Why so many books supporting the official theory of JFK’s assassination? 

Russ Baker and Milicent Cranor ask a good question in WhoWhatWhy but the implication of their headline that all books supporting the official theory of JFK’s death are “disinformation” does no service to the truth.

More important, however, is the evidence, everywhere, of a coverup — from hanky-panky in the autopsy room to a shockingly premature termination of any efforts to seriously investigate. Was the coverup itself not proof of more going on? Of course it was.

This I totally agree with. If the official theory of JFK’s murder was true, the extent of the subsequent malfeasance, the failure to investigate;, and the continuing secrecy a half century are inexplicable.

But if a reporter like Phil Shenon, with a track record of quality journalism about national security matters, writes a book that reaches a different conclusion than I do, that’s not disinformation. That’s a difference of opinion. Ditto for Vince Bugliosi and Max Holland.

I see no basis for the insinuation–embodied in the word “disinformation”–that these authors are deliberately making arguments they know to be untrue. Baker and Cranor present none in their article.

There’s a different way to look at this:

The many  books and movies supporting the official theory are a sign that many people want reassurance that JFK was not killed by his enemies. They want reassurance because that is such a disturbing and destabilizing possibility.

Cultural mythmakers like Tom Hanks and Stepehn King are not  drawn to this interpretation of November 22, 1963,  because they are intent of deceiving the American people. They are drawn to it because they are in the business of selling fantasy and reassuring fantasies sell better than destabilizing fantasies.

In other words, the persistence of books and movies supporting the official theory is a measure of Americans’ continuing desire for reassurance in the face of the still-accumulating disturbing evidence.

Source: The Mystery of the Constant Flow of JFK Disinformation – WhoWhatWhy

384 comments

  1. B Binnie says:

    So the Roger Ailes Mission Statement for Fox News is not a cynical disinformation program designed to promote a very specific group of Political Candidates and the self serving agenda they espouse, but merely a kindly repackaging of facts as a balm for anxious minds in a complex and chaotic world? Really Now- Credulity is strained beyond breaking there- People do things for very specific reasons- To get money – To get recognition- To get the companionship of those they respect- It is that simple- Some people gather and analyze facts and see their perspective constantly evolve- Other people cling to a firmly held belief and torture logic and facts to fit their fixed belief- Which group do you respect more?

  2. JEFFERSON MORLEY SAID:

    The many books and movies supporting the official theory are a sign that many people want reassurance that JFK was not killed by his enemies. They want reassurance because that is such a disturbing and destabilizing possibility.

    Cultural mythmakers like Tom Hanks and [Stephen] King are not drawn to this interpretation of November 22, 1963, because they are intent of deceiving the American people. They are drawn to it because they are in the business of selling fantasy and reassuring fantasies sell better than destabilizing fantasies.

    DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

    I couldn’t disagree more strongly, Jeff. I think what you just said above is total B.S., in fact.

    The SUM TOTAL of the evidence positively proves Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt in *BOTH* the JFK murder and the Tippit murder. And all reasonable people who have the basic capacity within them to properly evaluate and assess that “Sum Total” knows this is true–including Tom Hanks and Stephen King.

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2011/11/stephen-king-11-22-63.html

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/isolating-evidence.html

    http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-conspiracy-myths-continue.html

    • B Binnie says:

      Hi DLP- You seem to have less reticence about engagement than your doppelganger, Agent Photon- Riddle me these:
      1- Where are the documented pictures and recordings of LHO in Mexico City and why by all accounts does the person not resemble LHO?
      2- Where did the Dallas Police get their APB for LHO so soon after the Killing? Surely not Brennan or the eventual DSBD roll call-
      3- Why was Ruby at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, and the Dallas Police Station on 11.22.63? All those questions he asked? Pure Coincidence?
      4- Do you honestly believe the SBT and that a missile strikes two men at 7 different entrance/ exit points and is still virtually pristine when it falls out of Connellys leg? Wouldn’t it seem more likely that it was a bullet from the very shallow wound in Kennedys back if anything?
      5- How did LHO return from his Minsk Sojourn with nary a whisper from our Intelligence community? One might think a man who worked at the most sensitive US military institution on the planet at the height of the cold war, and vehemently renounced his citizenship might have received a slap on the wrist or a stern talking to-

      • Fearfaxer says:

        That last point you make is really telling, and one additional point to add: Why was Oswald not prosecuted for getting a disability charge under false pretenses? Especially given that he immediately went to the Soviet Union.

        • No, it was a hardship dependency discharge. Martin Shackelford concluded it was justified, based on an injury to Oswald’s mother. Doctors disagreed on whether she could return to work, but she insisted she could not and hired a lawyer.

          • David Regan says:

            Oswald received a hardship discharge from active service on 9/11/59, claiming his mother needed care, but on 9/20 embarked by ship from New Orleans on his way to the Soviet Union, a trip he had planned well in advance. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh19/html/WH_Vol19_0373b.htm

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Well, obviously Oswald wasn’t Home Taking Care Of Dear Old Mummy, so even if her condition did justify Sonny Boy’s release, his subsequent flight to the USSR should have been a court-martial worthy offense anyway. And indeed he was tagged with a less than honorable discharge afterwards, pretty much the equivalent of being issued a speeding ticket for having committed a hit and run while drunk. He tried to get this cleared up, never did. Lovely how the National Security State uses you and then spits you out to shift for yourself with this kind of demerit haunting you.

          • Photon says:

            How many Marines get a court-martial after discharge? What would be the point of going through that process when he was recognized as an unhappy trouble-maker that the Corps was better of not having? You folks who have never been in the service don’t realize how hard it is to get a dishonorable discharge. You basically have to commit a felony. The post-separation less-than-honorable discharge that Oswald got was probably the maximum punishment that he could get-and was probably excessive considering that he committed no crime. Probably in today’s military he could have gotten it cleared up with a few bucks and a private attorney .

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Jeez, his mummy’s injury was from a candy box at work. For which he got the early discharge, to spend only two or three day’s with her. His unheard of highly expedited passport allowed him to travel with less than needed funds, supposedly to the unknown Albert Schweitzer University in Switzerland which he never went to. But instead made his way into the USSR. Staying in high $$$ hotels along the way.

          • his subsequent flight to the USSR should have been a court-martial worthy offense anyway.

            Why? Do you think the military tracks everybody who is discharged?

            When they finally found out what Oswald had done his discharge was downgraded to “undesirable.”

    • Fearfaxer says:

      “The SUM TOTAL of the evidence positively proves Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt in *BOTH* the JFK murder and the Tippit murder.”

      A look at the evidence in this matter leaves this reasonable person thinking the DA wouldn’t even have been able to get an indictment against Oswald, much less a conviction. And there are a lot of people like me.

      • Then you’re not “reasonable” enough, Fearfaxer. 🙂

        Because if all of this stuff below is fake, phony, manufactured, and fraudulent (including Oswald’s VERY OWN ACTIONS), then miracles really *are* possible:

        http://Oswald-Is-Guilty.blogspot.com

        • Greg Arious says:

          An actual member of the Warren Commission, Richard Russell, said: “We have not been told the truth about Oswald”.

          I’ll take his word over yours.

          • And yet Richard Russell affixed his signature to the Warren Report too, didn’t he?

            IOW, Richard Russell thought Lee Harvey Oswald killed John Kennedy and J.D. Tippit.

          • Steve stirlen says:

            David,

            Yes he did, AFTER Earl Warren exercised the first sign of backbone during the entire investigation. That fact needs to be added to the record as well.

          • Neil says:

            Like LBJ and others, Russell wasn’t convinced that Oswald acted alone

          • Greg Arious says:

            You’re quite the troll, aren’t you? LOL

          • David Regan says:

            Actually, you can add Boggs and Cooper who also harbored doubts that Oswald was the lone assassin. http://22november1963.org.uk/richard-russell-warren-report

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Russell affixed his signature only through the deception of Dulles. He refused to sign unless his dissent regarding among other things the SBT was included. Dulles agreed and provided a stenographer to record Russell’s objections. Once “done” Russell signed. The stenographer was not a stenographer and recorded nothing. Russell’s dissent was not included. He was infuriated.

        • Fearfaxer says:

          I have never said I thought Oswald was innocent. In fact I’m sure he was mixed up in the plot to kill JFK, as I’ve often stated. I also believe he didn’t act alone, and you have to be unbelievably naive to believe otherwise. Other than that, the belligerence with which state your position convinces me of how insecure you, and the others like you, are in your supposed steadfast belief. Keep it up, you’re far more likely to persuade more people to my side of the argument than to your own. 😉

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Just to add to what others have said about what Russell thought, he and LBJ have been recorded for the ages on the latter’s tape system discussing the single bullet theory, Russell says he doesn’t believe it, and LBJ responds “neither do I.”

          • Just to add to what others have said about what Russell thought, he and LBJ have been recorded for the ages on the latter’s tape system discussing the single bullet theory, Russell says he doesn’t believe it, and LBJ responds “neither do I.”

            Selective quoting alert!

            Left out by conspiracy books:

            Johnson: Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?

            Russell: Well, it don’t make much difference.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/opinions.htm

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ McAdams (Dec 7, 2015, 4:37 P.M.)

            It didn’t make a difference because the conclusion was pre-ordained no matter what.

            You think a gent like Russel could be ‘manipulated’ by Harold Weisberg? With facts?

            Russell’s reservations were sober second thought.

            And if he even said that they’d come to the same conclusion in 1970, that’s because it was before the subsequent commissions and investigations, so that given the same set of circumstances, he probably wouldn’t have a choice but to come to the same conclusion.

      • Anonymous Contributor says:

        Another day, another dogmatic assertion by David Von Pein:

        “The SUM TOTAL of the evidence positively proves Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt in *BOTH* the JFK murder and the Tippit murder.”

        Last month, on another thread, Mr Von Pein offered a different dogmatic assertion: “the amount of evidence that indicates ‘Oswald did it’ is staggering in depth, scope, and diversity.” I pointed out that this “staggering” amount of evidence links Oswald with the sixth-floor rifle not on the day of the assassination but eight months earlier, and that the balance of the eyewitness evidence places Oswald somewhere other than on the sixth floor during the assassination.

        If you’re going to accuse someone of murder, the one thing you absolutely must do is to demonstrate that the suspect was at the scene of the crime with the murder weapon. In this case, you could refer to the fact that Oswald’s fingerprints were found on cardboard boxes on the sixth floor, or you could refer to the eyewitnesses’ descriptions of the gunman, some of which matched Oswald. But of course the fingerprints confirm not that Oswald was on the sixth floor during the assassination but that he was there every working day, doing his job. And the eyewitnesses’ descriptions are vague and contradictory, and merely tell us that the gunman was white, male, and probably wearing clothes unlike those worn by Oswald that day.

        Recognizing that there is very little evidence that Oswald was on the sixth floor during the assassination, and much stronger evidence that he was elsewhere, Mr Von Pein changed tack and made another dogmatic assertion: “all the physical evidence points in the direction of Lee Harvey Oswald.” I pointed out that this means nothing. If the balance of the evidence is that Oswald was not at the scene of the crime during the murder, it doesn’t matter that he is the only officially named suspect.

        It is now one week later, and when I checked the thread a few minutes ago Mr Von Pein had not yet replied to my comment, which can be found here:

        http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/dale-myers-on-the-state-of-the-jfk-case/#comment-832924

        Mr Von Pein made two dogmatic assertions, neither of which stands up to scrutiny. He failed to confront the objections to either of these assertions. Now he has popped up on another thread, making another dogmatic assertion. It is a strangely ineffective debating technique: make a dogmatic assertion, ignore any objections, make a new dogmatic assertion, repeat until rumbled. Open-minded readers will have concluded that Mr Von Pein’s assertions don’t have a lot of evidence to back them up. Rather than run away or change the subject, perhaps on this occasion he would be good enough to share with us the evidence that has convinced him that Oswald was on the sixth floor with the rifle during the JFK assassination.

        • Von Pein reminds me of one of those aliens in a Kilgore Trout story (Vonnegut) … they “communicate” by “tap-dancing and farting”.

          I would characterize this as Von Pein’s mode of communication as well. He also plays hopscotch with the threads as mentioned by Anonymous Contributor above.

          Some tricky dicky slippery slicky PR master patter splatter blaster is this Von Pain-in-the-ass.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            I think that this comment confirms precisely my statement about how CTers respond to inconvenient facts.Von Pain-in-the-ass?
            I can’t recall any LN advocate making a similar obscene personal insult about an individual who holds a contrary view.
            It says more about the intellectual sophistication of the poster than any responding insult Mr. Von Pein could post.
            Insults are not an argument, only an admission that the facts available are contrary to your opinion and you have nothing to support that opinion.

          • “Insults are not an argument..”~Photon

            That is correct Photon. However the following is not:
            “only an admission that the facts available are contrary to your opinion and you have nothing to support that opinion.”

            I have already made sound counterarguments to Von Pien. It was he who was bouncing from thread to thread avoiding confronting those arguments.

            I consider my observations as to his character valid under these circumstances, which have not only been remarked upon by myself but others here.

            So, you are insulted for my remarks to Von Pien … well I and others here are subjected to your constantly insulting our intelligence with your jejune and arrogant argumentation.

            So don’t play the innocent victim here Photon. Your egregious nonsense is as insulting as any slur made against you or Von Pien.

            Your prancing about as if you are an authority in all things is equally obnoxious. If we tire of this cheesy burlesque, there is no one to blame but yourself.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            There is no excuse for my missing the slur directed at David Von Pein, as I have been reading an increasing volume of comments as a consequence of an effort to be as responsive to commenters as I myself would prefer, as a commenter. I offer an (my) apology to Mr. Von Pein, to Photon, and to any other reader who may take offense. Readers do not see comments that are not approved, and that is the point.
            There has been a noticeable reduction in name calling and progressing further, I am working on a more welcoming environment for all commenters. There are alternative venues for those uncomfortable reading comments presenting a wide variety of POV. They are sleepy places, in my experience. Jfkfacts.org is turning into a lively resource offering commenters an opportunity to present and to read. I hope all who choose to comment will value the chance to, and will want to promote an inviting atmosphere here. Anyone made to feel unwelcome will not communicate what it is they intended to comment about.

          • On the wise advice of Tom S. I too will apologize to Mr Von Pien.

            A more civil discourse is indeed a better vehicle for rooting out the facts and analysis.
            My points could have been made without the colorful language. And I apologize for that aspect of my commentary.
            \\][//

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Photon,

            Shouldn’t there be an apology from you to Bob P. for calling him “open casket Bob” in a post? I mean, if you are going to be the “moral voice” now, shouldn’t it begin with you?

            “Let him without sin cast the first stone…”

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Tom S. and Photon,

            If we are going to start apologizing for inappropriate comments and slurs, I am sure you will want to ask Photon to apologize to Bob P. For referring to him as “open casket Bob” earlier this year.

            How convenient of Photon to cry uncle after all the slurs he has posted about the “ignorance” of people who don’t understand that JFK’s neck was made of carbon fiber.

            Tom S.—what goes around, comes around.

            Photon, I am hoping your apology to Bob will be as prompt as your crying foul about Mr Von Pein.

            “Let him without sin cast the first stone…”

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Photon,

            The purpose of THIS website as it indicates on the home page is an open, civil and HONEST debate about the murder of JFK.

            You have been shown NUMEROUS examples of how the CIA has LIED and sown destruction here at home, and more importantly, abroad, since Truman created the “agency.” However, you insist over and over again the CIA made a “honest mistake” in regards LHO in MC, which most HONEST people believe is the KEY to the assassination.

            How is that point of view an attempt at an HONEST debate, when all of the evidence contradicts what is being said? When you are backed into a corner about the CIA, then resort to tactics such as telling us that we are ignorant about JFK’s neck, which is far GOOFIER than anything Jean Hill EVER said. When McAdams is confronted with the deception of the CIA, he screams “ad hominem.”

            This site is dedicated to an OPEN and HONEST debate about the murder of JFK. There are SO many holes in the WR and the “honorable men” who investigated the crime of the century—see Tom S’s report on Jenner—that an OPEN and HONEST debate which did NOT happen in 63 and 64 should be easy to do.

            However, if you wish to keep your views in cement, I suggest you head over to Mr. McAdams or Mr. Von Pein’s website. I am SURE they have an extra helping or two of “LHO was a deranged world traveler and lone nut” Kool-Aid they would like to share with you.

          • Tom S. says:

            Steve, I’m not sure I get your point…about Albert Jenner….wait a second, maybe this is part
            of what you are describing, as far as the appearance of sincere dialogue among commenters?
            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/listen-in-on-lbj-and-hoover-talk-about-warren-commission/#comment-836952

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      David, one of the great things about this site is it allows opinions from both sides of the argument. Even though it is frustrating when one side is allowed to try to overwhelm the other. How many lone nut sites, yours included, would allow a commenter to say what the editor says is total BS? I guess Jeff has skin of leather and all this just rolls off his shoulders. He’s certainly more forgiving than I. I’d give you a verbal warning and ban you for a week or two at least.

      I don’t think all lone nut writings, or for that matter other forms of media presentation are planned disinformation. Some are simply based on blind faith and ignorance. However I do believe Operation Mockingbird is still alive and well.
      Sometimes on this site, yours and many others.

      http://www.thepeopleshistory.net/2014/07/operation-mockingbird-cia-and-propaganda.html

      • Ronnie,

        BS is BS, regardless of who says it–editor or not.

        And what Jeff Morley said above about Hanks and King is, IMO, “total BS”.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Hanks is an actor. King is a Fiction writer, as opposed to a Historian. As Jeff alluded to they are in the entertainment business of selling non factual stories. For a more realistic perspective on Hanks in particular read Reclaiming Parkland by Jim DiEugenio.
          Your right BS is BS, you should know.
          Like I suggested to McAdams last week, take a look in the mirror and if the shoe fits wear it.

          • Ronnie,

            With respect to his JFK-related movie project (“Parkland”), Tom Hanks was not an “actor”. He was the co-producer of the film.

            And Mr. Hanks was most certainly not attempting to “sell” a “non factual” story when he co-produced “Parkland” in 2013. He was putting on the screen nothing but FACTS, based on the facts found and thoroughly documented in Vincent Bugliosi’s book.

            So it is entirely unfair to claim that Tom Hanks is “in the entertainment business of selling non factual stories” when it comes specifically to Hanks’ “Parkland” film.

          • RONNIE WAYNE SAID:

            For a more realistic perspective on Hanks…read Reclaiming Parkland by Jim DiEugenio.

            DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

            I haven’t read DiEugenio’s smear piece on Bugliosi and Hanks (“Reclaiming Parkland”), but I’ve seen some of Jimbo’s comments relating to Tom Hanks on the Internet, and his attempts to besmirch Mr. Hanks are pathetic (and laughable), in my view.

            And I can’t for the life of me see how *anyone* could possibly justify the following statement made by James DiEugenio in 2013. This type of over-the-top remark is, in my opinion, completely unwarranted….

            “What a complete jerk Hanks is.” — Jim DiEugenio; July 21, 2013

            http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2013/08/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-91.html

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Yes, Hanks was selling a non factual story regarding Parkland. It was directed by Peter Landsmen. Hanks did not know his ass from a hole in the ground regarding history of the JFK assassination, or otherwise. You really should read Reclaiming Parkland regarding it, Saving Private Ryan and Charlie Wilson’s War.

          • pat speer says:

            You’re missing something, David. Parkland wasn’t based on Bugliosi’s book. Bugliosi, presumably, tried to get the basic facts straight. The film Parkland was essentially a TV movie, with as many or more facts flat out wrong as most TV movies. It was lazy film-making. No, the Bugliosi/Hanks collaboration was not the feature film they pretended it was, but the Hanks-produced “news” program repeated ad nauseum over CNN in the weeks leading up to the 50th. That program featured Bugliosi and captured his tone–which is to say that it was an all-out attack on the critics–the de facto focus of Bugliosi’s book.

        • David Regan says:

          Curious words from a man who endorses the work of Gerald Posner – a proven fabricator.

        • Tom S. says:

          David Regan,

          Share your proof and if you can support your claim,
          (proven) your comment will appear.:
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabricator_%28intelligence%29

      • RONNIE WAYNE SAID:

        How many lone nut sites, yours included, would allow a commenter to say what the editor says is total BS?

        DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

        I think Jeff will survive. He’s a big boy. He can handle the arrows tossed at him.

        And I’ve posted a heck of a lot more stinging insults than “B.S.” at my site. Hundreds of them. “B.S.” is a nice term compared to some of the things I’ve been called (and which I have voluntarily added to my site).

        I’ve been called a “gutless liar”, a “coward”, a “CIA disinformation agent”, and lots of other things by conspiracy hobbyists. And you can find all of those lovely terms on my site right now.

        Earlier this year, a conspiracist named Albert Doyle actually suggested that I should be “prohibited” from using the Internet because of my outlandish belief that Oswald acted alone. Here’s what Al said:

        “I’m beginning to realize this whole thing occurred because McAdams was living in a deluded concept of reality that was gotten from his being able to get away with Kennedy Assassination denial so easily that he thought he could do it with other subjects. Now can we work on getting Von Pein legally prohibited from use of the internet?” — Albert Doyle; February 6, 2015

        ~~~~~~~~

        And then there’s a CTer named Ralph Yates (who infests Amazon like the plague). Yates went Doyle one better when he said that I should be *prosecuted* for thinking the way I do about the JFK case:

        “I’m against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. These persons are just in flagrant denial of the obvious evidence of Oswald’s CIA relationship.” — Ralph Yates; January 31, 2015

        Source Link:
        http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2015/02/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-891.html

        ~~~~~~~~~

        That’s “Quote Of The Week” material there, don’t you think?

        Either that, or a definite candidate for “Laugh Of The Century”.

        So, from my POV, being told I’m full of “B.S.” is practically a compliment.

        🙂

        • “So, from my POV, being told I’m full of “B.S.” is practically a compliment.”~Von Pein

          Well good, let me compliment you again Von Pein, you certainly are full of B.S.

          One of the clear examples on this very page is the way in which you patter on here, and still will not address the points that clearly show you are wrong about your claimed “proofs” that Oswald shot both JFK and Tippit. See my comment here at 11:19 am, referring to the points I made on the Dale Myers thread.

          You seem to be able to chatter all day long about insubstantial nonsense, while avoiding any direct responses to factual data proving you are indeed full of B.S.

          You in fact have no proof whatsoever that Oswald shot Kennedy or officer Tippit. You are a pretender and a charlatan (in my obligatory ‘humble view’). I think it absolutely clear that you are a disinformation agent with an agenda of cognitive infiltration.

          The claim that such assertions or charges are “silly” is to deny the reality that there are such paid agents working for the state.
          We can cite “Mockingbird”, “Cointelpro”, and the more recent Cass Sunstein agenda designed specifically for infiltrating the Internet with agenteur.
          \\][//

        • “I’m beginning to realize this whole thing occurred because McAdams was living in a deluded concept of reality that was gotten from his being able to get away with Kennedy Assassination denial so easily that he thought he could do it with other subjects. Now can we work on getting Von Pein legally prohibited from use of the internet?” — Albert Doyle; February 6, 2015

          And . . .

          “I’m against censorship, but persons like Mr Von Pein have crossed a line where they no longer deserve fair hearing amongst honest people. I think we also need to figure out a way to move towards prosecuting them. ” — Ralph Yates; January 31, 2015

          These folks belong on a contemporary university campus!

          • Tom S. says:

            One “folk”. Doyle has admitted he also posts under the name of the JFK assassination alleged witness,
            Ralph Yates, deceased since 1975.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      David,

      I disagree with you just as strongly as you do with Jeff. The SUM TOTAL of the WC was incompetence, failure to ask the right questions, refusing to investigate leads that were presented, believing the CIA and FBI on “good faith,” allowing back channels of communication, and on and on. It was a botched investigation from start to finish. It was created by the single biggest crook and liar to EVER occupy the White House, its members were hand picked because they were either “friends” of LBJ, or they were agents of deception—think Dulles and Ford. You refuse to look any further than the WR itself, when people like Slawson and others now say they were lied to and misled. To absolve the CIA and its refusal to disclose information is a CRIME in and of itself, and you refuse to condemn their actions. You and I both KNOW that JEH telephoned LBJ within days of the assassination and said there was a problem in MC. Tell me, David, how was that problem resolved? I will tell you—it was swept under the rug where it has been for 52 years. The CIA says—and you and I both know they are LIARS—that they tapes and photos of LHO in MC never existed. That is a LIE. Next, they were destroyed. That is also a LIE. Tell me, David, which member of the CIA went to JAIL for the destruction of evidence in the murder of the PRESIDENT? I will help. NO ONE. You keep telling everyone that the “documents” released show no culpability of the CIA. You are wanting a paper that says “John Doe shot Kennedy on the direct orders of… .” Obviously, no such paper exists.

      However, remind me, David, where in the WR can one find JMWAVE and all of the skullduggery that existed from that operation? I will help. NO WHERE. Again, the “investigators” for the WR asked NONE, not ONE, question of the CIA that went beyond what was in front of their face. Earl Warren even refused to bring Duran up from MC, claiming it was “not necessary.”

      The SUM TOTAL of the WC and the WR is one of BS. Pure, complete, governmental BS. To pretend otherwise is your right as an American. However, you can continue to defend the Warren Omission report as gospel, but that is FACTUALLY INACCURATE. We needed an INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION in 63. We did not get even close to that. We got a screwing by the government without so much as a kiss.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      David,

      More help:

      Law: Were you surprised you weren’t called before the Warren Commission?

      Sibert: I was at the time, but now I can understand why.

      Law: Why do you think you weren’t called?

      Sibert: Why? In other words, with that single-bullet theory, if they went in there and asked us to pinpoint where the bullet entered the back and the measurements and all that stuff, how are you going to work it? See, the way they got the single-bullet theory, was by moving that back wound up to tile base of tile neck.

      (3) William Matson Law, In the Eye of History (2005)
      Law: I’ve talked to Mr. O’Neill quite a bit about this and asked him about his belief in the single-bullet theory, and he said, “Absolutely not, it did not happen!”

      Sibert: Well, you can put me in the same category! Have you read Arlen Specter’s latest book, Passion For Truth?

      Law: No, I haven’t. I do not believe in the single-bullet theory from all I’ve read, and how can…

      Sibert: I told them before they asked me to come up for the [ARRB] deposition, I said: “Well, before I come up, I want to tell you one thing: I don’t buy the single-bullet theory.” And they said, “We don’t expect you to.”

      • Big deal. An FBI agent doesn’t “buy” the SBT. Whoopee! Who cares? James W. Sibert didn’t perform the type of detailed re-creation the Warren Commission performed on 5/24/64 in Dealey Plaza.

        And I’ll bet Mr. Sibert never laid eyes on Commission Exhibit No. 903 either.

        CE903 is one of my favorite exhibits, in that it destroys the persistent myth about how the “evil” Warren Commission required JFK’s back wound to be located way up in the *neck*, when no such “neck” placement was required (or needed) at all to make the SBT work–and CE903 proves it for all time….

        http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/sbt-perfection-of-ce903.html

        But Jim Sibert is a good voice of reason when it comes to dismantling a couple of other conspiracy myths. And I doubt you’ll ever see any conspiracy theorists linking to any of this material. Click below:

        http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/07/interview-with-james-sibert.html

        • bogman says:

          “CE903 is one of my favorite exhibits, in that it destroys the persistent myth about how the “evil” Warren Commission required JFK’s back wound to be located way up in the *neck*, when no such “neck” placement was required (or needed) at all to make the SBT work–and CE903 proves it for all time….”

          It may not have been needed or required but Gerald Ford did it anyway. Which speaks volumes to anyone willing to listen.

          • “BOGMAN” SAID:

            It may not have been needed or required but Gerald Ford did it anyway. Which speaks volumes to anyone willing to listen.

            DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

            The reason for Gerald Ford’s change in the “back/neck” verbiage in the Warren Report is almost certainly because the way it was originally worded *makes no sense*, as Jean Davison has fully (and logically) explained in past Internet posts….

            http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/gerald-ford-and-sbt.html

            Excerpts….

            DVP SAID:

            If CTers were to examine the WHOLE record of the JFK back wound (and the genesis of the Single-Bullet Theory), they’d realize that Ford’s moving of the wound (on paper) actually tends to do the SBT more HARM than it does good! I hadn’t really realized that fact until just recently….with this fact coming to the forefront via some JFK Forum postings written by Jean Davison.

            JEAN DAVISON SAID:

            Ford didn’t *need* to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn’t, since the phrase he revised put the wound on “his back at a point slightly **above the shoulder**.” [Jean’s emphasis.] It can’t be above the shoulder and still be in the back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently anything is possible.)

            […]

            I doubt that Ford, for one, knew the exact location of the back/neck wound. I think he recognized that the sentence as written couldn’t possibly be right since there’s nothing “in the back slightly above the shoulders.” By definition, above the shoulders is “neck.” Ford tried to correct it and made matters worse.

          • Bogman says:

            What Ford’s action actually shows is that the WR was a malleable politicalized document through and through.

            Why is the non-medically, non-forensically trained Ford making this decision in the PERMANENT HISTORICAL RECORD – within the first 10 pages mind you.

            If you think Ford was concerned about accuracy more than public perception, then there’s no way to convince you that rest of the government’s case was filled with that same lack of integrity.

          • If you think Ford was concerned about accuracy more than public perception, then there’s no way to convince you that rest of the government’s case was filled with that same lack of integrity.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ford.htm

          • Bogman says:

            From that very page:

            “Ford studied Economics while at the University of Michigan, not anatomy.”

            Thanks for making my point, professor. If the WR was a legitimate document of record on the assassination and not a malleable political document, there’s no way the Congressman from Michigan gets to make that call without medical counsel. He didn’t even have to bother, did he? Cuz they all knew they would not be held accountable.

            BTW, I love they way your site makes anyone who questions the official story a loon. Because those loons included Bertrand Russell and Pulitzer-prize winning NY reporter Sylvan Fox who wrote “The Unanswered Questions of the Kennedy Assassination.” Read it sometime. The questions remain unanswered.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            “… there’s no way the Congressman from Michigan gets to make that call…”

            But Ford did NOT make that call. He edited a poorly worded sentence in an early introductory section of the WR. His rewording was also changed before the final draft.

            The actual medical verdict on where the wound was located is in an entirely separate section called “The Bullet Wounds” in chapter three:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946

            There the entry wound is described as being exactly where the autopsy report placed it — not in the neck, but approximately 5 1/2 inches (14 centimeters) below the mastoid process, the bony point immediately behind the ear, i.e., in the upper back:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=112&tab=page

          • there’s no way the Congressman from Michigan gets to make that call without medical counsel.

            He gets to suggest edits as a member of the Commission.

            And he doesn’t have to be a medical expert to believe that “above the shoulder” is actually in the neck.

            And he has seen the Rydberg Drawing, which does put the wound in the neck.

          • bogman says:

            Like all things to do with the assassination, the devil is in the details. And the details never seem to add up.

            “There the entry wound is described as being exactly where the autopsy report placed it — not in the neck, but approximately 5 1/2 inches (14 centimeters) below the mastoid process, the bony point immediately behind the ear, i.e., in the upper back:”

            Then WTH not say that in the first few pages of the report — the summary that most Americans would’ve read.

            I’ve read your links, Jean. I’ve seen them before and they once again come across as incredibly imprecise for the autopsy of a president (or anyone’s for that matter). They even use the word “approximiately” rather than just naming the vertebrae level the wound was located. Does any WC document mention if it was at the T- or C-level for chrissakes? Seems from this medical amateur that would be the correct way to describe it.

            And then John and his Rydberg drawings and the other crappy illustration. BOTH are profoundly imprecise and don’t tell you exactly where the bullet entered. And to my eyes the autopsy photo of the wound appears to be below the neck. And so do the clothes.

            And BTW, I’ve told John this before, but even if the bullet entered at T1 as he maintains, that is, by all the medical sites I’ve visited, part of the spine and not the neck! The neck begins at C7.

            To further complicate it all, Wikipedia claims the WC put the wound in the back which it clearly does NOT in its first few pages.

            Would it have been too much to ask for our government to tell us the EXACT level of vertebrae the bullet entered?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Whoopee who cares? I do. Sibert took detailed notes the night of the autopsy standing 2 feet away. Arlen Specter LIED about that fact.
          In The Eye of History, pg. 363.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          That ain’t just any ‘ol FBI agent David!

        • David Regan says:

          The problem is, Sibert was far from being the only witness to contradict the SBT.

          According to the testimony of Dr. Robert Shaw to the Warren Commission the bullet recovered from Parkland Hospital could not have caused all the wounds attributed to it because of the lack of mass loss. It was his opinion that more metal fragments remained in Connally’s wrist then were missing from the bullet. http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh4/html/WC_Vol4_0061a.htm

          According to the Warren Commission testimony of Dr Pierre Finck, who was in charge of the Wound Ballistics Pathology Branch of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology and who co-authored the autopsy, CE 399 could not have been the bullet that inflicted the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist because “there are too many fragments described in that wrist.” http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38&relPageId=390

          According to the testimony of Commander James Humes to the Warren Commission, CE 399 did not cause the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally because of the amounts of bullet fragmentation found on their respective X-rays and the lack of damage to the bullet http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=382

        • Fearfaxer says:

          “Big deal. An FBI agent doesn’t ‘buy’ the SBT. Whoopee! Who cares?”

          Quite a few people, as it happens, and your attempt to dismiss his rejection of the SBT isn’t convincing in the slightest.

          BTW, using your logic, if you give so little credence to an FBI man’s doubts about the SBT, you can’t use another FBI man’s belief in it as proof it’s correct, since neither of their opinions can matter worth a damn.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Steve, I’m just now reading the recently released version of In The Eye of History. It’s pretty devastating and eye opening in regards to the “official” version of the autopsy. E.G. Humes stuck his hand inside JFK’s head.

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      David,

      I wonder if this has been posted on ANY blog?

      G. Robert Blakey’s 2003 Addendum to this Interview:

      I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:

      The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.

      These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission’s investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee’s investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79. Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!

      What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency’s DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our investigation?

      I don’t believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.

      David, did you reads the last line of Mr. Blakey’s interview? “A WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE.”

      Tell me, David, which member of the CIA went to jail for a WILLFUL OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE?

    • Steve Stirlen says:

      David,

      Bugliosi said that the CIA lies even when it doesn’t need to, or something to that effect. He is full of it. Re-wrtiting the WR into a BIGGER, FATTER version does not make it accurate.

      “For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.

      What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.

      I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

      Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

      We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

      Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

      I am now in that camp.”

      • “The CIA had nothing to hide in thousands of previous documents the agency initially refused to release voluntarily but ultimately did release under court order. The CIA specializes in always acting guilty, even when it is not, and always being, from a public relations standpoint, its own worst enemy.” — Vincent T. Bugliosi

        • bogman says:

          They did much worse than “hide” documents.

          With Joannides, they feloniously obstructed a Congressional investigation.

          But nobody paid a price, no explanation ever required or demanded by our government.

          Funny, Bugliosi called Bush II a war criminal for Iraq. But Bush sold the war on the lies the CIA were willing to tell for him.

          Oh, and BTW, David Atlee Phillips walked out of Congressional hearings when confronted with his perjury and never paid any price for that either.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          You really think Bugliosi is going to admit anything that would undermine his position or sales of his book Reclaiming History, as being based on a bunch of malarkey or half-truths (if that)?

          As a prosecutor, his book (prosector’s “brief”) showed things in a different light, and so are announcements like the one you quoted.

    • Neil says:

      DVP,
      I see it all the time. Anytime LN’ers are faced with problems with the evidence like for example, the discovery of CE399, they fall back on the old “so are you suggesting a bunch of people lied to cover up a conspiracy?” line.

      People who are unwilling to accept that government officials might’ve lied or omitted important information (whether it was to cover up a conspiracy or cover up their own incompetence we don’t really know) are the types who look for reassurance in the official narrative.

      • Neil,

        But it’s not JUST “Government officials” that you need to be liars and cover-up operatives. You need a good-sized portion of the Dallas Police Department to ALSO be part of a fairly massive “Conceal All The Real Evidence” operation too.

        I’ve asked this before — How likely is it that the DPD, the Sheriff’s Dept. in Dallas, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Warren Commission, and even (years later) the HSCA would ALL possess the very same desire to want to frame Oswald and hide the real facts of a Presidential assassination?

        The odds of that actually happening in this case (or ANY case) would be–what?–do you think?

        • Charles says:

          David, put it the other way…

          How many would want to pursue the truth about the assassination and confront those who have the means and the heart to kill. How much courage would it take, in the face of mortal danger, to possibly triggering a coup or constitutional crisis like the Civil War. And what would be the consequences if the “conspiracy” of truth seekers failed?

          What are the odds of finding enough people of courage and integrity at the low and middle levels to take on the murderers at the top and win?

          When you are within the power structure, even at the lowest levels, and it puts the food on your table, it is always easier to go along with the power and not admit doubts or ask too many questions. At a senior level it is even harder.

        • Neil says:

          David,
          Any large organization has compartmentalization. One person can taint evidence without an entire department or organization being aware of it. Therefore, if any one or two people in the organization lie or omit information, it doesn’t necessarily indict the entire organization.

          There’s also a such thing as a “Benign coverup” which the CIA now admits to in relation to the Kennedy Assassination.

          To conclude that in the Kennedy assassination investigations there was no relevant information omitted from the official narrative or that no key evidence was compromised requires naiveté

          Even if one still arrives at the conclusion that Oswald acted alone, as Phil Shenon has, you still must acknowledge a great deal of funny business on the part of the investigations if we’re being completely honest

        • Fearfaxer says:

          “How likely is it that the DPD, the Sheriff’s Dept. in Dallas, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Warren Commission, and even (years later) the HSCA would ALL possess the very same desire to want to frame Oswald and hide the real facts of a Presidential assassination?”

          How unlikely is it? First off, they had a great deal of ass-covering to do. What if, in January 1964, the following things had been public knowledge:

          That FBI agent James Hosty had destroyed a letter Oswald had left for him at his office after Hosty had tried to interview Marina when Oswald wasn’t present;

          That J. Edgar Hoover was aware of who Oswald was a few years before the assassination, and had added handwritten comments to a memo about him suggesting that his passport and/or birth certificate might have been used to steal his indentity;

          That only a few weeks before the assassination a number of very high-ranking CIA people had all signed off on a memo saying that LHO was a young man who’d matured due to his disappointing experience in the Soviet Union, thus demonstrating that they were all keeping tabs on him;

          That those Cuban exiles Oswald tangled with in New Orleans were members of a group funded and run by the CIA?;

          As to the Dallas PD — well, I really don’t have to elaborate on everything they had to cover their asses about, do I?

          For years they all declared that they had no idea who Oswald was and didn’t both keeping an eye on him because he was too insignificant to care about.

          At that point Hoover was only a year away from mandatory retirement, and needed Presidential intervention to be spared from it.

          What were all those CIA people going to do if public fury cost them their jobs?

          ALL of them had tremendous incentive to lie and keep lying, and they still do.

          • Why should I just *pretend* (as CTers do) that virtually all of the evidence that hangs Oswald was faked by conspirators–versus believing the evidence is genuine?

            And that evidence was not collected in just ONE small place. It was recovered in MANY places — the TSBD, the hospital, the limo, on 10th Street, and some circumstantial pieces of evidence in Ruth Paine’s garage.

            That’s a lot of coordination on the part of the plotters, wouldn’t you agree?

            In any event, one thing is a rock-solid FACT that even conspiracy-hungry individuals cannot possibly deny — the evidence on the table in the JFK/Tippit cases all points towards Lee Harvey Oswald’s (double) guilt.

            Now, conspiracy believers can pretend it’s *all* been forged or faked if they want to. I, however, don’t choose to travel down that silly (and rocky) road.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            DVP:

            Where did I say evidence was faked? There was no evidence that would hold up in a court of law. There wasn’t then, there isn’t now. Keep shouting to yourself that there was, that won’t make it true, and it won’t convince anybody not already wedded to the officially sanctioned version of what happened that awful day.

        • I’ve asked this before — How likely is it that the DPD, the Sheriff’s Dept. in Dallas, the FBI, the Secret Service, the Warren Commission, and even (years later) the HSCA would ALL possess the very same desire to want to frame Oswald and hide the real facts of a Presidential assassination?
          The odds of that actually happening in this case (or ANY case) would be–what?–do you think?~Von Pein

          The odds are that it is practically certain that the official narrative would be forced through intimidation into place as a perpetually reinforced meme of public relations.
          This is simply the way authoritarian societies are maintained. and if you are still clueless that this is an authoritarian society, you haven’t been paying attention. Willful ignorance plays the leading role in the indoctrinated mind.
          \\][//

        • bogman says:

          You really can’t underestimate the power of the feds telling the DPD on the day after the assassination that they had their man?

          Do you think DA Wade was telling everyone Oswald was solely guilty “beyond a moral certainty” because they had really investigated any other possible suspects?

          The same with Curry lying about the paraffin tests to the world’s media. You really don’t believe he was feeling the heat from the meds to make that shyte up?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          It’s not likely, it’s a fact all those you mention were part of the cover up at least. The DPD from Butler to Harrison among many others lied their asses off and let Ruby into the basement to assassinate Oswald. DA Wade changed his initial charge of conspiracy at the behest of his friend LBJ. Sheriff Decker was crooked as a dog’s hind leg serving as a character witness for Dallas MOB head and murder Civello in the 50’s then ordering his deputies not to participate in JFK’s protection on 11/22/63. Hoover and the FBI’s role in the coverup is well documented. The Warren Omission? E.G., Ruby had no ties to the MOB. The HSCA? Even Blakey now believes the CIA was “less than truthful”. “Your from Congress? You’ll be gone in a couple of years, we’ll still be here”. Conspiracy is not longer a theory. It’s unfortunately reality.

    • ed connor says:

      David-
      Jack is still upset about being shot, and he wants his portrait back.

      • Too bad, Ed. The portrait is part of my own personality and online identity now. So Jack will just have to share it with me. Sorry. 🙂

        • B Binnie says:

          DVP- The inability to soundly resolve any one of the 5 below issues defeats the LHO as LN Assassin Argument- All 5 actually cannot be overcome by your team and make your position indefensible- It is unsurprising that you will not even try-
          1- Where are the documented pictures and recordings of LHO in Mexico City and why by all accounts does the person not resemble LHO?
          2- Where did the Dallas Police get their APB for a person fitting LHO description so soon after the Killing? Surely not Brennan or the eventual DSBD roll call-
          3- Astounding Prior Knowledge- Why was Ruby at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, and the Dallas Police Station on 11.22.63? All those questions he asked? Pure Coincidence?
          4- Do you honestly believe the SBT and that a missile strikes two men at 7 different entrance/ exit points and is still virtually pristine when it falls out of Connelly’s leg? Wouldn’t it seem more likely that it was a bullet from the very shallow wound in Kennedys back if it wasn’t a plant?
          5- How did LHO return from his Minsk Sojourn with nary a whisper from our Intelligence community? One might think a US Marine who worked at the most sensitive US military installation on the planet at the height of the cold war and vehemently renounced his citizenship might have received a slap on the wrist or a stern talking to-

          • JohnR says:

            David Von Pein- I would like to add to B.Binnies’ questions.

            No matter what other “evidence” you think you have, you cannot place Oswald ANYWHERE above the second floor ANY TIME after noon on that fateful day.

          • 1- Where are the documented pictures and recordings of LHO in Mexico City and why by all accounts does the person not resemble LHO?

            There were no such photos of Oswald. And no tapes after they were recycled after the transcript was made.

            2- Where did the Dallas Police get their APB for a person fitting LHO description so soon after the Killing? Surely not Brennan or the eventual DSBD roll call-

            They got it from Brennan (given to Sawyer). There was no roll call, that was Curry’s misconception.

            Why was Ruby at Dealey Plaza, Parkland Hospital, and the Dallas Police Station on 11.22.63? All those questions he asked? Pure Coincidence?

            He was not in Dealey Plaza, but at the Dallas Morning News, a few blocks away. He may or may not have been at Parkland. Ruby was known as a fellow who would be “where the action was.” See Wills and Demaris, Jack Ruby.

            On the SBT see this:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

            5- How did LHO return from his Minsk Sojourn with nary a whisper from our Intelligence community?

            Nobody could have proven that he gave any confidential information to the Soviets. He apparently did try to, but the Soviets found it useless.

            The State Department wanted him back, since he was potentially a lot of trouble for them in the USSR.

        • ed connor says:

          David-
          I’m glad that the portrait is now part of your personality and on line identity, but you may be hearing from the estate of the late Aaron Shikler, who painted the portrait and who died last month. He was an ASCAP brother, and we are far more tenacious than the CT crew.
          By the way, when he painted you, did you tell him to obscure your abnormal neck?

          • B Binnie says:

            Props for stepping to the plate, Mr McAdams- Do you really believe that no one took a picture of the very animated American who was assailing receptionists in some of the most highly monitoring spaces in Spookdom? You know all about the low windows and the absolute inability to identify a mans height and features who was crouched at them- Seems really far fetched that Brennans very vague description evolved into the very specific one that went out on the Police radio- I guess we can say Kantor is lying and really bad at telling time, but that would sure make it hard for him to be an extremely successful reporter- Why does anyone need to prove Ossie gave up classified U2 information to imagine that upon his return, he would been given a pretty stern and lengthy shakedown? You can offer your opinions but they sure seem to be based on some very tortured reasoning- There are far more compelling ways of looking at each of these questions but if you yield one iota in terms of entertaining them, you must immediately admit that LHO was not a LN, SBT wielding Assassin-

          • Do you really believe that no one took a picture of the very animated American who was assailing receptionists in some of the most highly monitoring spaces in Spookdom?

            You mean inside the Cuban Embassy. No, nobody was taking photos in there. Had they done so, they would have had a photo of Oswald.

            Seems really far fetched that Brennans very vague description evolved into the very specific one that went out on the Police radio-

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture22.ram

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/capture30.ram

            At the links above, you can hear Sawyer calling in the description, and hear it then being broadcast.

            The dispatcher seems to have added “slender build,” but otherwise it’s just what Sawyer called in.

            See the transcript here:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/

            I guess we can say Kantor is lying and really bad at telling time, but that would sure make it hard for him to be an extremely successful reporter-

            Ruby may have been correct about seeing Ruby at Parkland. Going to Parkland is the sort of thing Ruby would have done. It wouldn’t indicate a conspiracy.

            Why does anyone need to prove Ossie gave up classified U2 information to imagine that upon his return, he would been given a pretty stern and lengthy shakedown?

            He was interviewed by the FBI, and was sullen and uncooperative. To prosecute him, it would have been necessary to prove it gave secret information to the Soviets.

          • Should real “Kantor may have been correct.”

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Now THAT portrait feature is a real mystery that I’ve been trying to figure out. Is because you are a registered Word Press user?

    • John says:

      That’s quite a comedy routine Mr. Pain. Perhaps you should audition for Gary Mack’s old job… Is it true that you ghost wrote Bugliosi’s book?

  3. Fearfaxer says:

    I’ve no doubt that some of the books written in support of the WC’s lone gunman theory are honest attempts to get the story right. I would count Bugliosi as one of the authors who tried to do this, if only because he’s willing to state that Sylvia Odio most likely did encounter Oswald that late September evening at her Dallas apartment. On the other hand, I think Gerald Posner was a willing and witting spewer of disinformation, with his made-up quotes from people he never interviewed, and his ludicrous claim that Marina Oswald’s uncle was nothing more than a local policeman, when in fact he was an officer in an organization much more like the FBI or the UK’s MI5.

    The problem, the Original Sin if you will, is that the WC investigation was not itself an honest attempt to get at the truth. They were going to come up with a verdict of “Oswald did it all by himself” come hell or high water. This leaves huge problems for anyone arguing in support of its findings. For example, expert testimony states that Oswald was, by Marine standards, a slightly better than mediocre shot when tested just after basic training, and no better than an average shot when tested near the end of his tour of duty. There is no evidence suggesting he practiced shooting at all in the months leading up to the assassination, and shooting skills decline when you don’t practice.

    Or the claim that he’d shot at General Walker — again all by himself. He lived miles away from the General’s home, had neither a car nor a driver’s license, meaning it would have been difficult in the extreme for him to have gotten there, taken his shot, and escaped without anyone seeing him. Obviously, Oswald shooting at Walker becomes much more plausible if you are willing to admit he might have had help, but admit that and you have a conspiracy, and it’s logical to think that if he was part of a conspiracy in April, he might very well have been part of another in November.

    I think you are exactly right when you say that people need reassurance because the possibility that JFK was murdered by a cabal of his political enemies is too much for them. I think this applies to a number of people who’ve written books supporting the WC’s version of events. They aren’t being dishonest, but they aren’t telling the truth either.

  4. “The SUM TOTAL of the evidence positively proves Lee Harvey Oswald’s guilt in *BOTH* the JFK murder and the Tippit murder.”~David Von Pein

    You have been proven wrong on these very pages Von Pein. And you did not acknowledge that commentary that proved you wrong on the page the argument was made. Instead you wait, and then reappear on a new page as if you were never confronted with that proof of your error. And THAT is the sure sign of a disinformant.

    See:
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/dale-myers-on-the-state-of-the-jfk-case/#comment-832936
    And:
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/dale-myers-on-the-state-of-the-jfk-case/#comment-833004
    And:
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/dale-myers-on-the-state-of-the-jfk-case/#comment-833132
    \\][//

    • What a joke your last post is, Willy. Nothing you posted makes me quake in my boots. And nothing you posted up there means Oswald was innocent of shooting Tippit, and nothing you posted in any way debunks the Single-Bullet Theory.

      You apparently want to “isolate, isolate, isolate” (like most CTers do), instead of *properly evaluating* the entirety of the evidence and testimony.

      The SBT and the Tippit murder are *THE* two easiest things to figure out in the whole JFK case–by far. And yet CTers still struggle with *both* of those “mysteries” — even though neither topic is the slightest bit mysterious or hard to reconcile at all.

      Heaven help you, Willy, when something crops up that is really tough to figure out — like: Where did Willy Whitten put his car keys?

      http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2010/06/hilarious-defense-of-oswald.html

      • Von Pein,

        You still have not made a serious attempt at rebuttal on those points I made on the other thread and reiterated here.

        You simply made a spew of general rhetorical squattle and then posted a link to your propaganda pages again.

        I “isolated” nothing Von Pein, the quotes from the WC testimonies were fully in context with the findings of the ballistic experts being questioned. I gave links to the entire testimonies for anyone to judge this for themselves.

        You cannot rebut those points specifically point by point, so all we get from you is more generica and tap dancing.
        \\][//

        • Yes, Willy, you HAVE “isolated” things. CTers never want to *put the pieces together* to form a reasonable/logical conslusion. It’s a built-in flaw among CTers everywhere. They refuse to look at the *pattern* of evidence (as Ed Cage wisely refers to it), or the “Totality” of the evidence (as I usually call it).

          Given that “Totality” in the Tippit case, no other human being could POSSIBLY have killed Officer J.D. Tippit on Tenth Street.

          And this is based, in large part, on the FACT that Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM in the Texas Theater at the time of his arrest at approximately 1:50 PM CST on 11/22/63, just a mere 35 minutes after that SAME GUN was responsible for ending the life of Officer Tippit a short distance from the theater.

          Keep living in the “Anybody But Oswald” fantasy world if you choose to, Willy Whitten. But I choose to reside elsewhere—such as here on Earth, where “Reality” prevails.

          • “And this is based, in large part, on the FACT that Oswald had the Tippit murder weapon ON HIM in the Texas Theater at the time of his arrest at approximately 1:50 PM CST on 11/22/63, just a mere 35 minutes after that SAME GUN was responsible for ending the life of Officer Tippit a short distance from the theater.”~Von Pein

            You STILL have not addressed the specific point I made as to the testimonies of the ballistic experts Von Pein.

            You still have not made an adequate argument as to the witness testimonies to the Tippit killing, and the fact that he was seen in the theater at the same time Tippit was killed.

            You still have not addressed the lack of chains of custody that permeate this case like a plague of keystone cops.

            You have not faced the FACT that there is absolutely no proof that a bullet passed from Kennedy’s back and exited his throat. Just supposition grounded on wishful thinking.

            And as far as CE399 it is simply a solid and verifiable fact that there is no chain of custody. The Parkland Bullet was not CE399. Period.

            You are the one cherry picking “evidence” to suit your fancy Von Pein, not I.
            \\][//

          • Officer Jerry Hill made a radio call at 1:40 pm[*] and reported that the hulls came from a 38 automatic rather than a 38 special. The 38 special bullets were used by the Dallas police and were extremely well-known. Both 38 special and 38 automatic hulls are clearly identified at their base – Hill’s misidentification cannot be passed off as a simple mistake.

            [*] https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490#relPageId=648 > 1:40 pm (550-2)
            \\][//

          • So Mr. Von Pein,

            Would you like to discuss Mrs. Helen Markham, the so-called “star witness” to the killing of JD Tippit?

            Surely you are intimately familiar with Mrs. Markham’s testimony when questioned by Joseph Ball, senior counsel to the Warren Commission.
            \\][//

          • Willy,

            I will gladly *GIVE* you Helen Markham—free of charge. Just pretend she never existed as far as seeing the Tippit murder.

            And even if that had been the case, do you think that all of the OTHER “non-screwball” witnesses are going to suddenly disappear?

            And if Markham never existed, do you think the ballistics evidence of Oswald’s guilt (the bullets shells) will somehow vanish into thin air as well?

            Well, think again.

            And if you’re in league with Mark Lane and think that cab driver William Scoggins doesn’t even qualify as a “Tippit murder witness” (merely because his view of the shooting was blocked by the shrubbery on the corner of 10th and Patton), then you’d better re-think that position. Because Scoggins is a witness who identified *Oswald* as he fled the scene of the crime (and as he passed within just a few feet of Scoggins’ cab).

            Then, just seconds later, Oswald was in sight of Ted Callaway, who is another rock-solid witness who positively IDed Oswald as the man with a gun who was leaving the Tippit murder scene just seconds after Tippit was shot.

            And as I have often asked Jim DiEugenio:

            If, as many CTers seem to believe, it was physically *impossible* for Lee Harvey Oswald to have gotten to 10th & Patton in time to kill Tippit, then explain to me *how* that same man (Lee Oswald) managed to make it to a position on Patton Avenue in order to be seen by eyewitness Ted Callaway within just *seconds* of Tippit being shot?

            Apparently CTers like DiEugenio think Callaway (and the other “car lot” witnesses on Patton and Jefferson Boulevard) must have seen merely an “imposter” Oswald—who just happened to look *identical* to the real Lee H. Oswald—as he fled the scene of the Tippit murder, gun in hand.

            Yeah, right.

          • Pardon me, Ms. Markham was interrogated by William Ball, not Joseph Ball as I mistakenly said in my previous post.
            \\][//

          • “And if Markham never existed, do you think the ballistics evidence of Oswald’s guilt (the bullets shells) will somehow vanish into thin air as well?”

            As I showed earlier, your ballistics evidence of Oswald’s guilt (the bullets shells) have already vanished into thin air.
            \\][//

          • “Apparently CTers like DiEugenio think Callaway (and the other “car lot” witnesses on Patton and Jefferson Boulevard) must have seen merely an “imposter” Oswald—who just happened to look *identical* to the real Lee H. Oswald—as he fled the scene of the Tippit murder, gun in hand.”
            ~Von Pein

            No not “IDENTICAL”, as Benavides testified:

            “From the pictures I had seen. It looked like a guy, resembled the guy. That was the reason I figured it was Oswald.”
            (From Benavides Warren Commission testimony)

            Despite being the closet witness to the shooting, Benavides failed to positively identify Oswald as the killer. The best Benavides could state is that the killer resembled Oswald.

            Benavides also said that the person he saw was of a ruddier complexion than his own, and Benavides’ is brown.
            He also said the man was taller than Oswald actually was. Benavides said he was about as tall as Mr Ball, who was interrogating him. Mr Ball is around 5′ 11″. Oswald was 5′ 9″.

            Like Markham, Benavides had to be led to identifying Oswald. As we examine all of the witnesses who allegedly ID’d Oswald as the man seen at Tippit’s murder scene, there are confusions that are tread over with pressure and leading of the witnesses by the interrogators.

            Benavides finally gave a more “positive” ID of Oswald after his brother was murdered.

            Similarly Warren Reynolds, who wouldn’t say he was positive that it was Oswald, finally changed his tune after he himself was shot in the head. Luckily he survived – but certainly learned his lesson and changed his testimony to suit the interrogators virtual “demands”.
            \\][//

          • WILLY WHITTEN SAID:

            Pardon me, Ms. Markham was interrogated by William Ball, not Joseph Ball as I mistakenly said in my previous post.

            DAVID VON PEIN SAID:

            You were right the first time. Markham was questioned (in her first testimony session) by Joseph A. Ball:

            http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/html/WC_Vol3_0157a.htm

            There was no “William Ball” connected with the WC (AFAIK).

          • “You were right the first time. Markham was questioned (in her first testimony session) by Joseph A. Ball”~Von Pein

            Well hot la de da!

            You still have not faced the FACT that Benavides clearly did not think that it was Oswald he had seen so closely and clearly. That the interrogator (Ball) made every effort to lead Benavides into saying that he was certain he had seen Oswald rather than someone who looked a bit like Oswald.

            Benavides’ further clarification as to the complexion and height of the person he saw with the gun, further indicate that it was NOT Oswald.

            Further you have not addressed the issues involving the testimonies of the ballistics expert, concerning the shells alleged to have come from the pistol alleged to have been owned and carried by Oswald.

            And MORE; you have not addressed the weapons expert who refused to positively ID that .38 special S&W pistol as the one that fired the bullets recovered from Tippit’s body.

            It is obvious Von Pein; you simply have no case whatsoever, let alone the iron clad case you so boldly proclaim at your cheesy website.
            \\][//

          • And MORE; you have not addressed the weapons expert who refused to positively ID that .38 special S&W pistol as the one that fired the bullets recovered from Tippit’s body.

            The spent cartridges found at the scene could be matched to Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.

          • Surely you are intimately familiar with Mrs. Markham’s testimony when questioned by Joseph Ball, senior counsel to the Warren Commission.

            Are you familiar with her identification of Oswald at the lineup?

            Are you familiar with how she held up when Mark Lane tried to manipulate her?

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

      • Steve stirlen says:

        David,

        If you don’t mind me asking again, which CIA “employee” was ever charged for “willful obstruction of justice?” Not my words, but Blakey’s. Wasn’t there a time in this country when destroying or withholding evidence was a crime? You can use all of the “evidence” collected as proof that you want to, but what about the evidence that was willfully destroyed?

        FWIW—no, I don’t believe you are a CIA agent any more than I am. And yes, your comments are not only welcome, but NECESSARY.

        Wouldn’t it have been nice had the WC operated with TRANSPERENCY, as Jeff allows us to do here?

        • There’s nothing “new” about the fact that the CIA and FBI didn’t cooperate with the WC (or HSCA) as fully as those entities would have preferred.

          And Blakey, of course, was hell-bent on his “Mob Did It” theory, so he’s certainly a CTer at heart. No doubt about that.

          But the Oswald-Did-It EVIDENCE that was examined by Blakey’s HSCA and Warren’s WC does not suddenly disappear off the planet even though the always-secretive CIA did not fully cooperate with the JFK investigations.

          ~~~~~~~~~~

          “The conspiracy community regularly seizes on one slip of the tongue, misunderstanding, or slight discrepancy to defeat twenty pieces of solid evidence; accepts one witness of theirs, even if he or she is a provable nut, as being far more credible than ten normal witnesses on the other side; treats rumors, even questions, as the equivalent of proof; leaps from the most minuscule of discoveries to the grandest of conclusions; and insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained.” — Vince Bugliosi; Page xliii of “Reclaiming History” (2007)

          ~~~~~~~~~~~

          Replay….

          “The conspiracy community regularly…insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained.” — VB

          • Steve stirlen says:

            David,

            Thank you for the answer. However, for me, you are going to have to better than Bugliosi to help me how someone that wiifully obstructs justice and never sees the inside of a courtroom. The “facts” as McAdams calls them, are indeed very much open to debate regardless of what Bugliosi says. If Hosty can throw away a note from an alleged assassin AND keep his job, I am not sure how the investigation can be called “complete.”

            I wish you had the same passion for holding the CIA and FBI to task for bungling the investigation as you direct against anyone who does not believe the government.

            It is a shame that our government is above the very laws that they swore to uphold.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            “The conspiracy community regularly…insists that the failure to explain everything perfectly negates all that is explained.”

            That quote belongs in the Hall Of Fame For Inadvertently Hilarious Statements, with the plaque positioned right next to “The Absence of Evidence Is Not Evidence Of Absence.” Sooner or later, all those slips of the tongue, misunderstandings, and slight discrepancies add up to reasonable doubt.

            All to all that “solid evidence,” you can keep repeating it over and over as a soothing mantra, but anyone taking a close, objective look will see that all that is “solid” melts into air. There’s too much for which there is no chain of evidence, no reliable eyewitness testimony IDing Oswald for either murder, too many discrepancies such as the shell casings recovered at the Tippet murder scene not matching the slugs taken from his corpse, on and on and on.

            Bugliosi was good at his job, and doubtless had the skills to sell a weak case to a jury, but his powers of persuasion don’t persuade me any more than the Warren Report does.

        • “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars — But in ourselves, that we are underlings.”
          (Julius Caesar, Act I, Scene III, L. 140-141).

          Those who subscribe to the bumbling view of history, who see “happenstance” and “coincidence” or “Fate” as the primal active force in the world of man, are as jejune as Brutus.
          \\][//

  5. marie fonzi says:

    Gaeton put it simply in an interview when he said, “Case Closed” is a dishonest book.

  6. Steve Stirlen says:

    David,

    For you to ponder:

    “On 11th September, 1997, Sibert provided a deposition to the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). He was also interviewed by William Matson Law for his book, In the Eye of History: Disclosures in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence (2005). Sibert rejected the account given by Arlen Specter about the single-bullet theory: “What a liar. I feel he got his orders from above – how far above I don’t know.”

    A liar. A common theme throughout the WC and WR.

  7. Charles says:

    Well said Fearfaxer.

    The basic desire to socially conform and adhere to normative attitudes or beliefs is extremely strong. We are at heart and head still pack animals and tribesmen.

    When anyone personally discovers the falseness of a reality they thought they knew, the emotional and cognitive disturbance is serious. Suspicion and paranoia is a logical response and yet those defensive and protective reactions can and will be used to further undermine the victim.

    In my local big box chain bookstore, it is a ten minuite hunt to find Talbott’s book obscured on a high and distant shelf. Tables filled with adult coloring books purporting to be a relaxation therapy are front and centre. Our society encourages a belief in fairy tales and I guess that is what most want.

    The powers that be exploit this human characteristic and it gives them a perpetual advantage. What separates leaders from followers is a willingness to live in two worlds. One world where normative values are believed to rule and another where the unimaginable is in fact imagined and acted on.

    As with the WC, the follower’s disbelief becomes the leader’s shield.

  8. Anthony Martin says:

    The underlying reason is FEAR. If JFK’s assassination was the result of a high level cabal, that would force a public examination of our current form of government, and that would, in effect, delegitimatize it. It’s easier to believe in American Exceptionalism and not consider alternate realities. Also, in general, in a corporate world, few seek to be the outliers in a culture that systematically discourages critical thinking. The lack of objectivity is unfortunate. Even if one chooses to be of the opinion that Oswald was solely to blame, there seems to be enough ‘hard’ evidence that disputes that the only way events in Dallas (and afterwards) could have unfolded were via Oswald and only Oswald, i.e. at a minimum there are two, not just one, plausible ‘theories’. That takes an open mind. “What is the truth?” The truth hurts.

  9. MDG says:

    I honestly dont know why JFK Facts cannot be exclusively for those who do not believe the Official Story/Warren Report.

    I believe the fact that no one did time for the the Crime of the Century deserves a site more focused.

    We want to look at all the new evidence & new books without those who are parsing our language, and questioning our research methods.

    It often feels llke the CIA is monitoring this site at times to deter us!

    • Tom S. says:

      MDG,
      Interesting you should mention it, because I just finished reading an encrypted message from my handler at
      Langley. It seems his supervisors are furious with both of us because I have been approving the comments too
      quickly for their censors to intercept the “bad” ones, such as your recent one. There are internet destinations
      matching what you wish for, where no “wrong” opinions are tolerated.

    • leslie sharp says:

      MDG, you would most likely tire quickly of the site made up of an inner circle, exclusively dedicated to just one version of the conspiracy. If you don’t agree with them, you will be accused of being an agent. Same coin. Different sides. I argue that the antiseptic of sunlight is most effective on open forums, moderated fairly and conscientiously … this said in spite of my frequent grousing about ‘bad faith’ participants.

  10. leslie sharp says:

    Isn’t the point of this thread to tease out what constitutes disinformation vs. fundamental disagreement over interpretation of the Warren Commission Report? Can ‘credible’ journalists propagate the WC conclusion without willfully spreading information that fails to include the plethora of facts that dispute the WC? Personally I don’t think they can. Perhaps disinformation is not the appropriate term, but surely there must be one in the journalistic lexicon for deliberate blind ignorance.

  11. “Russ Baker and Milicent Cranor ask a good question in WhoWhatWhy but the implication of their headline that all books supporting the official theory of JFK’s death are “disinformation” does no service to the truth.” Jefferson Morley

    I can agree that there is a difference between “misinformation” and “disinformation”, however subtle the degrees between the two will be based upon ones own personal interpretations and views.

    First of all, the sophistication of the author must be taken into account. Can Bugliosi, Shennon or Holland be considered unseasoned amateurs easily duped? I think it is their very expertise that would put them in the category of purposeful disinformants. Biases are well tended and developed by constant gardening.

    I cannot take their works as in anyway the result of naivete. I think they are studied tomes of purposeful unmitigated propaganda.
    \\][//

  12. Neil says:

    Was Pricilla Johnson-McMillan a Disinformation agent? Or a seller of fantasy?

    There’s evidence that she might’ve been a little of both

    I do agree overall with Jeff that most authors who support the official narrative don’t have bad intentions

  13. J.D. says:

    I recently went back and read some of the original reviews of Posner’s “Case Closed.” The impression I got from the tone of most of the rave reviews was that the reviewers felt profound relief to be told that there was no deeper meaning to the death of President Kennedy and that they enjoyed being taken by the hand and led, once more, through the familiar old Warren Report version of events and having a seemingly authoritative and sensible guide to explain why all of the conspiracy theories were wrong, the way the ghosts and demons are explained away at the end of an episode of “Scooby Doo.”

    Having come to this conclusion, I then browsed some of the reviews of Posner’s later book on Martin Luther King’s assassination. I was struck by a line from The New York Times’s review that seemed to echo my thoughts: “One finishes this book reassured that no dark secrets remain, that no unexplained details need bedevil the national composure.”

    That is an extremely strange sentiment, not least because we are constantly being told that the only reason conspiracy theories about President Kennedy’s death (and Dr. King’s death) persist is that we can’t accept that random events change history, that senseless violence may have no explanation, and that small and trivial men can strike down great men. But all of the reviews of these no-conspiracy books breathe a sense of relief that these great and terrible murders were simply random, meaningless events and so we don’t have to think about them anymore.

    Perhaps, for many people, the alternative — that a great man can be destroyed by unspeakable forces, that the crime can be pinned on a hapless patsy, and that the real perpetrators can escape justice — is too dreadful to contemplate.

    • David Regan says:

      How discerning it must have been for Posner when a year after “Killing The Dream” was published, a Memphis jury found a conspiracy was behind MLK’s assassination – a verdict fully embraced by the King family. Sales for Posner’s MLK book were abysmal in comparison to Case Closed.

      MLK Assassination Conspiracy Trial http://www.thekingcenter.org/assassination-conspiracy-trial

      The Transcription of the King Family Press Conference on the MLK Assassination Trial Verdict http://www.thekingcenter.org/sites/default/files/Assassination%20Trial%20-%20Family%20Press%20Conference.pdf

      Dr. King’s Son Says Family Believes Ray Is Innocent http://nyti.ms/1FiY5hn

      IMO, Posner, like Bill O’Reilly, has zero credibility for his outright lies about his JFK research – citing interviews of key witnesses who later claimed to have never met of spoken with Posner.

      • J.D. says:

        Can anyone recommend a good critique of Posner’s book? I know Harold Weisberg wrote a book that responded to it (“Case Open”), but I’m curious if any of the other researchers responded to Posner’s claims at length.

      • a Memphis jury found a conspiracy was behind MLK’s assassination – a verdict fully embraced by the King family.

        This, unfortunately, was a show trial. A fellow who had nothing to lose (it was a civil suit and he had no money) “confessed.”

        Of course he was not going to face a criminal trial, since no prosecutor would try to prosecute a fellow who clearly had nothing to do with it.

        As for the King family, they look rather silly.

        • David Regan says:

          Regardless, the evidence was convincing enough for a jury, regardless that James Earl Ray was innocent.

          No doubt, RFK Jr’s statements to Charlie Rose in 2013 were not to your liking either.

        • McAdams,

          Anyone who has read William F. Pepper’s ORDERS TO KILL, will recognize your take on this is utter hogwash.
          The MLK hit was sanction by US Intelligence and the Military Establishment.

          There were proven to be military sniper teams there as back-up
          \\][//

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          John,

          In a recent post on the “Together they will observe the law of silence” you said that CT’ers (whatever that means) run from the facts and resort to personal attacks. Well, I have not run from you, and I have not made a personal attack. What I did do was post 4 questions to you and a quote from Robert Blakey at 1:35 pm on December 1st, and I asked you to debate the “facts” that can’t be found in the WR.

          You have not responded yet. I am still here. Care to comment? Warning: you will have to step away from your beloved Warren Omission report to discuss some of the questions.

          It seems that over at your site you are able to stand over your subjects and spout the gospel as you see it unchallenged. That will NOT happen on this site. Contrary to what you have said and believe, the CIA is guilty of obstruction of justice. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous. My parents generation was a “shut your mouth and hope for the best from your government” group of folks. I am not. I am not going to run.

          Care to discuss the “facts?”

          • Charles says:

            John,

            Your talents are truly wasted here. Why waste your life and the limited time you have left on earth, swamped in the past, over childish arguments about things you can’t change?

            Why don’t you do something truly useful and beneficial for your country and the cause of freedom? Like go to a Saudia Arabian school and reason them off the cliff of Fundamentalism.

        • John says:

          Given your history Mr. McAdams why should anyone who is not wearing a tin foil hat believe a single word that comes out of your mouth? IMO you rank right up there with Plagerist Posner who was proven to be completely wrong about the MLK case… Just like you have been repeatedly proven to be wrong about the JFK case. History will be no kinder to you than it has to Posner. Hope you’re enjoying your forced retirement!

          • It’s the frustration/aggression syndrome. Buff hears disagreement. Buff turns livid. Buff turns insulting.

            If you could debate the evidence you would.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            Dear John:

            “It’s the frustration/aggression syndrome. Buff hears disagreement. Buff turns livid. Buff turns insulting.

            If you could debate the evidence you would.”

            That’s about as splendid an example of projection as I’ve ever seen. Talk about “factoids,” that an entire string of them.

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            I would like to debate the “evidence.”

            Take Hosry for example. You think it is no big deal because it wasn’t discovered until the 70’s.

            Does the fact that a piece of evidence this important was hid from the public until the 70’s even though Hoover knew about it rather quickly bother you? Or, are you going to give us the government excuse that “innocent mistakes were made? Tell me, John, does destruction of evidence, whether innocently or on purpose really different? Isn’t it criminal or incompetent, or both?

            And you tell everyone that the WC did a “thorough” investigation?

            What other “evidence” was destroyed by the FBI and the CIA? You don’t know and neither do I.

            Your refusal to acknowledge grievous mistakes of omission and lying and manipulation were made in 63 allows you to resort to your favorite ad hominem quote that you are now using.

            I am one of many who will not resort to personal attacks, but will continue to remind you that the WC was a joke on many, many levels.

          • Does the fact that a piece of evidence this important was hid from the public until the 70’s even though Hoover knew about it rather quickly bother you?

            I’m not aware of Hoover knowing about it.

            If you disagree, post evidence.

            The folks in the Dallas FBI were way more afraid of Hoover than of anybody else (officials, press, etc.).

            You can huff and puff all you want about the note, but it’s no evidence of conspiracy at all.

          • John says:

            Lol While I typically am opposed to debating intellectually unequiped individuals, I would be delighted to debate any part of the MLK, RFK or JFK against you anytime, right here in this forum, in fact, Mr. McAdams you can start by finally answering some of my questions put to you in the past that you always seem to run away from. ( 1.) Why don’t convince us of all the “overwhelming evidence” that you claim places LHO in the alleged 6th floor sniper’s lair at 12:30 p.m. on 11/22/63 beyond a reasonsonable doubt. Please confine your argument to legally admissible independently verifiable evidence. No diversionary links back to your disinformation site. Explain your “facts” right here and now. I will allow to to say “silly” and “ad homonym” once per answer, but they must be used properly. I wouldn’t want to deprive you of 95% of your vocabulary.

          • ( 1.) Why don’t convince us of all the “overwhelming evidence” that you claim places LHO in the alleged 6th floor sniper’s lair at 12:30 p.m. on 11/22/63 beyond a reasonsonable doubt.

            I don’t proceed that way, especially with people who will ignore or dismiss anything I post.

            You post something you think is evidence of a conspiracy, and I’ll respond.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            McAdams,

            You are correct. Host’s destruction of a piece of evidence is not proof of a conspiracy.

            However, it is ILLEGAL. Tell us John, who went to jail for destruction of evidence in the crime of the century.

            Don’t give me that crap about LHO being dead. The WC was charged with “settling the dust,” wherever the “facts” lead.

            How can you be so certain that your “factoids” as you call them are correct? What other “factoids” were destroyed by your beloved FBI and CIA?

            You are asking for proof of conspiracy. I am asking for proof of TRANSPARENCY. You cannot provide my request, and I cannot provide your request.

            Want to know why? Your request requires one to believe that the FBI, head by J. Edgar yes I keep my job because I keep smear files of people Hoover and the CIA, recently headed by Allen yes, I will overthrow your government so that my mega rich buddies can become mega mega rich Dulles were honest men. THEY WERE NOT. NEVER WERE.

            Here is a question for you, John. Why wasn’t the crime investigated by INDEPENDENT organizations?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            McAdams,
            You are using the well worn tactics of your friend Photon and his ilk when you say you will discuss the “facts.” What you really mean is you will recite the Warren Omission report verbatim, and then cry ad hominem when anyone disagrees with you. Well, John, there are “facts” outside of the Warren Omission report, and of course, you don’t wish to debate them, you just scream ad hominem and run for the corner.
            I will “huff and puff” all day that the WC was a joke then, a joke today, and forever a JOKE. You can believe in it all you want, as that is your right as an American. However, I will not play along with you. The “rock solid” evidence that you and Bugliosi and Posner try to force upon most Americans who can think for themselves must not be so rock solid as most THINKING Americans can see the WR for what it really was/is. A big, fat pile of trash that concludes NOTHING.
            Here is a FACT that you can comment on. Well, what you will say is that it is just an opinion, and dismiss what Mr. Blakey says. However, John, keep this in mind: the WR is just an opinion of a bunch of politicians.
            “For these reasons, I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the Agency and its relationship to Oswald. Anything that the Agency told us that incriminated, in some fashion, the Agency may well be reliable as far as it goes, but the truth could well be that it materially understates the matter.
            What the Agency did not give us none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all of his testimony.
            I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.
            Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.
            We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.
            Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.
            I am now in that camp.”

          • You are mostly just fussing and fuming about people you hate. You can’t prove a conspiracy that way.

            But I’ll respond to one thing:

            Here is a question for you, John. Why wasn’t the crime investigated by INDEPENDENT organizations?

            And who would be “independent?”

            A Congressional investigation? I’m betting you don’t like the HSCA.

            Media organizations: CBS, NBC, ABC, New York Times, PBS NOVA, History Channel?

            I’m sure you don’t like those independent organizations.

            You are going to insist that any organization that doesn’t claim conspiracy is corrupt and not “independent.”

          • “It’s part of the “evidence we have” that is usually ignored.”~Jean Davison

            And the most simple and obvious evidence we have is that the bag was too short to cover the rifle, even with the barrel removed. Case closed.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “And the most simple and obvious evidence we have is that the bag was too short to cover the rifle, even with the barrel removed. Case closed.”

            So, another fake. But that isn’t simple at all, Willy. A news photographer photographed a cop bringing a long bag out of the Depository in the middle of the afternoon, around 2:30 if I remember correctly. How would they know to fake a bag before they found out from Linnie Mae later that day that Oswald had taken a package to work?

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘How would they know to fake a bag before they found out from Linnie Mae later that day that Oswald had taken a package to work?’ – – Jean Davison

            Is this meant to be considered a serious question?

          • Jean Davison requests my conjecture. I hereby offer the cold hard fact that the bag was too short to cover the rifle.

            Jean is again attempting to build a case on conjecture and spin it as fact. This is a common tactic of her’s, that should be highlighted at every turn.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jean Davison requests my conjecture. I hereby offer the cold hard fact that the bag was too short to cover the rifle.”

            Later estimates of length by two witnesses who had good reason to want to remember it as too short does not make “cold hard fact.” How’d you like to go down in history as the person who transported the murder weapon in a bag that was long enough? Besides,estimates of length can vary widely in any situation.

            “Jean is again attempting to build a case on conjecture and spin it as fact. This is a common tactic of her’s, that should be highlighted at every turn.”

            What amazes me is that so many people firmly believe Oswald was framed even though they can’t show how it was even possible. I’d say that’s a fine example of building a case on conjecture and spinning it as fact.

          • “Later estimates of length by two witnesses who had good reason to want to remember it as too short does not make “cold hard fact.”~Jean Davison

            The ONLY witnesses, Jean. Your conjecture as to the motive of; “good reason to want to remember it as too short,” is AGAIN just a fluff-toy rabbit pulled out of your magic hat.

            As you should well know and admit, there is no proof nor chain of custody for that prop bag that the police fabricated. It is one of the most blatant and cheesy scams in the whole case full of blatant and cheesy scams.
            \\][//

          • As you should well know and admit, there is no proof nor chain of custody for that prop bag that the police fabricated.

            How did they get Oswald’s palmprint on it?

            Are all six officers who said it was found in the Sniper’s Nest liars?

          • Tom S. says:

            Why take (waste ?) the time and expense to photograph any crime scene? WHy not respond to evidentiary challenges by asking,

            Are all six officers who said it was found in the Sniper’s Nest liars?

            The “six officers” did not prevent, and some may have participated in moving said “bag” from its alleged crime scene original location.
            This alteration of the crime scene before it was fully documented in photos, or possibly during, or possiblly due to absence of the bag
            in the pre-altered crime scene, is a legitimate concern. In the U.S. guilt or innocence in a criminal trial verdict is presented as
            beyond reasonable doubt, or not. Your protest, under the circumstances, seems unreasonable. Fact is the lack of a photograph of the bag in the original position the six officers alleged it was in is evidence of a disrupted or contaminated crime scene segment.

            Had the department “the six officers” were members of, provided adequate protection of the accused, who they held in custody less
            than 48 hours before he was shot to death, while shackled to one of their other officers, in the basement of their H.Q., and a criminal
            trial had actually taken place, the six officers would have been hostile witnesses.

            You view the six officers as attacked. The actual problem clearly was incompetence or indifference that left the six officers and the department as a whole, reasonably open to what you unreasonably react to, fair criticism. There are no sides here, despite your identifying
            the six officers as victims of unreasonable attack.

          • “Are all six officers who said it was found in the Sniper’s Nest liars?”~McAdams

            The “Keystone Cops” excuse is a bit old and tiring here. Proper crime scene protocol was ignored and papered over constantly in this case.

            Why was the bag not photographed in place where it was supposedly found, establishing position and chain of custody of said bag?

            Why were the shell casings picked up before photographing them, and then handed to Studebaker to take back to the area and toss them down and shoot the “official” crime scene photo of those shells?

            Why were the boxes that supposedly hit the snipers lair moved away so Alyea to film there, even though he was a civilian reporter and not an official crime scene photographer.
            Why did the authorities then stack boxes up around the so-called snipers nest and lie – pretending that they were in their original positions for the “official” crime scene photos?

            “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.”~Ian Fleming
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘I don’t proceed that way, especially with people who will ignore or dismiss anything I post.

            You post something you think is evidence of a conspiracy, and I’ll respond.’

            Yes, John, it is noticeable that you – along with those aligned with you – never initiate a new line of inquiry or present new data following any of these threads; you each simply wait for the opportunity to promote the Warren Commission findings. You have now admitted that is your tactic which reveals you indeed have an agenda contrary to protestations otherwise. The question is what drives your agenda: the need to uphold the US Government’s official position on the assassination out of a sense of patriotism, or might you be motivated by something else entirely. Whatever your agenda, the end result is participation – for decades – in an ongoing cover up, witting or not.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Tom S. and Mr. McAdams,

            I will help you out, John:

            “ad hominem, ad hominem!”

            Tom, how dare you bring up a valid point concerning the DPD and its activities before, during and after the assassination. Those six officers were great policeman, and to think they did not follow protocol, and may or may not have played with the evidence is outrageous! Their actions that weekend were above reproach, and it is maddening to think they were simply overwhelmed, incompetent, or worse.

            The WR is a work of art, and must be not be questioned. The fact that Jesse Curry said in 1969 that no one had ever been able to put LHO in that building is a LIE! The fact that Roscoe White, who may or may not have known LHO in the Marines and was in possession of one of the “backyard photos” was a mere coincidence. The fact that Jack Ruby was at Parkland means he was quite slippery. Same thing about getting into the basement of the DPD to shoot the crazed loner. And, Buell Frazier lied through his teeth when he said the “curtain rods” were too short to be a rifle. I mean, looking at the package gives him no credence at all.

            Thank goodness for Arlen Specter! Without him, the WC might have had to QUESTION some of the glaring and gaping holes in their final report!

          • Why was the bag not photographed in place where it was supposedly found, establishing position and chain of custody of said bag?

            Sashay(tm)!

            I asked you whether you think all six officers who testified the bag was found in the Sniper’s Nest were liars.

            You evaded the question.

            Why were the shell casings picked up before photographing them, and then handed to Studebaker to take back to the area and toss them down and shoot the “official” crime scene photo of those shells?

            Never happened. Quit posting factoids.

            Why were the boxes that supposedly hit the snipers lair moved away so Alyea to film there, even though he was a civilian reporter and not an official crime scene photographer.

            The boxes were moved, but I don’t remember it having anything to do with Alyea. I’ve seen no Alyea footage showing the boxes moved.

            And how would moving the boxes show conspiracy?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “The ONLY witnesses, Jean.”

            You rely on two witnesses’ later estimates of length. I rely on news photos of a long bag being carried out of the TSBD in mid-afternoon and a bag with Lt. Day’s writing and Oswald’s prints on it.

            “As you should well know and admit, there is no proof nor chain of custody for that prop bag that the police fabricated.”

            So the police fabricated a bag before Linnie Mae told them about Oswald’s bag.
            Did they know ahead of time what she was going to tell them later than day? Imagine fabricating a long bag and it turns out that Oswald came to work empty handed.

            So this is a small piece of your unstated frame-up scenario: these cops were in on it too. Are you keeping track of all the conspirators popping up everywhere, fabricating, planting, forging, etc.? Has to be dozens by now, providing just what a conspiracy needs wherever it’s needed.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          The King Family looks rather silly?”
          This makes you look really, more than rather sad.

          • John says:

            That’s a smooth diversion attempt John, but I am no dilettante.

            I didn’t say anything about “conspiracy.” I asked a straightforward question. What actual legally admissible evidence do you have that proves LHO was in the alleged sniper’s lair at 12:30 pm on 11-22-63 and shot at JFK and Connally?

            If you can’t make that case, the very first rung on the evidentiary ladder, then you have no case against LHO do you?

            Come on John, the world is watching, try harder, you can even say “factoid” a few times if it helps.

            Newbie’s take note: McAdams can’t even get out of starting gate.

          • What actual legally admissible evidence do you have that proves LHO was in the alleged sniper’s lair at 12:30 pm on 11-22-63 and shot at JFK and Connally?

            1. Spent cartridges in the Sniper’s Nest that matched Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

            2. A paper bag in the Sniper’s Nest, of a size perfect for Oswald’s rifle, with Oswald’s palmprint on it.

            3. Two fragments in the front seat of the limo, matching Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

            4. CE 399, matching Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

            5. Oswald’s actual rifle, found on the 6th floor.

            6. Marina’s testimony that Oswald’s rifle was missing from the Paine garage.

            7. Oswald’s palm print on the recovered rifle.

            8. The fact that Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting.

            9. Oswald’s lie about bringing the paper bag into the Depository on November 22.

          • John McAdams Comment of December 7, 2015 at 4:54 pm, lists 8 points that have all been dispensed with in the analysis on this site:

            1. Spent cartridges in the Sniper’s Nest that matched Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
            >> Chain of custody issues – non admissible in court.
            2. A paper bag in the Sniper’s Nest, of a size perfect for Oswald’s rifle, with Oswald’s palmprint on it.
            >>The bag in fact was too short even for the disassembled rifle, admissible of proof it could not hold the rifle.
            3. Two fragments in the front seat of the limo, matching Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
            >> The metalergy tests were later deemed unreliable, not admissible.
            4. CE 399, matching Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
            >> Complete lack of chain of custody – in fact indicative of switching the Parkland Bullet with CE399 at some point near the end of chain of custody.
            5. Oswald’s actual rifle, found on the 6th floor.
            >> There is still controversy over this matter. Admissible but due for fair litigation.
            6. Marina’s testimony that Oswald’s rifle was missing from the Paine garage.
            >> Marina was utterly unreliable and should be dismissed as such – see Hoover’s remark about coercing her in his phone remarks to Johnson
            7. Oswald’s palm print on the recovered rifle.
            >> Disputed between FBI and DPD.
            8. The fact that Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting.
            >> He had several alibis, including Truly himself as being in the lunch area with a soda in his hand.
            9. Oswald’s lie about bringing the paper bag into the Depository on November 22.
            >> There is no proof that this was a lie. As has been shown the rifle would not fit in that bag.
            \\][//

          • Added note as per McAdams point #6:

            Approx: 13:30, Hoover says Marina Oswald has been very hostile, but if she was assured she could stay in US “she might cooperate.”

            Anyone putting any credence in her WC testimony, please take note!!!!!”~Fearfaxer
            \\][//

          • This is all the standard conspiracy stuff, but I only have time for a point or two:

            6. Marina’s testimony that Oswald’s rifle was missing from the Paine garage.
            >> Marina was utterly unreliable and should be dismissed as such – see Hoover’s remark about coercing her in his phone remarks to Johnson

            No, Marina told the Dallas cops that Oswald’s rifle had gone missing before any Federal authorities questioned her:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/aff-mari.gif

            3. Two fragments in the front seat of the limo, matching Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
            >> The metalergy tests were later deemed unreliable, not admissible.

            Not the metallurgy, but the striations on the fragments matched Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.

            7. Oswald’s palm print on the recovered rifle.
            >> Disputed between FBI and DPD.

            No, the FBI could not find the print, because it had been lifted. They later established that the print that Day lifted did indeed come from Oswald’s rifle.

            Day told an FBI guy on November 22 that he had found a print, and was going to lift it:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_palmprint.gif

            9. Oswald’s lie about bringing the paper bag into the Depository on November 22.
            >> There is no proof that this was a lie. As has been shown the rifle would not fit in that bag.

            No, he claimed to have brought only a bag lunch. If you want to go with Frazier and Randle’s shorter version of the bag, that still contradicts Oswald’s claims to the cops.

            As for the bag, see:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

          • “No, Marina told the Dallas cops that Oswald’s rifle had gone missing before any Federal authorities questioned her”McAdams

            But was that rifle the Carcano? You cannot prove it wasn’t the hunting rifle Oswald had in Russia.
            Marina wouldn’t know the difference between the two. Probably neither would you.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Oswald didn’t have a hunting rifle in in the Siviet Union. Rifles were banned for private citizens.

          • “No, the FBI could not find the print, because it had been lifted. They later established that the print that Day lifted did indeed come from Oswald’s rifle.”~McAdams

            Yea, curious isn’t it, how after the huddle by FBI and DPD, they suddenly get all their ducks in a row.

            Of course NOTHING is suspicious in any of this to your mind, is it McAdams? You buy the word of Authority no matter how ‘coincidental’ it might be.
            \\][//

          • But was that rifle the Carcano? You cannot prove it wasn’t the hunting rifle Oswald had in Russia.
            Marina wouldn’t know the difference between the two.

            So Oswald had two rifles, the Carcano and the Russian rifle?

            Your problem is that there is plenty of evidence he owned the Carcano, and no evidence at all he brought any rifle back from the USSR.

          • David Regan says:

            All circumstantial points that does nothing to prove Oswald fired that weapon on 11/22 at 12:30pm.

          • “Your problem is that there is plenty of evidence he owned the Carcano, and no evidence at all he brought any rifle back from the USSR.”~McAdams

            I would dispute both of your allegations McAdams;
            The evidence of Oswald owning a Carcano is a point of controversy still at this time.

            And whether Oswald brought his rifle back from the USSR is a complete unknown, but feasible possibility.
            \\][//

          • Anonymous Contributor says:

            John McAdams (http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/why-so-many-books-supporting-the-official-theory-of-jfks-assassination/#comment-835971) lists nine items of evidence to show that Oswald was on the sixth floor with a rifle during the JFK assassination. Even if we make the very generous assumption that all nine items are genuine, none of them places Oswald at the scene of the crime with the murder weapon.

            Items 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 link Oswald to the rifle, and they link the rifle to the assassination, but they do not place the rifle in Oswald’s hands during the assassination.

            Items 2 and 9 refer to a paper bag, Commission Exhibit 142, that is almost certainly not the one carried by Oswald on the morning of the assassination. Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle, the only two witnesses who could have connected Oswald with CE 142, were adamant that CE 142 was not the bag they saw Oswald carrying. They claimed that the bag Oswald carried was significantly smaller than CE 142; that it was too small to have contained the sixth-floor rifle; and that it was a commercially produced grocery store bag rather than a homemade construction like CE 142. This is a serious problem for the notion that Oswald played an active role in the assassination, either as one of the assassins or as the person who supplied the rifle to the gunman on the sixth floor. Unless it can be shown that Frazier and Randle’s strongly expressed recollections were mistaken, the rifle that can be linked to Oswald several months before the assassination must have been brought into the book depository by someone other than Oswald, either with or without his knowledge.

            Item 8, “the fact that Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting”, also fails to place him on the sixth floor with the rifle. As far as we can tell from the disgracefully incomplete records of his interrogation, Oswald claimed to have been somewhere on the first floor during the shooting. There is at least as much evidence for this as for the claim that he was on the sixth floor. According to the eyewitnesses’ descriptions, the gunman on the sixth floor was a white man with a similar build to Oswald, but, unlike Oswald, was wearing a light-colored shirt over a white T-shirt. And of course Oswald was seen on a lower floor of the book depository at the same time as the gunman was seen on the sixth floor.

          • Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle, the only two witnesses who could have connected Oswald with CE 142, were adamant that CE 142 was not the bag they saw Oswald carrying. They claimed that the bag Oswald carried was significantly smaller than CE 142;

            But Frazier insisted he was not paying much attention. And Randle saw it only from a distance.

            But you need to explain how Oswald’s palmprint and fingerprint got on the bag.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bag.htm

          • And of course Oswald was seen on a lower floor of the book depository at the same time as the gunman was seen on the sixth floor.

            Are you citing Carolyn Arnold? You know how her testimony has varied over the years, right?

            And the testimony that could have put Oswald elsewhere, that of “Junior” (presumably Jarmon) contradicted Oswald. Oswald said he ate with a black employee named “Junior,” and Jarmon said he had not seen Oswald downstairs.

          • David Regan says:

            CE 142 has got to be the most absurd piece of evidence of the WC exhibits.

            Not only are there no witnesses to identify this bag as the one they saw Oswald carrying that day, it was never photographed on the sixth floor and there is contradicting testimony as to who found it and when.

            Buell Frazier spoke at JFK Lancer last month and again stated there was no way the bag Oswald carried into the TSBD was 38″ long.

            As for fingerprints, how is it McAdams, that the only prints found were a partial palm print and partial finger print when Oswald allegedly constructed this bag by hand at the TSBD and brought it to Ruth Paine’s house, all before using it as a ‘gunsack’ Friday morning?

            Was the TSBD Paper Bag Genuine? http://22november1963.org.uk/tsbd-sixth-floor-paper-bag-genuine

          • how is it McAdams, that the only prints found were a partial palm print and partial finger print

            Why do you think there should have been more prints? Those were quite sufficient to tie the bag to Oswald.

            it was never photographed on the sixth floor and there is contradicting testimony as to who found it and when.

            From my website:

            Among the six officers who did see the bag was Lieutenant J. C. Day, who not only saw it in the Depository but labeled it, “‘Found next to the sixth floor window gun fired from. May have been used to carry gun. Lieutenant J. C. Day'” (4H267). Detective Robert Studebaker not only saw the bag but also dusted the bag for fingerprints while the bag was still in the depository. He also drew diagrams to show the placement of the bag (7H144-9). Both Officer Marvin Johnson and Detective L. D. Montgomery saw the bag and carried it out of the building to the station. Montgomery actually found the bag and left it so Studebaker could dust it for fingerprints (7H97-8). Detective Richard Sims, who assisted Lieutenant Day in removing the hulls, was also there when the bag was discovered (7H162). Officer E. D. Brewer was there for the discovery of every piece of evidence and hence saw the bag (6H306-8).

            Also, the bag was photographed being brought out of the Depository.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bagpic.htm

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/bag.htm

            Tell me: do you really think it was curtain rods in the bag Oswald had?

          • Yea, curious isn’t it, how after the huddle by FBI and DPD, they suddenly get all their ducks in a row.

            There was no huddle.

            Day told an FBI guy on the day of the assassination that he had found a print that he was going to lift.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_palmprint.gif

            But say: weren’t you the one saying the FBI did not believe Day? Now they were in cahoots?

            Get your story straight.

          • David Regan says:

            I’m sure that’s exactly what members of the DPD thought when entering this phony evidence.

          • David Regan says:

            Tell me – do you honestly believe Oswald could have constructed this bag by hand at work, brought it to Paine’s and back again with only leaving a partial palm print at the bottom and partial finger print at the top? (while achieving all this undetected). I doubt a partial jury would have bought such hogwash.

            Did Lee Harvey Oswald Carry a Bag of Curtain Rods to Work? http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-curtain-rods

          • David Regan says:

            McAdams, your post does not directly answer who in the DPD discovered CE 142 in the sniper’s nest?

            Detective Elmer Boyd, who arrived with Captain Fritz before Lt. Carl Day and detective Robert Studebaker and who went over to see the hulls that were found in the southeastern corner, was asked by the Warren Commission if he had seen a paper sack or “any brown wrapping paper near the window where the hulls were found” and answered “I don’t believe I did.”
            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0065b.htm

            Sgt. Gerald Hill, the first Dallas police officer to arrive to the sixth floor, told the Warren Commission that he saw the lunchsack and “that was the only sack that I saw” http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0037a.htm

            Despite the fact that Detective L. D. Montgomery told the Warren Commission that the paper bag was left “laying right there so they could check it for prints”, the bag is not present in any of the photographs made by the police of the area around the southeast window. http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh7/html/WC_Vol7_0053b.htm

            Reporter Tom Alyea, a cameraman for WFAA-TV who filmed the search of the sixth floor and was with Wll Fritz when he first entered the southeast corner, has no recollection of seeing a paper bag there. http://www.manuscriptservice.com/SN/actualsn.htm

            The Warren Commission asked Wesley Frazier if Oswald carried home a package when they drove home together on Thursday night and Frazier said that he did not.http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=38#relPageId=251

          • Jean Davison says:

            If the bag was too short to contain a rifle, I wonder why Frazier’s sister reported it to the police on the afternoon of 11/22? (That’s how they found out that Oswald had taken a package to work.)

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean,
            How much shorter did disassembling the rifle render the longest piece, vs. keeping it assembled?
            I’ve read the difference in lenght was negligible. Linnie was under duress. She directed DPD detectives to Parkland Hospital to seek out her brother, Wesley, yet their step-father Wesley was allegedly visiting was at an Irving clinic.

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/randlelm.htm
            ………..
            Mr. BALL. What about length?
            Mrs. RANDLE. You mean the entire bag?
            Mr. BALL. Yes.
            Mrs. RANDLE. There again you have the problem of all this down here. It was folded down, of course, if you would take it from the bottom–
            Mr. BALL. Fold it to about the size that you think it might be.
            Mrs. RANDLE. This is the bottom here, right. This is the bottom, this part down here.
            Mr. BALL. I believe so, but I am not sure. But let’s say it is.
            Mrs. RANDLE. And this goes this way, right? Do you want me to hold it?
            Mr. BALL. Yes.
            Mrs. RANDLE. About this.
            Mr. BALL. Is that about right? That is 28 1/2 inches.
            Mrs. RANDLE. I measured 27 last time.
            Mr. BALL. You measured 27 once before?
            Mrs. RANDLE. Yes, sir.
            Mr. BALL. How was Lee dressed that morning? ….

            John F. Kennedy assassination rifle – Wikipedia, the free …

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
            Wikipedia
            The 6.5 mm Carcano carbine owned by Lee Harvey Oswald …. initially shipped surplus Carcano model M91 TS rifles (36 inch length; see Carcano article for …. longest piece when disassembled: 34.8 inches (88.4 cm): Western Cartridge Co.

            Jean, you know all this. Would you agree we must endure the testimony and evidence we have, and not
            what we wish for. What was your point in bringing up Linnie’s witnessing?

          • Anonymous Contributor says:

            Having established that there is next to no credible evidence placing Lee Oswald on the sixth floor with the rifle at the time of the assassination, let’s look at the witnesses whose evidence places Oswald elsewhere at the same time as one of the gunmen was seen on the sixth floor.

            Carolyn Arnold may or may not have changed her story over the years. Her first statement to the FBI places Oswald on the first floor just before 12:15. Fifteen years later, she told the reporter Earl Golz that her sighting of Oswald took place not on the first floor but in the second-floor lunchroom, and implied that this happened a few minutes after 12:15. She appears to have said the same thing to Anthony Summers; see his Not In Your Lifetime, p.92.

            You could argue that her revised location of the incident was influenced by the well-known story that Oswald was seen in the second-floor lunchroom shortly after the assassination. If you want to cast doubt instead on her original location of the first floor, you could blame the FBI since the statement (or at least the version at the Mary Ferrell site) is unsigned.

            There is no reason to doubt that Carolyn Arnold saw Lee Oswald a few minutes before the assassination on either the first or second floor of the book depository. The problem, of course, is that several witnesses saw a gunman on the sixth floor from around 12:15 onwards. If, as seems reasonable, Carolyn Arnold is a credible witness, Oswald was not the gunman seen on the sixth floor.

            Here is Carolyn Arnold’s first FBI statement:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10406#relPageId=44

            Here is the Earl Golz article:

            http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/B%20Disk/Bronson%20Charles/Item%2027.pdf

          • Anonymous Contributor says:

            Now let’s move on to James ‘Junior’ Jarman and Harold Norman. There are two surviving accounts of Oswald’s sighting of Jarman and Norman, which differ in detail. According to James Bookhout’s account (Warren Report, p.622), Oswald “had eaten lunch in the lunch room at the Texas School Book Depository, alone, but recalled possibly two Negro employees walking through the room.” According to Thomas Kelley’s account (Warren Report, p.626), Oswald “said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.” As John McAdams correctly points out, Jarman claimed that this detail in Kelley’s account was incorrect. But it was Thomas Kelley, not Lee Oswald, who got the detail wrong.

            There is no reason to doubt that Oswald, otherwise alone, merely noted the presence of Jarman and Norman, as Bookhout reported, nor that Oswald claimed to have seen Jarman and Norman in the area of what Bookhout called the “lunch room”. Jarman and Norman’s actions are consistent with Bookhout’s account.

            We know that Jarman and Norman entered the rear of the book depository soon after the motorcade had reached Main Street, no earlier than 12:23 and possibly a few minutes later (Jarman: 3H201; Norman: 3H189; motorcade: 17H461). Their only practical route would have taken them past the windows of the domino room, and in through the door close to the domino room.

            The earliest account of Oswald’s alibi (Warren Report, p.613) implies that he began his lunch break in the domino room, that he then went up to the second-floor lunchroom to buy a Coke, and that he then returned to the first floor, where he was when the assassination occurred. Bookhout’s report has Oswald alone in the “lunch room” when he saw Jarman and Norman. We know that Jarman and Norman passed by the domino room very shortly before the assassination, and we know of no-one other than Oswald who claimed to have been in this area at this time. Unless Oswald possessed a lottery-winning psychic ability, he must have been on the first floor, in or close to the domino room, no earlier than 12:23, when he saw Jarman and Norman walk past (rather than “through”, as Bookhout has it) the domino room.

            Taking the evidence of three witnesses who had no obvious reason to lie, we have Oswald somewhere other than the sixth floor on two occasions in the fifteen minutes before the assassination, a period when one of the gunmen was seen by several witnesses on the sixth floor. That gunman cannot have been Lee Oswald.

          • David Regan says:

            The sixth–floor rifle was 35 inches (88 cm) long when disassembled, and 40 inches (102 cm) long when intact http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=39#relPageId=403

            Buell Wesley Frazier and Linnie Mae Randle both testified to the WC they saw Oswald holding a bag about 27 inches long. a length consistent with Frazier’s description of Oswald holding one end of the package cupped in his right hand and the other tucked under his armpit.

            As Frazier stated at JFK Lancer last month, unless Oswald walked around with arms long enough to have his knuckles scraping the floor, there is no way in hell he carried CE 142 (38 inches long) in the manner described above.

          • JohnR says:

            From Jon McAdams on December 9 2:07 PM:

            “Oswald said he ate lunch with a black employee named “Junior”

            Where? Please post something to back up this statement.

            To my knowledge, Oswald never stated that he ate lunch with ANYBODY. Please reply with any evidence to the contrary.

          • McAdams, your post does not directly answer who in the DPD discovered CE 142 in the sniper’s nest?

            It shows multiple witnesses to the fact that the bag was discovered in the Sniper’s Nest.

          • “Oswald said he ate lunch with a black employee named “Junior”

            Where? Please post something to back up this statement.

            Fritz WC testimony:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=34#relPageId=232&tab=page

          • According to Thomas Kelley’s account (Warren Report, p.626), Oswald “said he ate his lunch with the colored boys who worked with him.”

            Which is consistent with Fritz’ WC testimony. But you choose to go with Bookhout.

            Note that nobody confirms Oswald in the first floor lunchroom, and this includes Jarmon.

            And Carolyn Arnold (one version of her testimony, anyway) provided the wrong alibi for Oswald, putting him on the second floor.

          • Anonymous Contributor says:

            Fritz supported Kelley’s mistake during his testimony, but only when prompted by Joseph Ball. He had neglected to do so several months earlier, in his 13-page written statement (Warren Report, pp.599-611).

            The point is that the essential elements of Bookhout’s and Kelley’s accounts were correct. Bookhout stated, and Kelley implied, that Oswald claimed to have seen two particular employees, Jarman and Norman, in the vicinity of what Bookhout called a “lunch room”. We know from Jarman’s and Norman’s testimony that such an incident actually occurred, and we know when it occurred. They were in the vicinity of the first floor domino room at or shortly after 12:23, no more than seven minutes before the assassination. The only way Oswald plausibly could have known of the incident was if he had been in or near the domino room when Jarman and Norman walked past.

            Jarman and Norman support Bookhout’s version of Oswald’s actions. Bookhout stated that Oswald claimed to have been alone when he saw Jarman and Norman. We know of no-one, other than Jarman, Norman and Oswald, who could have been in that area at that time. We know from the earliest version of Oswald’s alibi that he claimed to have returned to the first floor after visiting the second-floor lunchroom. We know that Carolyn Arnold claimed to have seen Oswald in the second-floor lunchroom a few minutes before Jarman and Norman entered the building.

            All the pieces fit: Oswald began his lunch break in the first-floor domino room; he went up to the second-floor lunchroom to get a Coke, where he was seen by Carolyn Arnold; and he returned to the vicinity of the domino room, where he saw Jarman and Norman at 12:23 or shortly afterwards. And while all of this was going on, several witnesses saw a man with a rifle on the sixth floor.

          • David Regan says:

            And I could provide just as many witnesses in the southeast corner window who never saw CE 142 there. Again I ask you, who found the bag and when? Why was protocol not followed by having the bag photographed in place?

            CE 1302 would have been laughed out of a courtroom at trial with it’s dotted line box showing “approximate location of wrapping-paper bag” http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh22/pdf/WH22_CE_1301.pdf

          • Jean Davison says:

            Tom S.,

            “Linnie was under duress.”

            Not when she reported the bag to the police, who were loading items into their car at the Paine house when she “approached Det. Adamcik and told him that … she saw Oswald carry something over to her brother’s car and put it in the back seat. It was long and wrapped in paper or a box. She was suspicious.”

            http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/08/0896-002.gif

            And really, why report a bag to the police if you *didn’t* think it was suspicious or at the very least, worth mentioning? This is how the police learned that Oswald had carried a package to work.

            I doubt it occurred to Linnie that this would make her brother a suspected accomplice. There’s an FBI report from later that day giving her first recorded estimate of the length: about “three feet.” Third paragraph here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=57698#relPageId=145&tab=page

            “She directed DPD detectives to Parkland Hospital to seek out her brother, Wesley, yet their step-father Wesley was allegedly visiting was at an Irving clinic.”

            Why does that matter? I don’t think she deliberately sent them on a wild goose chase, do you? I noticed that in his testimony Frazier said he visited his step-father “in the hospital.” I will speculate that when asked where he was, she said “at the hospital,”
            meaning her local clinic, and the Dallas policemen *assumed* she meant Parkland.

            “Would you agree we must endure the testimony and evidence we have, and not
            what we wish for. What was your point in bringing up Linnie’s witnessing?”

            It’s part of the “evidence we have” that is usually ignored.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          This, unfortunately, was a show trial.

          You mean like the LHO mock trial with Bugliosi and Spence?

    • Fearfaxer says:

      “I then browsed some of the reviews of Posner’s later book on Martin Luther King’s assassination. I was struck by a line from The New York Times’s review that seemed to echo my thoughts: “One finishes this book reassured that no dark secrets remain, that no unexplained details need bedevil the national composure.”

      We now know that J. Edgar Hoover personally wrote a series of disgusting blackmail letters to MLK urging him to commit suicide. The obsessive nature of these letters suggest a depraved mind capable of murder. They aren’t proof that Hoover was behind MLK’s murder, but you have to be naive and/or stupid to an incredible degree not to realize that his culpability is a strong possibility.

      As to the coordinated media response to “Case Closed,” a couple of years ago I saw a brief clip from whatever show Dick Cavett had at that point with Posner as his guest, and his opening statement went approximately “After reading this book, it will be impossible for anyone to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was not the sole assassin of President Kennedy.” This for a complete fraud of a book rushed into publication to forestall whatever might be revealed by the massive release of documents about to happen after the JFK Records Act.

      That didn’t turn public opinion around and almost a quarter of a century later it still hasn’t turned.

      And Gerald Posner has been caught trying to bilk Harper Lee out of her assets, been exposed as a serial plagiarist, and exposed as someone who manufactures quotes from people he’s never spoken to. He’s also been caught revising his Wilipedia page to scrub it of negative information about him. At least that’s what his Wikipedia page says — I guess he can’t scrub everything.

    • Charles says:

      Somebody needs to explain to me why Americans could recognize state sponsored propaganda plain as day in the Soviet Union but somehow can’t recognize it at home.

    • Bogman says:

      That last paragraph says it all about what made the cover-up so easy, and why those mostly closely associated with the US power structure are least likely to believe or even consider conspiracy.

  14. marie fonzi says:

    How quickly we forget Mary Ferrell’s words that “we must win this struggle for truth” quoted by Gaeton when he was awarded the Lancer Pioneer Award in 1998, to which Gaet added, “but the truth has long ago rushed into our arms seeking our embrace.” Who cares about the motives of the masters of disinformation. It is left to us to lead the American people from the belief to knowledge of which Marty Schotz so eloquently spoke, “from helplessness and hopelessness to action.”

    • Sandy K. says:

      Marie, your husband was a truth warrior. We are deeply in his debt as we are to you for enabling a positive ID that Maurice Bishop and David Atlee Phillips are indeed one in the same.

      • Bogman says:

        Agreed. That identification was historic and was only made possible through Gaeton’s stubborn, relentless pursuit of the truth and the respect he gained from Veciana.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Thank you, Marie. I wish your late husband was still with us to assist in the search for the truth. I admire him tremendously, and salute his memory.

  15. Eddy says:

    ‘Jeff Morley in hornet’s nest stirring ploy’. It is documented that part of the CIA’s armoury is media assets (Google Project Mockingbird). The CIA has a long history of contacts with powerfull media figures. My belief is that if you had a JFK story to sell then funding would be easier to come by for pro-Warren Commission stories, Parkland being a good example.The Presidential race shows the importance of funding, and following the money may help in identifying culpable parties in the assassination.
    I’m not particularly cynical about Parkland and haven’t seen it. I do wonder how it is possible to make a film about the events at Parkland without filmgoers coming away saying ‘How come nobody investigated the massive hole in the back of his head?’

  16. The many books and movies supporting the official theory are a sign that many people want reassurance that JFK was not killed by his enemies. They want reassurance because that is such a disturbing and destabilizing possibility.

    This, of course, is ad hominem.

    I’m sure Jeff understands that similar sorts of ad hominem can be (and have been) used against conspiracy theorists.

    • “This, of course, is ad hominem.”~John McAdams

      I thought you were a scholar McAdams. Why is it then that you don’t have the slightest idea of what ad hominem is?

      Using the quote that you did, and then claiming it is ad hominem is absolute bunk.
      \\][//

    • J.D. says:

      It’s pretty rich to see Professor McAdams, who characterizes everyone who differs with him on the Kennedy case as a “buff” and dismisses interpretations of the evidence that differ from his own as “factoids,” complaining about “ad hominem” attacks.

      Incidentally, the quote you cite is not ad hominem at all. I suggest you invest in a beginner’s course in logic.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      And your comment is ad hominem tu quoque.

      This reminds me of an occasion many years ago where a legal association had a contest for bad legal writing in which one of the categories was a prize for the person Trying To Resurrect Latin From The Dead. The “winner” was a document someone had found in a search of court filings where the first page contained perhaps 250 words, at least half of which were various Latin terms.

  17. D. E. Mitchell says:

    “…Mr. McAdams, it is, in my opinion, a plain truth, that the many books and movies that support the official theory, are in fact a sign that Americans want reassurance in their Govt! the possibility that the U.S. Govt. was toppled and that a coup was accomplished with the murder of the 35th president, is very disturbing and destabilizing.”-DM

  18. Paul Turner says:

    To David Von Pein: Hey David, who was more eager to sign the Warren Report’s original form before it was changed around, Gerald Ford or Richard Russell? My money is on the former.

    • Beats me. But they BOTH signed it, didn’t they?

      And, btw, Richard Russell was a goofball. That’s obvious by the way he mindlessly plods through his reasons for the SBT not being an accurate theory. And he was RIGHT THERE with Specter, et al, in Dealey Plaza during the exacting reconstruction on 5/24/64. And he still couldn’t see it. Incredible stupidity.

      http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Richard+Goofball+Russell

      • Addendum/Correction…..

        I was not correct when I said that Richard Russell was “right there” in DP during the assassination re-enactment on May 24. Russell was not physically there that day….

        LYNDAL SHANEYFELT SAID: “The Commission [on 5/24/64 in Dallas] was represented by Mr. Rankin, Mr. Specter, and Mr. Redlich.”

        ~~~~~~~

        But Russell certainly was INFORMED as to the results of the reconstruction. And he certainly could SEE the exhibits of how the two victims lined up for the SBT, etc.

        So my previous remarks about Russell still stand.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Context is important.

        The release of Executive Session transcripts and the comments made by former Commissioners (& LBJ) are relevant in understanding the historical record.

        You can’t just look at the WCR in a vacuum.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Specter himself didn’t believe SBT was an accurate theory, but he had to try to make it work to satisfy Hoover and Johnson.

  19. MDG says:

    It is worth seeing Parkland for its recreation of the pandemonium at the hospital on 22/11/63. It was also shocking to see Roy Kellerman brandishing a machine gun at one point. It was that kind of day.

    I also do not believe the value of this site is to tease out disinformation.

    Some of us are hoping to find out in our lifetime who killed JFK. Who wants to get involved with the craziness of a debate with people who belives the Official Story/Warren Report.

    There is an enormous amount of information to sift through for those who believe there was a plot to kill JFK and more than one shooter involved.

  20. eddy says:

    For a site searching for facts this is a pretty meaningless post. Thinking about Mockingbird and media assets I have produced a small league table.

    1. Photon – May well be CIA funded and worth it.
    2. John McAdams – May receive diminishing funding, good history, struggling to keep up.(Website suspiciously high on web search results)
    3. David Von Pein – Unlikely to receive funding, might get free burgers.

  21. MDG says:

    Are not most of us wanting the facts relating to the plot to Kill JFK and the facts about the other shooters?

    We are sure the Official Story/Warren Report is wrong.

    Teasing out disinformation is a three ring circus on this site and very, very distasteful.

    I have read the Warren Report. I’m talking about the 30+ Volume Set.

    The Warren Report got so much wrong. It is shameful to read, and painful to realize this is what the U S Government threw at the masses.

    Why dont those who want to rant on about the Official Story go to other sites.

    We can get the Truth about every Murder in the United States but not this one.

    • Jean Davison says:

      MDG,

      “Teasing out disinformation is a three ring circus on this site and very, very distasteful.”

      May I ask what specific “disinformation” you’ve referring to? I mean anything that is provably false (not just something you disagree with)?

      I’ve seen a great deal of MISinformation posted on this site. I don’t think it’s intentional so I wouldn’t “dis” it, but it’s coming from the CT side of the fence.

      • Disinformation is gauged by the entirety of an individuals position.
        The propensity of tendentious argumentation by the WC cult is indicative of an agenda of disinformation, a campaign of cognitive infiltration as blatant as anything proffered by Cass Sunstein.
        \\][//

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Misinformation is unintentional disinformation (and yes, it can come from the CT side too).

        P.S. This could be an addendum to my comment today posted at 3:30 pm (but awaiting moderation).

  22. Let us at least mention that today is the anniversary of that “Day of Infamy” when Roosevelt spuriously hung out to dry the commanders of the Naval Base at Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that Roosevelt and his inner circle KNEW in advance that the Japanese fleet was on it’s way to Pearl Harbor.

    Our “Days of Infamy” stack up like cord-wood in Amerika.
    \\][//

    • J.D. says:

      At this point, it’s hard to think of a single major event in American history since 1898 that the powers that be haven’t lied about. Considering the spurious pretexts for war with Mexico (1846), Spain (1898), Germany (1917), Vietnam (1965), Afghanistan (2001), Iraq (1990 and 2003), and Libya (2011), it’s hard to believe that any sane person takes the U.S. government’s stated reasons for any war seriously.

      It seems increasingly likely to me that President Kennedy’s death was meant to be yet another specious casus belli, and that the plotters meant the assassination to be blamed on Cuba. The consequences of such a war, which certainly would have involved both the U.S. and the Soviet Union, would have been disastrous beyond imagining. We were spared that, at least.

    • Photon says:

      Willy, is there any conspiracy theory that you don’t believe?
      I knew cryptologists who reviewed the cables and information obtained from Japanese sources before Dec 7, 1941. While something was expected, none of the analysts that interpreted them suspected that the Japanese would be ” stupid enough” to attack Pearl Harbor. Wake, the Phillipines, Guam-yes,but Hawaii was never considered. For good reason-the Japanese carriers didn’t have the range to reach Hawaii and back without refueling-which at the time the U.S. did not consider the Japanese fleet capable of doing in the North Pacific.
      But it certainly fits in with what you accept as the truth and how you simply ignore documented events, evidence and physical scientific reality. You can’t turn black into white, no matter how hard you try.

      • “But it certainly fits in with what you accept as the truth and how you simply ignore documented events, evidence and physical scientific reality.”~Photon

        Actually it doesn’t fit with what YOU determine is “documented events, evidence and physical scientific reality.”

        And obviously your judgement is skewed in favor of the “Official Narrative” in every instance spoken to on this site. Your entire combined commentary reveals gross confirmation bias combined with appeal to authority.

        Yours is the profile of a died in the wool conformist, a completely and thoroughly indoctrinated slave to the status quo; ie, a “Good German”.
        \\][//

  23. Gerry Simone says:

    From Wikipedia,

    Disinformation

    Disinformation is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth.

    It is my informed opinion that promoters of the SBT and the lone assassin theory are wrong and/or spreading disinformation. I have a right to express said opinion. It is not defamation since the possibility that I’m right is very real, if not likely.

    For the Warren Commission stated the following, which we now know leaves more room for doubt based on the controlled flow of information & limited resolve to investigate the truth in favour of a politically-expedient solution.

    Because of the difficulty of proving negatives to a certainty the possibility of others being involved with either Oswald or Ruby cannot be established categorically, but if there is any such evidence it has been beyond the reach of all the investigative agencies and resources of the United States and has not come to the attention of this Commission. (Ch. 1, p. 22)

    However, we can hope to agree to disagree, and not be subject to vitriolic attacks a la the late Vincent Bugliosi. (I would’ve loved to have heard him speak, and yes, I’d have a beer with McAdams, Holland and my FB friend DVP).

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Thanks David!

        I also bought Outrage and I think his Prosecution of George Bush book, as well as picking up his true crime novel And the Sea Will Tell for a few bucks on a used book stand at my dad’s nursing home back in 2012.

        I believe VB visited Toronto once to address lawyers at a speaking engagement to promote RC.

    • Jean Davison says:

      I still haven’t seen anyone cite a specific example of “disinformation” on this site — or even anything that is provably false (misinformation), much less “intentionally” false (disinformation).

      The SBT is not an example of either, since that theory has been accepted as a plausible and/or probable theory by several panels of experts. The HSCA accepted the SBT, e.g.

      After 50 years there is still no alternative to the SBT that is generally accepted by most WC critics. There is no agreement on how many gunmen, their locations or identities, the weapons used, number of shots, trajectories, or anything else. If the evidence really showed there was some other explanation, why should that be?

      • Paul Turner says:

        All of what you said here, Jean, doesn’t show us that LHO was the lone shooter(and I know you aren’t saying he was). It would have been nice for the WC if they had all the information they needed to make their report, but Hoover made sure they didn’t get it all. Some FBI, I say.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        With all due respect Jean, are you kidding?

        The WCR is disinformation. It’s a white wash.

        Even in it’s most benign sense, it is still disinformation if based on LBJ’s warning that millions of Americans would die in a nuclear war.

        Politics and uncooperative agencies still prevented the HSCA from being a full-fledged investigation, and the SBT managed to survive but now dependent on a 4 inch change in an entry wound and re-positioning of JFK that doesn’t correspond to the photographic record. Not much solace in that.

        After 50 years, there IS an alternative to the SBT that is virtually accepted by WC critics – IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.

        What we do know is that there is a range of possible scenarios that are alternative but not cumulative (as lone nutters like to exaggerate), with some probable overlap.

        • Jean Davison says:

          You’ve been misinformed, Gerry, and you’re not alone. For instance, there was no “4 inch change in an entry wound [in the back].”

          “After 50 years, there IS an alternative to the SBT that is virtually accepted by WC critics – IT DIDN’T HAPPEN.”

          Right, that’s exactly what the critics have been saying for 50 years, “The SBT didn’t happen!” Okay, then, WC critics, if that’s not how the shooting went down, what *did* happen? Use the same evidence the WC and HSCA had and come up with a better reconstruction. That has never happened, and there’s a darn good reason why.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Not misinformed. You misunderstood me Jean. I meant the head.

            The HSCA’s FPP revised the entry wound by 10 cm (~ 4 inches) higher from the external occipital protuberance to the cowlick (approx) based on photos (dubious if you ask me).

            Essentially, overriding the Bethesda pathologists who were actually there.
            ==========

            Nobody has ever proven the SBT Jean – not the WC and not the HSCA.

            Not even that documentary Beyond The Magic Bullet.

            All the defense has to do is make the SBT look silly, and the whole house of cards falls.

            We WC critics don’t need to prove anything else to reject the SBT.

            However, if you want an alternate scenario, it’s what conspiracy proponents have been saying for 50 years.

            JFK was ALSO shot from the front. It’s as simple as that.

            This is based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE which is as valid as direct evidence, more so if the latter is tainted if not lacking.

            We don’t even have to catch a shooter from the Grassy Knoll, or find a bullet shell behind the picket fence, because all we need is circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy.

            Without having to quote a law dictionary to demonstrate this, one merely has to recall that the HSCA concluded conspiracy by UNKNOWN persons based on their circumstantial evidence.

            I don’t care if it’s the Warren Commission or Vincent Bugliosi, the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, and that includes their Single Bullet Theory.

          • The HSCA’s FPP revised the entry wound by 10 cm (~ 4 inches) higher from the external occipital protuberance to the cowlick (approx) based on photos (dubious if you ask me).

            Actually, the Ramsey Clark Panel first made that determination. The expert medical panels that followed (Rockefeller, HSCA) agreed.

          • However, if you want an alternate scenario, it’s what conspiracy proponents have been saying for 50 years.

            JFK was ALSO shot from the front. It’s as simple as that.

            Excellent! So now you have two entry wounds, and no exit wounds.

            But no bullet found in the body at the autopsy, and none in the x-rays. So what happened to those bullets?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            McAdams Dec. 12, 2015 7:37 pm

            Excellent! So now you have two entry wounds, and no exit wounds.

            But no bullet found in the body at the autopsy, and none in the x-rays. So what happened to those bullets?

            Yes, it looks like 2 or 3 non-head entry wounds and no exit wounds, but there’s written accounts of a ‘missile’ or two removed. Also, what happened between the time of the pink-grey shipping casket and the ceremonial casket? I like Doug Horne’s analysis.

            As for the head wound, we see in the x-ray a particle trail that disperses from front to back with less and larger or heavier pieces towards the back which is indicative of a shot from the front. Whatever didn’t remain in the head, exited out the back.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            McAdams Dec. 12, 2015 at 7:35 pm

            Actually, the Ramsey Clark Panel first made that determination. The expert medical panels that followed (Rockefeller, HSCA) agreed.

            Thank you for that information but it’s still a change to ‘fix’ the WCR/autopsy report which doesn’t make sense.

          • As for the head wound, we see in the x-ray a particle trail that disperses from front to back with less and larger or heavier pieces towards the back which is indicative of a shot from the front. Whatever didn’t remain in the head, exited out the back.

            Unfortunately, forensic pathologists don’t interpret the x-rays this way. Only conspiracy books do.

        • leslie sharp says:

          ‘Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: appeal to ignorance – the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.’

          Gerry, as you know we are persistently confronted with “If the WC got it wrong, then prove it to be false, otherwise the Warren Commission got it right, it is true.” Any forum dedicated to our democracy and constitution applies the single axiom, “The accused is innocent until proven guilty.” Instead, we have for 3 plus years been confronted with “Oswald was guilty, prove his innocence.” Until that is sorted, until the fundamentals are established – or dare I say, reiterated – what is the point of arguing with Jean Davison, John McAdams, photon et al?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Exactly.

            When it comes to arguing in favor of the SBT, lone assassin proponents abandon the concepts of a) burden of proof and b) reasonable doubt, in criminal cases.

            Even the Warren Commission acknowledged the non-adversarial setting of their investigation and such limitations in the preamble of their report.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Yes, Gerry, I did misunderstand which wound you were talking about. Sorry. Even witnesses who “were there” can be wrong, but I haven’t studied this issue enough to form an opinion on the head entry wound’s exact location.

          “The WCR is disinformation. It’s a white wash.

          Even in it’s most benign sense, it is still disinformation if based on LBJ’s warning that millions of Americans would die in a nuclear war.”

          If that’s all LBJ said to Richard Russell, I’d probably agree with you, but this quote is misleading because it was yanked out of context.

          LBJ was well known for twisting arms to get his way, and in that phone call he was doing his best to pressure Russell into serving on the Commission. He suggested there could be a nuclear war if rumors that Russia or Cuba were responsible weren’t resolved.

          Here’s what CT sources usually leave out. In the same call, LBJ had already told Russell, “The President is instructing the Special Commission to satisfy itself that the truth is known as far as it can be known and to report its findings and conclusions to him and the American people and the world.”

          https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=912&search=truth#relPageId=2&tab=page

          He also told Russell, “…and all I want you to do is look at the facts and bring in any other facts you want and determined [sic] who killed the President…”

          https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=912&search=truth#relPageId=7&tab=page

          LBJ didn’t tell Russell to lie, he said just the opposite.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Ms. Davison, LBJ didn’t have to ask them to lie because he insinuated that there’d be thermonuclear war if it was a foreign conspiracy.

            Since there was no trial, LBJ probably knew that his neighbor Hoover would steer the investigation, so that Commission wasn’t going to deviate from the lone assassin conclusion because that would cause quite the upheaval.

            Didn’t he placate one or more of the dissenters to the SBT later?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Ms. Davison, LBJ didn’t have to ask them to lie because he insinuated that there’d be thermonuclear war if it was a foreign conspiracy.”

            No, he was twisting Russell’s arm to get him on the WC. He didn’t insinuate that he should lie.

            When Russell told LBJ he didn’t think
            Khrushchev had JFK killed, “But I wouldn’t be surprised if Castro had…,”
            LBJ jumped in and said (pick one):

            A. “Oh my God, don’t say that, Dick. That’s exactly what I want you to cover up.”

            B. “OK, OK… that’s what we want to know and people have got confidence in you and you’d…you can just be surprised or not surprised…they want to know what you think.”

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=912&search=truth#relPageId=5&tab=page

      • J.D. says:

        Jean Davison writes: “After 50 years there is still no alternative to the SBT that is generally accepted by most WC critics. There is no agreement on how many gunmen, their locations or identities, the weapons used, number of shots, trajectories, or anything else. If the evidence really showed there was some other explanation, why should that be?”

        Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that Oswald did not do it. Is it really surprising that we can’t agree on how many gunmen there were, what kind of weapons they used, and where they were firing from? At this point, JFK’s actual assassins, whoever they were, have a 52-year head-start.

        Many of us believe that the existing evidence is not sufficient to convict Oswald of this crime. We don’t have to solve the case in order to rule out his role as one of the gunmen.

        • The problem is that, on specific issues, there is a finite set of possibilities.

          Don’t believe the SBT? What is the alternative? That JFK was hit in the throat from the front? That he was hit in the torso by two bullets?

          If you don’t believe the SBT, you need to show that an alternative is more plausible.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            I have a question. Why are there NO photos of the inside of the limousine, the REAL crime scene, that we can look at for proof of what we were told?

            It is called TRANSPARENCY, John, and it is a wonderful thing in a democracy.

          • See Pamela Brown’s site:

            http://ss100x.com/

            You have to dig down a bit to see the inside of the limo after it was returned to DC. But the photos are there.

            Where did you read that they didn’t exist?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            If you don’t believe the SBT, you need to show that an alternative is more plausible.

            Now we don’t lol.

            That’s not how it works in a trial.

            The court of public opinion rejects the SBT.

            Now this fact alone may or may not exonerate Oswald, but to say he was a lone gunman is absurd.

            In short, the alternative need not be established with precision to disprove the SBT.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            See Pamela Brown’s site:

            http://ss100x.com/

            You have to dig down a bit to see the inside of the limo after it was returned to DC. But the photos are there.

            Where did you read that they didn’t exist?

            I did dig down Professor.

            Unless I’m missing something, why are there no photographs of the back of either the jump seats or the forward bench seats?

            It begs the question because it could rule out whether or not bullets struck the back of those seats.

          • JohnR says:

            From McAdams; “If you don’t believe the SBT, you need to show an alternative is more plausible.”

            Which part of the SBT? That one bullet hit both men? Okay. That the shot came from the TSBD? No. That the bullet emerged (practically) pristine? Never.

            Not to mention the fact that it’s rather disingenuous of you to demand an alternative explanation, knowing you’d simply reject it.

          • That’s not how it works in a trial.

            Actually, it is. If the defense fails to present a “theory of the case” that is more plausible than the prosecution, the prosecution wins. If the defense just tries to raise doubts, a good jury will try to see if the facts can be put together in a sensible way that favors the defense.

            So do you think two bullets hit JFK in the torso? If so, defend that position.

            Do you think it was only one bullet from the front? If so, defend you position.

            Do you think a bullet exited JFK’s throat and did not hit Connally? If so, defend that position.

            There is finite set of possibilities.

            The court of public opinion rejects the SBT.

            Argumentum ad populum.

          • Unless I’m missing something, why are there no photographs of the back of either the jump seats or the forward bench seats?

            It begs the question because it could rule out whether or not bullets struck the back of those seats.

            If those photos existed, you would be complaining that the tires were not photographed.

            At least you are now admitting that photos of the inside of the limo exist.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Exactly.

          We don’t have to establish who was behind the conspiracy or the methods. A bullet exit hole in the back of JFK’s head, and Jackie retrieving his brains on the trunk (Clint Hill even confirms this in a 50th anniversary doc – she wasn’t seeking his help) etc., etc., is damn good evidence of a second gunman.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Gerry,

            Brain debris also fell on the Connallys and the agents in the front seat. “What goes up must come down,” meanwhile the car is moving forward.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Gerry,

            Brain debris also fell on the Connallys and the agents in the front seat. “What goes up must come down,” meanwhile the car is moving forward.

            Back spatter or blow back.

            What’s your explanation for the debris that Jackie retrieved from the trunk?

            P.S. Tink Thompson also made a case at the Nov. 2013 Lancer conference for a shot from the rear after Z-frame 313 based on David Wimp’s work which can explain further debris forward.

          • What’s your explanation for the debris that Jackie retrieved from the trunk?

            It’s not clear she did. The Z film shows nothing on the trunk. And her hand is flat on the trunk, not balled up clutching something.

            Clint Hills seems to have inferred that she was doing that.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          @ John McAdams’ comment Dec. 12, 2015 at 3:37 pm

          Actually, it is. If the defense fails to present a “theory of the case” that is more plausible than the prosecution, the prosecution wins. If the defense just tries to raise doubts, a good jury will try to see if the facts can be put together in a sensible way that favors the defense.

          Are you kidding us?

          Did O.J.’s defense attorneys have another suspect?

          No.

          Did the defense come up with a more plausible scenario?

          No.

          Oh wait a minute. The evidence was tainted.

          (Sounds familiar with the JFK case).

          So do you think two bullets hit JFK in the torso? If so, defend that position.

          Do you think it was only one bullet from the front? If so, defend you position.

          Do you think a bullet exited JFK’s throat and did not hit Connally? If so, defend that position.

          There is finite set of possibilities.

          The burden of proof is on the prosecution.

          Argumentum ad populum.

          Well, you can disagree with the results* of those two mock trials by the Texas and American Bar Associations, but that’s how it works.

          *1 hung jury, 1 acquittal

          • Did O.J.’s defense attorneys have another suspect?

            No.

            Did the defense come up with a more plausible scenario?

            No.

            Oh wait a minute. The evidence was tainted.

            But that was a miscarriage of justice. People get off because of biased juries all the time.

          • J.D. says:

            Simpson wasn’t acquited because the jury was “biased,” but because the defense argued that the evidence had been tainted and the jury agreed with them.

      • Any alternative theory that must replace the SBT would be a theory that is replete with far more guesswork and unexplainable occurrences than the Single-Bullet Theory possesses….

        http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com

        • “Any alternative theory that must replace the SBT would be a theory that is replete with far more guesswork and unexplainable occurrences than the Single-Bullet Theory possesses….”~David Von Pein

          The very premise expressed here by Von Pien is untenable.
          It is not “theory” we attend to here, it is the data and rationally analyzing such data to form facts.

          The facts surrounding the so-called Magic Bullet prove that it is a fantasy tale contrived for political purpose, not an attempt at finding the truth.
          \\][//

          • So what REALLY happened, Whitten? You must think TWO bullets entered opposite sides of JFK’s body and NEITHER exited–and NEITHER was found. Correct?

            So you’ve got TWO “magic” bullets—not just one.

            And you think *THAT* double-vanishing-bullet theory is MORE reasonable than is the SBT?

            It’s silly beyond belief (or tolerance).

            http://Single-Bullet-Theory.blogspot.com#Debating-The-SBT

          • “So you’ve got TWO “magic” bullets—not just one.”
            ~David Von Pein

            No Von Pien, just two fragmenting bullets. Not magic at all. It is your fairytale of a Single Bullet Theory that claims the magic.

            You may go back into trance now.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Yes David, that’s the confounding fact. The frontal throat wound did not exit, small caliber or fragmenting? Never probed or dissected at the autopsy. The back wound did not traverse the body per a malleable probe during the autopsy, did it fall out or was it too possibly fragmenting? Still not as mystifying as the creation by Arlen Specter and Jerry Ford of the magic, pristine, single bullet that created 7 wounds in spite of striking bone. Then fell out on a kid’s stretcher at Parkland.

          • Yeah, right, Whitten. TWO fragmenting bullets that don’t leave a single trace behind. Not a fragment! What utter nonsense you embrace, while totally dissing what obviously did happen—i.e., a single bullet passed through the two known wounds in JFK’s upper body.

            And then you’ve got to pretend a THIRD bullet entered Connally. And JBC, coincidentally, was ALSO struck in his UPPER BACK—-which is an entry location that lines up nicely when extended in a straight line from the TWO wounds suffered by the man who just happened to be sitting almost directly behind Mr. Connally.

            And, of course, the Z-Film positively buttresses the SBT, regardless of the incredibly silly protestations belched forth by CTers like James R. Gordon (and many others) in the lengthy battle below….

            http://single-bullet-theory.blogspot.com/#Debating-The-SBT

            In summary —- There is NOTHING on the table currently that debunks the SBT. Every single thing, from the Z-Film — to the lining up of the THREE wounds (including the entry hole in John B. Connally’s *upper back*) — to the *lack* of bullets inside JFK — to the lack of *fragments* inside JFK —- all support the SBT.

            And even a later bullet test, done in 1992 by Dr. Martin Fackler for the ABA mock trial, indicates that the condition of Stretcher Bullet CE399 is just about identical to the condition we’d expect to find it in AFTER a bullet has been slowed down enough (before striking a wrist bone) so that the bullet would not suffer any great damage at all — which is precisely what happened via the SBT scenario.

            http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-W3Xce579SBM/T1k8Assu95I/AAAAAAAAGOw/h_rwFCLTkeg/s1600/Fackler-Bullet.jpg

            LNers have lots of facts and re-creations and the Z-Film.

            CTers, OTOH, have to pretend that TWO bullets entered President Kennedy, and then BOTH of those bullets fragmented into nothingness (~LOL~ time here!), and then a THIRD bullet entered Connally at virtually the exact same time that both of the “Magic Vaporizing Missiles” entered JFK’s body.

            I’d be turning red as a beet if I were the one purporting such utter crap.

            /DVP

          • “CTers, OTOH, have to pretend that TWO bullets entered President Kennedy, and then BOTH of those bullets fragmented into nothingness (~LOL~ time here!), and then a THIRD bullet entered Connally at virtually the exact same time that both of the “Magic Vaporizing Missiles” entered JFK’s body.”
            ~Von Pien

            Connally was hit no less than three seconds after Kennedy, which is hardly “virtually the exact same time” .. the first bullet that entered Kennedy’s throat was an instant before the limo took Kennedy behind the FWY sign. The bullet that hit Kennedy in the back was likely a just before the head hit. The bullet that hit Connally was likely almost the same moment the Kennedy was hit in the head.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Nonsense, he very ballistics tests authorized by the WC at Edgewood Arsenal proved this in 1964. The results of those tests, Wound Ballistics of 6.5–mm MC ammunition, included photographs of bullets that were much more severely deformed than CE 399. http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62296

            Developing the Single Bullet Theory http://22november1963.org.uk/single-bullet-theory-jfk-assassination

          • Whitten thinks Connally wasn’t hit until “almost the same moment [that] Kennedy was hit in the head”.

            And all of that flinching and twitching and shrugging of the shoulders and hat-raising and grimacing and mouth-opening and hair dishevelment on the part of John B. Connally just after Z224 was apparently just a MIRAGE!

            Nice job, Whitten. You couldn’t have possibly misinterpreted and mangled what you see in the Zapruder home movie any better if you tried. Congrats!

          • BTW, Whitten, nice job of deliberately (and spitefully) misspelling my name in every post. You must take lessons in how to be as annoying as humanly possible. Good job.

          • Photon says:

            David, Willy has that CT habit of insulting posters when he has nothing to refute an argument. No rational researcher thinks that Connolly was hit ” no less than three seconds after Kennedy”. Willy’s repeated contradictions of known facts should be evident by now; what seems unusual is that despite the bizarre acceptance of the frangible bullet nonsense and the inability to understand that it is not necessary to dissect out a bullet wound to determine its path he does get some things correct-most notably his refutation of the altered Zapruder film theory.
            When your conclusions are driven by ideological beliefs instead of physical evidence it is easy to make incorrect assumptions not consistent with the facts. A prime example is the Talbot book-since Dulles was with the CIA, he had to have been responsible for killing JFK. The fact that there is zero physical evidence tying Dulles ( or anybody else in the CIA) to the assassination doesn’t matter- everybody KNOWS the CIA did it. Of course it helps if you can show some evidence, no matter how convoluted. Unfortunately that evidence in CT circles often is simply made up – like Talbot’s northern Virginia Farm nonsense , or Tink Thompson’s .30-.30 bullet claims and Harper fragment location fables , or the Carlos Hathcock lies created by a “sniper” who never shot anybody.
            If you have the facts you don’t need to make up stories

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          So you admit the Specter/Ford single bullet is a theory. Progress David. The back of the head blowout is factual evidence of a frontal shot per the Parkland witnesses and many at Bethesda.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Well David you and John have me sandwiched in here between your post’s. As far as the red as a beet/crap part if your still supporting the Warren Omission after everything revealed about it in the last 51 years maybe you ought to check yourself in the mirror for redness. Better yet, go get really drunk (don’t drive). After the hangover take down your website then start over. With something like Sylvia Megaher’s Accessories After the Fact, it is a great early analysis of the Warren Omission finding’s.

          • Ronnie,

            I still find it more profitable to refer to JFK’s head wound using the medical terminology that the doctors used in order to be specific as to the precise location they describe. Which is a wound to the right rear Occipital-Parietal. This distinguishes it from the Occipital Protuberance, which is lower, near the very base of the skull.
            You will see that all the Parkland doctors indicating the wounds with their hands place the wound at the Occipital-Parietal, in the images available as well.

            The actual wound is a tangential entry wound at the Temporal-Parietal, that continues as a “gutter-wound” a trough from the right temple just above and forward of the right ear, and plowing back to the mid right occipital-parietal junction.

            The result of this strike by a bullet travelling at supersonic speed was to cause an internal explosion of the skull caused by overpressure of the sonic wave in the wake of the bullet, which caused temporary cavitation and cracked the skull like an eggshell.

            The entire right side of the brain was pureed to a thick pudding consistency which oozed out through the shards of skull into the scalp and hair, leaving a gruesome massive gooey mess.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Willy, I don’t pretend to understand the technical terms used by some of the Doctors, basic biology courses in college are the limit of my knowledge other than a little learned since which Doctor Photons has pointed out (I do know where the third thoracic vertebrae is located). I’m currently looking for a picture I saw, I thought in “They Eye of History” (but I don’t find it there). It’s of a sutured wound in the hair line above or to the upper right of JFK’s right eye (an entry wound, it IS mentioned somewhere in the book but I can’t find the page at the moment – too many page corners folded for reference).
            Any help with this, anyone?

          • Ronnie,

            I know of no sutured wound in Kennedy’s head at any point. The entry wound is “above” Kennedy’s right eye; just behind the maxillary bone, and just beyond and into the hairline in the right temple.

            The split scalp and hair held as a sort of hinge, that would keep the flap of bone and scalp attached to the rest of the head.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            The picture I’m speaking of has an arrow pointing to this wound. I couldn’t see the sutures, that was described in the caption or description. An inverted v in the skin at the edge of the hairline on the forehead like the skin had been pulled over an entrance wound, and probably professionally sutured was prominent. I didn’t imagine this but need to keep looking.

          • Photon says:

            Willy, the maxilla come into contact with floor of the orbits. As such, it is impossible for an “entry” wound above the right eye to be ” just behind the maxillary bone”.
            I see that your knowledge of anatomy is right up there with your knowledge of ballistics .

          • Yes Ronnie, I confused the maxilla for the zygomatic bone in my description of where the temple wound was located.
            Pardon me.
            \\][//

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Oh Photon:

            “I think that this comment confirms precisely my statement about how CTers respond to inconvenient facts.Von Pain-in-the-ass?
            I can’t recall any LN advocate making a similar obscene personal insult about an individual who holds a contrary view.”

            I think I know one LN advocate who results to personal attacks.

  24. MDG says:

    We will wait if necessary for the Judgement of History on the Murder of President of John F. Kennedy.

    We are not going to play those games of “citing specific examples of disinformation on this site”.

    This great man has been dead in his grave for 52+ years at this point. I think our tone on this site should reflect the subject.

    There is with great certainty a big story with so many more details then was found in the Warren Report.

    I ask the Jean Davidsons of the world to deny that there is not more to the story than was found in the Warren Report.

    • Jean Davison says:

      MDG,

      I was responding to your complaint about “disinformation” on this site and I asked for an example. I’m sure that I and others here who agree with me have said things you adamantly disagree with. Do you recognize that people can have honest differences of opinion?

      Practically all I ever do here is respond to posts that contain misinformation, and I provide the evidence for my disagreement.

      “I ask the Jean Davidsons of the world to deny that there is not more to the story than was found in the Warren Report.”

      I’ve never claimed that the Warren Report has all the answers. That’s why I frequently link to documents and other evidence available at the maryferrell.org site. I always recommend that people do their own research and be skeptical about anything they read.

      • “I’ve never claimed that the Warren Report has all the answers. That’s why I frequently link to documents and other evidence available at the maryferrell.org site. I always recommend that people do their own research and be skeptical about anything they read.”~Jean Davison

        There is a certain skew, a particular and obvious bias to your opinions, that despite your protestations, always lead to the same conclusions reached by the Warren Commission Report.
        For you to claim that that document does not have an influence upon you of Biblical proportions is very difficult to take seriously.
        \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          J.D.,

          I’m not asking you to solve the case. I’m not asking you to prove anything or name any suspects. I’m asking the group, if you don’t like the SBT explanation, what’s a better one?

        • Jean Davison says:

          “There is a certain skew, a particular and obvious bias to your opinions, that despite your protestations, always lead to the same conclusions reached by the Warren Commission Report.”

          I made no such protestations. I agree with the WC conclusions but I got there the hard way, by researching the case on my own. The WR isn’t perfect and doesn’t cover all aspects of the case — no one volume ever could.

      • theNewDanger says:

        “I always recommend that people do their own research and be skeptical about anything they read.”

        Does your recommendation include being skeptical as one reads The Warren Commission Report?

        • Jean Davison says:

          “Does your recommendation include being skeptical as one reads The Warren Commission Report?”

          Of course.

        • Does your recommendation include being skeptical as one reads conspiracy books?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Professor, are there any pro-conspiracy books you like or think are good?

          • Professor, are there any pro-conspiracy books you like or think are good?

            There are some honest ones well worth reading. Summer’s Conspiracy (updated as Not in Your Lifetime) is one, and so is Six Seconds in Dallas.

            Lifton’s Best Evidence is quite informative, in spite of its wacky theory.

    • leslie sharp says:

      “I always recommend that people do their own research and be skeptical about anything they read.” — Jean Davison

      Of course Jean, and when they do, and when their conclusions contradict your own and they challenge you, you resort to defensive posture that you’re being attacked personally or you ridicule or you appeal to authority … for instance, (paraphrasing – which will most likely get me into trouble) ‘according to statistics witnesses are seldom credible;, or according to studies ER physicians only make accurate assessment of gun shot wounds 50% of the time.’ Bottom line, how can you miss with that approach, Jean?

      • Photon says:

        Willy, it is documented in the medical literature. Are you more knowledgable than physicians and statisticians that hold faculty positions at reputable medical schools? Have you ever published in a medical journal? As you have never even accomplished a batchelor’s degree how can anybody take you seriously on this subject? What are you going to argue next-that every surgeon that diagnoses an appendicitis has to be correct? That every appendix removed has to be diseased? That every patient admitted through an ER with chest pain has to have a heart attack?
        It is a simple FACT, documented in the literature , that CT perceptions of the accuracy of ER gunshot wound interpretation is simply wrong. It is simply as wrong as claiming that vaccination causes autism or that Vitamin C can cure the common cold.

        • “What are you going to argue next-that every surgeon that diagnoses an appendicitis has to be correct? That every appendix removed has to be diseased? That every patient admitted through an ER with chest pain has to have a heart attack?”~Photon

          Your well established proclivity for the use of Straw Man argumentation is well established, as well as your constant appeals to authority.

          My comment had to do with the propriety of reliance on experts in ballistic science. Not to the exclusion of forensic pathologists, but in conjunction, and notation of how many of these pathologists are behind in their understandings of ballistics compared to the actual ballistic experts.

          Your intimated slur against didactic knowledge is also repugnant to someone such as myself who has put hundreds of hours of research into ballistics. And the modern methods of analysis that I know are being missed by many of your so-called expert witnesses, be they pathologist, or cops, or politicians.

          You photon don’t have the slightest idea of what you are talking about concerning ballistics. Your pretense at lecturing others on the topic is utter hubris.
          \\][//

          • Photon says:

            My “appeals to authority” are the rational approach to addressing a question .If you think that a former police officer with unconfirmed claims of certification who makes claims unsupported by any real expert in the field she claims expertise in, be my guest. But by referring to Fiester aren’t you doing exactly what you criticize me for doing? Unfortunately you appeal to the wrong authority. What experts in ballistics do you accept as accurate? Do you reject the notion of advanced degrees? Do you reject the notion of ANY academic degrees?Perhaps your prefer our friend Mr. Prudhomme , who didn’t even know that JFK had a closed casket wake and funeral. But when you start accepting the frangible bullet nonsense, you should post some evidence that the rounds available at the time of the assassination could actually do what Mr. Prudhomme claims they could do. To this day neither you nor Mr. Prudhomme have posted ANY documented evidence that the rounds in question available in 1963 could even penetrate a human skull. Not a high standard, but too high for hobby ballistics ” experts”. The real experts can back up their claims with evidence. Too often I see CTers deal with real evidence by resorting to personal attacks and insults-an understandable tactic when the facts get in the way of an argument.

          • “But by referring to Fiester aren’t you doing exactly what you criticize me for doing? Unfortunately you appeal to the wrong authority. What experts in ballistics do you accept as accurate?”Photon

            Cut the crap Photon, I have already given you links to the forensic literature. This forensic literature speaks to the exact analysis and procedures used by Fiester.
            The the blood splatter analysis and the attendant ‘backspatter’ experiments and conclusions by renown forensic experts, all in concurrence with the same conclusions reached by Fiester.

            The trajectory analysis is coupled with the blood splatter analysis as well as photogrammetric 3D trigonometry measurements, to create a cone of trajectory.

            Kennedy’s forward nod and backspatter event indicate a shot from the front. Thus the cone developed presents the trajectory from an incoming missile that struck Kennedy in the high right temple/parietal at a tangential angle and plowed a trough through the right side of Kennedy’s head, the bullet fragmented leaving a trail of dust culminating in a “galaxy’ of dust in the rear of the shattered scull and brain. Almost the entire right side of the brain was pureed to a pudding consistency that oozed from the wound. causing a sticky mass of hair brain matter and shards of bone.

            As the doctors of both Parkland and Bethesda testified that right occipital-parietal was blasted with a smaller temporal-parietal wound just forward of Kennedy’s right ear.

            Fiester’s trajectory analysis proves the temporal-parietal wound to be one of entrance.
            The shooter located directly ahead of Kennedy, some 200 feet distant on a rise just in front of the south-west corner of the triple underpass.

            incidentally this was but a couple of yards from where Tague was standing, when he heard a loud solid boom to the left of where he was standing — looking towards the north-east. In other words; to his left was the triple underpass.

            This analysis is based on sound ballistic science. And backed up by an ear/eye witness standing close to the snipers position.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Willy,
            Although this poster has a questionable theory centered on “staged event,” he has been among the
            most resourceful and observant forum posters I’ve happened upon (when he is not in the grip of paranoia). Peruse this with an open mind and share your reaction. In your opinion, is the image of the limo seat reliable? Is the question asked something Ms. Fiester might even be able to address?
            http://letsrollforums.com/showpost.php?p=238020&postcount=507

          • Frangible Bullets

            Within the British Indian Army, the Dum Dum arsenal produced a solution: the jacketing was removed from the nose of the bullet, creating the first soft point bullets. Since the Mark II jacket did not cover the base of the round this could potentially lead to the jacketing being left in the barrel. This potential problem resulted in the rejection of the Dum-dum design and led to independent development of the Mark III, Mark IV (1897) and Mark V (1899) .303 British rounds, which were of the hollow-point design, with the jacket covering the base; while these were made in Britain, not at the Dum-Dum arsenal, the name “Dum-dum” had already become associated with expanding bullets, and continued to be used to refer to any expanding bullets. The expanding bullets expanded upon impact to a diameter significantly greater than the original .312 inch (7.92 mm) bullet diameter, producing larger diameter wounds than the full-metal-jacketed versions. The Mark IV was successful enough in its first use in the battle of Omdurman that British soldiers issued with the standard Mark II bullets began to remove the top of the jacket, converting the Mark II bullets into improvised Dum-dum types.[15]

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expanding_bullet
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, Dum-Dums have nothing to do with frangible bullets. Your entire post is nothing but a waste of space, as this type of ammunition was designed to EXPAND, not FRAGMENT as frangible rounds do.
            If you have spent hours studying ballistics and this is an example of your expertise it appears that you have been engaged in a complete waste of time.
            Your ballistic references have nothing to do with Fiester’s shooting scenario in the JFK case .They are nothing but an “appeal to authority” that you have criticized, but unfortunately you seemed to have misunderstood what they actually say. Again, an appeal to the wrong authority.
            You constantly misstate proven issues and ignore accepted avenues of discourse such as the medical literature. I find this interesting in that you sometimes post completely logical posts, like your defense of the authenticity of the Zapruder film and rejection of some of the more ridiculous and outlandish CT stories and witnesses.

          • “Willy, Dum-Dums have nothing to do with frangible bullets. Your entire post is nothing but a waste of space..”~Photon

            The reference to Dum-Dums are quite applicable as they are a soft nosed bullet – not fully jacketed just like a frangible, and fully capable of entering the human skull.

            Frankly Photon, I really don’t care what you think one way or the other. It is simply silly to deny that a missile with a supersonic velocity cannot enter the human skull. If you can’t grasp this it is your problem.
            \\][//

          • “In x-rays of through-and-through gunshot wounds, the presence of small fragments of metal along the wound track virtually rules out full metal-jacketed ammunition.. . . In rare instances, involving full metal-jacketed centerfire rifle bullets, a few small, dust-like fragments of lead may be seen on x-ray if the bullet perforates bone. One of the most characteristic x-rays and one that will indicate the type of weapon and ammunition used is that seen from centerfire rifles firing hunting ammunition. In such a case, one will see a “lead snowstorm”. . . . Such a picture rules out full metal-jacketed rifle ammunition or a shotgun slug.”
            ~Dr. Vincent DiMaio

            (Gunshot Wounds, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999, p. 318,)
            \\][//

          • “In your opinion, is the image of the limo seat reliable? Is the question asked something Ms. Fiester might even be able to address?”~TomS

            It seems to me that this image could be reliable, given this proposed explanation (my own):

            This is obviously a shot taken after Mrs. Kennedy, and her husband’s body have been removed from the car. It could be that after Jackie got out the blood was still dripping from John’s head wound and spilled more onto the seat as he was taken out.
            We do not see the right side of Jackie’s skirt in the photo with her and Bobby.

            Alternatively: The pool of blood may simply have spread after the occupants were out of the car.

            I Don’t know if Culto (?) has a theory that more blood may have been poured into the seat later or what. But Mrs. Kennedy was certainly sitting in that seat on the way to Parkland.
            \\][//

  25. MDG says:

    I want to ask Jean Davidson to discuss what is important and she feels is missing from the Warren Report.

    What documents would you refer us to at Mary Ferrell? Which ones are most significant in your opinion?

    The story is much bigger than the one in the Warren Report.

    Dr. Malcolm Perry announced at a press conference the afternoon of Kennedy’s death that a shot to the front was the bullet that killed President Kennedy. The doctors in Dallas were important witnesses at the scene.

    This is evidence that would hold up in a court of law had there been a trial.

    The video was shown by Dallas local TV. It never made it to a national or international audience but is now available on the internet.

    The wounds were not dissected in Bethseda. Don’t you Warren report Cheerleaders have a problem with that.

    There was no trial so the above plays a significant part with other evidence in the Judgement of History.

    This was also announced to the world by the acting Press Secretary in Dallas with a significant gesture indicating President Kennedy died from a shot to the front left side of his head.

    All the doctors in the ER concurred as they were standing with Perry. The Acting Press Secretary concurred.

    But soon the Cover-up quickly started. Some of the doctors have admitted after retirement that they were threatened the afternoon of 22/11/63.

    • This was also announced to the world by the acting Press Secretary in Dallas with a significant gesture indicating President Kennedy died from a shot to the front left side of his head.

      And of course, we all know that Malcolm Kilduff had done a forensic examination of JFK.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        He was quoting a doctor.

        • And which ER doctor did a forensic examination?

          And did the “doctor” tell him the bullet was from the front, of just say “right through the head?”

          • “And which ER doctor did a forensic examination?”
            ~John McAdams

            A more relevant question would be; which autopsy doctor did a proper forensic examination?
            \\][//

          • A more relevant question would be; which autopsy doctor did a proper forensic examination?

            Sashay(tm)!

            First it’s “the ER doctors said X, and of course they were top notch experts who must be believed!”

            Now its: “why pay any attention to those bums who were the autopsy docs?”

            The best experts were the HSCA FPP. Do you believe them?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            All I’m saying is that Kilduff didn’t make anything up and presumably got his information from any of the Parkland doctors.

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        Associate Professor McAdams,

        And we ALL know that the three doctors who performed the autopsy were extremely qualified, correct? I mean, history and other experts have concluded these three men were the finest available at the time, correct?

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Ah,ha,ha,ha. If you count paper pushers directed from the gallery as practicing forensic pathologists. Thanks for the laugh Steve.

    • Jean Davison says:

      MDG,

      “This was also announced to the world by the acting Press Secretary in Dallas with a significant gesture indicating President Kennedy died from a shot to the front left side of his head.”

      At the end of this short video, acting Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff says: “Dr. Burkley told me it was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head” and he points to the right front side of his head. This has been interpreted as indicating a shot from the front, but he didn’t actually say anything about the direction of the bullet.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHQ4EoDZKdg

      In an interview that follows immediately afterwards, Kilduff said he believed Oswald acted alone.

  26. MDG says:

    Correction: Shot that killed Kennedy was Right Front. From Dr. Malcolm Perry and other ER doctors, and the Acting Press Secretary in Dallas on 22/11/63.

    Zapruder Film is the video evidence. This would have been significant at a trial. And it was of Clay Shaw in New Orleans!

    It was finally shown to a larger audience with what seems to be some alterations.

    • “with what seems to be some alterations.”~MDG

      What proof do you have for this assertion?
      \\][//

      • Gerry Simone says:

        If I may:

        While I don’t believe in whole scale alteration of the Z film, I did read Hornberger’s essay of Doug Horne’s work, as well as watch an interview of Horne on this subject.

        There are instances of black ‘blobs’ that obscure the rear of Kennedy’s head.

        The other evidence is that the slowing down of the presidential limo to nearly a full stop is not apparent in the Z film, but which we can easily notice in the Nix film (if I recall correctly).

        However, the Z film is still good evidence of conspiracy.

        • “While I don’t believe in whole scale alteration of the Z film”~Gerry Simone

          It is impossible to create an undetectable counterfeit copy of Kodak II by any manner whatsoever. Even the so-called “black blobs”; if painted directly on the extant copy they would be blatantly obvious upon examination.

          If it is attempted to do any alteration and re-film Kodachrome II stock by projection in any manner, it would of necessity require artificial light. This too would be blatantly obvious to an expert examiner, Rolland Zavada for example.
          This is not rocket science Gerry, read this and deal with it:
          https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/12/the-zapruder-film/
          \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “It is impossible to create an undetectable counterfeit copy of Kodak II by any manner whatsoever.”

            Willy,

            I’m happy to see you quoting expert opinion, including your own, on the impossibility of altering the Z film.

            Many CT arguments are based on NON-expert opinions in a variety of subjects in which they should probably rely on expert opinion instead of “this is how it looks to me.” For instance, numerous firearms experts have supported the SBT. Other experts have explained why “back and to the left” is NOT evidence of a shot from the front.

            Anyway, good post, Willy!

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I heard Rollie Zavada speak at Lancer and spoke to him too when I bumped into him there.

            And I agree that those blobs weren’t painted on as that would be detectable, but after reading and watching Doug Horne’s analysis of the events surrounding the Z-film, there’s certainly some funny business going around. He even admits that it was not a complete or perfect alteration.

            Maybe Mr. Zavada has responded to Doug Horne’s investigation with respect to this issue?

            In your link, can you specifically point to where he explains away those back of head ‘blobs’ and why we don’t see the limo slow down vs. what is evident in the Nix film and per eye-witness testimony? (I’m not sure he’s addressed those issues).

            Now don’t get me wrong, I still believe the Z film is valuable evidence of a conspiracy (even Horne says this). Besides the backward motion of JFK, Jackie’s retrieval of a piece of his head from the left rear trunk area, the difference in reactions of JFK and JBC, there is an avulsion to the back of JFK’s head visible from Z-frames 335 to 337.

            Thank you for your link. You have a lot of good information there.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Jean Davison wrote: For instance, numerous firearms experts have supported the SBT. Other experts have explained why “back and to the left” is NOT evidence of a shot from the front.

            I’d like to know who they are and how many?

            As for the back and to the left, the Jet Effect and Neuro-muscular reaction theories have been debunked.

          • “Maybe Mr. Zavada has responded to Doug Horne’s investigation with respect to this issue?”
            ~Gerry Simone

            Yes indeed, both Zavada and Raymond Fielding (author of, ‘Techniques of Special Effects of Cinematography’ – the “bible” of film era special effects) respond in great detail to Horne and his comrades, and tear their assertions to shreds.
            http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf
            \\][//

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Yes indeed, both Zavada and Raymond Fielding (author of, ‘Techniques of Special Effects of Cinematography’ – the “bible” of film era special effects) respond in great detail to Horne and his comrades, and tear their assertions to shreds.
            http://www.assassinationscience.com/johncostella/hoax/gang/zavada-hoax-comments-r1.pdf
            \\][//

            Thanks Willy but it’s a rebuttal to David Lifton’s section of Fetzer’s book Zapruder Film Hoax, not specifically to Horne’s claims about a ‘blob’ or ‘slowing down of he limo’ issues.

            Lifton refers to Horne’s criticism about some other aspect, which Zavada rebutts, but it’s not what I was looking for.

          • Gerry,
            The Core Issue on the Zapruder Film Authenticity

            The central point of this whole argument is that it would be impossible to recreate a “Kodachrome original” by any means whatsoever.

            Quoting Zavada again:
            “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.”

            What this means is, if the same film type used by Zapruder was to be re-filmed, the light source would not be “daylight” the light source would of practical necessity be artificial; carbon arc lamps or tungsten projection.
            As this is not ‘daylight’ the film would react distinctly differently chemically, and the color and contrast of the “faked film” would be different than that of an original shot in daylight. If any other film type were to be used, this would also be easily identified by chemical examination.~Willy Whitten — 12/2014
            \\][//

          • Gerry,

            Sorry, there are two separate responses, one to Lifton et al, and this one; the full response to Horne by Zavada and Fielding:

            Response to Douglas P. Horne, Author:
            INSIDE THE ASSASSINATION RECORD REVIEW BOARD, Volume IV
            Chapter 14: The Zapruder Film Mystery (p1185 – p1377)
            http://www.jfk-info.com/RJZ-DH-032010.pdf
            \\][//

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Willy Whitten Dec. 12, 2015 at 11:12 pm

            Thanks for putting it in layman’s terms, but was Zavada intimately involved with the CIA’s Hawkeye film lab to know what they had?

            Horne mentioned something about wider formats.

            It still begs the question though about the slowing down of the limo. We don’t see that in the Z film but when Morley added a thread previously about the Nix film, you really can notice the limo slowing down. It was a Holy S%$# moment.

            What is that all about? Missing frames perhaps?

            Anyway, here’s Horne’s long discussion. He interviews Dino Brugioni as well. He was one of the founders of the NPIC.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            All right Willy. I read the rebuttal to Doug Horne but Rollie get’s into excruciating detail which is baffling.

            He does say this however:

            Perceived inconsistencies of content are anomalies that may be difficult or impossible to explain.

            Just like at Lancer, he gets into technical details that probably went over most everyone’s head, and incomprehensible.

            Can you find where he explains away the limo stop?

            This is a real discrepancy between the Z film and, the Nix film as well as witnesses.

          • jeffc says:

            The limo slow down / stop is visible in the Zapruder film, but is not immediately apparent because the camera is panning across left to right following the vehicle. So there is camera movement in addition to the vehicle movement, which is not the case with the Nix film. To see the slow down of the vehicle, be aware of and follow the panning movement of Zapruder’s camera as it also slows down to hold the vehicle in the same area of the frame.

          • Gerry,

            The perceived differences between the Nix film and the Z-film have to do with the background of each — whereas the Nix film has many landmarks against which to measure. the street signs, buildings, walls. the pagoda etc.; the Z-film is mostly just the green field of the lawn and people standing around, who themselves are moving.
            . . . . .
            I go through the witness testimony in quite a bit of detail on my blog page. There are not near as many witnesses that have dependable POV’s that claim a stop as you have been led to believe.

            Zavada had nothing to do with Hawkeyworks. He worked for Kodak, in a separated facility.

            Either read my blog page, or continue with your misconceptions. The technical issues are not that complex.

            I have seen EVERYTHING that Horne has offered, it is all rhetorical trickery. He doesn’t understand film or special effects in the slightest. He is a charlatan in my view.
            \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          Gerry,

          “Jean Davison wrote: For instance, numerous firearms experts have supported the SBT. Other experts have explained why “back and to the left” is NOT evidence of a shot from the front.”

          “I’d like to know who they are and how many?”

          Experts supporting the SBT:

          Wound ballistic experts Martin L. Fackler and Duncan MacPherson, mentioned here:

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_gelatin

          Members of the HSCA ballistics panel:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=145105&search=conclusions#relPageId=11&tab=page

          The HSCA photography panel concluded that the two men’s alignment was “consistent” with the SBT:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=60448&relPageId=7&search=“single_bullet”

          There are others, including Larry Sturdivan and someone else who testified to the Rockefeller Commission.

          “As for the back and to the left, the Jet Effect and Neuro-muscular reaction theories have been debunked.”

          I don’t think there was any one cause, but the physics of it shows that the bullet could not have pushed JFK’s entire upper body backward, and the backward lurch begins c. 2 frames after the bullet had passed through the head, too late to push because it’s already gone.

          Sorry I haven’t replied to others here that I owe replies to, but I intend to when I find the time. I hope everyone is enjoying the holiday season.

          • “but the physics of it shows that the bullet could not have pushed JFK’s entire upper body backward, and the backward lurch begins c. 2 frames after the bullet had passed through the head, too late to push because it’s already gone.”~Jean Davison

            It has never been asserted that the bullet pushed Kennedy’s entire body back; only his head. You say that the backward lurch “after the bullet had passed through the head, too late to push because it’s already gone.”

            This proves your ignorance of physics and ballistics:
            The effects of the explosion inside the head maintain long after the exit of the physical bullet, whether it actually exits or fragments. The pressure wave FOLLOWS a supersonic missile, it does not precede it, nor act with it.
            \\][//

  27. Jean Davison says:

    MDG,

    There are “over 1,000,000 pages of scanned government records” at maryferrell.org, “most of them copies of records in the JFK Records Collection.”

    http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Documents.html

    How could all that be in the Warren Report or any other single volume? Many of the records there are significant, others not so much. Why don’t you see for yourself? Here’s the starting page on JFK documents:

    http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Assassination_Documents.html

    Scroll down and you’ll see links leading to thousands of FBI and CIA documents, all 26 volumes of WC Hearings and Exhibits, material from the Church Commission, Garrison files, and more. Type in a name and a key word or phrase, then keep hitting “Run Search.” You don’t have to be a member to search, but being a member makes it much easier, and it’s a good thing to support this valuable resource, imo, (even if it *is* a “conspiracy” website).

    “Dr. Malcolm Perry announced at a press conference the afternoon of Kennedy’s death that a shot to the front was the bullet that killed President Kennedy. The doctors in Dallas were important witnesses at the scene.

    This is evidence that would hold up in a court of law had there been a trial.”

    I disagree. ER doctors frequently get entrance/exit wounds confused — their accuracy is a “coin toss.” (I posted a couple of links documenting that.) An autopsy ordinarily has the final say on these matters.

    If Perry had testified I think it might’ve gone something like this:

    Cross-examiner: “Dr. Perry, are you aware that the autopsy found an entrance wound on JFK’s upper back and that the x-rays showed no bullets between the two wounds? How would you explain that, sir? Were there two separate bullets and both disappeared?”

    Do you think Perry would’ve said “yes”?

    Perry was right that it *looked like* an entrance wound, but no one at Parkland saw the “other” entrance wound on his back.

    “The wounds were not dissected in Bethseda. Don’t you Warren report Cheerleaders have a problem with that.”

    What’s the use of “having a problem” with it NOW? I wish that had been done — anybody know where I can rent a time machine? Do CTs understand that all humans are fallible and make mistakes? That not everything that happens is part of a plot?

    (continued in the next post)

    • “The wounds were not dissected in Bethseda. Don’t you Warren report Cheerleaders have a problem with that.”

      “What’s the use of “having a problem” with it NOW? I wish that had been done…”~Jean Davison

      What’s the use? The problem that you have NOW, is that all you have is conjecture that a bullet passed from the back and exited Kennedy’s throat. That is a contemporary problem for your Magic Bullet Theory. It is a problem you cannot negotiate your way around.

      But you know as well as I do Jean, your problems go much deeper than that, but if you admit any of this you simply admit you don’t have a case at all.

      The Chains of Custody are broken on almost all of the ballistics evidence. I will not detail these points again, because regardless of how often you are reminded you deny it. It’s all bobbing and weaving with you Jean. Do you think no one has noticed this?

      Anyone who thinks the whole so-called “crime scene investigation” conducted by the DPD, the CIA, and the FBI “just happened” to be bungled beyond repair is as naive as a two year old.

      But go ahead back to your Rumba Jean. No one expects anything different from you at this point.
      \\][//

      • Jean Davison says:

        Willy,

        “What’s the use? The problem that you have NOW, is that all you have is conjecture that a bullet passed from the back and exited Kennedy’s throat. That is a contemporary problem for your Magic Bullet Theory. It is a problem you cannot negotiate your way around.”

        No, Willy, it most certainly is NOT conjecture. It’s the most reasonable explanation considering the internal damage to JFK and the fact that there are two bullets holes in his torso and no bullet on the x-rays.

        Try this from Wikipedia:

        “[The autopsy report] reported contusion (bruise) of the apex of the right lung in the region where it rises above the clavicle, and noted that, although the apex of the right lung and the parietal pleural membrane over it had been bruised, they were not penetrated. This is consistent with a bullet passing through the neck, immediately over the top tip of the right lung (the pressure wave causing bruising to both pleural membrane and apex of lung), but without penetrating the thoracic cavity, or the lung beneath.”

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-bullet_theory#Theorized_path_of_the_bullet_CE399

        A problem *you* have, Willy is, how do you explain this damage to the top of the lung if the back wound was where you put it, at T3?

        http://www.stritch.luc.edu/lumen/meded/grossanatomy/homepage/VertebralLevels.pdf

        Another problem: CTs try to throw out all the evidence against Oswald but they’ve never offered an alternative explanation showing how this evidence got there — i.e, how this frame-up was even possible. They just keep on criticizing the only scenario explaining this evidence that exists, the LN one.

        • “A problem *you* have, Willy is, how do you explain this damage to the top of the lung if the back wound was where you put it, at T3?”~Jean Davison

          The damage at the top of the lung was caused by the bullet entering the throat.

          There was also an injury to the trachea:

          “And, of course, the assumption was that he might have a chest wound as well when I saw the air around the trachea — the injury to the trachea, which I subsequently enlarged for the tracheostomy tube.” ~Dr Perry
          http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/arrbpark.htm

          Also see, X-ray of entry wound in Kennedy’s throat:
          https://i0.wp.com/www.jfklancer.com/photos/autopsy_slideshow/images/xray_body.jpg
          \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “The damage at the top of the lung was caused by the bullet entering the throat.

            There was also an injury to the trachea:”

            Of course there was, and it’s mentioned in the autopsy report.

            The internal damage lines up along the entry to exit trajectory, according to this page:

            http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/Issues_and_evidence/Single-Bullet_theory/Line_of_damage/Line_of_damage.html

            You still haven’t explained where your two bullets went. Fragments of frangible bullets would remain and show up on x-rays, as those tiny fragments left in Connally did.

          • “The internal damage lines up along the entry to exit trajectory, according to this page”~Jean Davison

            And this page turns out to be the debunked Lattimer analysis, which places the back wound some 3 to 4 inches higher than subsequent analysis proves that wound to be.

            It is not the striking of a bone that causes the fragmentation of such a bullet it is the path through muscle and organs that cause the major fragmentation — see ballistic gelatin tests for confirmation of this assertion. The major fragmentation occurs deeper.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            “…the debunked Lattimer analysis, which places the wound some 3 to 4 inches higher than subsequent analysis proves that wound to be.” Willy, who debunked it? You? Any real experts, ie. forensic pathologists who have reviewed the case? Your only source for the T3 back wound states that it is an ENTRANCE wound, directly contradicting your claim of a throat entrance wound-and it doesn’t even mention a throat wound! You have a “cafeteria Catholic” approach to the evidence-accepting what you want and discarding that (often from the same source) that contradicts what you assume. Your misinterpretation of textbook statements and out-of-context quotes from Dr. DI Maio are purposeful attempts to obscure the fact that DiMaio himself rejects your ballistic theories and supports the findings of the Bethesda autopsy team, despite reservations about the procedure itself.
            You and other CT theorists don’t even realize that the 2-dimensional autopsy picture of the back wound that you already misinterpret is a post-mortem view of an abnormal neck that is not representative of the position of the wound in relation to other landmarks as it occurred initially when JFK was alive. Like his coat the site of the entrance wound was higher than it appears post-mortem-a direct consequence of the abnormal neck condition.

          • “The forensic autopsy begins at the scene. The pathologist should not perform a forensic autopsy unless they know the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death. This is a very basic principle that is often violated.”~Di Maio – ©1999 CRC Press LLC (pg. 396)

            So how can the JFK autopsy be consider a valid autopsy when the procecutors didn’t even know that there was a bullet wound in the victim’s throat?

            How could it be considered valid when the clothing was not available to the pathologists to align the bullet holes in the clothing to the bullet holes in the victim?

            And of course the kicker still remains, how can it be valid when the bullet wounds of the throat and back were not tracked by dissection?

            The autopsy of the crime of the century was bungled by general pathologists having no experience with gunshot victims, who should never have been chosen for such a heady task.

            To propose that this was part of the conspiracy from the very beginning is certainly not an outrageous proposition.

            The ability of the perpetrators to control the event, to control the activities of the designated patsy, to place that patsy in the building, to stage the killing to make it appear that the patsy “had to have been the killer” — and to then have total control of the “investigation” as well as the post mortem,, not to mention the PR apparatus; that gave these usurpers the all the advantages need to be successful in their coup d’etat.
            \\][//

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Jean,

          I have a question that I hope you can answer. You sat that the CT’ers (whatever that means) throw out all the “evidence” against LHO and fail to provide any alternative “evidence” that suggest a different scenario.

          My question: how do YOU know which “expert” to believe? It appears to me that if an expert supports the WR, then they are credible. If they don’t, well, then they are conspiracy theorists.

          I have asked you this before, and your answer tends to shift. Mr. Blakey says the CIA lied to the HSCA and some of them should been put on the stand, and maybe even gone to jail for perjury. However, when the CIA said in 63 and 64 they had “given the commission everything they asked for,” they were judged by the members of the WC to be truthful.

          So, why is Blakey considered to be a “conspiracy theorist” and the CIA is to be judged honest? How do you decide? Do you believe the CIA because it supports the “official version” and dismiss Blakey because he wants fame and money? Mr. Von Pein tells me that Blakey went into the HSCA hell bent on conspiracy, so he should be dismissed. It appears to me that Blakey is an intellectual—a lawyer at Notre Dame, I believe, and he happened to come to a different conclusion that the WR looking at the SAME EVIDENCE the WC did. So why is Blakey a conspiracy kook, and the WC members honest men with no agenda?

          Let me ask again about FBI agent Sibert. He stood two feet—24 inches, if my math is correct—from JFK’s body during the autopsy and when asked later and flat out called Specter a “liar.” But, because Specter’s views supports the official version and Sibert’s do not, you say Sibert’s views are “his opinion” and Specter’s is correct, even though they were both looking at the SAME evidence. You could argue that Sibert had a better view than Specter—neither were doctors, but Sibert, unlike Specter, had probably been around gun wounds from being in the FBI, AND he happened to be in the same room with JFK’s body.

          Why is it when two people look at the SAME evidence and conclude two different views, one is a “conspiracy theorist and the other is an “expert?”

    • Gerry Simone says:

      “The wounds were not dissected in Bethseda. Don’t you Warren report Cheerleaders have a problem with that.”

      What’s the use of “having a problem” with it NOW? I wish that had been done — anybody know where I can rent a time machine? Do CTs understand that all humans are fallible and make mistakes? That not everything that happens is part of a plot?

      Not dissecting a wound in an autopsy is more than just a mistake.

      Being ordered by ‘someone’ not to dissect the neck is equally suspicious.

      • It’s only suspicious if you ignore the evidence. Manchester had the entire Kennedy entourage as sources, and it was clear that they were calling down from the 17th floor and demanding to know “when will this be over.”

        Lots of things are suspicious if you don’t take the trouble to understand them.

        • Tom S. says:

          Assoc. Prof. McAdams, I do “take the trouble,” a case in point. Pat Speer wrote.:

          ..2003 book Four Days in November, Tom Wicker, long-time White House correspondent for New York Times and witness to the chaos of Dealey Plaza from behind the windows of a press bus, offered a mea culpa of sorts,.. Wicker wrote: “After long and unhappy consideration of my own and others’ failure, I believe we didn’t work hard enough to get behind the surface to reality. In the early 1960’s, in what still was basically the Washington of the 1950’s, still under the spell of Eisenhower the father figure, White House reporters, including me—were not skeptical enough, challenging enough, diligent enough, dedicated enough to the watchdog function of the press, its best reason for First Amendment protection. We didn’t work hard enough to find out the facts, and that meant we didn’t do our duty as reporters. Many critics—of the press…believe that reporters… “covered up”…I believe the greater fault was a complacent belief among reporters like me that we were being told what we needed to know and that what we were being told was the truth. “Handout journalism” still was the custom of the day, until dislodged by the lies of Vietnam and Watergate—dislodged, at that, only among those willing to learn the lesson.”

          Wicker, from Hamlet, NC. (Did you know that, John McAdams?) had a mystery story, right under his nose, he never uncovered. Albert Osborne, attempting to convince the FBI he was John Howard Bowen, provided background detail matching those on the 1918 draft record of John Howard Bowen, a Penn. RR YMCA employee who lived in Hamlet, NC from late 1920’s until his Jan., 1962 death. The mystery Wicker had NY Times resources to assist in unraveling, had Wicker not been the self described stenographer, was why the d.o.b. Osborne (as Bowen) gave the FBI matched the d.o.b. on the 1918 draft card, but not the d.o.b. on 1962 death certificate. CE 2443:
          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/html/WC_Vol25_0301b.htm D.O.B. Jan. 14, 1880, mother, Edith Montgomery, father, James Bowen. 1918 draft card, front: http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/18/51/56/99/johnho11.jpg Rear: http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/18/51/56/99/johnho10.jpg CE 2443 Bowen family names comparison to actual:
          http://newspaperarchive.com/us/pennsylvania/chester/chester-times/1915/05-18/page-5
          Chester Times Newspaper Archive: May 18, 1915 – Page 5 image: http://jfk.education/images/OsborneBowenWWIresidence.jpg
          http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=32875265 Wife obit 1885 – 1934 Fannie Hall Bowen Image: http://jfk.education/images/OsborneJohnHowardBowenWifeObit.jpg
          http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=32875262
          1878 – 1962 John Howard Bowen
          (No Social Security record found)
          Quote
          https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/FGYJ-Y18
          Name: John Howard Bowen
          Event Date: 31 Jan 1962
          Place: Hamlet, Richmond, North Carolina
          Birth: 1878
          Burial Date: 04 Feb 1962
          Burial Place: Chester, Pennsylvania (FBI claimed search of Chester “newspaper morgues” CE 2195 pg.11 http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh25/pdf/wh25_ce_2195.pdf )
          Cemetery: Lawncroft
          Bowen 1962 Death Cert. image with 1878 d.o.b.:
          http://jfk.education/images/JohnHowardBowenDeathCert.jpg

          Bowen impersonator Osborne’s 1966 death cert.:
          http://i39.servimg.com/u/f39/18/51/56/99/albert11.jpg

          • Your post has absolutely nothing to do with what we were discussing, which is how the autopsy was rushed.

          • Tom S. says:

            Your incessant lecturing was the catalyst for my post.:

            Lots of things are suspicious if you don’t take the trouble to understand them.

            On the one hand, I’m holding off the comments directed entirely at you, instead of at the details in your comments. The intent is not so much to spare you, but to spare the entire readership. I understand you do not see all comments that I have to read. I view your history as that of an abused child who has made remarkable strides. You were raised in an atmosphere in which the euphemism, “separate but equal”, was actually this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book , but you were assured by people you trusted that it was valid, substantial, “Our values”. You say the problem of the two highest ranking FBI agents in the Dallas office perjuring and obstructing is an unfortunate, “one off” incident. Then you lecture on “suspicious” and “understanding”. A picture is worth a thousand words.: http://jfk.education/node/16

          • I view your history as that of an abused child who has made remarkable strides. You were raised in an atmosphere in which the euphemism, “separate but equal”, was actually this,

            This is pure regional bigotry. You should be ashamed of yourself.

        • “…they were calling down from the 17th floor and demanding to know “when will this be over”.” ~McAdams

          So what!? How does this extinguish Col Finck’s testimony at the Garrison trial?

          Lots of things are suspicious it you DO take the trouble to understand them.
          \\][//

          • So what!? How does this extinguish Col Finck’s testimony at the Garrison trial?

            It explains what was really going on. Not some sinister “military control” of the autopsy, but rather a family and entourage expecting to have an open casket funeral, and not understand how long a decent forensic autopsy took.

          • “It explains what was really going on. Not some sinister “military control” of the autopsy”
            ~Jon McAdams

            No McAdams, your ‘family” BS does NOT dismiss Finck’s testimony at all.

            Finck said someone ordered them at the time they were prepared to do the incisions. This can in no way be interpreted as “there was an understanding with the family” — Your argument is nonsense.
            \\][//

          • Gerry Simone says:

            So what!? How does this extinguish Col Finck’s testimony at the Garrison trial?

            Lots of things are suspicious it you DO take the trouble to understand them.

            Bravo Willy!

            It seems like McAdams doesn’t want us to simply question things either.

          • No McAdams, your ‘family” BS does NOT dismiss Finck’s testimony at all.

            You are just insisting on ignoring the context, which Manchester, and the HSCA, have made clear.

            It’s one thing to be bamboozled by a conspiracy author. It’s another to willfully ignore evidence when it’s been brought to your attention.

          • So McAdams,

            You are convinced that repetition-repetition is going to work when we have rejected your assertions about “the family” wanting the autopsy to be over, while it is utterly obvious that Col Finck admitted they were ordered not to dissect the wounds at the Clay Shaw trial.

            Col Finck admitted they were ordered not to dissect the wounds at the Clay Shaw trial.

            Col Finck admitted they were ordered not to dissect the wounds at the Clay Shaw trial.

            Col Finck admitted they were ordered not to dissect the wounds at the Clay Shaw trial.

            Need anymore??
            \\][//

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Associate Professor McAdams,

          “It’s only suspicious if you ignore the evidence. Manchester had the entire Kennedy entourage as sources, and it was clear that they were calling down from the 17th floor and demanding to know “when will this be over.”
          Lots of things are suspicious if you don’t take the trouble to understand them.”

          Like Tom S., I also take the time to look beyond what I have been told. David Slawson was charged with investigating the CIA for the WC. It was probably a thankless job. He concluded in 63 and 64 that the CIA had nothing to do with the assassination. You agree with his views. So, I am guessing you believe Slawson to be a “honorable man.”

          Around ‘75 or so, I don’t have the source in front of me, Slawson after reading a little more and researching some of the info coming out of Watergate and etc, begins to change his mind, and he calls for a re-opening of the case. Remember, he is a “honorable man.” Well, at least he was in ’63 and ’64.

          According to Slawson, a “honorable man,” he receives a phone call form Angleton who asks if Slawson is on the “same team.”

          Question: When did CIA chiefs begin making house calls? Was Angleton trying to make certain he would win “employee of the year” for going above and beyond the call of duty? What team was he referring to? The CIA intramural softball team? Why would Angleton feel the need to call, when the case was open and shut, and LHO was a deranged loner and a lone nut, who beat his wife, the kids, and the neighbor’s dog? Seems rather odd, doesn’t it?

          You will probably tell me that Angleton was slipping into paranoia, or worse, he was becoming a “conspiracy theorist!” I mean, I am still waiting for my phone call from the CIA for my unpaid parking tickets from my college days.

          You have to ask yourself, Associate Professor, was Slawson lying in ’63 and ’64 when he said the CIA was not involved, or was he REALLY lying in ’75 when he said the case should be re-opened, or was he REALLY SUPER DUPER lying in 2015 when he said he no longer believes that LHO was a “lone wolf?” (His words, not mine.)

          You are right, a lot of things are suspicious if you don’t take the time to look. And the MOST suspicious of all is the conclusion reached by the WC that LHO was a crazed, world traveling with no bank account and no need of a visa, wife beating, deranged gun toting across the streets of Dallas to fire at Walker loner, employee of the CIA or at least an employee of CIA owned businesses madman, who fired three rounds while missing the first and easiest shot even though he could hit a gnat’s ass from half a mile “misanthropic fellow.”

          • You have to ask yourself, Associate Professor, was Slawson lying in ’63 and ’64 when he said the CIA was not involved, or was he REALLY lying in ’75 when he said the case should be re-opened, or was he REALLY SUPER DUPER lying in 2015 when he said he no longer believes that LHO was a “lone wolf?” (His words, not mine.)

            He was not lying at any point.

            As for wanting the case reopened: that doesn’t mean he believed there was a CIA conspiracy, just that he believed some questions needed to be answered.

            As for the “one wolf” thing: give me a citation. My vague recollection is that he’s been influenced by Shenon, and thinks Castro’s people were involved.

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Associate Professor McAdams,

          “It’s only suspicious if you ignore the evidence. Manchester had the entire Kennedy entourage as sources, and it was clear that they were calling down from the 17th floor and demanding to know “when will this be over.”
          Lots of things are suspicious if you don’t take the trouble to understand them.”

          Again, you are correct. If you don’t take the time to look, a lot of things are suspicious. However, if you do take the time to look, they can be downright spooky.

          I saw a movie last nigh that I think you should see, Associate Professor McAdams. It was Trumbo. A man who was blacklisted out of his job, spent time in prison and came damn near to losing it all because “honorable men” like Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy made their careers, NOT by serving the people who elected them, but by doing what this government has done SO well for 200 plus years, creating fear and paranoia in gullible Americans, thereby insuring the abandoning of the very liberties our constitution was supposed to guarantee.

          Trumbo’s crime? He was a Communist. Which AUTOMATICALLY means that while writing movies in Hollywood, he was also secretly planning to OVERTHROW our government and destroy the American way of life. You know, first Gone with the Wind, and next, Gone with the White House.

          I have always heard that the easiest and best way to infiltrate a foreign government and plot an overthrow is to ANNOUNCE publicly that you are a Communist, which is what Trumbo did. He was not trying to hide anything, he put it out there, and he went to jail for his convictions, where he continued to scheme about overthrowing white picket fences, apple pie, and American mothers.

          See, Associate Professor, the US government has ALWAYS counted on fear as a way to paralyze people and keep the power players in play. Take 9/11. And, no, I don’t believe the government brought down the Twin Towers. Bush did, however, leverage the fear created by 9/11 to engage the US in a war against terrorists that had WMD’s. Slight problem—they could find no WMD’s. So, what did Bush do?
          He did what ALL US politicians do. He LIED. For a SECOND time. Now, we are going to overthrow and kill Saddam Hussein because he was an “evil man.” Gosh, he did not seem so evil when we used him in our war with Iran. Oops, another post.

          Tell me, what happened to President Bush for lying TWO times? Impeachment? Jail time? Slap on the wrist? No cookies at bedtime? Wait, what? His own library at SMU? Oh. That makes sense.

          The pattern is clear, if you want to look, John. This government and its politicians are terribly, terribly flawed. Criminal, if you want another word. So, for me, as I said before, who killed Kennedy? Who cares? The type of people that investigated the crime in ’63 and ’64 are still at work in 2015.

          • I saw a movie last nigh that I think you should see, Associate Professor McAdams. It was Trumbo. A man who was blacklisted out of his job, spent time in prison and came damn near to losing it all because “honorable men” like Richard Nixon and Joe McCarthy made their careers,

            In the first place, I don’t care what you think of McCarthy or Nixon. Neither of them killed JFK.

            In the second place: what do you think of the CEO of Mozilla being fired because he opposed gay marriage? What about a famous chief losing a TV show because she said racist things?

            How about a fellow who lost an NBA franchise because he told an intimate associate some racist things?

            I want to know whether you are taking a principled stand.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            “In the first place, I don’t care what you think of McCarthy or Nixon. Neither of them killed JFK.”

            You are correct, John, they did not kill Kennedy. However, both of them did something far worse. They RUINED the lives of innocent men, women and children, all to further their careers, and to prey off the fear they created. You have said I am a man of hatred. That is funny, considering how I have never caused anyone to lose their chance at the American life I have so greatly enjoyed just so I could say I was keeping “people safe.” I also have not bombed a country like Mr. Nixon had done, all the while telling people I was looking for a peaceful solution. Remind me, John, how did Mr. Nixon’s career end? What about Mr. McCarthy? Honorable men, eh John?

            As far as my principles, let’s start with this. I asked you about your view of overthrowing foreign governments because they did not want to play nice with American corporations—please the Shah of Iran and United Fruit Company. You have said nothing about the constitutionality of those actions. You simply pulled the trick you accuse the CT side of doing. You turned to a personal attack.

            So, before I answer your question about my principles, how about you answer the question I have asked of you on two separate occasions?

            Unlike other people that delve into the JFK murder, I don’t really care who killed Kennedy. Did LHO do it? Probably. Did he have help? Probably. Did our government do their level best to investigate his murder? UNEQUIVOCALLY, NO! Never did, never wanted to, never going to. Call me anything you want, from a kook to a CT’er or whatever, but I don’t give a rat’s rear-end about who killed JFK. However, if you think I am going to back down from you because you are able to bully people on your site by calling them “buff” and all your other insults that YOU cry foul about on this site, then you should re-think your strategy. I am not going anywhere, and I am going to challenge you at every turn about the “honorable men” that gave us the piece of trash known as the Warren Report.

            Looking forward to your response.

          • I am going to challenge you at every turn about the “honorable men” that gave us the piece of trash known as the Warren Report.

            Translation: “I’m going to fuss and fume endlessly about people whom I hate, rather than talking about the evidence in the JFK assassination.”

            You can’t “challenge” me on that, because I don’t care whom you hate. Stew in your own hatred. No skin off my back.

          • Yes Steve,

            As far as the “honorable men” angle, there is this reminder from Peter Dale Scott that had slipped my mind during the heat of that discussion about Katzenbach:

            “There’s a document in the LBJ Library in Austin that supports this — a Nov. 29, 1963 memo prepared by LBJ aide Walter Jenkins. It pretty clearly shows that RFK – through Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach – was consulted about the membership of the Warren Commission, and that RFK and Katzenbach offered Dulles’s name. (In fact, Dulles is the only candidate identified by name.)”
            “Shenon was kind enough to supply the link to the memo, which reports what Abe Fortas said, not even what Katzenbach said RFK said”~Scott
            . . . . .

            Of course the bottom line to this is that the assertion that RFK had something to do with Dulles being on the Warren Commission is in the league of ‘Hearsay” and is not supportable in any sense.
            \\][//

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Lol Oh I understand very well Professor.

          Asking when it will be over is not like saying, “Can you forget about protocol and get the embalmer here please”?

          Manchester’s book doesn’t counter Finck’s testimony.

        • Steve Stirlen says:

          Mr. McAdams,

          “This is pure regional bigotry. You should be ashamed of yourself.”

          “Let him without sin cast the first stone.”

          • So Jean and McAdams are of the same mind here; we who disagree with them “should be ashamed”…
            As McAdams picks up a stone. Lol
            \\][//

          • Steve stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            “Stew in your own hatred.”

            Remind me again, Mr. McAdams, of the two of us, which one has had a little trouble at their place of employment?

            I would LOVE to debate the “facts” about JFK’s murder. However, every time someone mentions something that isn’t in the Warren Report, you scream ad hominem, or you turn it into a personal attack.

            Let me ask again:

            1. Why did Angleton call Slawson in ’75 and ask about being on the team?

            2. Why did the CIA give us a picture of a Russian man instead of LHO from MC?

            3. Have you read Mr. Morley’s piece “What Jane Roman Said?”

            4. Why aren’t you providing financial assistance to Mr. Morley in his case against the CIA and JFK’s murder? I am guessing you would want ALL documents released, correct?

            4. Why does Mr. Morley have to file a lawsuit for public records?

            5. Why did the HSCA have to re-investigate 11/22/63, if the WR “settled all the dust.”

            Your website allows you to belittle people and insult them—buffs, for example. You hold the cards so you can play the game your way. On THIS site, you cannot. Well, you try, but there are very few look-aid drinkers here.

            I would LOVE to debate the ENTIRE case, Mr. McAdams, not just the facts that fit your narrative.

  28. “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 of 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.”~The Declaration of Independence — July 4, 1776.

    This is where this argument all began. The one that continues to this day, on these very pages. There are those here that hold to the principles of the document cited above, there are others who do not.

    Those who do not agree with such principles are far from subtle in their disagreements here. They hold the opposite view of the jurisprudence that is derived from such principles by bold proclamation. As those who would stand as the Prosecutors of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald, they insist that we who would stand as his Council for Defense must prove his innocence.

    At the core of the Principles of Justice is the Standard of Proof for conviction is: Beyond Reasonable Doubt.

    At this juncture, and here on this forum we are confronted by those who insist on turning on its head this long held and most rational standard of justice; we are now charged with proving the innocence of the accused.

    Is it not ironic, that those who speak for the authority of the state here, who proclaim the officers of that state are “honorable men”, who seek conviction upon the dubious foundation of “guilty until proven innocent”, wrap themselves in the red white & blue shroud of “patriotism”? Is it not strange that they defend a process began on the streets of Dallas, the usurpation of the unalienable Rights of Justice, to establish Rule by Fiat and Decree?

    Until the participants and readership of this forum come to grips with this basic dispute of principles between the two sides, any and all arguments have been in vain.
    \\][//

    • Jean Davison says:

      Willy wrote, among other things:

      “There are those here that hold to the principles of the document cited above, there are others who do not.”

      What garbage. You should be ashamed of yourself, Willy. I’ll say again, making attacks on your opponents’ character is a sure sign you’re losing the debate.

      There’s nothing in the constitution that says historians and others can’t reach conclusions about whether someone committed a crime. Booth and Hitler didn’t get a trial. They’re innocent until proven guilty to you?

      Nobody has asked you to prove Oswald’s innocence. Quote it if you can.

      “At the core of the Principles of Justice is the Standard of Proof for conviction is: Beyond Reasonable Doubt.”

      Why don’t you apply that same standard to any of the other men who’ve been accused of killing Kennedy — LBJ, Dulles, and many more. Even people like Tippit and Dr. Burkley have been accused. What fair trial did they get? Ironically, the evidence points to Oswald alone, not anyone else. Yet he gets “reasonable doubt” among conspiracy theorists and they don’t? I’ve never understood that.

      Also, our legal rights end when we die, and this is not a trial.

      • Tom S. says:

        Jean,

        Jean, who is “we” in, “end when we die” ? It only “feels” that way if you cannot afford rich man’s lawyerin’. Imagine if Ken Lay’s “estate” got put
        to the Warren Commission’s “knife”? Is it fair to speculate that the Warren Commission Report would not have even been issued, if the “proceedings”
        had even been permitted to continue, over “the estate’s” protests? Ken Lay’s estate would have had “the juice” to obtain and expose “the Katzenbach memo”.

        “The public must be satisfied that Oswald Ken Lay was the….”

        http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-vns/legacy/2014/11/07/05-25-06lay.pdf
        MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
        On May 25, 2006, following a sixteen week jury trial and a
        separate one week bench trial, Kenneth L. Lay was found guilty of
        all ten counts charged against him in the Second Superseding
        Indictment:…… ending before the court are the –
        Motion of the Estate of Kenneth L. Lay to Vacate His Conviction and
        Dismiss the Indictment (Docket Entry No. 1082), and the motion of
        alleged crime victim Russell L. Butler for an order of restitution
        contained in Crime Victim’s Motion Opposing Motion of the Estate of
        Lay to Vacate His Conviction and Dismiss the Indictment (Docket
        Entry No. 1091) . For the reasons explained below, the estate’s
        motion to vacate and dismiss will be granted, and Butler’s motion
        for an order of restitution will be denied.
        I. Motion to Vacate and Dismiss
        Citing United States v. Estate of Parsons, 367 F.3d 409 (5th
        Cir. 2004) (en banc), the estate argues that Lay’s conviction should
        be vacated and that the indictment as it relates to Lay should be
        dismissed because Lay’s death deprived him of his right to pursue
        a planned appeal. The estate asserts that Lay engaged counsel to
        file and prosecute an appeal, that on the morning of July 5, 2005,
        Lay was pronounced dead in Aspen, Colorado, and that by Order of –
        the Probate Court No 1 of Harris County, Texas, in Cause
        No. 365,466 entered on August 8, 2006, Letters Testamentary were
        issued to Linda P. Lay as Executrix of the Last Will and Testament
        of Kenneth L. Lay. In an unopposed motion filed on August
        9, 2006, (Docket Entry No. 1079), the executrix sought leave to
        substitute the estate for Lay in this action so that the estate
        could file and prosecute the pending motion to vacate and dismiss.
        ……..although the United States argues that
        applicable law might change at some unknown future date, the court
        is bound to follow Fifth Circuit precedent.
        …..ccordingly, the
        Motion of the Estate of Kenneth L. Lay to Vacate His Conviction and
        Dismiss the Indictment (Docket Entry No. 1082) is GRANTED, and the
        motion of alleged crime victim Russell L Butler for an order of
        restitution contained in the instrument titled Crime Victim’s
        Motion Opposing Motion of the Estate of Lay to Vacate His
        Conviction and Disnuss the Irdictment (Docket Entry No 1091) is
        DENIED. The indictment against Kenneth L. Lay is DISMISSED,
        SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 17th day of October, 2006.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Not sure of your point, Tom. Lay’s heirs could sue because his conviction was vacated when he died and they wanted his money. Right or not, they had legal rights, he didn’t.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Lay#Indictment_and_trial

          “The public must be satisfied that Oswald Ken Lay was the….”

          You left out Katzenbach’s sentence right before that: “It is important that all of the facts surrounding President Kennedy’s assassination be made public in a way which will satisfy people in the United States and abroad that all the facts have been told and that a statement to this effect be made now.”

          https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62268#relPageId=29

        • ed connor says:

          In addition to the Ken Lay case, another Texan died after his conviction was overturned and he was awaiting a new trial: Jack Ruby.
          Ruby’s case is even stronger, since his appeal had already been heard and a new trial granted. Lay had simply died before his appeal could be heard.
          So the Kennedy assassination joins the Great Recession of 2008. A crime everybody remembers, with no one ever convicted of any charges.

      • “What garbage. You should be ashamed of yourself, Willy. I’ll say again, making attacks on your opponents’ character is a sure sign you’re losing the debate.”~Jean

        I am not making an attack on my opponent’s character Jean, I am commenting on their lack of principles of jurisprudence.

        “Also, our legal rights end when we die, and this is not a trial.”

        This is a scurrilous assertion. Oswald’s legal rights are not terminated by his murder, they are defrayed, passed to the living left to defend him. This is the only trial Oswald will ever get. Your pretense that you do not stand as a prosecutor in this trial is utterly disingenuous.

        “Why don’t you apply that same standard to any of the other men who’ve been accused of killing Kennedy — LBJ, Dulles, and many more.”~Jean

        I do, the circumstantial evidence and historical proofs to their ongoing crimes throughout their lifetimes are indeed proven beyond reasonable doubt. Millions of lives were taken in the wars and covert actions taken by these psychopaths: Including the murder of JFK.
        \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          I wrote:

          “Why don’t you apply that same standard to any of the other men who’ve been accused of killing Kennedy — LBJ, Dulles, and many more.”

          Willy replied:

          “I do, the circumstantial evidence and historical proofs to their ongoing crimes throughout their lifetimes are indeed proven beyond reasonable doubt. Millions of lives were taken in the wars and covert actions taken by these psychopaths: Including the murder of JFK.”

          I’m sorry you don’t see the irony in this. You’re playing judge and jury just as you accuse me of doing. You say their “ongoing crimes … are indeed proven beyond reasonable doubt”(!) Really? Did they have a trial and I missed it? What happened to your suspects’ presumption of innocence, Willy?

          The difference between any of the conspiracy theorists’ suspects and Oswald is that there is no evidence linking these people to the shooting in Dallas, even if one assumes they were the monsters you believe they were. It’s a bit like accusing Hitler of stealing the Lindbergh baby. No matter how evil he was, he didn’t do it.

          • “The difference between any of the conspiracy theorists’ suspects and Oswald is that there is no evidence linking these people to the shooting in Dallas, even if one assumes they were the monsters you believe they were.”~Jean Davison

            We have been detailing that evidence here for months. You just never acknowledge it. You simply attempt to ‘reset’ your game at square one with these rhetorical scrabble pieces.

            And NOTHING you or your gang have produced puts Oswald in that window with the rifle in his hand.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “We have been detailing that evidence here for months. You just never acknowledge it. You simply attempt to ‘reset’ your game at square one with these rhetorical scrabble pieces.”

            What is the single best piece of evidence you have linking any of your suspects to the shooting in Dealey Plaza?

      • J.D. says:

        Comparing Booth to Oswald in any way is absurd. Booth shot Lincoln in front of several witnesses, loudly proclaimed to a theater audience that he had done the deed, and left behind a detailed confession and a diary in which he explained his motives. Oswald was seen by no credible witnesses, insisted to his dying breath that he had not done it, and was brutally murdered while in the custody of men who were supposed to protect him. I assume that nobody needs me to spell out why Hitler’s guilt is rather more certain than that of Oswald.

        • David Regan says:

          The assassinations of Garfield and McKinley were also carried out by a gunman with a clear political motive in plain sight of many witnesses.

          As for Booth, his evil deed was part of a larger conspiracy of Confederate sympathizers–a conspiracy whose targets included Vice President Johnson and Secretary of State Seward and which had as its goal, destabilization of the entire federal government.

          • Jean Davison says:

            My point is that like Oswald, Booth never had a trial. That doesn’t mean I’m opposed to the U.S. Constitution if I conclude Booth was guilty and say so, does it? Same with Oswald, as far as I’m concerned. *You* may not think he was guilty. I do.

          • “That doesn’t mean I’m opposed to the U.S. Constitution”~Jean Davison

            Do you actually support the U.S. Constitution?

            I am somewhat surprised to read the intimation that you do.

            Why do you never seem to take note that the present system is completely constitutionally ultra vires? How can you support the criminal syndicate that now squats in DC?

            If you don’t support this corporatist (read fascist) so-called “government” why do we never here a disparaging word from you, made reference to it?

            You don’t really believe that this is a constitutional republic anymore do you?

            Do you believe that the Bill of Rights granted the People their rights to Liberty?
            \\][//

      • “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”

        Thus begins a list of charges of a conspiracy by the Crown and the agents of the Crown.

        This is in fact the original “Conspiracy Theory” that began this nation.
        \\][//

        • Thus begins a list of charges of a conspiracy by the Crown and the agents of the Crown.

          No, quite open injuries and usurpations, which were outlined in the rest of the text.

          • Yes McAdams, ‘quite open injuries and usurpations’ such as we see in the 1963 coup d’etat that is so thinly veiled that only saps and government toadies deny it.

            The only reason these open injuries and usurpations go unnoticed by the vast majority of Amerikans is the indoctrination and propaganda of the Public Relations Regime.

            Just as today, the majority of the population of the Colonies were as oblivious to the blatant acts of tyranny by the British Crown.
            Just as contemporary Amerikan citizens are oblivious to the blatant acts of tyranny by the the criminal syndicate ruling by fiat from DC.

            You will notice that in my original comment I put “Conspiracy Theory” in quotes. The reason for those quotation marks were for the very reasons I state here: the so-called “conspiracy” is an ‘Open Conspiracy’ as illuminated by H. G. Wells in his book of that title.

            The Hegelian Idealists take advantage of the truth of George Santayana’s dictum:
            “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”
            \\][//

  29. MDG says:

    Rumba on Jean. The Judgement of History is a train that has left the station and it has left the Warren Commission in the dust.

    Surely you do not think you know more than Dr. Malcolm Perry & the other doctors in the Dallas ER on 22/11/63. It is hilarious for you & others to challenge their conclusion that a shot from the right front killed JFK.

    Did you not believe JFK ‘s Acting Press Secretary when he announced pointing to the right front of his head that this is what killed President Kennedy.

    You obviously believe what is best for your country is to believe Oswald did it.

    The majority believe there is much more to the story than that contained in the Warren Report.

    The preponderance of evidence is leading in other directions especially the CIA or rogue CIA.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more