Wednesday, April 16, 2014

New JFK Show #7 with Gary King (2 hour special)

[NOTE: This is revised from the show originally broadcast] Jim critique's Black Op Radio's video series "50 reasons for 50 years."

231 comments:

  1. It's about time Mark Lane was mentioned here. He was the first on the scene in Dallas and the first to interview all the witnesses and to expose tampering done to their testimony by the Warren Commission. You can see these interviews here. Penn Jones was the final interview:

    RUSH TO JUDGMENT" (1967) (MARK LANE FILM)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LnzpDZDnvNY
    _____________________________________
    Penn Jones, Jr.: Voice of Dissent in the JFK Assassination

    http://newsblaze.com/story/20091111145435kays.nb/topstory.html

    Penn Jones, Jr. (1914-1998) is one of my heroes. He had the courage to stand up to the official version that was given by our 'authorities' for the shooting of John F. Kennedy in downtown Dallas. His voice was one of dissent. As he began to interview primary witnesses, not long after the assassination, he began to notice a troubling pattern. Many of the key witnesses, who had some connection to those events, were dying.

    Most of his writings are collected in small, attractive paperback books titled "Forgive My Grief" (I'm a proud owner of an autographed copy of volume I), which have been published in four volumes. These are self-published and include many, if not all, of his exclusive reports regarding those who were silenced from telling the truth by the Warren Commission, the FBI or even the Dallas Police Department. Penn himself preached against The John Birch Society for some time and had finally had his newspaper operation firebombed.

    In my mind, Penn broke many important stories that cast doubt on the Warren Report, but his case for the 'disappearing witnesses' is the reporting that he is most well known for. Penn observed over 100 murders, suicides and mysterious deaths for 'unfortunates' who saw too much in those days.

    ReplyDelete
  2. http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/ToAchp15.html

    Proof of CIA Efforts to Discredit Researchers

    A recently released CIA document[6] was a dispatch issued from CIA headquarters in April 1967 to certain bases and stations to mount a campaign through media contacts (called assets) against certain assassination researchers. The targets included Mark Lane, Joachim Joesten, Penn Jones, Edward Epstein and Bertrand Russell.

    The document describes an entire program to be used to discredit the "critics." Many of the exact expressions that were used by the CIA-controlled media to attack the researchers can be found in this document.

    One example is: "The CIA should use this argument in general. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested (by critics) would be impossible to conceal in the United States, especially since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc."

    Another argument suggested is: "Note that Robert Kennedy, Attorney General at the time and John F. Kennedy's brother, would be the last man to overlook or conceal any conspiracy."

    How many times did we hear that between 1967 and 1969?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Complete Book: "THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3", 1985

    This is the best book ever on all the Kennedy assassinations and how the House Select Committee on Assassinations was destroyed by the CIA.

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/ToA/

    ReplyDelete
  4. JFKfacts » Mark Lane to JFK skeptics:
    http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/message-from-mark-lane-cool-out-jfk-scholars/

    Mark Lane, now 86 years old, was the author of “Rush to Judgment,” a 1965 best-seller that crystallized growing public disbelief of the Warren Commission’s findings about the death of JFK.

    He sent..... the following email message and ask it to be forwarded to the community of people interested in JFK’s assassination:

    “They killed our president and have sought, all these years, to continue the cover-up the facts that demonstrate that the CIA with assistance from the Secret Service was involved.

    “I started the opposition to the government’s false story almost half a century ago and I am not pleased to see egos and personalities interfere with our joint perspective. How about an end to the name calling by those who share the same evaluation and hopes. How about those of us on the same side starting to work together. It is still our country and there is still work to be done. Just a modest suggestion or two.”

    Best to all.

    Mark

    ReplyDelete
  5. Here is a link to a small but significant piece of research done on the Zapruder film [specifically on sunlight and shadows], by Simon Shack, that reveals that different parts of it were shot at different times of day, perhaps even on different days:

    http://www.cluesforum.info/newPHP/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&p=2388358&hilit=zapruder#p2388358

    Regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Posted by OBF
    View topic - JFK Zapruder: a proven fake • Cluesforum.info by Simon Shack:

    These DRAMATICALLY INCONSISTENT SHADOWS of the various people seen in the Zapruder clip are proof positive of the entire clip being a fraud - from start to finish. THE SUN DOES NOT LIE.

    Therefore, to use this forgery to base any conclusions on what - if anything - took place in Dealey Plaza is a complete waste of time.

    And this is my final take on the Zapruder clip: There is ONLY ONE rational explanation for these two individuals to cast entirely different shadows than those cast by the other people featured in this imagery: the Zapruder clip is a fake. It's case closed. The long-debated Zapruder clip is a fraud - and there is no reason to believe that "parts of it" is real. It is a fraud from start to finish.

    JFK was, presumably, never actually killed - but just removed from the scene to generate a global trauma amongst the world population which, a few years later, were to be fooled once again with the fairy tale of the Apollo program - and its six, successive & successful "moon landings" - an outlandish feat which JFK, with his charismatic speeches, had prepared everyone's belief systems to accept.

    To be sure, MOST people of this planet bought into the alleged Apollo moon landings - and even today, a great many folks still believe in them. Let us never forget that it was JFK who paved the way to the public acceptance of the very silly moon landing hoaxes.

    Do you, OBF, believe the assassination was a fake? Is this the only rationale or are there others?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. jfk was still around for the even more outlandish mercury-redstone project. you know, the one with the monkeys.

      as soon as they fished john glenn out of the water, they shipped him off to camelot to receive the young heroic commander-in-chiefs blessing.
      thereby insuring that john glenn and the entire space program would be sanctified with the soon-to-be martyr'd blood of jfk.

      Delete
    2. it's a made for t.v. movie folks.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zwWYg7krs8

      Delete
    3. Classic Shack - spots a minor piece of fakery and then spins it into an untenable hypothesis that the whole event was fake.

      Yes, the Zapruder film is a highly altered forgery.

      No, the JFK assassination was not faked, he was killed by multiple gunshots in Dealey Plaza.

      Why people still give any creedence whatsoever to Shack's work is beyond me, when it's so blatantly untenable and amateurish with no attempt at the proper scientific research methodology whatsoever.

      Delete
    4. i wasn't talking about the zapruder film. i don't know much about it; except that it was made public by robert groden and dick gregory on the geraldo rivera show. i don't play the whole conspiracy game.

      my point was that the mercury missions are absurd fakery, and that jfk was complicit in perpetuating the obvious fraud. so why does everyone assume he would have been opposed to participating in another?

      shit, why do we assume he would have even had a choice in the matter?

      why wouldn't he have been as much of an actor as the current president? it's in our faces. ronald reagan was president for chrissakes.

      Delete
    5. Egad! We're getting the full-blown Simon Shack horse-shit all over again about the Zapruder film? This is about as bad as it gets and clearly impugns his and obf's integrity.

      We have medical, ballistic, photographic and film evidence, including eight films that were taken of different parts of the motorcade in Dealey Plaza. And we have witnesses whose testimony has been collated by John P. Costella, Ph.D., in his "What happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak", assassinationresearch.com

      Plus we have a half-dozen or more who have seen (what appears to be) the unedited film, including William Reymond, Rich DellaRosa, and Gregory Burnham. We know when the film was altered and when the substitution was made.

      It's bad enough that we have to put up with this rubbish from Simon and ofb regarding 9/11. They seem to want to work their "magic" regardless of the evidence. It is embarrassing that they are posting at all, much less here. Unreal!

      Delete
    6. Of course, all of the evidence has to be subject to evaluation, including especially the photo and film evidence. But there are many experts and a great deal of professional competence involved in this. I was fortunate to bring together the most highly qualified individuals to ever study the case.

      Delete
    7. We're dealing with extremely arrogant and egotistical entities in Shack and obf. They think they can come along, ignore all the prior good work that's been done and suddenly solve these cases by simply doing some fifth-rate amateurish 'analysis' of photos and images. None of the research by others matters to Shack, he has analysed the Zapruder film and NASA films and discovered fakery so that is all he needs to form his hypothesis that JFK's death was also fakery.

      Just try to grasp how much ego and arrogance it takes to think like that, to think that all the other, far more experienced and learned researchers are wrong and only you can see the truth.

      Can anyone really be so egotistical, arrogant and conceited?

      Or perhaps te other explanation is more likely - that they are deliberately spreading these untenable horseshit theories in order to disrupt and mislead because they are working to a nefarious agenda and are employed as controlled opposition.

      Personally, I think it's the latter explanation that is true, but they deliberately recruited these idiots because of their stupendous arrogance and egotistical nature.

      Delete
  7. Joan Edwards said : "Do you, OBF, believe the assassination was a fake? "

    I don't know- its a definite possibility that I cannot rule out, in my opinion.

    All I think I know is that the Z. movie is an obvious fake that cannot be relied on in any way, no differently than the original live MSM 9/11 feeds are.

    If an individual reaches similar conclusions to mine concerning the falsity of the Z. movie, where they go from there with that conclusion is a matter of personal choice, it seems to me.

    regards obf.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Once again, there are many more sources of information about the film than the film itself, which I have laid out in many places, including "The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden". The film is not even internally consistent, since the blow-out has been painted over in early frames (such as 314-317) but is visible in later ones (such as 374). The Nix and the Zapruder are inconsistent, since Jackie moves further back and Clint Hill further forward in the Nix than in the Zapruder. The "blob" and the blood spray have been painted in and, most importantly, the limo stop has been taken out. Clint Hill's actions have been greatly contracted, since once they took out the limo stop, there was not enough time for him to have performed all the actions he has been consistently describing for 50 years.

    We have around 60 witnesses to the limo stop and, most recently, have discovered that one of the escort officers, Bobby Hargis, walked between the cars to get to the other side. We have medical, ballistic and other photographic and film evidence as resources and a half-dozen students have seen (what they refer to as) "the other film", which confirms that the driver brought the car to a halt to make sure JFK would be killed and, during the stop, he was hit twice in the head, first in the back of the head, when he slumped forward, then Jackie eased him up and was looking him right in the face when he was hit in the right temple and slumped to the left. So once again obf makes unwarranted claims to subjectivity which he cannot possibly sustain.

    For those with a serious interest, see "The JFK War: The Challenging Case of Robert Groden", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/04/14/the-jfk-war-the-challenging-case-of-robert-groden/

    "Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More Proof of JFK Film Fakery", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/03/nix-film-contradicts-zapruder-more-proof-of-jfk-film-fakery/

    "The JFK Escort Officers Speak: The Fred Newcomb Interviews", http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/04/03/the-jfk-escort-officers-speak-the-fred-newcomb-interviews-3/

    ReplyDelete
  9. There is zero doubt the limo stopped, there is zero doubt JFK died after multiple bullet hits, at least two to he head, with the most damaging being that fired from the grassy knoll and striking him in the temple. The other headshot appears to have come from the sewer drain and hit him in the front of the head.

    Yes, the Zapruder film we have all seen is a heavily altered version, but that does not mean the fakery extends beyond that. The Nix and Muchmore films may also have been altered, there is evidence that points to that. The photo evidence has also been tampered with, such as the alterations in Altgens 6 and the possible fabrication of Altgens 7.

    However, this fakery of images and videos does, in no way, mean the event itself was faked in any way, there is a vast body of evidence, both physical and witness testimony to the contrary.

    JFK is dead, he died in the back of the limo in Dealey Plaza when his brains were blown out of his skull, he was dead before the limo reached the underpass, let alone Parkland Hospital.

    Anyone who tries to claim otherwise is simply ignoring the facts, either deliberately or through incompetence, most likely due to some agenda they are following.

    We will never be able to solve the crime 100% in terms of every detail of the event, too much evidence has been destroyed or altered, too many key figures have been silenced, many by death, but what we can say is that there is a strong enough case to establish with a very great degree of certainty, that there was a wide-ranging conspiracy to murder JFK and the act was performed in Dealey Plaza by multiple shooters with the full compliance of the Secret Service. The FBI were complicit in the cover-up and the CIA were a key part of the conspiracy. So in a sense, we don't actually need to be able to establish every detail, we have enough to know for certain that a murder took place of the nation's leader and it was, in effect, a coup d'etat that changed America and by extension, the Western world forever and not in a good way.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two frontal and no rear shots to the head?

      Do you then discount Poppy and his team firing from the Dal-Tex? Or just that they missed on the rear head shot?

      Delete
    2. One of the shots from behind hit JFK in the back, where was that one fired from? There was one fired from behind that was a 6.5mm Carcano round fitted with a sabot so it could be fired from a .30-06 or similar.

      I don't think anyone has been able to establish with 100% certainty the number of shooters or the shots fired.

      As far as I can remember, there was someone on the railway bridge firing from in front, someone on the grassy knoll, there may have been a shooter in the book depository as a Mauser rifle was found there, Jim has suggested Mac Wallace. There was some shooting from a window of the building next to the book depository, which was a cupboard in the offices of a uranium mining company that was a CIA front. Then I think there was another on the roof of the building across the street and perhaps another one on the other en of the railway bridge. That makes 6, there have been suggestions of others too. Apart from the shots that hit JFK and Connolly, we have physical evidence of a shot holing the windscreen and another that skipped off the pavement and wounded Teague in the leg. The Dictabelt recording gave some indication of the number of shots fired, but there was some overlap so it might have been 6 or it might have been 8.

      Jim has covered this in detail, so I defer to his greater knowledge.

      BTW, we can't say with certainty about the damage to JFK's head from bullets due to the post mortem alterations made with a bone saw.

      Anyways, it's pretty certain the bullet to the right temple came from the grassy knoll, that alone would have been fatal. TheIt's a while since I looked into it, but I seem to remember there was a shot from the front at a low angle that must have come from the sewer/storm drain, I suppose it is logical to assume that shot was the one that caused the infamous 'back and to the left' seen in the altered Zapruder film.

      The issue of whether they missed from behind, well, I think it's clear that they did miss, one shot from behind hit the pavement and wounded Teague, another holed the windscreen. That one that hit JFK's back was probably the one fired with a sabot, it didn't penetrate deeply so fell out to be found an placed on the trolley at Parkland.

      In all, I think you can account for three clear hits to JFK - one in the back,one in the right temple fired from the grass knoll ad one to the front f the head most likely fired from the sewer/storm drain. If there were only 3 more shots, for a total of six, then they have t be the ones that hit the pavement and injured Teague, that holed the windscreen, and the one that wounded Conolly.

      Whatever the case, Jim Marrs was right - it was a Crossfire.

      Delete
    3. The shot that hit JFK in the back came from the Dal-Tex building as did the shot that hit Tague. The Tague shot alone proves a conspiracy - no way could a shot from the TSBD have hit Tague.

      Per Tom Wilson in The Men Who Killed Kennedy the shot from the knoll missed. The fatal headshot came from the storm drain most likely fired by Johnny Roselli.

      Delete
    4. Cheers Don, that makes total sense, both the trajectory of the Tague shot and the shot from the storm drain being the frontal headshot.

      Delete
    5. Egad! I have explained these things so many times. JFK was hit four times: once in the back by a shot fired from the top of the County Records Building; once in the throat by a shot fired from the south end of the Triple Underpass which went through the windshield en route to its target; and twice in the head (after the limo had come to a stop), once in the back of the head (from the Dal-Tex) and once in the right temple (from the north end of the Triple Underpass).

      Check out "Dealey Palza Revisited: What happened to JFK", a chapter you can download; "What happened to JFK--and why it matters today", more than 2 hours (YouTube), or "JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why", about 1 hour (YouTube). So much of the evidence has to be seen that I am not surprised there is so much confusion here.

      Delete
    6. It's my faulty memory Jim, that's all, as I wrote, I defer to your superior knowledge on the subject. Thanks for the clarification.

      Delete
    7. Roger Stone's book on LBJ gives a lot of information on the Mafia and its involvement in the JFK presidency and assassination. Stone writes that Johhny Rosseli often boasted to his mob paisans that he shot JFK from the storm drain as mentioned by Don above.

      Get Roger Stone's book "The Maan Who Killed Kennedy. The Case Against LBJ".

      Delete
    8. Cheers Frank. It's been a while since I read much about the JFK case, hence my poor memory of the correct shot sequence.

      Delete
    9. There are many views about this, of course. I discuss the shooter and the shot sequence as I understand it in "JFK at 50: The Who, the How and the Why" (YouTube). I believe no shots were fired from the curb-side storm drain and that the right-temple shot was fired by Frank Sturgis from the north end of the Triple Underpass.

      Delete
    10. I think it's not critical t establish the shot sequence with 100% accuracy, it is enough to prove there was a crossfire from multiple shooters, hence disproving the lone gunman theory.

      Delete
  10. About Groden and Lane - they were two of the earliest JFK conspiracy researchers, and it is highly likely, in both cases, that they were working for the CIA and were tasked with gatekeeping in order to ensure the crime was never solved. Groden did this by upholding the authenticity of the Zapruder film. Don't forget the comment made by Gordon Duff to Jim Fetzer. Jim said to Gordon that half f the JFK researchers were probably disinfo agents and Gordon replied it was more like 90%.

    I have one question, about the meeting at the Murcheson house the night before, did it actually take place? The show confused me a little about Madeleine Duncan Brown's claims, I missed the name of the lady who claimed Madeleine was a fantasist, who did bear a child by LBJ but made up many other of her claims, bu I take it that the conclusion drawn was that this lady was not accurate and Madeleine is a reliable source?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes. I had more than 100 conversations with Madeleine. She was highly consistent and very reliable and her stories about LBJ have a lot of supporting evidence, including from Billy Sol Estes and Connie Kritzburg, whom I have interviewed on "The Real Deal". Her story was also confirmed by Nigel Turner in the final episode of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", Part 9. She was "the real deal".

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the clarifications Gary and Jim. If someone is consistent in their stories over a prolonged period of time and to disparate audiences, then it does indeed strongly indicate they are telling the truth.

      Delete
  11. seu bobo wrote:

    "it's a made for t.v. movie folks."
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zwWYg7krs8

    Exactly, seu bobo - even the early, pre-Apollo NASA footage were obvious made-for-TV movies - and this particular issue is of course central to my ongoing research into the major hoaxes of this world.

    With regards to JFK, to this day I have not seen a single JFK investigator mentioning the fact that he was, undeniably, the most formidable and charismatic driving force behind the utterly phony "space race" and the (still ongoing) NASA skulduggery. Hence, even though I haven't spent 50 years investigating the JFK case, I just cannot rule out the hypothesis that he was NOT the 'good man of integrity' that most people (myself included) were led to believe.

    See, I certainly don't pretend to know just how JFK disappeared. However, my current musings (that he MAY not have been actually killed) are fueled by a logical line of reasoning that - in my humble opinion - has its merits, and cannot be dismissed offhand.

    Now, one could also argue that:

    1: Perhaps JFK was coerced to go along with the NASA scam - and therefore complied, in order to stay alive?

    2: Maybe he was just a useful idiot - duped by his handlers into (sincerely) believing in the wondrous NASA projects?

    Knowing what we know now (about NASA and the deranged, hoax-addicted mindset of the American "elite"), I personally find both of the above hypotheses the least likely of them all. Seeing how the Nutwork (aka "the powers to be") likes to operate, i.e. by leveraging the public's emotions, I find it more likely that JFK - the most popular (puppet) US president of our times, was simply 'removed from the scene' to cause a long-lasting, unforgettable global trauma - around which they could weave their agenda of universal mass-deception which we all can see playing out today.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading such utter horseshit.

      Quite clearly you are totally ignorant of the FACTS surrounding the assassination of JFK.

      There is a massive body of evidence that proves that JFK was assassinated, but you, as per usual, are happy to ignore it all in order to spin a ludicrous and untenable theory.

      Delete
    2. nihil obstat.

      we may believe wholeheartedly in the early space program because it bears the sacred imprimatur of the martyr'd hero.

      Delete
    3. Ian, we don't even know who we are dealing with here. Simon Shack? Seu bobo? Who is either of them? They make lots of claims but have only the flimsiest grounds to back it up.

      Delete
    4. Yes Jim, they operate behind a shield of anonymity, unlike yourself and I who aren't hiding anything.

      I have nothing but scorn and derision for those who chose to hurl lumps of bovine fecal matter from behind a shield of anonymity, regardless of their agenda. I take the search for truth and justice seriously so such people really irritate me.

      Delete
    5. i don't know simon shack and i don't contribute to cluesforum.info. i'm just your average serf in texas that happens to pay attention. i'm sorry if that offends you.

      Delete
  12. "1: Perhaps JFK was coerced to go along with the NASA scam - and therefore complied, in order to stay alive?
    "2: Maybe he was just a useful idiot - duped by his handlers into (sincerely) believing in the wondrous NASA projects?" .......Simon Shack

    I was working with engineers for a blue chip company in the early sixties who were quite taken with the NASA activities. I know of none who thought the space program was a hoax or even connected it with JFK. These were "top drawer" Republican types who voted for Nixon. They bought the space program hook, line and sinker and really hated Kennedy. Many engineers eventually worked for NASA and moved to Cape Canaveral. Later, they worked for Boeing and other defense contractors.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. apparently those "top drawer" republican types still believed in the left-right paradigm, so i'd naturally expect them to be quite taken with the nasa activities.

      however, their ignorance of the fraud does not excuse jfk's participation in it.

      Delete
    2. JFK was killed BECAUSE he stood up to the most powerful special interests in the USA: the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Mafia, the Eastern Establishment protecting the FED, the Texas oil men, the anti-Castro Cubans and Israel. I cannot abide the kinds of rubbish that I am reading here. Disgusting.

      Delete
    3. I share your disgust Jim. You just listed 7 groups that had good reason to want JFK dead, but Shack is content to passover all 7 of those (for which evidence exists of their motivation and involvement) in order to postulate the untenable theory that JFK's assassination was faked due to his promotion of the NASA space programme.

      We haven't even ascertained what aspects of the NASA operations were faked, it might just be the moon landings or it might b more, but to make the huge flying lea from the faked Apollo missions to JFK's death being faked is utterly ludicrous.

      When he employs such methods that flying the face of all rational reasoning then how can anyone who is themselves rational and capable of logical thought give any creedence whatsoever to any of Shack's work?

      As I;ve stated many times before, Shack's work is a bunch of untenable laughable hooey and the only thing which remains open to debate is whether he's jut an arrogant incompetent or is deliberately putting out utter crap because he's working to an agenda and has been employed specifically to disseminate disinfo.

      I strongly suspect the latter.

      Delete
    4. jfk was an actor, like every other president. it isn't that much of a secret anymore fellas.

      Delete
  13. Thank you, Simon, for elaborating on your JFK hoax theory: I've been waiting for this.

    "Seeing how the Nutwork (aka "the powers to be") likes to operate, i.e. by leveraging the public's emotions, I find it more likely that JFK - the most popular (puppet) US president of our times, was simply 'removed from the scene' to cause a long-lasting, unforgettable global trauma - around which they could weave their agenda of universal mass-deception which we all can see playing out today."
    -----------------------------------------------------------

    I think the mistake you are making is that you are assuming JFK was a well liked president. He became well liked long AFTER he was killed. Only Irish Catholics really "liked" him. Protestants were very angry with his win as was big business. As far as they were concerned, he was a socialist/Communist and out to destroy the American way of life.

    Nixon was favored to win as he planned to invade Cuba and restore the American empire there for the mafia and big business. The Bay of Pigs invasion had been planned by Nixon before the election and JFK was unaware of it when he took office. He was forced to approve the invasion but made it clear that he would not send forces if the plan failed. He then, of course, became hated for not sending the troops to Cuba, especially by the Americans who went but by the Cuban exiles

    Well, you know the story. In short, Kennedy was hated for his policies, his threat to business interests and the CIA which had become a rogue agency making it's own policy. He fired Allen Dulles, head of the CIA, and threatened to break the agency into a thousand pieces.

    This was not a well-like president. He opposed the war in Vietnam and had been withdrawing troops (advisors) regularly. After JFK was killed, LBJ reversed his Vietnam policy and increased the number of troops sent. The rich got their war and the empire has grown like wildfire since then.

    It's only in hindsight we see how great JFK was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joan Edwards

      It's only after having read your insane piece of delusional bilge above that we we can see clearly what a complete, utter, demented and deluded idiot you really are. Your "views" on JFK's greatness and who liked or hated him are the disjointed, shallow and facile ramblings and ravings of a sick "mind".

      Give a moron like YOU enough rope and you WILL eventually hang yourself.



      Delete
    2. Robert Graham said: " It's only after having read your insane piece of delusional bilge above that we we can see clearly what a complete, utter, demented and deluded idiot you really are. Your "views" on JFK's greatness and who liked or hated him are the disjointed, shallow and facile ramblings and ravings of a sick "mind".

      Give a moron like YOU enough rope and you WILL eventually hang yourself."

      Attaboy Bob! I assume you're a "butt buddy" of that twerp Greenhalgh. Nice work, keep it up :-)

      Love and kisses, obf.

      Delete
    3. OneBornQueer

      I had you down as a possible turd
      tapper a long time ago.
      Now you have supplied the written evidence.

      Who was it wrote?

      " Give a moron like you enough rope and you'll hang yourself."

      Wise words!

      It's all coming out now!!!

      Still, I admire your honesty although I can't say I approve.

      Delete
  14. Also, P.S., can you think of one Kennedy, a nephew like William Kennedy Smith, a cousin, brothers, etc. who hasn't been scandalized in the press and/or indicted for something? If JFK was NOT KILLED, why would his family have had to endure so much humiliation? What's the name of that cousin who Mark Fuhrman wrote a book about accusing him of murder? Had the assassination been a hoax, what would be the reason for all of these smears? Why were the Kennedys such a threat to the establishment. And they do kill off those who don't play ball such as Wellstone. They kill off witnesses just before they are to testify. So why wouldn't they kill a president?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you make it sound like ambassador caroline kennedy is in japan fomenting revolution or that rep. joe kennedy is busy burning down the capitol.

      why wouldn't they kill a president?

      they did kill the president. the president died in dallas that day. walter cronkite said so.

      however, it doesn't necessarily follow that poor jack had to catch a bullet that day. you don't have to kill the actor when you kill the character. larry hagman didn't really get shot in dallas either.



      Delete
    2. Joan, JFK and Jackie were such a fabulous couple that they were admired by everyone who did not merely envy them. And it was a world-wide phenomenon. You make a lot of intelligent posts, but this debunking of the extent to which he was admired by all but his political enemies is unbecoming of you.

      Delete
    3. "JFK and Jackie were such a fabulous couple that they were admired by everyone who did not merely envy them. And it was a world-wide phenomenon." professor jim fetzer

      that's classic stuff right there, jim. if this jfk stuff doesn't pan out, maybe you can find a gig at glamour magazine.

      Delete
    4. seu bobo

      "that's classic stuff right there, jim. if this jfk stuff doesn't pan out, maybe you can find a gig at glamour magazine."

      .......and maybe you can get a job, get paid and get laid.

      Delete
    5. being a serf is hard work. fortunately, it keeps me in spectacular shape so getting laid is not much of a problem.

      Delete
    6. I think you're more troll than serf...

      Delete
  15. Ian Greenhalgh said:

    About Groden and Lane - they were two of the earliest JFK conspiracy researchers, and it is highly likely, in both cases, that they were working for the CIA and were tasked with gatekeeping in order to ensure the crime was never solved. Groden did this by upholding the authenticity of the Zapruder film.
    ____________________________________
    That is such an outrageous statement, Ian. Didn't you just get through saying you hadn't read anything on the JFK case? How come you are such an expert? Mark Lane, an attorney, was the very first to write a lawyer's brief concerning LHO's right to legal representation. Marguerite Oswald read that piece and asked that Mark represent her son at the Warren Commission.

    The assassination of JFK was the first event that I can think of, in which the perpetrator was identified and captured within minutes of the crime and held without legal representation. It has never been established in court that there is NO EVIDENCE PROVING OSWALD WAS THE ASSASSIN OR THAT HE FIRED A RIFLE THAT DAY.

    This case is not about the Zapruder film, the impossible path of the magic bullet, etc. It is about the right to a fair trial and proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

    Now that we have veered off course and allowed "assassins" and "terrorists" to be captured and killed without so much as a trial establishing their guilt, we get what we deserve in Sandy Hook and Boston Marathon injustices.

    Let the government prove its allegation that 19 Muslim hijackers killed 3,000 people and destroyed the entire WTC on 9/11. Why has there been no trial? How convenient that the perpetrators are all dead.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joan, I have never said that I hadn't read anything on the JFK case, that's something you imagined.

      Mark Lane has long been closely tied to Willis Carto and the Liberty Lobby. It seems highly likely that Lane was the CIA's way of manipulating Carto and his publications; the recent developments with Michael Collins Piper are just further evidence that the CIA have long been using Carto's organisations for cointelpro purposes, Lane has owned the Liberty Lobby since 1993, so it seems very likely that he is running it as controlled opposition for the CIA.

      Lane has also been implicated in the CIA's Jonestown mind control programme and mass murder event, he was present in Jonestown just prior to the mass murder and has been implicated by Charles Garry as being deeply involved in the operation. Christopher Bollyn hjas written about it, although I also have my doubts about Bollyn's allegiances:

      http://www.bollyn.com/the-liberty-lobbys-mark-lane-and-the-jonestown-massacre/

      I honestly believe strongly that right from the days immediately following the assassination of JFK that the CIA and FBI were both engaged in a cover-up of far-reaching scope and one of the key methods used was controlled opposition; Groden being a prime example.

      Lane has long been known as an outright Liar, Rolling Stone exposed his typical dishonest methods back in 1966, any examination of Lane's work reveals he employs classic gatekeeping and disinfo techniques, a prime example being his outright fabrication of Vietnam Veteran's accounts in the 1970s, as exposed by Neil Sheehan. You can read about Lane's track record o hucksterism and dishonesty here:

      http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Wx9yiDpC-C4J:www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/05/lane.html+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

      I think Gordon Duff is correct - 90% of JFK 'researchers' are controlled opposition, even the more respected authors like Vincent Bugliosi who wrote that there was no evidence of CIA involvement in the assassination; which is an outrght lie ignoring the evidence linking CIA operatives such as William Harvey, George Joannides, James Angleton, David Atlee Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, and David Morales, amongst others. Jim Garrison would have proved CIA involvment if he had been allowed too, his investigation of Clay Shaw and Permindex was certainly on the riht track, hence he was obstructed and derailed by the FBI and CIA - J Edgar Hoover famously ordered that Garrison be given nothing at all.

      Delete
  16. Why would they release the Zapruder film at all, if the whole point of it was not to convince people that an actual murder took place. It totally contradicts the government story. I'm sure that tape could of been lost. It could be the whole point of the tape was to convince people a murder took place. Seeing is believing. Like 9/11, why show footage of planes if the point is not to convince people there was planes. It seems ludicrous they would spend time editing the footage to release when it doesn't even tally with the story there promoting. So there must be another reason for the release of the tape. It can't be to back up the story being promoted, because it doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, the Zapruder film was created to support the lone gunman theory - the official story.

      The fact it has the 'back and to the left' is probably unintentional, they did the best they could with the technology of the time and were left with a jerky film with that back and to the left motion present.

      What you have to consider is that when the film was created, no-one envisaged the digital computer age where everyone has access to the film and can study it frame-by-frame. The fraudulent nature of the film would likely not have been uncovered without modern technology.

      The Zapruder film is key to the entire assassination, thecoverup was based around it an I am sure the graphic original version is shown to senior figures such as senators who might dissent in order to remind them what happens to those who try to oppose the powers that control the USA.

      Delete
  17. So to support the lone gunman theory they produced a tape which is the only visual prove that the lone gunman theory is not credible. Is that correct?

    would it not have been easier to keep it from the public? You could have still shown it to dissenting senators. I'm sure if someone existed capable of editing it, someone existed capable of telling it was edited. If they didn't exist when it was edited I'm sure they existed a decade later when it was eventually released to the public. It would have been very naive to think technology would not advance, when has that ever happened.

    Most people believe whatever the news tells them, so you don't need a tape to support the theory and people who don't believe are not going to be convinced by a video that does not even support the theory your promoting. All they have done then is produce a video that gives the people who don't believe the lone gunman theory visual prove to convince the people who do believe, that the theory is not credible. It would make sense then that there was another reason for producing a tape and that reason could be just to convince the people who do believe the theory and the people who don't, that a murder took place. Seeing is believing. They used the same trick for 9/11. By producing video of planes crashing into buildings they convinced the people who believe the official theory and the people who don't, that planes crashed into buildings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They had if they needed it.

      It was made to give to whatever bs investigation LBJ cooked up to rubber stamp his bloody climb to the presidency.

      It wasnt made for or to have anything to do with the miserable public.

      Delete
    2. Who, in 1963 could have foreseen the digital tools that would have been available 30 years later?

      They wanted to have a film record of the event, so they had a film made, either Zapruedr shot it or someone else did and Zapruder was presented as the person who did.

      It was not until the 1990s that the digital technology existed to be able to do a better job of altering the film. In 1963, TV was black and white, 400 lines resolution, colour TV with 600 lines was still 6 years in the future. The first domestic video recorders/players didn't appear until the late 1970s and didn't become widespread until the early 1980s.

      It's easy, with the benefit of hindsight to second guess decisions made long before the technology that made the unravelling of the forgery possible was invented, but honestly, using such hindsight merely leads to improper conclusions.

      We can't know the thought processes behind the release of the Zapruder film, all we can know is that it was shot and it was ordered to be shot by the people who planned the event, we can't know their thoughts as to why they wanted to do so, we can only speculate. They can't have known what the film would show until after the event, they may have thought that the altered version was too obviously contradictory of the official story to release, hence it stayed under wraps for a decade.

      All we can do is speculate, which is a dangerous thing to do.

      Delete
    3. I was not denying that someone was there to shot a video. I was questioning why they would go to the trouble of editing a video in a way that disproves their own theory, to present to the public to back up their theory. Any excuse that it was edited to show to the bs investigation cooked up by LBJ, when they will write whatever report they are told to write is nonsense. They knew that the video would show someone being murdered. I suggest that that was the reason for the video, to try to convince people a murder took place. To other reason for that video being released to the public makes any sense.

      Delete
    4. Ian, it was shown to the Warren idiots and then shelved. I would say its not speculation to say that was its entire purpose.

      Since thats exactly what happened.

      I personally believe the folk who pulled this off werent the best nor brightest, did basically a very half assed job and just bs'ed their way through the hard stuff.

      They place a great deal of faith in simple will power

      Its all very Texan and it helps being a Texan to try and not read in a bunch of Machiavellian claptrap that just clouds the basically simple issue

      They lured him into a killing zone, killed him, gave the public a patsy, killed the patsy, (thus ending the active part of the op) ginned up a little evidence, destroyed a lot more and then just flat out dared anyone to call them on it by hiding behind the specter of going to toe to toe thermonuclear war with the Rooskys. Which they themselves would start if you even thought of straying off the reservation.

      And they would have done it, too. Which is why it worked.

      Everybody who knew (and they were legion) knew damn well the plotters would burn us all down rather than be caught.

      And since the American public has the rebellious instincts of a small fuzzy lap dog, it was all over by the summer of '64.

      There is no speculation there. It was said over and over and over at the time that if Oswald wasnt the shooter it would lead to thermonuclear war. They werent lying. They were flat out threatening.


      Delete
    5. The utter contempt that Dulles had for the American people when he said no one would ever read the Warren Report - in other words, we can write what we like about the assassination - nobody's ever going to read this sh*t. He ws right about the "sh*t" part but wrong that no one would ever read it. As it stands, the Warren Report ITSELF makes the BEST case of all for a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK.

      Delete
  18. The evidence of a conspiracy in the assassination of JFK is in the total lack of credible and conclusive evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald's presence on the TSBD sixth floor on 22 November 1963
    when shots were allegedly fired by him from there. We now know beyond reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty that Lee Harvey Oswald was NOT on the TSBD sixth floor when shots were allegedly fired by him from there. It is a simple equation;

    No Oswald On TSBD 6th floor when shots were allegedly fired by him from that location

    =

    CONSPIRACY!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was talking about the Zapruder film. My cat knows to a moral certainty that whatever happened was a conspiracy.

      Delete
    2. As Bill Hicks memorably said, you only had to look out the 6th floor window to realise there was no f'ing way Oswald shot the president. That;s why the window is caged off now and no-one is allowed to look out of that window.

      Delete
    3. I think Bill Hicks' famous line was that the only authentic thing about the TSBD Museum sixth floor was that Oswald wasn't on it.

      Delete
    4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0bIRkv29xk

      From 'Relentless'

      Delete
    5. Bill Hicks. What a guy! Funny. Intelligent. Intellectual.
      Very few other American comedians came close.
      Poor Bill died "suddenly"............of cancer.
      Diagnosed with pancreatic cancer on June 16 '93...............
      died February 14 '94.
      See what I'm saying here, folks? Do you want me to draw a fucking picture for you? Yeah, now you got it.
      Bill Hicks. A comedic genius. Okay, he was a heavy smoker but nobody dies that quick from cancer, do they? Bill's JFK assassination routine hit too close to home. Poor Bill. R.I.P.

      Delete
    6. Fast acting cancer weapon. They took Bob Marley out with the same thing.

      Delete
  19. Who the fuck was talking to you?
    You sound just like the type
    who knows what her cat
    knows and thinks.
    Bring your pussy on and
    let her speak for herself.

    I assume your cat talks too.

    PS

    What exactly has your cat told you about the Zapruder film?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Relax rambo. I am a man. My wife set this up.
    My cat says it seems implausible they would release a video which discredits their own story, to try to support their own story .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A very intelligent cat. You should be proud of your cat.
      Siamese? Persian? Egyptian?

      OMG Not Fred's Cathouse?

      Delete
    2. Why wouldn't they release a video
      which discredits their own story?
      The people behind the Zapruder film alteration didn't give a damn what anyone thought. As Jim Garrison once said about those behind the assassination of JFK and I paraphrase: " There is nothing these people are not prepared to do...They are capable of anything. We're through the looking glass here. Black is white and white is black".

      Delete
  21. The Wiegman film although it is very shaky has several good frames. Some frames show the pedestal from where Zapruder supposedly shot his film and some following frames show JFK's limo heading toward the the triple underpass. But guess what....Zapruder is not standing on the pedestal in the frames that show the limo approahing the triple uderpass. According to the Zapruder film that we have seen, Zapruder kept the limo in his viewfinder and kept filming UNTIL the limo passed below the triple underpass and out of sight. How could Zapruder have done this when the Wiegman shows that there was no one filming from the "Zapruder" pedestal as JFK's limo was moving toward the triple underpass?
    According to the Wiegman film there is no one on the pedestal filming JFK's limo going toward the triple underpass!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jack White showed some of that in his presentation at Jims Z film conference back in '04 I believe it was.

      Showed some with Sitzman standing in front of Zapruder as well. I think he called it the Zapruder waltz.

      Delete
    2. Check the Wiegman film out on YouTube. There's a one frame per second version. You can clearly see the empty (no Zapruder or Sitzmann) pedestal followed by frames of the limousine going toward the triple underpass.
      The "Zapruder" film is not only fake, it is impossible.

      Delete
    3. Ive seen and I concur.

      I wouldnt and dont believe anything Zapruder or his 'film' ever said or showed about anything. Well to be fair, the 'film' shows the car entering and leaving the scene and I guess I have to admit that part is true. Not saying he shot it, however

      The simple fact he and his family got phat paid tells me everything I need to know. No matter what it may appear to the casual observer only the bad guys do well when these things happen. Add in the SS and the FBI and its a formula for bs on an epic scale

      Delete
  22. Simon Shack wrote:

    With regards to JFK, to this day I have not seen a single JFK investigator mentioning the fact that he was, undeniably, the most formidable and charismatic driving force behind the utterly phony "space race" and the (still ongoing) NASA skulduggery. Hence, even though I haven't spent 50 years investigating the JFK case, I just cannot rule out the hypothesis that he was NOT the 'good man of integrity' that most people (myself included) were led to believe.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    That's an angle I haven't heard. Usually, assassinations happen because someone doesn't want to go along with the power elite and their money making schemes.

    Are you saying the space race was not popular among corporate types and therefore they had to get Kennedy out of the way by faking his death?

    Are you telling us the space race didn't benefit business interests and that no huge government contracts were awarded to eager contractors like General Dynamics, Lockheed, General Electric, etc?

    JFK loved the space industry so much that he was "killed" because of it? It couldn't have been because he was going to end the oil depletion allowance among other things like eliminating the CIA?

    Surely, there is more to your theory than this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't be surprised at the paper-thin, untenable nature of Shack's theory - ALL his theories are similarly weak and untenable.

      Delete
  23. Maybe JFK loved the American space industry so much that he wanted to share the space race and its technology with the Soviet Union and maybe that was one of the reasons he was assassinated?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ian said:
    "Mark Lane has long been closely tied to Willis Carto and the Liberty Lobby. It seems highly likely that Lane was the CIA's way of manipulating Carto and his publications;...."
    __________________________________
    Are you out of your mind, Ian? You post a link here to an article which vilifies Lane for claiming all these years the CIA had a major role in the JFK assassination as well as sabotaging the Garrison trial and the HSCA. The CIA will do anything to keep their role in domestic assassinations and other wrongdoing from being found out. They had this clown write a story which is nothing but lies claiming the CIA had no connection to the assassination or the failed Garrison trial and House investigations.

    Check out the stupid link you posted which is written by one of those CIA "gatekeepers" you keep warning us about.

    http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Wx9yiDpC-C4J:www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2012/05/lane.html+&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-a

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're really not very smart, are you? First you accuse me of saying I have read nothing about JFK now you say I'm out of my mind because you fail to grasp the basics of the case against Mark Lane. Maybe you should spend some time learning about controlled opposition and how it works before you comment further, to avoid making yourself look any more stupid.

      Delete
  25. http://www.cluesforum.info/newPHP/viewtopic.php?f=28&t=1160&p=2388358&hilit=zapruder#p2388358

    Simon Shack said:

    "JFK was, presumably, never actually killed - but just removed from the scene to generate a global trauma amongst the world population which, a few years later, were to be fooled once again with the fairy tale of the Apollo program.........."

    How do you "remove" someone without killing them? Who else, in your opinion, was not killed but "removed." Paul Wellstone, Hale Boggs, Robert Kennedy, John Kennedy Jr., his wife and unborn son? Maybe Dorothy Kilgallen is still alive sipping mai tais on a desert island somewhere.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i wonder where barbara olson sips her mai tais.

      Delete
  26. I must say this. If John Kennedy's death was faked, that was one hell of an acting job by the grieving family as they followed the casket on foot behind the caisson.

    The Sandy Hook actors could have taken a few lessons from them.

    As to Caroline Kennedy, whoever mentioned her is right. She is the only one not to be scandalized, Joe Kennedy too. I wonder why? I think Caroline doesn't have the charisma or charm to win political office. Therefore, she is no threat. Joe? Seems rather charming but not enough to beat someone like Jeb Bush. Also, he carries the Kennedy baggage and who knows what dirt they have on him?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. i only mentioned the ambassador and jk3 to illustatrate that the kennedy clan is still around and they are just as establishment as they ever were.

      i do happen to agree that these political types are very talented actors. george w bush was a comedic genius. he had to come up with that goofy schtick and perform it on a daily basis. then somebody like will ferrel comes along and copies the act and is considered the genius. it's just not fair.

      Delete
  27. ? Deathbed Confession of E Howard Hunt - YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bknUDgKdEJQ

    __________________________________________
    I think E. Howard, aka "Eduardo," CIA operative, is doing his best on his "deathbed" to hide the CIA's major role in the assassination. They were a rogue agency making their own policy and mad as hell at JFK due to the failure of Nixon-planned Bay of Pigs invasion. Hunt blames LBJ for the assassination with Cord Meyers playing a big role.

    First of all, there is no reason to trust Hunt or his son and furthermore, this was no "deathbed" confession. Even Jim Marrs is taken in by Saint James. (See video below.)

    E. Howard Hunt is a villan and a primary figure in the assassination. He was the paymaster for the operation. Anyone taking this seriously should read "Plausible Denial" by Lane in which he defends Liberty Lobby in a defamation case brought by Hunt. He was blackmailing the Nixon WH and his wife was killed in a mysterious plane crash with other Watergate figures in Chicago.

    ? Jim Marrs & St. John Hunt - E. Howard Hunt Deathbed Confession JFK Assassination - YouTube

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z11k1rlVokQ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's no reason to trust the Zionist Jew Mark Lane either as he's also a villain and CIA operative. Lane worked for US Army intelligence in Germany in 1945-47, which became the CIA. He was the lawyer for Jim Jones and was present in Jonestown but mysteriously survived the massacre. He ran the Liberty Lobby and AFP which functioned as controlled opposition for the CIA; he lied to the HSCA and was chastised by them for it; he produced bogus atrocity accounts about the Vietnam War.

      Lane is a CIA operative performing the role of controlled opposition and who's mission is to discredit the truth movement by formulating bogus conspiracy theories and concocting false evidence.

      There are a collection of links to documents showing Lane's many transgressions against truth here:

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

      Delete
  28. The death bed confession and in particular the scrap of paper on which Hunt (presumably) wrote the names of those behind it stinks to high heaven. Why didn't E. H. Hunt dictate the full story as far as knew it to his son who could have typed it up, dated it and then have had his father sign it and maybe get a lawyer to witness and verify its authenticity with his (the lawyer's) stamp and signature? Are we to believe that E. H. Howard felt so strongly about telling his story about the JFK assassination that all he could manage was a lousy unsigned (as far as I recall) piece of paper scrawled as he (presumably)
    breathed his last? The whole thing is farcical in the extreme. If E.H. Howard had been serious and genuine, he could have and should have given a more comprehensive account of what he knew. As it is, his so-called confession is not worth the paper it's scrawled on. As far as I can see E. H. Hunt's "confession" was nothing but a last ditch attempt to muddy the waters further as regards the JFK assassination with yet more disinformation. E. H. Hunt was CIA to his dying breath and his son is carrying on his late father's efforts to deceive, bewilder and con the American people. I would not be surprised if E. H. Hut's son is with the CIA too. Like father...like son.




    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ha, ha. You're (not "your") ALL clueless. No one has figured out that it was actually Vaugh Meader that was shot and killed in Dealy Plaza. The ultimate switcheroo! JFK died a failed comedian in '04. BTW, it's "ZA pruder" not "za PRUDER."

      Delete
  29. You're not the real Erik Paul. The real Erik Paul is not a bozo (that's boZO not BOzo). You faggot!! ( that's FAGgot not fagGOT).

    ReplyDelete
  30. Ian,
    This source you are using (McAdams) to vilify Mark Lane is CIA. He even tries to discredit Fletcher Prouty at this same site. You are really very careless with your research so please at least read these sites before you post them.

    An All-Purpose Conspiracy Expert? L. Fletcher Prouty, a retired Air Force Colonel, was the model for Oliver Stone’s Mr. X. You can see Prouty in conspiracy documentaries posing as a expert on presidential protection, the origins of the Vietnam War, and journalism in New Zealand. Just who is this fellow? Does he actually know what he is talking about? Is he some kind of crackpot or something? Click here for the "scoop."
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    L. Fletcher Prouty -- All Purpose Kennedy Assassination Expert?
    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/prouty.htm

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong again. I'm not using McAdams to villify Lane, I'm presenting a number of sources as listed by McAdams; I could have just linked directly to those sources but it was simpler to just link to the list provided by McAdams. Lane has been proven to be dishonest on many occasions and many subjects.

      What's Prouty got to do with Lane? Not much, you're making a fallacious point, trying to discredit Adams when what you need to do is look at the original source materials on Lane and his dishonesty that McAdams listed.

      Delete
  31. Jim Fetzer said:
    Joan, JFK and Jackie were such a fabulous couple that they were admired by everyone who did not merely envy them. And it was a world-wide phenomenon. You make a lot of intelligent posts, but this debunking of the extent to which he was admired by all but his political enemies is unbecoming of you.
    _______________________________________
    I beg your pardon, Jim. I'm not aware of having said or implied that the Kennedys were not beloved by the public and the world at large. I'm just saying that I was there and know first hand that the Kennedys were really hated by conservative WASP Americans. Maybe that was not your experience, but it was mine.

    I'm a bit older than you, I even voted for Jack Kennedy. Jim. I was working for a large corporation in a white collar job in a plant of about 2,000 people at the time. I'll never forget the disapproving stares I got when I showed up at work wearing a Kennedy button. At church, I heard women say how glad they were after JFK was shot.

    At least where I lived, this was the atmosphere. I do know corporate America hated JFK and favored Nixon. They were actually shocked when JFK won. Don't forget, this was the closest race ever and I've heard it said it was the last honest election. We forget how primitive technology was at the time. We didn't even have Xerox copiers until the early sixties.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joan, thanks for the clarification. No doubt, you are right. He was especially intensely hated by those who controlled Dallas and let it happen on their turf as some kind of "badge of honor".

      Delete
  32. P.S.
    Maybe it's time to explore the differences between the old timers and the newcomers in the JFK research community. Fifty years is a long time and the original researchers are dying off. Many, like Lane, have written their final books. The newcomers have no memory of the times, the political atmosphere or what the technology was like. For instance, we had greater freedom of the press. Consolidation of the media hadn't occurred until later. Unlike today, one could watch truthful live discussion programs on TV.

    What bothers me is that the newcomers are reinventing the wheel. So much groundwork has been done which is being ignored in favor of new theories. These theories may be correct in the timeframe of today's environment had the event occurred now. But the fact is the difference in technology is so huge between then and now and this is being ignored.

    I don't know what the answer is, but I'm glad we were able to discuss Shack's theory. At least we've taken the mystery out of it and it is on the table. Of course, Shack may just be kidding us. Who knows?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I couldn't disagree more. The major difference between the older researchers and modern ones is the older guys are mostly controlled opposition. In the pre-internet age, it was difficult to publish your work, you had to go through a publishing house, get your writing past editors etc. This makes it easy to control just what is published by whom. The internet changed all that and meant that researchers who would have had their wok suppressed and blocked before could get it out to people.

      There's no reinventing the wheel going on, it's simply the case that a lot of the original research done was hogwash, deliberate disinfo carried out by controlled opposition stooges like Groden and Lane. In some cases it can take a significant amount of time for these gatekeepers to be exposed, for instance, Michael Collins Piper has only recently made his true colours plain to see, many people, myself included previously held him and his work in high regard.

      What good is there in discussing a theory so paper-thin, ludicrous and obviously untenable as Shack's? There should be an initial process of sorting wheat from chaff before deciding what is worthy of debate and what is not even worth acknowledging. The theories of Shack and Culto most definitely fit into the category of chaff to be discarded without consideration.

      What a lot of people don't seem to grasp is that the battle to coverup the crime of JFK's murder is still being waged, books are still being published that are deliberate disinfo, TV documentaries are still being produced that present completely false theories. The resources employed by the conspirators are vast and their agents are everywhere, that is why the crime has remained unsolved in the minds of many and the courts of law for half a century. Most people acknowledge Oswald wasn't a lone gunman who killed the president, but few people have much of an idea about who actually committed the crime or who was behind the conspiracy. This level of ignorance and doubt could only be maintained for 50 years by a massive effort on the behalf of the conspirators.

      Delete
    2. " The resources employed by the conspirators are vast and their agents are everywhere...."

      One of their biggest resources is the internet (YouTube, blogs, forums etc., etc., etc.) and there are a few agents operating on this blog right now - like these wingnuts who "think"....( dumb quotes because "thinking" is not a strong point with these clowns)....that the JFK assassination was a hoax(!!!).


      Delete
    3. I fully agree Frank. They don't even bother to make their BS high quality, they rely more on quantity, on flooding us with shills than on quality.

      Delete
    4. Only one group of people holds historic grudges against 'WASP's. Are you one of em, Joan, or are you just speaking their lines?

      Delete
  33. Do you not think it is a bit naive to think that JFK was some sort of crusader standing up to these powerful special interests. Presidents have been controlled by these special interests and others like them long before JFK came to power. Maybe it was the magic of the 60s that give us presidents that were not owned and controlled and pop groups and popstars who were not owned and controlled. What a magical time it must have been. Its very possible that the whole JFK murder was a hoax, with JFK playing the part of the peoples president who stood up to special interest groups and was taken out by them. You dont appear to consider the idea that these witnesses you give so much credit too could be lying, just like the witnesses we have seen for the space programs and sandy hook etc etc. You use photos and videos as evidence, even when you know they have at the least been edited and could be entirely fake. The photos you talk of could have been staged or fake just like the Boston bombing photos. You talk about government reports and documents like autopsy reports as if they cant be totally faked. Look how pathetic people who give credit to the sandy hook report look when they think it proves that the whole event was not a hoax.If you are so sure in your believes you should debate some of the people who think it is a hoax. You are always calling people out to debate you on subjects like Sandy Hook and 9/11 who have different views to you. You are having a debate tonight on the Boston bombing who have different views to you. Why not have a debate on the possibility of JFKs murder being a hoax.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "Why not have a debate on the possibility of JFK's murder being a hoax."

    Why don't you stop posting your insane sh*t on Professor Jim Fetzer's blog and go debate it with your cat?

    ReplyDelete
  35. "Maybe JFK loved the American space industry so much that he wanted to share the space race and its technology with the Soviet Union and maybe that was one of the reasons he was assassinated?"

    Why don't you stop posting your insane sh*t on Professor Jim Fetzer's blog?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amanda Price (Catman)

      So you don't know that JFK was prepared to call off the space race with the Soviet Union and replace competition with cooperation? You obviously don't know that JFK intended to conclude another nuclear arms control agreement with the Soviets and then become the first incumbent US president to visit the Soviet Union.
      Don't you know these things?
      Of course, you don't!
      Have you done ANY research on the JFK assassination?
      Of course, you haven't! How could a clown like you with the brains of a cat (apologies to any cats reading this) possibly know these things?
      All you want to do is debate your JFK assassination hoax bullshit.

      That's about all you're fit for, Amanda(?).

      Delete
    2. You talk about the space race as if it was not also a hoax. I think you so do some research and stop believing everything the media tells you.

      Delete
    3. The space race wasn't a hoax. There were some elements that were faked, but far from all of it.

      Delete
    4. Talking about it, that was real. Which parts were not faked then. I would suggest anything that took place while Kennedy was president was faked, and going to the moon which he talked about.

      Delete
    5. Evidence? It is irrelevant what you suspect, only theories based on solid evidence are really worth discussing and amateur-hour 'analysis' of videos and images ala Shack and Culto doesn't count as evidence.

      Delete
    6. I can suspect whatever I like. Why do you reply if its not worth discussing. Don't reply to any of my comments then. Do you not want to tell what you think is real? Does Jim and other JFK researchers not base some of there theorys on video and images? When other people do it, its amateur hour.

      Delete
    7. There is a difference between including videos and images as part of a larger body of evidence and what Shack and Culto do which is create an entire theory based on nothing but some shoddy 'analysis'. This whole 'it's all fake' business is a waste of time and is largely intended as a waste of time to distract people from more important discussions an areas of research. If someone wereto come up with a fakery theory that was well thought-out and supported by a decent sized body of evidence and which wasn't directly contradicted by other evidence, then it would be worth discussing, but Shack has never come up with anything of that nature and he never will unless he radically changes his methods.

      If you want to discuss ludicrous, untenable fakery theories then this is not the place to find an audience, try the cluesforum or let's roll, those places are full of nitwits who will gladly entertain such horseshit.

      Delete
    8. Are you barring me from the forum?

      Delete
  36. Ian,

    This JFK-assassination-hoax nonsense reminds me of the Hiroshima-never-happened and the nuclear-weapons-are-a-myth crap we had some time ago on this blog. Do you think all these "debaters" went to the same CIA special school?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree Frank, they definitely went to some sort of special school, probably the sort where they didn't let them have sharp scissors.

      Delete
  37. For those interested, [you know who you are :-) ], here's Simon Shacks brief analysis of 3 other alleged JFK assassination photographers , "Mary Muchmore" [ I kid you not] Mary "Moorman" [I kid you not] , and one "Orville Nix":

    http://www.cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389959#p2389959

    Enjoy! regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is pathetic, ludicrous nonsense even by Shack's excreable standards.

      Not content with making a total fool of himself with his 9/11 nonsense now Shack is really going all-out to paint himself as an utter clown by taking on the JFK case.

      Delete
    2. One has to practice discernment based on available evidence. There is a large body of evidence to show that Boston and Sandy Hook were false flag hoaxes, but there simply isn't any evidence to suggest that JFK's death was, the only 'evidence' is horseshit from idiots like Shack and Culto. If we were to waste time discussing such ludicrous theories as they put forward then we would never get anywhere. personally believe that Shack deliberately seeks to waste our time and distract us from proper, valuable research by constantly pushing his untenable, laughable nonsense, it's part of the controlled opposition agenda to disrupt serious research with nonsensical rubbish.

      Delete
    3. "Amanda Price". Hoax?

      Are we supposed to take a self-confessed fraudster and hoaxer like you seriously? You have already admitted that you are male and that you use your wife's name Amanda Price on this blog. Personally, I don't believe that. I think you're also a liar as well as a fraudster and a hoaxer.

      Delete
    4. Ian,

      It seems Amanda[?] believes everything Shucks and Cunto tell her.......I mean him.....I mean her.......Whatever!!!

      Delete
    5. There are a lot of them about Michael - fraudsters that is, most of them probably employed by the CIA, ADL and other nefarious groups; tasked with disrupting and discrediting serious research.

      Personally, I tend to think anyone who supports the lunatic theories of people like Shack and Culto is an agent, part of the controlled opposition. This is nothing new, controlled opposition has been running for a long time, Mark Lane and Robert Groden popped up within months of JFK's death, Shack is merely the current generation of disinfo spreader.

      Delete
    6. Who have I frauded? Who have I hoaxed? You two are pathetic. Is it a crime to use a google account set up by your wife? I dont really care what you believe. I dont see any proof that you two have provided to verify your identity. Not everyone uses their real name on a online comments section. Get over it. I have committed no fraud or perpetrated no hoaxes. Ian if you have evidence I work for the ADL, CIA or other nefarious groups then present it, otherwise knock it on the head. I don't make personal comments about who you are or who you may or not work for. I work for none of them groups and have never worked for any of them groups or any government organisation. Grow up, your not in the school playground anymore.

      Delete
    7. I haven't accused you of working for anybody, I merely said that I suspect there are a lot of agents out there, if you wish to include yourself in that, that's upto you but I didn't say or imply that.

      Delete
  38. Ian said:
    "What a lot of people don't seem to grasp is that the battle to coverup the crime of JFK's murder is still being waged, books are still being published that are deliberate disinfo, TV documentaries are still being produced that present completely false theories."

    "The resources employed by the conspirators are vast and their agents are everywhere, that is why the crime has remained unsolved in the minds of many and the courts of law for half a century.........."

    "Most people acknowledge Oswald wasn't a lone gunman who killed the president, but few people have much of an idea about who actually committed the crime or who was behind the conspiracy. This level of ignorance and doubt could only be maintained for 50 years by a massive effort on the behalf of the conspirators."
    _______________________________________
    So, Ian, all seeing, all knowing one, do tell us who killed our president, John F. Kennedy. You write more than 50% of all the posts here. You've knocked down all the straw men. So let's hear your take on the assassination and in detail. It's time you let your hair down and let us know what really happened that day in Dallas. You have set yourself up as an expert. We can't wait to hear what you have to say.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh Joan, you really do like to put words in my mouth, don't you. First you claim I said I hadn't read anything about JFK, then claim I say I'm some kind of expert. Neither is true, and I don't appreciate your misrepresentation, it smack of immaturity, you fail to win the argument so you resort to making false claims.

      If you want to know who killed JFK, you merely have to study the work of Jim Fetzer which I believe is the most valuable writing on the subject because it pulls together the work of many experts and debunks many of the disinfo agents that sadly plague the JFK research community.

      Delete
  39. For Jim Fetzer not Ian. If people who don't believe certain events were hoaxes, refused to debate the issue we would of had no debates on Sandy Hook and Boston. It seems when it is Fetzer who does not think the event was a hoax, then the issue is not up for debate. All the statements he made about people who did not want to debate him on issues he thinks are hoaxes, also imply to him. He believes that hoaxes take place so there is no good reason not to debate any event as a potential hoax.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Amanda Price:

      ** .....there is no good reason not to debate any event as a potential hoax.**

      The sun rose in the east this morning. Potential hoax?


      Debate.......

      Go for it!!!

      Delete
    2. If I ever have a radio show, and call out people who will not debate me on issues I think are hoaxes, you can be the first guest.

      Delete
  40. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. BREAKING NEWS!!!


      Heather Briers/ Jim Revell/ Michael Posner/ Paul Ross/ Frank Wilson = Ian Greenhalgh

      Check out the triple exclamation marks.

      Delete
    3. "Heather Briers/ Jim Revell/ Michael Posner/ Paul Ross/ Frank Wilson = Ian Greenhalgh"


      Where did the above bullshit come from? Who is responsible for this eyewash and codswallop!?? I call on Professor Jim Fetzer to ban whoever is spreading this vile and groundless hooey and drivel. Ian Greenhalgh is an honorable and highly valued and respected contributor to this blog and is not to be smeared by anyone with these baseless accusations! Again I call on Professor Jim Fetzer to ban whoever has posted this vile and slanderous nonsense.

      Delete
    4. That post you talk of was a reply to comments made about me. In fact its a replica of the comment with the names changed, you can see above were the author removed it. I never asked for it to be removed and no one who I have named has contested what I said. If I have slandered anyone, let them speak for themselves and I will remove it.

      Delete
  41. frank wilson: "So you don't know that JFK was prepared to call off the space race with the Soviet Union and replace competition with cooperation? You obviously don't know that JFK intended to conclude another nuclear arms control agreement with the Soviets and then become the first incumbent US president to visit the Soviet Union.
    Don't you know these things?
    Of course, you don't!"

    sorry but you don't know it either. you seem to be claiming to know with epistemological certitude what jfk was going to do. you can't even make a strict empirical argument for that matter, because well he didn't do it; did he?

    ReplyDelete
  42. seu bobo

    " sorry but you don't know it either. you seem to be claiming to know with epistemological certitude what jfk was going to do. you can't even make a strict empirical argument for that matter, because well he didn't do it; did he?"

    And we all know why he didn't do it. Well, don't we? You dumb fuck.


    ReplyDelete
  43. Today I have compared three of the most (in)famous sets of images released back in 1963 of the JFK event:

    - The "MARY MOORMAN" polaroid
    - The "MARIE MUCHMORE" video
    - The "ORVILLE NIX" video

    http://cluesforum.info/viewtopic.php?p=2389968#p2389968

    Enjoy.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Typical rubbish, you've uncovered nothing, your analysis is laughable. You are clearly an incompetent, arrogant nitwit.

      For you to claim that you have uncovered some discrepancy that no-one else has been able to over 50 years shows such an utterly shocking level of arrogance.

      Clearly you understand nothing about perspective or proper photo analytic methods.

      You're a joke Simon, a really conceited, arrogant and incompetent joke.

      Delete
    2. Ian, there is so much fraud and fakery in the JFK photo and film record that it is not at all far-fetched that SS could have found more.

      What he does not seem to understand is that all three of my books, beginning in 1998, are full of discussion of photo and film fakery.

      Delete
    3. Yes Jim, it is possible there is further fakery waiting to be discovered.

      However, that is not what Shack is doing, he is merely making up BS and his motive is not to research any aspect of the JFK case, instead it is to attack you and your work on JFK.

      Delete
  44. Ian dear,

    Why don't you just explain to my incompetent eyes what I can see in the backdrop of the "MARY MOORMAN" and the "ORVILLE NIX" imagery?

    http://www.septclues.com/USA%20FAKERY/MOORMAN_NIX_compared_2.jpg

    Thanks! And please do not dodge this very simple question.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You haven't bothered to do any valid analysis, you haven't looked at a plan of Dealey Plaza and established the relative positions of the photographers. Did you even know that Orville Nix shot from three different positions? Once you have established and mapped the relative positions of the photographers, there is then important work to be done in establishing perspective lines. Then there is the matter of film stocks and exposure.

      You reduce what is a very complex and involved analysis job to a farce.

      It's not a simple question and only an incompetent such as yourself would even attempt to reduce it to that level.

      Produce some analysis work worthy of peer review and I will be happy to peer review it, but as it stands, your work doesn't merit more than a cursory glance and the appropriate scorn and derision.

      Delete
    2. so why don't you do a valid analysis and prove just how wrong simon is? show us just how complex and involved an ian greenhalgh analysis is.

      Delete
    3. Ian, if Simon Shack has something new, that would be great, because this is a "target rich" environment. But we have been exposing photo and film fakery in JFK since 1996, when I organized and moderate the first Zapruder Film Symposium in Dallas, and Jack White has been doing that far longer.

      Delete
    4. I aree Jim, something new and valid would be welcome.

      However, that isn't the case here, we are simply dealing with untenable nonsense that doesn't merit consideration by serious researchers. For instance, Shack is claiming Moorman and Muchmore are fabricated characters, completely ignoring the fact Mary Moorman definitely existed and gave many interviews.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  45. I think Shack and SC is basing conclusions about JFK on the technology of today and the monopolistic control of the media of today.

    This is not "Back to the Future." Do you know Xerox copiers hadn't been introduced. Video tape was introduced in 1971 and it wasn't until the 1980's that they became popular. In the 60's, the Bell and Howell 8mm movie cameras were very popular and many homes had them. I can see why there were so many photographers in Dealy Plaza with these home cameras.

    Don't forget those with cameras of any kind were seized by those posing as Secret Service. Witnesses were ignored and their testimony was changed, unlike 9/11 where photos were encouraged as were eyewitness reports

    While the photographic evidence was in the hands of private individuals, who knows what alterations were made and what difference does that make when we know there is no evidence that proves LHO had anything to do with the shooting Tests showed he had not fired a rifle that day and no fingerprints were found.

    The shootings were done be triangulation fire by professional hit men. It's all been gone over in the books of the first researchers. I see it as case closed and that the CIA was pivotal in carrying it out and it is directly related to the Bay of Pigs fiasco. The gatekeepers of the Left like Noam Chomsky, et al, make the same argument as SC i e that JFK wasn't going to change any policies and that he was just another crooked politician, etc.

    There is plenty of evidence to CIA involvement and the new books are desperately trying to cover up that fact. I don't know why SC is so far off on this unless it is intentional. They are correct on 9/11, so that doesn't make sense.

    The only reason they can get away with hoaxes is because they don't actually have to commit a crime to have the public believe it, they just have to report that it happened. People were not holed up in their homes playing video games. They were out mingling and talking. The media were owned by many companies and some actually allowed free speech and speculation We actually had about five daily newspapers and hundreds of magazines. People were well-informed. It was a different time and a different paradigm.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I've explained this mny times before, Simon Shack's work is so ludicrous an untenable that there are only two possibilities:

      A. He's hopelessly incompetent and arrogant.

      B. He's a gatekeeper deliberately putting out disinfo.

      In my opinion, the latter is the more likely.

      Delete
    2. ok, so there were no video games and the ownership of media outlets was less concentrated; but does any modern media figure hold as much clout as the "most trusted man in america". people didn't see or hear shit when they were out mingling, they probably just discussed what they had been told by cbs, etc.

      Delete
  46. Ian said: "If you want to know who killed JFK, you merely have to study the work of Jim Fetzer which I believe is the most valuable writing on the subject because it pulls together the work of many experts and debunks many of the disinfo agents that sadly plague the JFK research community."

    I know who killed JFK. I put that event to rest many years ago and I resent the people who are resurrecting it for personal gain as these anniversaries near. I see nothing new being discussed. I am interested in the events of the present such as 9/11. There is a new modus operandi happening in the 21st century which is totally unlike the last. Let's wake up to this difference and talk about how easy it is to fool not only the locals but the world as well and all because of the decline and death of a real tangible media in favor of this digital, computerized media in which things can be disappeared and altered at any time. It can also be turned off whenever necessary. There was a time when what you read was not monitored by a government agency and when there was a semblance of the Bill of Rights.

    Here it is, fifty years later, and Ian is using this clown McAdams as a reference:

    "If you carry out a search on the web for material on the assassination of John F. Kennedy you are likely to soon arrive on John McAdams' website. McAdams is a university professor who believes strongly that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone, shot President Kennedy."

    "McAdams doesn't believe a conspiracy of any kind was involved and that the Warren Commission (WC) was correct in all its essential conclusions."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again, you are really quite stupid. I did NOT use McAdams as a reference, I used a list of links provided by McAdams, what is so hard to grasp about the difference? McAdams listed links to several essays and documents that exposed the lies of Mark Lane, I merely linked to his list rather than go through the rigmarole of replicating his list of links.

      You say you know who killed JFK and you resent others for researching it. How hopelessly arrogant of you to say that.

      If yu put the JFK event to rest years ago then why do you continually post about it?

      Delete
    2. you make the assumption that fakery is a 21st century tactic. nothing about the 911 hoax has caused you to revisit any of the conclusions you had made about the jfk media event?

      Delete
  47. Why isn't Ian posting reviews of Jim's book on JFK? Listen to the rave reviews. Congratulations, I'm sorry not to have seen this sooner.

    "Undoubtedly one of the most important book ever written on the assassination." (See below)
    _________________________________
    http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/recommended.htm

    Recommended Books
    COVER-UP (New York: Kestrel Books, 1998), by Stewart Galanor.

    REAL ANSWERS (Spicewood, Texas: Paleface Press, 1998), by Gary Cornwell, the former deputy chief counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations.

    HIGH TREASON: THE ASSASSINATION OF JFK AND THE CASE FOR CONSPIRACY, 35th Anniversary Carroll & Graf Edition (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers, Inc., 1998), by Harrison Livingstone.

    NOT IN YOUR LIFETIME: THE DEFINITIVE BOOK ON THE JFK ASSASSINATION (New York: Marlow & Company, 1998), by Anthony Summers. .

    ASSASSINATION SCIENCE: EXPERTS SPEAK OUT ON THE DEATH OF JFK (Chicago: Catfeet Press, 1997), edited by Professor James Fetzer of the University of Minnesota. Undoubtedly one of the most important book ever written on the assassination. This book is loaded with new evidence, to include scientific evidence that JFK's autopsy x-rays have been altered and that the Zapruder film has been significantly edited. Please see my article on this book entitled "Historic New Book on JFK Case" for more information on this exciting new work.

    BLOODY TREASON: THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY (Rancho Santa Fe, California: Laurel Publishing, 1997), by Noel Twyman. 1995), by John Newman.

    THE LAST INVESTIGATION (New York: Thunder's Mouth Press, 1993), by Gaeton Fonzi. .

    ACT OF TREASON: THE ROLE OF J. EDGAR HOOVER IN THE ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT KENNEDY (New York: Carroll and Graf, 1991), by Mark North.

    REASONABLE DOUBT: AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE ASSASSINATION OF JOHN F. KENNEDY (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1985), by Henry Hurt.

    ACCESSORIES AFTER THE FACT (New York: Vintage Books, 1976), by Sylvia Meagher

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Now you're just acting like a troll. Grow up and either contribute something worthwhile or find somewhere else to cause trouble.

      Delete
    2. Ian, I must be missing something. I appreciate that Joan posted this list of books and reviews.

      Am I wrong or did she cite John McAdams and imply that she believes Oswald shot JFK?

      Delete
    3. What she seems to be saying is that my criticism of Mark Lane is fallacious because McAdams believes Oswald shot JFK.

      I merely provided a link to a list of essays by various authors on the subject of Mark Lane and his track record of dishonesty. This list is on McAdam's website.

      However, this does not mean I am endorsing any theory of McAdams.

      Delete
  48. jim, you should def scroll over to cf to read norwegians post linked above. It blows your JFK cave up into billions upon billions of cubic meters of very fine dust. What you gonna do about it big boy? We should demand clarification straight from the horses mouth. I bet coffins are not the best place to write memoires from.






    ReplyDelete
  49. This is very stupid. I organized and moderated the first JFK Zapruder Film Symposium in 1996. All three of my books (ASSASSINATION SCIENCE 1998, MURDER IN DEALEY PLAZA 2000, THE GREAT ZAPURDER FILM HOAX 2003) are loaded with discussion of photo and/or film fakery. I have around two dozen articles on it since then. What this demonstrates is that they are incompetent and don't do any real research. It's unreal.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. on what pages did you cover the mary and orville perspective issues? i can't wait to read them. you are the expert on the jfk event.

      Delete
  50. I welcome additional new work. I think it's terrific. What I do not understand is why you would attack me without even studying my--and Jack White, David Mantik, David Lifton, John Costella, Doug Horne and others--previous work. There is some combination of arrogance and ignorance that is highly unusual here, which I frankly do not understand. If Simon has come up with something new, THAT'S GREAT. But when it comes to exposing JFK photo and film fakery, he is a "Johnny-come-lately". Is that too difficult to understand?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim,

      Your blog is currently under an organized and distributed attack from LNs which is kinda funny in a way, Jim considering these LN birdbrains couldn't organize a hard on in a brothel.


      Delete
  51. Some resources for Simon and others to consider:

    “What happened on Elm Street? The Eyewitnesses Speak”, John Costella
    http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v5n1/v5n1costella.pdf

    "New Proof of JFK Film Fakery"
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_jim_fetz_080205_new_proof_of_jfk_fil.htm

    "Mary in the Street - Revisited"
    http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/

    "Zapruder JFK Film impeached by Moorman JFK Polaroid"
    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Zapruder-JFK-Film-Impeache-by-Jim-Fetzer-090324-48.html

    "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"
    http://www.intrepidreport.com/archives/994

    "The JFK 'Head Shot' Paradox"
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/fetzer1.1.1.html

    "Who's telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?"
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/01/whos-telling-truth-clint-hill-or.html

    “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?”
    http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/did-zapruder-film-zapruder-film.html

    "US Government Official: JFK Cover-Up, Film Fabrication"
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/10/03/us-government-official-jfk-cover-up-film-fabrication/

    “JFK: Who’s telling the truth: Clint Hill or the Zapruder film?”
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/25/jfk-whos-telling-the-truth-clint-hill-or-the-zapruder-film/

    “The Two NPIC Zapruder Film Events: Signposts Pointing to the Film’s Alteration” (with Douglas P. Horne)
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/24/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-signposts-pointing-to-the-films-alteration/

    “The Two NPCI Zapruder Film Events: Analysis and Implications” (with Douglas P. Horne)
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/29/the-two-npic-zapruder-film-events-analysis-and-implications/

    “Did Zapruder film ‘the Zapruder film’?”
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/08/08/did-zapruder-film-the-zapruder-film/

    "The JFK Assassination Film Hoax: An Introduction" by John P. Costella
    http://assassinationscience.com/johncostella/jfk/intro/

    A 66-part series of the Duluth conference: "Zapruder Fakery"
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zSghy2TkIY

    “Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More proof of JFK Film Fakery”
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/03/nix-film-contradicts-zapruder-more-proof-of-jfk-film-fakery/

    “The Faking of the Zapruder Film and Where the Magic Bullet really came from”, http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2013/12/10/the-faking-of-the-zapruder-film-and-where-the-magic-bullet-really-came-from-an-interview-with-jim-fetzer/

    ReplyDelete
  52. good. we agree that the imagery has been faked; now we just have to figure out why you continue to hold with absolute certainty the belief that the event (the assassination) was nonetheless real.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The JFK assassination was REAL. The cover up and everything it entailed (image alteration etc., etc.) was a manufactured and engineered FAKE.
      Why do you persist in conflating the two?

      Are you incapable of seeing the distinction?




      Delete
    2. since the imagery does not show live naturally occurring events then it has to be treated as any other film. i may argue that i believe the murder took place but the correct answer has to be "I don't know." the same as if someone told me JFK was taken to a dark warehouse and there decapitated, or say, turned into a woman. he may have been, I don't know. I am not against Jim's agenda, just say what a noob in this particular case would likely consider.

      Delete
    3. of course i know the difference between real and fake. unless, that is, they mean something different when you capitalize them.

      there are folks who do not like to distinguish real from fake; your political, media, and military types for example.

      Delete
    4. Well, I don't know if you have noticed but we are approaching the point where everything has to be taken as false, and by extension past events as well. In fact this point has been already reached by some people.




      Delete
    5. " of course i know the difference between real and fake. unless, that is, they mean something different when you capitalize them."

      LOL Ever heard of the use of capitalization for EMPHASIS?
      Perhaps that is also a concept you are totally unaware of.

      You are basically what is known in JFK assassination research circles as a LN. You will write and say anything in an effort to discredit the evidence of a cover up in the assassination of JFK.
      Your laughable attacks on witnesses such as Nix, Moorman, Jean Hill etc. are all part of your ludicrous lying LN agenda. You and Shack and the rest of those meatheads are all LNs and the sooner everyone on this blog who is interested in finding the TRUTH about the ASSASSINATION of JFK
      realizes that simple fact, the better. Take your asinine LN crap elsewhere. There is no place for it on Jim Fetzer's blog. You and your LN buddies in here are nothing but liars, twisters and con artists.

      P.S. I hope there were not too many capitalized letters in this post. I know how distressful capitalized letters can be for you lying LN furballs.





      Delete
    6. I don't run in conspiracy circles, so I'm not familiar with the your conspiracy argot. What does Ln mean?

      Delete
    7. seu bobo

      "I don't run in conspiracy circles."

      I agree.

      The best part of you ran down your mom's leg.









      Delete
    8. even though i enjoyed your clever retort, i'd still like to know what ln means.

      Delete
  53. That's one hell of links here Jim to get lost in for hours and hours and hours. Norwegians post reads in 5 minutes. Why not show a bit of modesty and select just a few for starters, at best the ones that carry objective bullet points and can compete with the aforementioned sucker punch delivered by SS. It could well be unreal but it's how one gets messages across on the network to cut straight to the chase and pawn the opponent. Most of these debates gravitate eventually toward media fakery, and it has to be discussed on case by case basis with relevant links to imagery, because that's all we got. Your donkeys generalize too much to run from objectives when such are presented to them. Who is coaching them?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Quote from Ian Greenhalgh "For instance, Shack is claiming Moorman and Muchmore are fabricated characters, completely ignoring the fact Mary Moorman definitely existed and gave many interviews."

    Maybe she was acting a part and telling lies. The Sandy hook victims families have given plenty of interviews, does that make them credible. The Boston marathon victims have given plenty of interviews, does that make them credible.Is Mary Moorman not described as the silent witness in some places. Seems a strange name for someone who has given many interviews. Maybe you could point me to her first interview. Fresh memories are always the best memories.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Probably the first Mary Moorman TV interview ? (ABC News, 11/22/1963) : http://video.espresso.repubblica.it/tutti-i-video/l-intervista-a-mary-moorman-della-abc-del-22-novembre-1963/1080/1082

    ReplyDelete
  56. And this may be her latest Mary Moorman (-Khramer) TV interview (MSNBC with Matt Lauer - November 19, 2013): http://www.today.com/video/today/53593854#53593854

    ReplyDelete
  57. She definitely remembers taking that picture. She says the word picture 6 times or more. I wonder what was going on to the left that she keeps looking at. She could definitely be acting the part. The only thing she commits herself to is taking that picture and hearing Jackie scream . Is it not incredible that an innocent bystander so close to the action would be giving interviews so soon after the event. Imagine she had of said she heard six shots, they where coming from everywhere. She is about as credible Carlos Arredondo.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Professor James Fetzer PhD

    Pimon, bobo, Price, norwegian:

    All lying LN low lifes. Ban them all.
    Do you really want or need this load of liars and losers on your blog, Jim? They bring nothing to the debate except delusional, moronic and rancid bullshit.

    Ban them, Jim.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Is that you Ian?
      Mary Moorman is just a repeater of official government bullshit. She is certainly not proof that this event was real. The photos are fake, the videos are fake and the witnesses lack credibility. What evidence is their left that this event was real?

      Delete
    2. My donkey eats hay and grass. I allow him plenty of both. I give him a tiny amount sweet feed twice a day but that is just because the horses are getting it too. He doesn't really need it but since it is only about a handful it won't hurt him. You can feed your donkey the same as you would a horse with the exception of the grain. They just don't need it. He does get treats, same as the horses, carrots, apples, horse cookies, etc. Just keep in mind that they generally do not need as much food as a horse and have a tendency to get fat, especially if they are just pasture pets. My donkey pulls a cart so he is at least working some.

      Delete
    3. I'm surprised you have a donkey after what you did to the last one
      ....several times and on a regular basis....so the witnesses said, anyhow. In fact, I am amazed your local Animal Welfare Authorities would even let you near any animal - domestic or wild.

      By the way, is your donkey also a LN?

      Delete
    4. just some farming tips for your own welfare Dasson, no need to get butt hurt all of a sudden

      Delete
    5. Simple Simon Poopman

      Keep your donkey-fucking farming tips aka your sex life to yourself and go "hurt" that donkey's butt, Farmer Brown!

      You ass fucker!

      You crazy LN cunt!!

      Delete
  59. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  60. But It All "Hangs Together"

    To play Devil's advocate here- surely, the imagery we are presented with for the JFK "incident", at least as far as discussed in this thread, that is specifically : Zapruder, Nix, Moorman, Muchmore; "all hangs together" [ to use a favorite phrase of Fetzer and associated] - just as he claims to be the case with all of the 9/11 imagery.

    After all, they all show limos, Presidents, cops on bikes, crowds of onlookers, "the grassy knoll" etc. etc.

    And so, by the same, er, "logic", the JFK imagery[Zapruder, Nix, Moorman, Muchmore] , seeing as it all very broadly "hangs together" and reveals to us more or less the exact same overall listed features and general similarities, must all be genuine, yes? :-)

    Or am I missing something?

    regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're missing a lot of things, an eye, a brain, a conscience, an ability to tell the truth....

      If you were familiar with the JFK case and the research into it done by Fetzer and the experts who he has collaborated with, then you wouldn't make the ludicrous statement that they have claimed the various photos and movies are genuine, this is far from the truth, Jim has been at the forefront of those who have exposed the fakery of the Zapruder film, the Altgens 6 photo, the backyard photos of Oswald and rifle and several other images and movies.

      In short, you're talking utter rubbish that has no basis in fact, crawl back under your rock you lowlife piece of scum.

      Delete
  61. seu bobo said : "you make the assumption that fakery is a 21st century tactic. nothing about the 911 hoax has caused you to revisit any of the conclusions you had made about the jfk media event?"

    Exactly.

    The ability for various persons both here and elsewhere to "compartmentalize/rationalize" media imagery fakery into a mostly 21st century, post 9/11 phenomena is quite extraordinary .

    Simon's Sept. Clues site has very clear examples of photographic fakery by the MSM going back at least to the 2nd WW, [eg a front page NYT photo of prisoners in an alleged Nazi concentration camp], and also of pre-faked-moon-landing film fakery [eg DOD faked nuclear test footage] .

    Going back even further, I have elsewhere seen a faked US Civil War era photo of Grant on a horse [his head was apparently somehow superimposed onto an [original] photo of another soldier on a horse.

    regards, obf.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plenty soviet videos from 2WW, hours and hours were staged a day or two after real battles. I thought it was generally known.

      Delete
    2. Hey Simple Simon Donkey Lover!!

      Is your donkey real or is it an inflatable rubber fake?

      Delete
  62. J. Fetzer said : "
    “Nix film contradicts Zapruder: More proof of JFK Film Fakery”
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/03/nix-film-contradicts-zapruder-more-proof-of-jfk-film-fakery/ "

    So help me out here - are you therefor claiming that the Nix footage is genuine ?

    Regards, obf

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dear obf,

    I think you may actually be missing something. You see, Fetzer has already concluded that six ace-shooters/ snipers were hired to do the job (of murdering JFK in Dealey Plaza in bright daylight). He's got names, surnames and occupations of all six of them:

    1: Harry Weatherford (Dallas Deputy Sheriff )
    2. Jack Lawrence (U.S. Air Force expert)
    3. Nestor “Tony” Izquierdo (anti-Castro Cuban CIA recruit)
    4. Roscoe White (Dallas police officer)
    5. Malcolm “Mac” Wallace (LBJ's personal hit man/ killer)
    6. Frank Sturgis (later complicit in the Watergate robbery)

    Read all about it here:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/12/28/six-jfk-shooters-three-tied-to-cia-named-oswald-not-among-them/

    Also, Fetzer claims that the limo driver, Willy Greer, was profoundly involved in the JFK assassination (since, according to Fetzer, Greer brought the limo to a halt - so as to ensure that the six sharpshooters properly hit their target).

    It is a quite fascinating plot - one which you wouldn't even expect from the most uninspired Tom Clancy novel. Now, just for funs, let me imagine a conversation between Lyndon B. Johnson and his fellow conspirators:

    LBJ . "Ok guys, I want all of you six sharpshooters to take position around Dealey plaza on November 22. Your mission is to kill president Kennedy. Be careful though: there will be 6 persons in that limo - and it will be surrounded by several bike-mounted policemen and secret service agents standing tall behind it. I want you to take out John Kennedy ONLY. Don't make a bloody carnage out of it, understood?

    JACK LAWRENCE: "Understood, boss!"

    WILLY GREER: "Hey boss! With all due respect, since I will be driving the limo - and thus find myself in the line of (cross)fire, I vehemently ask for a pay rise! I'm not one of those Palestinian suicidal maniacs, ya know?"

    LBJ : "Ah, allright, Greer - you'll get an extra $100.000 bonus for running that risk. But remember that you will be forever considered a hero of this anti-communist operation! Any other questions?... No? Ok, so start practicing your long-distance shooting skills, guys!"


    You couldn't make this stuff up :-D

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They didn't make I up, they discovered it through meticulous research.

      No wonder it sounds so strange to you, you've never done any research, meticulous or otherwise!

      You're a complete joke Shack.

      Delete
    2. Thanks dude, I damn near spit coke all over the monitor

      The SS is a paramilitary organization. They take their orders and their chances with no need for extra pay.

      As if you dont know that.

      Cmon man, thats just weak

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  64. Thanks, Ian - that was an interesting comment of yours. As a matter of fact, pretty much ALL of your comments are interesting, as far as I am concerned.

    So, I gather that you're a supporter of Fetzer's theory that six gun-for-hire sharpshooters were contracted to fire at the moving (or stationary) limo - in the hope of striking John Fitzgerald Kennedy's skull?

    A yes-or-no answer will suffice. Thanks

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, yuou iiot, a one-word answer will not suffice becaue it is a far more complex issue than you try to make it out to be.

      It is not Fetzer's theory, it has been carefully constructed, piece-by-piece over half a century of hard work and careful research by a large number of researchers who have carried out a vast amount of research, who have interviewed and re-interviewed hundreds of people involved in the case or witness to the assassination.

      In a way, I am delighted that you have now turned your attention to the JFK case because it makes it perfectly clear for everyone to see just what a pathetic person you are and how ludicrous and untenable your crackpot theories are.

      What an utter and complete fool you have made of yourself, any shed of credibility you may have had has now been irrevocably severed. Well done!

      Delete
  65. A couple of questions for Dr. Fetzer:

    If - as you claim - the limo ground to a halt (thanks to Greer's complicity with the murder scheme) - will you therefore accept that Mary Moorman is a liar? She certainly does not recall the limo grinding to a halt.

    Now, if Mary Moorman (who allegedly took the only close-up photo of JFK's demise) is an outright fraud and liar - what does this tell you about her (in)famous Polaroid picture? Can it still be a truthful representation of the REAL events of that day? Alright, so you are right about me being a "Johnny-come-lately" with regards to the JFK case (just as you were yourself - regarding the 9/11 no-planes paradigm) but I trust that you have now learned something from the 9/11 scam - and how it relied on these two perp assets - which they seemingly have been using for decades to their full advantage - to sell their major mass-deceptions (such as NASA, the Atom Bomb, Al-Qaeda terror strikes, etc...):
    :
    1. TOTAL CONTROL over the narrative of the event
    2. TOTAL CONTROL over the imagery of the event

    You will surely recall that "Evan Fairbanks" who - just like "Mary Moorman" - was interviewed on ABC shortly after the event? Well, we now know that Fairbanks was a liar - who reported an 'event' that never took place (commercial airliner effortlessly melding into WTC). Why would Mary Moorman's story be any more credible?

    Many thanks in advance for any replies to my questions..

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
  66. Ian Greenhalgh wrote:
    "It is not Fetzer's theory, it has been carefully constructed, piece-by-piece over half a century of hard work and careful research by a large number of researchers who have carried out a vast amount of research, who have interviewed and re-interviewed hundreds of people involved in the case or witness to the assassination."

    Ok. Ian - so I gather (more clearly now) that you support the six sharpshooter theory - which isn't really Fetzer's theory - but the result of a collective investigation effort mostly based on witness reports of the JFK event. Thanks for your reply.

    However, your constant name-calling is a bit tiresome.

    Simon Shack

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I support the scenario which is supported by evidence, and if you had bothered to research the case yourself, you would know that the six shooter scenario is very soundly supported by a large body of evidence; so much so that it has been opined by several learned people that the case could be made strongly enough to stand up in a court of law.

      And no, the six shooter scenario is not mostly based on witness testimony. Yes, there are over 70 witnesses who made statements which mention the limo slowing to a halt and hearing more than 3 shots, but there is a lot more evidence such as the Dictabelt recording which recorded at least 6 shots, the physical evidence such as the hole in the windscreen and the bullet which missed altogether, hit the pavement and injured James Tague in the knee.

      It's a very complex case with a huge body of evidence to examine, so for you to come along and decalre to have insight into what actually happened while remaining in almost total ignorance of the facts of the case and the evidence shows that you have both a shocking level of arrogance and a laughable level of ignorance.

      Delete
  67. On your site you claim that yu are an experienced photographer and therefore can stte that it would beimpossible for Moorman to have taken thePolaroid.

    Well, I'm going to call you out on that BS - clearly you know nothing about photography, otherwise you would know better than to make such a ludicrous, untenable statement.

    Moorman used a Polaroid model 80A 'Highlander' camera. This is a basic model with only two shutter speeds - 1/25 and 1/100 of a second, She would have used the faster 1/100 setting as it was a bright sunny morning.

    Looking closely at the Polarid image she took, Bobby Hargis and his bike are blurred, whereas the limo and JFK aren't. This makes sense because the limo was sowing down and about to come to a halt, this took Hargis by surprise so he hadn't slowed down as quickly.

    Shack makes the nonsense statement that the limo was moving at 20mph, of course it wasn't, it was moving much more slowly and was slowing down to a halt.

    The Polaroid was approximately 6x9cm in size, and as someone who has shot thousands of 6x9 format film images, I can state from experience that there can be some blur present in the negative but the image still appears reasonably sharp. So, let us assume, for argument's sake that there is 0.5 inch of motion blur on the limo in the photo - that means it moved 0.5 inch during the 1/100 sec exposure. This amount of blur would be difficult to discern unless you enlarged the image 10 times. If the limo moved 0.5 inches in 1/100 sec it means the limo was travelling at a speed of 50 inches per second. This equates to a speed of 2.8mph.

    2.8mph is a perfectly reasonable speed for the limo to have been moving at the moment Moorman snapped her picture, we know the limo was slowing down to a halt.

    So, Shack has, yet again, made an untenable statement that doesn't stand up to even the most cursory examination and is backed by nothing more substantial than the statement that he is an 'experienced photographer'. Yeah, right, incompetent bullshitter more like...

    ReplyDelete
  68. Six snipers and a donkey, that's heptablow in Dealey Plaza.You better square off this polygon Jim if you don't want your crudibility to hit rock bottom. It's as daft as 911. Somehow I am not surprised the least bit, though sadly disappointed considering Jim is peddling this fairy tale all over the place, Jackie this, Jackie that.

    ReplyDelete