist

    • “There does exist … an international Anglophile network … which we may identify as the Round Table Groups. I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records. I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments. I have objected … to a few of its policies … but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”
      — Quote from Caroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 65
      “The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.”
      — Quote from Caroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope, Chapter 20

  150. “The original edition published by Macmillan in 1966 sold about 8800 copies and sales were picking up in 1968 when they “ran out of stock,” as they told me (but in 1974, when I went after them with a lawyer, they told me that they had destroyed the plates in 1968). They lied to me for six years, telling me that they would re-print when they got 2000 orders, which could never happen because they told anyone who asked that it was out of print and would not be reprinted. They denied this until I sent them Xerox copies of such replies to libraries, at which they told me it was a clerk’s error. In other words they lied to me but prevented me from regaining the publication rights by doing so. [Rights revert back to the copyright holder if the book is out of print, but not if the book is simply out of stock.]…Powerful influences in this country want me, or at least my work, suppressed.”~Carroll Quigely — Letter to Peter Sutherland, December 9, 1975; reprinted in Conspiracy Digest (Summer 1976), and reprinted again in American Opinion (April 1983), page 29

    • The best way to establish peace was to help get the United States into the War.”~Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler

      Chatham House, the Royal Institute of International Affairs & the Council on Foreign Relations

      A major clue was given by Georgetown University Professor Carroll Quigley in an interview. Quigley, in his best Boston accent, dismissed the Radical-Right interpretation as ‘garbage’. But he then added: ‘To be perfectly blunt, you could find yourself in trouble dealing with this subject.” He explained that his career as a lecturer in the government institution circuit was all but ruined because of the twenty or so pages he had written about the existence of Round Table Groups. As we will see, the CFR was, indeed, a British Round Table creation. This is one of the most important hidden secrets of the NYC-based CFR.

      The story of the British connection to the Council on Foreign Relations may be traced back to George Peabody, J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Nicholas M. Butler and Col. Edward House — all who may be described a British loyalists. A Secret Society was established by Cecil Rhodes in connection with Rothschild, Morgan, Carnegie, and Rockefeller. A small highly secret group called the Round Table directed operations.

      The story begins at least when George Peabody moved to London and took up English residence in 1837 — the same year Queen Victoria ascended the throne. He joined with other merchant bankers who traded in dry goods in “high finance.” This consisted of exclusive service to “governments, large companies and rich individuals.” (8) Soon after his arrival in London, Peabody was summoned by Baron Nathan Mayer Rothschild. Rothschild offered to pay all his entertainment bills. Hence, the famous Peabody July 4th dinners were bought and paid for by funds from the Rothschilds.(9) In 1837, Peabody was warned, in advance, by his British friends of their decision “to withdraw credits from the worldwide markets and thereby depress commercial values; so he was fully liquid and ready to pounce on the American properties rendered bargains by the British move.”(10) In the crash of 1837 Peabody made a fortune purchasing depressed property in America.(11) In 1854 the American Ambassador to London, James Buchanan, stormed out of the room when George Peabody toasted Queen Victoria before President Pierce.(12)

      Peabody “was the founder of the Morgan financial empire.” (13) In 1859 Junius Morgan assumed control of George Peabody and Company. He traded Union bonds. The Civil War was “a bonanza for German-Jewish bankers on Wall Street, who raised loans from the numerous Union sympathizers in Germany.” (14) Peabody’s American agent was the Boston firm of Beebe, Morgan and Company — headed by Junius Morgan.(15) When J. Pierpont Morgan was in Vienna, his father wrote that Alexander Duncan had an opening in Duncan, Sherman & Company — a bank affiliated with George Peabody in London. Pierpont “soon was acting as George Peabody & Company’s American representative.(16)

      “I say, that surely as the sun in the heavens once shone upon Britain and America united, so surely is it one morning to rise, shine upon, and greet again the United States, the British American Union.”~Andrew Carnegie

      The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace was set up in 1910. The initial direction of the fund was given by Carnegie to Dr. Nicholas Murray Butler (1862-1947). Butler got excited about the peril of the Allies in World War I and decided that the best way to establish peace was to help get the United States into the War. (26) Butler was President of Columbia University (1901-1945), helped establish the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and served as its President (1925-1945). Norman Dodd, research director for the Reece Committee, was invited to examine the warehoused records of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The minutes, inspected by a Dodd researcher, revealed that in 1910 the Carnegie trustees asked: “Is there any way known to man more effective than war, to so alter the life of an entire people?” The trustees ultimately decided that war was the most effective way to change people. A year later the minutes showed that the trustees asked: “How do we involve the United States in a war?” And they answered: “We must control the diplomatic machinery of the United States,” by first gaining “control of the State Department.” The trustees also sent a confidential message to President Wilson insisting that the war not end too quickly. Dodd also found that all high appointments in the State Department took place only after they had been cleared by the Council of Learned Societies (established by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace). (27) The Church Peace Union was established at a meeting at the home of Andrew Carnegie in 1914 with an endowment of over $2 million. (28) Andrew Carnegie, J.P. Morgan and Otto Kahn backed the 1915 Anglo-French loan. (29) The 1915 loans were said by Morgan to be made for “trade” purposes.


    • fairfax – February 18, 2015 at 3:49 pm
      “I think I’ll pass on that. I was commenting on the paranoid style, not seeking to acquire it.”

      Final statement of my opponent in an argument about Quigley’s Tragedy & Hope. Wherein Fairfax has admitted that, to paraphrase; ‘yes there is this conspiracy but it is ineffective’. This after him arguing that the agenda of this conspiracy’s effects are actually there, but have nothing to do with the agenda, it is just happenstance of the “sweep of complex history”.

      And this fellow Fairfax claims to have a PhD … grin. A conscripted and regimented mind.

      What was that scholarship that Quigley arranged for Clinton called again Fairfax? Wasn’t that a “Rhode’s Scholarship”?
      Why yes it was.

  151. If one knows the history of the Neo-Con movement, they were in the beginning Trotskyites:

    “The neoconservatives are often depicted as former Trotskyites who have morphed into a new, closely related life form. It is pointed out that many early neocons — including The Public Interest founder Irving Kristol and coeditor Nathan Glazer, Sidney Hook, and Albert Wohlstetter — belonged to the anti-Stalinist far left in the late 1930s and early 1940s, and that their successors, including Joshua Muravchik, and Carl Gershman, came to neoconservatism through the Socialist Party at a time when it was Trotskyite in outlook and politics.”

    Leo Strauss’ Philosophy of Deception
    Many neoconservatives like Paul Wolfowitz are disciples of a philosopher who believed that the elite should use deception, religious fervor and perpetual war to control the ignorant masses.


    “Why don’t we play the game a bit smarter for a change. They pinned the assassination of Kennedy on the right wing, the Birchers. It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated. And I respectfully suggest, can’t we pin this on one of theirs?”
    So take the key words which is the substance, Nixon is speaking about the “assassination of Kennedy”. He then goes on to say that something about this was “the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated.” The issue of the Birchers, or a Communist, do not sensibly define what this greatest hoax was. Was he saying simply that “it was done by a Communist”? Or is he inferring that the finding it was done by a Communist is the greatest hoax?

    This sentence: “It was done by a Communist and it was the greatest hoax that has ever been perpetuated,” makes no sense in itself, unless what he meant to say is: “It was said to be done by a Communist…” Where is the “hoax” otherwise?

    In other words, that it was done by a Communist is the greatest hoax of the century.

    One thing is absolutely certain, the context of this statement has nothing to do with Wallace shooting being “the hoax of the century.
    That he may have meant that the Democrats were blaming the Bircher’s was the big hoax doesn’t add up either, they didn’t blame the Birchers: the Warren Commission blamed Oswald (“the Communist”). I think that all told, Nixon was convinced that Johnson was in on it, and knew for certain that the CIA was; it was that “Bay of Pigs thing”. That may lie at the bottom of why Nixon was stabbed in the back by the Agency, Helms obviously took that message from Haldeman as a threat. As we know the entry into the Watergate was botched on purpose, the replacing of the tape on the door latch, and not retrieving it. That whole thing is laid out by Woodward and Bernstein. And it went deeper than what they thought at the time, as Bernstein later develops in his famous Rolling Stone story.
    Many doors open into many rooms in this mansion of intrigue.

    • I still have Haldeman’s original hard bound book and that “bay of pigs thing” as a reference to the Kennedy assassination is in my edition. They are on pages 37 to 40. These deal with Nixon telling Haldeman to meet with Helms and deliver a personal message:

      “The President asked me to tell you this whole affair may be connected to the Bay of Pigs, and if it opens up, the Bay of Pigs may be blown…”
      Turmoil in the room, Helms gripping the arms of his chair and shouting, “The Bay of Pigs had nothing to do with this. I have no concern about the Bay of Pigs.”

      Silence. I just sat there . I was absolutely shocked by Helms’ violent reaction. Again I wondered, what was such dynamite in the Bay of Pigs story? Finally I said, “I’m just following my instructions, Dick. This is what the President told me to relay to you.”

      Helms was settling back. “all right,” he said.
      But the atmosphere had changed…
      . . . . . . . .
      THE ENDS OF POWER by H.R. Haldeman (1978)

    • Nixon – “Greatest Hoax”:
      Dual context, set up by two separate predicates; one resolved by superadded revelation, one resolved by submission for action.


    • “Plus, there is the re-creation of the backyard photos that was done by
      CBS-TV in 1967 for the June ’67 CBS four-part special “A CBS NEWS

      During the photo re-creation, a man went to the location where Marina
      Oswald took the backyard pictures (214 Neely Street in Dallas, Texas)
      to see if an exact replica of the original photos could be achieved.

      On March 31, 1967, at approximately noontime (luckily it was a sunny
      day on 3/31/67, as it was on the day when Marina took the pictures of
      LHO, which was 3/31/63), a man was photographed in the Neely Street

      The end result of the photo re-enactment was that the shadows that
      appear in the 1967 photo were EXACTLY THE SAME as they appear in the
      1963 Oswald backyard photographs, right down to the ANGLED body shadow
      and the STRAIGHT nose shadow.”

      This is convincing enough, other than the fact of who financed this “photo re-creation”. I submit that the recreation is the fraud, that the shadow of the nose in that photo would not fall that far down to his upper lip. All one would have to do is airbrush that shadow under the nose of the stand-in for Oswald to make it appear “exactly the same”.

      Cronkite says, “Lawrence Schiller, an independent photographer in L.A. …”


      Schiller was one of the most intimately involved insiders in media, hardly just some “independent guy” that just happened to take it upon himself to look into the issue.
      Would he commit fraud for the status quo? I think the photo of the Oswald stand-in was touched up, the shadow under his nose was extended. The sun is NOT shining straight down in this photo, the shadow on the nose would only be cast by the sun shining straight down – the picture was not shot at noon. The photo was retouched.

      Schiller has been an on air analyst to NBC news, a consultant to TASCHEN Publshing, Annie Leibovitz Studio, Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas and has written for The New Yorker, The Daily Beast and other publications. was born in 1936 in Brooklyn, and grew up outside of San Diego, California. After attending Pepperdine College in Los Angeles, he worked for Life magazine, Paris Match, The Sunday Times, Time, Newsweek, Stern, and The Saturday Evening Post as a photojournalist. Schiller has been an on air analyst to NBC news, a consultant to TASCHEN Publshing, Annie Leibovitz Studio, Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas and has written for The New Yorker, The Daily Beast and other publications.

      But “you don’t think CBS News would lie to you do you?” … Hahahaha!!!

  153. A poorly set up set up cover up that emboldened them to the present humanity with 9/11 being their grand out front show in full display of their avarice but hidden Bernaysian/Houdini style. A feeding frenzy mentality out of phase with the grandeur of the spectacle of nature and the workings there of. Doesn’t matter your leanings, be it from outright atheist to religious crank or whatever your particular leanings tilt towards.
    Bullshit is Bullshit, Gullible is gullible. Trying not to be either while sifting through the dirt.

  154. BOOK REVIEW: “A Secret Order” by H.P. Albarelli, Jr.

    In the chapter looking at the sad case of Rose Cherami, a prostitute and “victim of circumstance and coincidence” and often linked to the JFK assassination, readers are treated to an unexpected Oklahoma link to the JFK assassination in that Central State Mental Hospital (now Griffin Memorial Hospital) in Norman.

    Cherami, writes Albarelli, had been injured in an accident in Louisiana and a few days prior to Kennedy’s murder on the streets of Dallas, Texas, had to an officer she was heading there with a couple of guys to “kill President Kennedy.” Indeed, a few days later, Cherami’s statement came to pass. She would later end up at Central State Hospital under unexplained circumstances.

    “According to CIA documents, it turns out, most likely just by coincidence, that the Oklahoma facility where Rose was confined, Central State Mental Hospital, was being covertly used by the CIA’s Project MK-ULTRA, the agency’s behavior-modification or mind-control program, at the same time that (Cherami) was confined there.”

    Albrarelli also notes that the infamous Dr. Louis Jolyon “Jolly” West (he killed Tusko the elephant at the Oklahoma City Zoo in 1962 with a lethal dose of LSD, a dark chapter the zoo prefers to forget) who was a professor of psychiatry and head of OU’s psychology department “most likely also saw Rose (Cherami) while she was confined in Oklahoma …” and notes that West “did professionally visit Lee Harvey Oswald’s killer Jack Ruby on April 27, 1964 in Dallas, at the same time that Rose was confined.” Cherami would tragically die in Texas the following year after being hit by a car.

    What did Rose Cherami know? Why was a CIA doc likely monitoring her at a mental institution in Norman?

  155. Gov. Connally: I thought it was a rifle shot…I was trying to see if anything had happened in the automobile…it was a bit later when I said “Oh, no, no, no.” This was after I realized I had been hit, and then I said “My God, they are going to kill us all.”
    –Testimaony before House Assassinations Committee

  156. “The President is in a grave situation, and he does not know how to get out of it. We are under very severe stress… the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power.”
    ~Robert Kennedy to Ambassador Anatoly Dobrynin, asking him to relay these concerns to Khrushchev — 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis

    Source; Dobrynin’s diary as per, ‘JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters’ By James W. Douglass