JFK murder reexamined

[Augustine2004]

Should SBT supporters not cite Dale Myers' animation work anymore? Is the coffin for the SBT at last nailed completely shut? IMO a configuration of Kennedy's body, Connally's body and some weird(?) bullet trajectory may still be possible. I made a trigonometry check. The sniper's lair is 490.9' above sea level according to a survey that Roberdeau said he paid for. A survey mark on Elm Street is between z247 and z272 on the Roberdeau graphic
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2...ated110110.gif
and is 421.25' above sea level. I measured the horizontal distance from the sniper's lair (the business end of the gun, where the bullet emerges from the gun) to that mark as about 194'. The angle from the horizontal plane at the gun's business end downward to the mark is 19.7 degrees. Actually, considering Kennedy's height above the Elm Street surface, the angle should be somewhat smaller. But the inaccuracy is not that important; say the height off the surface of Elm Street is 5'--that would make the angle 18.4 degrees instead. Come to think of it, that's approximately what Bob Harris said in his video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJrH62TkCWE
didn't he?

Couldn't the bullet that hit Kennedy's back bounce off a back rib, make a hook around the spine, bounce off the end of the left clavicle that is just below the Adam's apple, and exit at just the right angle to hit Connally's right side? Two things against that. He insisted to his dying day that the bullet that hit him never hit Kennedy. And he does make the great right turn starting in or after z234 and ending around z280. On the other hand, in z222-3, his posture looks peculiarly stiff, sorta like he is feeling an electric shock. In z224-6, he looks pained.


If not this version, then possibly some other version. Probably the SBT can never be disproven.



Now I wanted to examine the Tague cheek affair some more. I did another trigonometry check. Distance from sniper's lair to curb gouge = 450' as determined from measuring the Roberdeau graphic. Difference in height between lair and gouge = 84.7' (I simply subtracted the gouge height from the lair height.) Trigonometry gives us the angle of the trajectory from horizontal, down about 11 degrees. That would be a wild shot all right. Moreover, the bullet would have crossed Elm Street at around z406 (between z390 and 425), probably another indication of a wild or accidental shot. But numerous witnesses reported hearing gunfire from the Dal-Tex building, the one across Houston Street from the TSBD
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dal-Tex_Building
Also, note the assertion that the Dal-Tex Building is on the line extended from the curb gouge. I wonder if it was a mercury bullet and one mercury droplet or more from that were the ones that injured Tague's cheek.

I now think it's hopeless to determine which bullet caused the gouge. We still don't know exactly how many bullets were fired at the motorcade, and perhaps we'd never know from which place any one of a few bullets came from. Nevertheless I did yet another web search for more Tague stuff. I came up with a Serendib find:
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp...e/51_wits.html
Now, in that webpage readers will note references to "No. 7" and "area C." They all refer to the grassy knoll, especially the north pergola (see the Roberdeau graphic
http://img690.imageshack.us/img690/2...ated110110.gif ) Some comments. It's boring, so I won't blame readers for skipping the webpage, but do note my concluding remarks.

For James Thomas Tague stopped on Commerce Street near the Triple Underpass and was standing about 270 feet to the left of the President's car when he felt a sharp sting on his cheek. A deputy sheriff nearby, seeing blood on Tague's cheek, searched the immediate area and found a fresh bullet mark on the south curb of Main Street a few feet away. Tague was hit during the very seconds that he witnessed the murder of the President.

It is difficult to conceive of a sharpshooter aiming at the President from the TSBDB on Elm Street and striking so far afield of his target. It is highly possible, though, that the bullet which hit Tague was fired from the area that Tague himself thought was the source of fire: the grassy knoll on the north side of Elm Street. A marksman stationed there need not have taken faulty aim to miss the President and hit Tague.

First, Tague testified he wasn't aware his cheek had become injured until moments after the assassination and a patrolman talked about blood on Tague's cheek. [I'm confused--the right cheek? Oh, yes! I remember. His left cheek was much less likely to be injured by flying debris coming in from the right.] Second, the curb bullet mark in Tom Dillard's photographs seems to indicate the direction of the TSBD, not the grassy knoll.Third, Dale Myers is probably correct to point out that accidents with guns can happen, even when professionals are handling them. So we have bullets flying far from their intended targets. I for one do not find it very difficult to conceive of stuff like those.

The reference to echoes is significant. To help reduce this great preponderance of witnesses who favored a murder source other than the one it wished to prove, the Commission frequently tried to bring witnesses to admit that it was not the sound of shots they heard but their echoes.

An echo of course is a reflected sound that reaches a hearer a very short time after the originating sound. But if echoes influenced the witnesses at the assassination scene, it is clear that those who thought the shots came from the TSBDB would be more likely to be misled than those who thought the sounds came from the grassy knoll. The Depository was the last tall building of the Dallas business district as the motorcade moved west. The surfaces of buildings like this produce stronger echoes than would a low, convex slope covered by a rug-like grassy surface.

Good points, it seems to me. Of course I'm no expert, though. Please, your thoughts?

[[We come upon the name of Vincent Salandria
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsalandria.htm
I searched that name on the web a little, but this is going afield.]]

When the assassin opened fire, the Presidential limousine had just passed the steps which lead to the concrete monument on the grassy knoll.

It's either wrong or just not clear. If the first hit occurred shortly before z225--oh, I simply don't know what is meant if it's not wrong.

On the basis of auditory testimony alone from 51 witnesses (and we grant that such testimony in a case like this can never be, by itself, convincing or conclusive) we must agree that the grassy knoll which approaches the famous Triple Underpass on the northwest side of Elm Street would be the most likely source of most of the bullets fired at the motorcade that day. Mr. Vincent J. Salandria has recently outlined the ballistic and medical probabilities of such a trajectory.[2] However, we stress that the two sources of bullets are not mutually exclusive.[note, this by itself admits the possibility that Oswald did fire at least once.] The chief weakness of the Warren Report was its absolute refusal to consider seriously any other source of shots besides the TSBDB, even though such a source is indicated by the largest number of direct witnesses.

". . . the most likely source of most of the bullets fired . . ." Oh, wow, I certainly don't agree. Maybe one or even two. The latter possibility might allow the characterization of "most of the shots" but I'd try to make my responding shrug obvious.


A point was made that made me infer the third (or 4th--see paragraph below), fourth (or 5th), and fifth (or 5th) cars should have had good views of the TSBD at around z160, when many people suggest a shot was heard. I looked at the Zapruder film. The third car had no roof, but the fourth car did have a roof. I didn't see what the fifth car looked like. The third car was still making the turn from Houston into Elm Street.

The section, which is the one I am now reviewing (see just above), titled "The Best View" is poorly put together. The William Greer sentence is non sequitur for one thing. It's not clear how the cars are numbered. The lead car was about 100 feet ahead of the Kennedy car, and does not appear in the Zapruder film until possibly the last few frames. Is the lead car number 1? Then the Kennedy car would be number 2, and the LBJ car number 3.

I guess so. Sorry for the confusion, but it's not entirely my fault. It does make sense that the best auditory testimony people usually can offer is to indicate whether a sound is on the left or right. Questions of whether a sound is above or below or front and behind should normally be unanswerable. Most people in the LBJ car (#3?) of course could do no better than testify that the direction was from the right. I wonder about Lady Bird's testimony. Unless her head was tilted away from the TSBD, how did she know, if she did, that the sound was from there?

Star witness of the Commission was undoubtedly Howard Leslie Brennan who was working at the time fabricating pipe in the yards just behind the Depository. After lunch he went to Elm and Houston and perched himself on the retaining wall of the pool at the Dealey Plaza entrance, wearing the hard helmet that identifies him in photographs of the scene. He says he saw "this one man" come and leave the sixth floor window a couple of times before the shooting. After the second shot Brennan looked up again, "and this man that I saw previous was aiming for his last shot." The gunman then drew back "and maybe paused for another second as though to sure[sic] himself that he hit his mark, then he disappeared" (III, 143-4). Brennan went on to describe the rifleman in remarkable detail for a view at such a distance.

Recall the accusation a while ago that Brennan was a "manufactured witness."


I may or may not continue my review next time.

Serendib find: Bertrand Russell's essay http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/the_cri...s_russell.html

http://www.jfk-info.com/wc-zapr.htm zapruder testimony

[Augustine2004]

Lil Pixie, stoutly supported by Rogue06, repeatedly makes a good point that any large group should not expect to be able to keep secrets for a long time; in particular, keep evidence of its skullduggery from coming into public awareness. The CIA , however, did get away with skullduggery many times. I am not going to cite literature, surely that is common knowledge. Any reader who is still skeptical of that should google around and get the history that he so sorely lacks.

And, regardless, according to some authors, many people did talk. Many times witnesses talked before any putative conspirator could stop them. In the JFK murder there were just too many witnesses. Contrary to what Lil Pixie seems to think, it could be possible to weave a plausible narrative from a careful selection of witness statements.

Russ Baker in his review disagrees with the argument that someone would have talked. Since nobody talked, ergo there was no CIA conspiracy. Many people did talk and many more would have except they were afraid or killed dead before they could talk too much or got discredited ("lone wingnut anarchist!!")
http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/04/10/som...ould-be-crazy/

Woman got murdered probably because she blabbed too much
Mary's Mosaic
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/161...SIN=1616087080

Clint Hill did talk
Clint Hill's memoirs Mrs. Kennedy and Me
http://www.amazon.com/Mrs-Kennedy-Me...4285645&sr=1-1

[Augustine2004]

Interesting tidbit about the Texas Rangers: A former Ranger said they were told their help was not needed. No precedent for that.
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com...ry-of-jfk.html



Resuming my review of this webpage: http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp...e/51_wits.html

But the stories did not say (1) that Mr. Baker made his determination that shots were coming from the Depository while he was riding at the end of the motorcade, that is, before entering Houston Street from Main Street, that is, from distance greater than any other witness . . .

No, recall, Baker himself testified he was some distance up Houston already. But not a fatal blunder.

Conclusion of the review: Like the Roberdeau graphic, "Fifty-one Witnesses: The Grassy Knoll"by Harold Feldman needs to be carefully checked out.
Recall that the wikipedia article on Dealey Plaza http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dealey_Plaza has this statement:

There is also a grassy knoll on the northwest side of the plaza, from which, the House Select Committee on Assassinations determined, based on controversial and disputed acoustic analysis, there was a "high probability" that a second gunman also fired at President Kennedy, but missed.

If I had to choose, I'd choose the Feldman article (see the second paragraph above from here to that HSCA conclusion).

Of the 104 earwitness reports published by the Commission and elsewhere, 56 recorded testimony to the effect that they heard shots from the direction of the Depository to the rear of the President, 35 recorded testimony of shots from the direction of the knoll or the triple underpass to the right or front of the President, and five earwitnesses were reported testifying that the shots came from two directions.[14]

Big difference here. Is it a case of the Warren Commission burying many "grassy knoll" reports or did Feldman get things wrong? I'd choose Feldman over the Commission, again.


Serendib find (thanks to Wikipedia): Zapruder panorama, you know the computer rotates the viewpoint rotates 360 degrees.http://www.escapekeygraphics.com/pan...apruder_perch/
I stopped the panorama rotation when the Elm-Houston intersection came into view. Once again the Zapruder film view of the east part of Elm Street appears definitely different than in other photography.


Serendib find: Files on JFK, book about James Files, who may or may not be the grassy knoll shooter or the shooter that made that fatal head shoot.
http://www.amazon.com/Files-JFK-Wim-...DateDescending
Wow, a review says Files used a mercury bullet! (review by Frank Beckendorf on Amazon.com)

I did some Internet searching, and it turns out that jfkmurdersolved.com is a website of the book author's (Wim Dankbaar). If you do a search with "Wim Dankbaar", you'd get pages and pages of mud thrown on the name. I wonder about attempting to sort out which side--Dankbaar or his critics--is the more seeking the truth. Perhaps I will just find out neither side is wholly on the side of good and true. Maybe I will in the end find myself unable to make up my mind which side to favor. Please let me know what you think.

I think I will at least do something on this today. So----the Wikipedia article on Peter Rudolf de Vries (not the author, the Dutch investigative journalist) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_R._de_Vries says he partnered with Wim on a special of his TV(?) show that ran the first half of 2006. Then, as far as I can make out now, the pair tried to make a movie developed from the work done on the special, but Wim just incredibly acted out of character and ruined the project with schoolboy antics. He was put on trial for those and convicted. My surface take anyway. Cut! That's a reel.

Do I mean here that I think now that Wim's enemies are the bad guys? Well, I am suspicious, but I want to poke into things some more. Maybe not thebad guys anyway.



Wim's website JFK Murder Solved has a page on Peter R. deVries that praised him to the high skies. Whoa, Nellie, yer goin' too fast!! Let me think. First Wim gets convicted for doing stuff to deVries then posts a page like that? Readers, won't you help!?



I had not thought Wikipedia would have an article on James Files, the guy claiming to be the grassy knoll shooter, who fired the fatal shot, but Wikipedia does http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Files Note, Wim Dankbaar is mentioned there, twice.


Incidentally, here http://dperry1943.com/darby.html Dave Perry points out that the fingerprint evidence of Malcolm Wallace's involvement in the assassination consists only of two photocopies. You remember Malcolm Wallace as LBJ's hitman or one of the hitmen. Good point, for two reasons: Photocopies could be faked, and maybe once in a while a photocopy could distort the evidence too much. So in the end, all we have are suspicions.




Now reviewing Dave Perry's assassination website http://dperry1943.com/

The Rashomon List http://dperry1943.com/rashomon.html is ridiculous Why list erroneous or shaky cases? Well, to be sure, a handy list for looking up a case particularly its origin or first publication. Probably the list is not exhaustive, though. I doubt I'd be using the list often, anyway.



"The contradictions between the stories of James Files and Judyth Vary Baker [Oswald's alleged lover]" http://dperry1943.com/onedayindealey.html

The huge hole in the Files’ version of events – the last minute change in the motorcade route. There was no last minute change. The details were published in all the local papers starting on the Tuesday before the assassination. For years historians have used this very point to show those making the claim are ignorant of the facts.

From what I have read before, the motorcade was changed several days before, contrary to a Secret Service rule. Perhaps Files simply made an assumption, or perhaps 'last-minute' wasn't meant to be taken literally.

In the end, not much of a story there, but IMO big stories are in the footnotes #4 and #10.



"A CTKA Story?" http://dperry1943.com/ctkastory.html could be an attempt to discredit Jim Marrs and Jack White, both connected with the Citizens For Truth About the Kennedy Assassination. You remember Jim Marrs as the best selling author, and Jack White in connection with assassinationscience.com. Well, phooey, not going to review what seems a rather minor thing.


"Texas in the Morning Imagination" http://dperry1943.com/browns.html This is a debunking of a memoir by Madeleine Brown, who claimed to be a LBJ paramour. I don't know about the accuracy, diligence, and honesty of Dave Perry's fact-checking, but for now I will avoid any case based on whatever she said.


"Rain Senseless" http://dperry1943.com/rainsenless.html Boy did Dave Perry do a job on Dr. John Costella and Jack White. I felt embarrassed reading that piece, like just finding out I'd backed someone who turned out be quite the clown. I tried to find a defense by Costella against attacks like the above, but no luck.

The above discussion comes from someone who hasn't investigated north Texas weather and is unacquainted with the area's weather patterns. Weather systems in this part of Texas move predominately from the north or northwest through Colorado and Oklahoma to the southeast. Based upon this normal weather pattern, the rain sensor mentioned is actually located in the ideal place on a large rectangular object such as this sign.

Mounting difficulty aside, isn't the top of the sign the best location on the sign?

What is perplexing is that Jack White should know about this. He owns a home within the city limits of Fort Worth. Fort Worth is located in Tarrant County. I can’t believe he is unaware of the situation. Water restrictions and drought conditions are discussed at least weekly on the local TV stations.

I find that somewhat uncalled for. A comment that one has not seen sprinklers run in many trips to Dallas should not be teed off on that savagely.

"Noise-reduction algorithm"? This is really just nonsense advanced by someone lacking knowledge of irrigation systems and in particular irrigation zones. He uses disputable "facts" to reach the unproven conclusion that the rain sensors are listening devices. He then tries to create a model for the layout that contemplates noise cancellation. When seeking to prove symmetry the location of the fourth sensor is crucial, but when lack of symmetry is required it disappears. Then, in a final effort to move to the asymmetrical, the third sensor becomes "the odd man out."

Dave Perry is for the most part right here, but it seems to me he misread what he quoted just above the passaged boxed just above.

Most, if not all, depend upon the reader being unable to think critically.

Low shot well played, Dave! Well played. Ouch. Phooey, actually. Let me see . . . I deliberately create a flaw in my argument or allow one in it, relying on the fact that you, my dear readers, would be just the ones to swallow every drop of hogwash I sprinkle unto thee.

I believe my research shows that Dr. Costella’s claim that Dealey Plaza rain sensors are listening devices is just another piece of paranoid conjecture. Actually, the twisted logic adopted by Dr. Costella can be used to "out" individuals like Dr. Costella and Jack White as "disinformation agents" in the blink of an eye. Why?

Think for a moment.

One could argue that this type of person who claims they are the subject of continued governmental surveillance and are the ongoing victims of disinformation agents might in actuality be a disinformation agent working to sabotage the assassination research of others. What better way to hinder real investigations into John F. Kennedy’s assassination than to get self-professed "highly respected researchers" to constantly present preposterous and eccentric theories?

No comment (too embarrassed).


Re the photograph at the bottom of the article with the caption "The "Grassy Knoll" Rain Sensor": 1) Isn't that the Thornton sign? The background looks right for it. I don't know if people would consider the area around the sign to be part of the grassy knoll. Poll: Grass or knot? Aye, there's the bull. 2) Gjerde was right about the signs at least to the extent the Thornton sign has three parts?? Of course, after near 50 years, the original sign is probably gone, so we don't know for sure.

[Augustine2004]

After reading Dave Perry's articles on James Files, I had little enthusiasm for Files' account of the assassination. Dave showed many problems with Files' confession; for example see http://dperry1943.com/mosaic.html ------------Uh oh! Did Dave really do a good job, though? See several paragraphs below.

Besides, suppose Files did tell the truth for the most part. He really doesn't answer questions such as these:

1. A motorcade-assassination photo is claimed to have captured George Herbert Walker Bush's image in front of the TSBD. What was his role in the assassination, if any? (Incidentally in an early post, I erred about Bush being head of the CIA at the time of the assassination. He became head only much later. However, at the time of the assassination, he may already be involved in the CIA.)

2. What roles did LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover have to play if any?

3. What other prominent government officials were involved, if any?

If it were true that Chicago mobsters John Roselli, and Charles "Chuckie" Nicoletti were involved, that would be good to know but it would not help answer those questions.

Now suppose Files was simply a con artist. That certainly would show up Wim Dankbaar and Peter R. de Vries, but really what is going on? Note that on the one hand Dave Perry is scornful of Joe West but Wim Dankbaar is rather respectful. Hmmm!

Turns out Wim Dankbaar thinks Dave Perry and Gary Mack (the curator of the Sixth Floor Museum in the TSBD) are partners in the coverup. See http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mack.htm

However, Dave protests here http://dperry1943.com/closed.html people's thinking that he is an "anti-conspiracy wolf in pro-conspiracy sheep's clothing." I am still puzzled.

On page 338 we find "The 6.5mm slug left Oswald's rifle at 2,000 feet per second and hit Kennedy at the base of the neck between 1,700 and 1,800 feet per second." Mr. Posner shouldn't use one entry velocity (2,000 feet per second+) to prove spinal cord injury then change to another entry velocity (1,800 to 1,700 feet per second) to support the "magic" bullet theory.

Because of air resistance, bullets can slow considerably. I am not sure, though, that over such short distances like 100 feet, that much loss of velocity is likely.

Once FBI Agent Hosty "determined Oswald 'was not employed in a sensitive industry,' he did not take a priority over the other twenty-five to forty cases assigned to him at any one time."

Here a trained FBI agent responsible for shadowing Oswald was one of the few individuals who failed to recognize his "target" as unstable. In Case Closed I discovered Gerald often paints a sympathetic picture of government officials such as Hosty, who failed to perform responsibly.

Seems to me Dave is being a bit unfair to an overworked agent.

All in all Dave makes a good case for keeping Posner's case . . . OPEN!



Until I started to read the "JFK Murder Solved" website, I thought the CIA and the mafia were quite separate organizations. I had no definite idea how connected they were--partners in crime. Rather many people had worked for both; it was far from being unprecedented for the CIA to recruit the mafia for something like the assassination. Probably still true today. Examples: the head shot killers, James Files (nee Sutton) and Charles Nicoletti.



I googled assassinationresearch.com for "Files." The only mention of James Files that I could find was in one PDF file, and it was erroneous. The point is, there was no mention of the deductions by the assassinationscience.com team (not assassinationresearch) that Kennedy was hit in the back of his head by a bullet then a split second later by a bullet that hit the right temple on its forward (?) edge.

I then googled assassinationscience.com for "Files," too. One hit here http://www.assassinationscience.com/white2.html but no mention of the deductions described above.

Thus, all the more am I impressed that Files' description and the assassinationscience.com deductions match so exactly. Files said he was aiming at Kennedy's eye [the right one?] and missed, because Nicoletti's bullet had hit the back of Kennedy's head a split second before. The bullet impact drove the head forward, so Files' bullet hit the left side of the right temple instead.



You remember Rosemary Willis' testimony of a flash of light and afterwards a puff of smoke on the grass knoll? That could have been Files' shot. (need to verify my memory here, however.)

That's the end, I think, of my review of Dave Perry's website.

So, it wasn't until 1992 that someone (Joe West) filed suit to have JFK's body exhumed and examined for evidence! AFAIK, such motion is still not yet granted! http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/gallery.htm

Wim Dankbaar eviscerates Gary Mack here http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/mack.htm

[Augustine2004]

The Saga of the Three Hoboes . . . brings to mind the Three Stooges. Ah, sorry, I got off the track. We have in the corner there (pointing) the webpage http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/3tramps.htm The champion! And in the corner there (pointing) the webpage, rather, webpages, http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/lois1.htm The challenger!
Ho hum, you may be feeling. Those characters are just hoboes or tramps, right? Just a coincidence the police caught them so shortly after the assassination. Yes, that's what the champion says. The challenger on the other hand says all three were CIA people. See where he asserts, "The CIA and their disinformation servants can lie all they want against the shadows and laws of the solar system." But are not these three people minor actors in the great drama? I don't know. Actually, we need to see how prone the CIA is to using evildoers. Anyway, I intend to work out, if possible, which--champion or challenger--is more likely to be right. If the challenger wins, then my respect for the website "JFK Murder Solved" will increase a notch, despite what is surely an exaggeration--"solved"!?
Now, the challenger goes first. Here's forensic artist Lois Gibson. Her name appears in two Wikipedia articles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chauncey_Marvin_Holt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V-J_Day_in_Times_Square
Her bio is impressive http://www.loisgibson.com/biography.asp
---"Converge" is misspelled "converse."
Charles Harrelson is indeed said to be actor Woody Harrelson's dad. On to page 2--no comment. On to page 3; I don't see anything wrong. On page 4 there could be a mistake about the date of the last photo: "Here is a picture of Chauncey Holt in 1963." Couldn't it be earlier, perhaps 1953? IMO, the pictures of Holt as "hobo" definitely show a much older guy. On page 5, no comment.
Ok, now, the champion's turn. The arrest records (see near the bottom of the webpage) can be easily faked. And where are the mug shots and fingerprint cards? Their absence works against conviction. Indeed, according to the Wikipedia article
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F....s#Three_tramps
the Dallas Police Department had (?) claimed to have lost the arrest records along with the associated mug shots and fingerprint cards. IMO Lois did convincingly dispose of the Harold Doyle-John Forrester Gedney-Gus W. Abrams identification. And notice what the alleged sister of Abrams said, "Yep, that's my Bill!" Well, maybe Gus was called that; maybe the "W" in his name (Gus W. Abrams) is Will or William.

OK, IMO the challenger wins easily.

Serendib find: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/experts.htm

Jack White, James Fetzer, David Mantik: Mary Moorman Standing in Elm Street
One of the truly outlandish projects of assassination researchers during the past decade has been to prove that the Zapruder film — long claimed to be iron-clad conspiracy evidence — was in fact tampered with and faked by U.S. government agencies. One piece of evidence produced to support this notion was an analysis of "sight lines" in the Moorman Polaroid that supposedly proved that Mary Moorman was standing in Elm Street when she shot the picture. Since the Zapruder film shows her standing on the grass of the Dealey Plaza infield, the Zapruder film was tampered with, and Moorman's position changed. Unfortunately, a careful replication of the analysis by Gary Mack and Josiah Thompson showed Moorman to have been on the grass exactly where the Zapruder film shows her.

Here we go again. I looked at the "careful replication" http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/moorman1.htm and indeed it is what we had looked at before. Note, the website is mcadams.posc.mu.edu. I don't know whether the author of the experts.htm, the "Serendib find" link, would change his or her mind after seeing the Fetzer counter-rebuttal http://www.jfkresearch.com/Moorman/
Now next up on the webpage is a section titled "Jack White: "Photogrammetry?" What's that?" I am not interested in going back into the question of whether the backyard photos are faked. We have enough evidence of a conspiracy IMO already. Note that the definition of photogrammetry in the boxed part of the section with the heading "Key Concept: Photogrammetry" differs considerably from the Wikipedia article on photogrammetry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photogrammetry

Heh! David Mantik (remember his mention of The Day of the Jackal and how mercury bullets figured in it?)--He reviewed John McAdams' JFK ASSASSINATION LOGIC: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy. Now, McAdams is the owner of mcadams.posc.mu.edu, many of whose pages were examined in this post. Well, well! Looks like Mantik really took poor John to school. Note that Mantik uses the adjective "inferior" frequently; I think he means "below" or something like that.

After all, some sightings are not false (e.g., John Wilkes Booth was probably photographed at Lincoln’s second inauguration—see here).

I browsed this large format photo http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ch_1865%29.jpg and zoomed in. It certainly looks like Booth, but I want more evidence before I give the identification a high probability.

(Although he states that leukemia is rare, my own father died from it.)

So did my grandfather Franklin. Not sure what the point is, though.

Here is yet one more problem (of many) with the SBT: so that the throat wound can remain (very) small, McAdams requires that the shirt and collar buttress the skin (p. 225). However, the eyewitness evidence is clear: the wound was above the shirt and tie. While before the WC, Charles Carrico (a surgeon, who saw the wound at Parkland) clearly implied that the wound was above the necktie and above the shirt collar (3H361-362). To leave no doubt about what Carrico had seen, Harold Weisberg reports his own confirmatory interview with Carrico (Post-Mortem 1969, pp. 357-358 and 375-376). Nurse Diana Bowron also reported seeing this wound while JFK was still in the limousine—before JFK was undressed (Killing the Truth by Harry Livingstone, p. 188)—but she could not have seen it unless it had been above the tie. Now think about this: if the wound indeed lay above the necktie, no buttressing would have been possible and McAdams’s case would then be at least suspect, if not lost.

Sigh! Once again your wary, clear-thinking, well-schooled and intrepid investigator falls for a hoax or misunderstanding or a jump to conclusion. You recall my approving citation of tests that show the skin could be so "buttressed" that exit wounds are thus made small, so they would appear to be entrance wounds. But no, I now think there's no way JFK's throat above the necktie could have been so buttressed that exit wounds there can be made to look like entrance wounds.

If the windshield had a perforated hole (from either direction), then the SBT would be seriously discredited, but McAdams insists (p. 193) that such a through-and-through hole did not exist. Assume for the moment that the hole existed: How then could that have occurred? A shot from the front, of course, might explain both such a hole as well as the throat wound (the latter possibly via a glass fragment), . . .

I think I caught Mantik going off to never-never land. A problem is the partition in the JFK limo that separates the front seats from the rear. I think the partition has glass in it?? http://jfklancer.com/photos/limo/parkland6.jpg A shot that penetrated the limo windshield from the front would necessarily have to penetrate the partition glass if it is to hit JFK. To be sure, maybe I'm wrong about the partition glass.

I’m not sure just what that 6.5 mm fragment is. One thing I’m sure it is NOT is a cross-section from the interior of a bullet. I have seen literally thousands of bullets, deformed and undeformed, after penetrating tissue and tissue simulants. Some were bent, some torn in two or more pieces, but to have a cross-section sheared out is physically impossible. That fragment has a lot of mystery associated with it. Some have said it was a piece of the jacket, sheared off by the bone and left on the outside of the skull. I’ve never seen a perfectly round piece of bullet jacket in any wound. Furthermore, the fragment seems to have greater optical density thin-face on [the frontal X-ray] than it does edgewise [the lateral X-ray]…. The only thing I can think is that it is an artifact (MIDP, p. 266).

A puzzle is that the purpose of faking a bullet fragment that way is simply unclear. Maybe it's to add to the weight of evidence for all shots coming in from the rear, but that seems a lot of effort and risk for such a little "benefit."
The section on the unreliability of fingerprint identification should taken to be a cautionary against the claim of a Malcolm Wallace fingerprint left at the sniper's nest. I'm disappointed; that might have given us a way to prove LBJ's guilt otherwise.
I admit Appendix 2, the accuracy and completeness of eyewitness testimony or reporting, surprised me.
I hope Rogue and Lil Pixie read Appendix 4, people keeping secrets.

Figure 7 [in Appendix 5]. CT scan of a patient. This cross section is very close to C7-T1, the level chosen by McAdams for the SBT. I used JFK’s wound measurements to place the hypothetical trajectory (in red). Such a trajectory is impossible here because bone from the spine (the transverse process) intervenes. Based on his X-rays, JFK experienced no such bone trauma. In 1963, CT scans were still in the distant future. This visual disproof of the single bullet theory was first anticipated several years after the assassination (but still well before CT scanners) by a pathologist, John Nichols, MD, PhD

You may recall my suggestion that the bullet hooked (curved to the left) and bounced off the end of the left clavicle. On the basis of the pictures shown in the figures, not only would the bullet need to hook, it would have to move a considerable distance up, perhaps by bouncing off a rib. That is rather unlikely, because the ribs at around T3 or below curve downward (Figure 5). Actually, the bullet would be more likely to slice (curve to the right)?
That concludes my review of Mantik's review of the McAdams book. Such a great example of logic and forensic reasoning. I must reread sometime.

Wow, a book on LBJ's guilt? http://www.ctka.net/reviews/Green_LBJ.html Lemme review the review, all right?
My conclusion: LBJ was probably just the kind of person who would at least want to kill JFK. Does he indeed have the means? Opportunity, yes, if he had the means. Lots of ways to kill Kennedy if you have the resources of the federal government to command. The CIA for example, as I've noted before, had plenty of practice in overthrowing regimes. Unfortunately, going with the review, the book just doesn't make a good case. The failure to see LBJ's face in the Altgens photograph is rather confidence-destroying.

Hopefully at least this review of a Jesse Ventura book will be much better, though I rather doubt it would be decisive: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/coogan_ventura_review.html
"Haldeman" not "Halderman" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._R._Haldeman Hi, I'm Augustiner.
So, ol' Fletcher Prouty is "one of the most misrepresented and misquoted critics in research history, by both pro-conspiracy and lone-nut advocates"!? Wow, I gotta go back to reviewing his "Guns of Dallas" sometime.
Bill Newman - new to me!? This youtube may help ID him http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SG7MszxPAE

Ventura lurches a little at 13:33 when he says Johnson set up the Warren Commission. He did so in name, but it was actually Eastern Establishment figures Eugene Rostow and Joseph Alsop (both known CIA assets) that applied pressure to Johnson and got him to form the Commission. Johnson was reluctant and had wanted the investigation carried out in Texas.

Wow. That looks at first glance to be exonerating evidence against LBJ's guilt. But why did LBJ want the investigation to be in Texas, given the Dallas Police Department's cooperation if not assistance in the assassination? I'll look some more sometime.

[Ventura] mentions that Ford on his deathbed admitted the CIA “had destroyed or withheld critical evidence” . . . mentioned Ford’s admission that he altered the placement of the wounds to conform to Specter’s representation of what happened.

Wow! Gonna try to confirm these phrases.

mentioned the failed experiments by the military for the Warren Commission

Got that, Rogue & Lil Pixie? That was after Ventura's experiment with shooting up a few hay bales.

. . . the real identities of the [three] tramps apparently were uncovered by Ray and Mary LaFontaine in one of the few interesting pieces of information they espoused in their below average book, Oswald Talked.

Ooo! Ouch! Who's right--John McAdams or the JFK Murder Solved website master Wim Dankbaar? I'm still with the latter.

A spicy olla podrida! Wikipedia and the JFK assassination. Guaranteed to make you feel sick. http://www.ctka.net/2010/wiki.html ------------review next time.

[Augustine2004]

I saw a recommendation of this book http://www.amazon.com/LBJ-The-Master...5986419&sr=1-1 from reading Amazon.com reader reviews of Mrs Kennedy and Me by Clint Hill. I had despaired of ever establishing a case against LBJ or finding one, but this at least looks promising. I may even buy a copy.



Many people, I understand, have suggested this speech is one of the things that got JFK murdered http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/R...e-10-1963.aspx
Certainly that would upset CIA people, but I think the assassination would have gone on anyway.



I don't think LBJ was the mastermind as much as the reviews in Amazon.com seem to indicate. He couldn't have planned most of the details & recruited most conspiring people, "mechanics" in particular. However, he certainly could have provided much impetus to the conspiracy.



Resuming the review of Wikipedia's role in the coverup http://www.ctka.net/2010/wiki.html Now looking at today's Wikipedia article on Lee Harvey Oswald--the table of contents is different from what was presented as the Winter 2011 version. I don't see why Agent Hosty's testimony is apparently given greater prominence than before.



From other articles on the CTKA website, it seems The Amazing Randi and Penn & Teller as well as Michael Shermer, the founder of Skeptic, are in the coverup & disinformation operation. See, e.g., The Illusion of Michael Shermer, Principles of Sleight of Hand, reviewed by Frank Cassano http://www.ctka.net/2011/shermer_illusion.html Include David Von Pein

http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html The Secret Service, too, if Vince Palamara
is to be believed http://www.ctka.net/reviews/kennedydetailreview.html 48 years now -- 50 years come November 2013 -- coverup & disinformation yet.



Abraham Bolden seems to be a hero. Or was he naive about the shadow government's ruthlessness? Look at what happened to him after he exposed the Chicago plot to kill Kennedy there --search for "Bolden" in this article http://www.ctka.net/reviews/jfk_unspeakable.html He wrote a book http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...ripbooks%2C320



Looking at The Connally Bullet Powerful evidence that Connally was hit by a bullet from a different assassin, by Robert Harris http://www.ctka.net/2011/Harris_Bell_Article.html



Lil Pixie and Rogue might have comments on this technical note "The FBI's Fib about the Mannlicher Carcano" http://www.ctka.net/pr795-fbifib.html



That is not all the articles I've read on the CTKA website. Two articles discussed the possibility of gun silencers, especially what effects they may have on ear witnesses.

[Augustine2004]

Would Lil Pixie and Rogue care to comment on this (Sibel Edmonds, whistleblower) http://davidswanson.org/node/3665 Perhaps Lil and Rogue should ask themselves, why do whistleblowers have to live such tough lives? And, any good reason?


An example of a witness going through such great hell that she went into something like exile. A guy had to spend 35 years to find her http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss...ripbooks%2C184

Any comment from Lil and Rogue at all?


The Wikipedia entry on Mary Pinchot Meyer (her death is the subject of the book Mary's Mosaic) presents an interesting comment by Cord Meyer, her widower, weeks before his death (WARNING: offensive language; no link provided because of that).


I now have LBJ: The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination. Leafing through it, I realized an error. Let me explain

It's not clear how the cars are numbered. The lead car was about 100 feet ahead of the Kennedy car, and does not appear in the Zapruder film until possibly the last few frames. Is the lead car number 1? Then the Kennedy car would be number 2, and the LBJ car number 3.

Actually, the LBJ car is number 4. Realizing my error I looked for LBJ's face in car number 4 and didn't see it. I do see clearly Lady Bird's face, but not his.


Don't expect much from me the next few weekends as I go through the book.

[Augustine2004]

LBJ book comments: I thought the "Acknowledgements" section was impressive; at least, many knowledgable and logical people seem to have done a colossal amount of groundwork and fact-checking.

Nelson, the book author, wrote about the disinclination of the American people to face the possibility that a person of great evil could be President of the United States. That is naivety and lack of maturity. Unfortunately the world suffers from those character flaws yet. Governments might have a chance of being good if systems existed for keeping evil or incompetent people out of office. Elections do not work because people vote themselves benefits at the expense of the minority or are conned or because elections are easily rigged.

If the introduction is reliable, LBJ and his henchman (hundreds if not thousands!) did a lot of coverup stuff for not just the JFK assassination but a great many other crimes. Enough investigations were quietly buried so that LBJ was never ? close to being stopped on his way to the Presidency. Such experience might have helped give LBJ confidence that the coverup of the plot to kill JFK could be successful enough.

The Wikipedia caption for this picture

------------- purloined from Wikipedia

said that LBJ had it edited to efface the image of the guy in the middle (Governor Allred of Texas) to help LBJ's campaign.

This phrase stunned me: " . . . blackmail [of JFK] by Lyndon Johnson and J. Edgar Hoover . . ." So that was how JFK was forced to choose LBJ for veep instead of Senator Stuart Symington!?

On page 19 Halliburton is mentioned. Yes, Dick Cheney's company. LBJ as freshman congressman did a lot for a company that later became a subsidary of Halliburton.

By the time LBJ got on the Kennedy Presidential ticket, he was under a cloud for stealing elections. In some ways the infamous Box 13 scandal is a forerunner of the assassination--done out in the open, audaciously. Sheer brass.

Given also that Kennedy was blackmailed as discussed above, I wouldn't have bet a wooden penny that the Kennedy Presidential campaign would be wholly clean. Sure enough, the book on page 37 goes, " . . . won . . . in eleven states through massive election fraud."
That shows certainly LBJ was criminal and daring enough to attempt Kennedy's assassination. LBJ was probably also desperate, being threatened with long jail time.

LBJ took payments from mobsters including labor leaders. J. Edgar Hoover denied the existence of the Mob. Life magazine brought to light many of LBJ's crimes ironically on the same day JFK was assassinated.

John Connally, the governor of Texas who was wounded in the JFK assassination, had a long relationship with LBJ already before then. Sleazy guys, both. Hmmm . . . wonder if Connally benefitted from large numbers of destroyed or fake ballots also?

Jack Ruby had some sort of connection with LBJ, of a criminal nature. I was surprised to see Ruby's name pop up so often in the book.

"The reason for the FBI's [going easy on the Mob was] the Mob's coercive power over the vulnerable director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover."

I find it hard to believe people would swallow the line, hook, and sinker that Lady Bird Johnson had managed to build a collection of radio and TV stations into a huge communication empire--yet LBJ apparently thought he could get away with such a fib. Well, he did succeed at becoming a billionaire or something like that even before JFK asked him to be his running mate. (As I wrote that, this popped up in my head: "If you run with a pack of dogs, aren't you a dog, too?")

LBJ was the pioneer of the Communist-baiting campaign against anyone. Joe McCarthy and Dick Nixon were mere copycats.

It may be possible to keep such a manipulative devil out of government, but 1) people have to believe such a person could exist. 2) And --Well, I don't know any way to keep LBJ out short of putting him in jail and throwing the key away, assassinating him, or keeping the spotlight on his activities (as if that would lead people to take action against him). Maybe better no government--nothing there to bend to one's will.

" . . . subvert Kennedy's Cuban policies"! What was LBJ's role in the Cuban Missile Crisis, I wonder?

By the time LBJ got on the Kennedy Presidential ticket, he was under a cloud for stealing elections. In some ways the infamous Box 13 scandal is a forerunner of the assassination--done out in the open, audaciously. Sheer brass.

Sherlock Holmes' archenemy Professor Moriarty, comes to mind. (LBJ had a teacher's certificate.)

After setting the background of the 1960 election, Part II starts out with the CIA. If any one part of the USFG is out of control, that's the one.

I had not understood before how much animosity and doubt the Bay of Pigs debacle created in so many people against JFK. Not just the CIA, but the Mafia and the anti-Castro Cubans as well. LBJ did not create such a situation by himself, but that was certainly something someone of his abilities could exploit for his own ends.

Some months after the Bay of Pigs debacle, JFK started Operation Mongoose, a program for overthrowing Cuba's Communist regime. Ironically, the program later served as a pilot program for assassinating JFK. For one thing, Mongoose brought in William King Harvey. I suspect that ironically again WKH would turn out to have a huge role in the assassination, because of his ability to plan and execute intricate and massive operations.

If everyone agreed on what to do, would we need government? Of course people are not going to agree; we can take that for granted. Would government then be necessary? The question actually should be, how can any government find the right set of policies--and execute them effectively? Take Kennedy's administration. Maybe his policy preferences were better overall than those of his many enemies, but they were not executed in large part because of opposition to them, opposition so great as to eventually kill him and his policies. I think it should be mentioned that a main thesis of the book is that LBJ's policy most of his life was to be POTUS. Would you vote for such an animal?

Alex Constantine: Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA. Not really free?? How free anyway?

??? Philip Graham was the "de facto vice chairman of Operation Mockingbird . . ." The book goes on to say that he was the first man to advance LBJ for veep to Sam Rayburn and then the Kennedys. Further, the book goes on to suggest that perhaps Graham "seduced" JFK into taking on LBJ to be his running mate. Hmmm, which version is correct, that or blackmail? Or both?

Joe McCarthy and J. Edgar Hoover were pals; the latter often supplied grist for McCarthy's anti-Communist mill.


Only 1/4 thru.

[Augustine2004]

Nelson, author of LBJ: The Mastermind . . ., points out that Malcolm Wallace at a time worked for D.H. Byrd, who was not only LTV chief executive but owner of Texas School Book Depositary. Nelson went on to state, ". . . [Texas School Book Depositary], where Wallace would leave a fingerprint." Recall that I've already mentioned dissent from that assertion; in particular, people claimed differences between examplar and specimen. Malcolm may have indeed been in Texas School Book Depositary, but he could have left that fingerprint anytime--or really didn't. I do think Wallace was involved in the JFK assassination, but I would concede the fingerprint evidence is far from conclusive.

This webpage about Clint Peoples http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKpeoples.htm
looks like it could have been largely copied from LBJ by Nelson. However the last sentence

Clinton Peoples was killed in an automobile accident on 22nd June, 1992.

seems to be like a coverup, if what the book has to say is to be believed: Peoples was about to reveal his findings regarding murders committed by Mac Wallace and their ties to the JFK assassination when a large truck broadsided Peoples' car, killing him instantly. Peoples was said to have told a friend that he had documentary evidence Mac Wallace had left a fingerprint in the Texas School Book Depository. Do you recall that I linked to this page ==>?http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp....breakthru.html
That page is copyrighted 1998, while Peoples' alleged revelation to his friend was just days before his mysterious accident, which had occurred six years before. Hmmm!

Even before the [Democratic National] convention [in 1960, to nominate a Democrat for the Presidency,] Johnson had John Connally circulate rumors about Kennedy's health problems and . . . JFK's father . . .

Actually the book already had talked about Connally hooking up with LBJ long before then. I sure wonder what was Connally's full role in the assassination; maybe I'll find out eventually, at least in part.

My take from the book is that LBJ forced JFK to take him on as his running mate in the 1960 Presidency campaign because LBJ thought it was his best chance to become President. He figured he probably couldn't win any POTUS election with such a tiny base of support as he had in Texas. And it was too much of a step up to the Presidency from being Speaker of the Senate.

To be sure if Kennedy could stay healthy throughout the 1964 campaign, LBJ would lose his chance of becoming President for good. But he did have an answer for that, according to the author's "reasoned opinion."

Nelson, the author, referred to the "'grassy knoll' at the south end of the Triple Overpass." The knoll of renown is *north* of Elm Street. Moreover, it is not clear the author meant the part of the overpass that is south of Main Street or Commerce Street.

In addition to the girdle JFK wore to support his back, he also wore a shoulder-groin sling. That made it impossible for JFK to bend over. He could only move laterally sidewise to the left.

[Augustine2004]

In the quotation below, "they" is essentially the LBJ-Hoover partnership, in which the CIA and the Mafia were also involved. (Actually it was rather a big and complex conspiracy involving many branches of the USFG.)

Nelson:LBJ:The Mastermind of the JFK Assassination

They would make maximum use of the federal government's well-developed protocols for maintaining secrecy and the CIA's ability to manage evidence, and people, outside the rules.

© source where applicable

It's frightening to realize that even before LBJ started his political game the US people has lost much power over their own lives and still don't realize it. Furthermore, we allowed a man to become President whose true character we didn't know. Had we really known, he would never have gotten anywhere near that. He'd be assassinated or in jail for a long time. Actually, he was this close to being thrown into the gaol by the time JFK got those bullets, because of the Billie Sol Estes and Bobby Baker scandals. It was a "near-run thing," as Wellington said after Waterloo.

Frightening that after someone commits many crimes, he can stealthily seize control of the government, and then use its powers to cover up the crimes.


I showed the Altgens photo in one of my posts. Here it is, again:

You and I didn't realize its evidentiary value. First, the book says that close examination of the windshield of the JFK car, such as with a magnifying glass held over the Altgens negative, shows a hole with accompanying cracks. That would explain the throat wound: It may have been caused by a bullet that lost much energy going through the windshield. Second, LBJ is nowhere to be seen in the photograph. Lady Bird is there, in the LBJ car, and she looks tranquil. So is Senator Ralph Yarborough, who looks like he is enjoying the ride. That evidence confirms what many witnesses said or implied, that LBJ was cowering well before people could react in stunned realization that bullets were flying.


You can accuse me of not thinking of how involved LBJ might be in altering the Zapruder film and other photographic evidence, such as the Altgens photograph. Also, many people testified that they were forced to give up their film. Jean Hill, for example, had taken Polaroid photographs from Mary Moore's camera and put them in her coat pocket. Some time later "Secret Service" people made her give them the photographs. To her last day she never saw them again. The point I'm leading up to is that LBJ probably planned to get people to confiscate photographic evidence all along.


The book says that Hoover and probably H.L. Hunt examined the photographic evidence together with LBJ so that the "lone nut" story would be supported and other stories would not be.

The book suggests searching Google Videos with the keyword phrase "Great Zapruder Film Hoax." Look for the 57 minutes 26 seconds version
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?...96057713515921
I noticed what I believe is a mistake. A frame is labeled z355, whereas my hard-disk copy of the Costella combined edit shows that frame as z357.


The book has this phrase: "a case that has already been proven beyond a reasonable doubt."


Remember Roy Kellerman, the guy who rode in the JFK car with driver Greer in the front? He was also the guy who led the body-snatching in the Parkland Hospital, which turned guns on Kennedy's resisting doctors.


Regarding the case of Malcolm Wallace's fingerprint "found in the depositary." The book claims that A. Nathan Darby made a 14-point match, not 12. The identification is still in dispute partly because the "unknown" fingerprint is only partial. I am not sure what this sentence means: ". . . neither the FBI nor the Texas DPS will release the fingerprints for further testing in the absence of a specific pending case to attach it to." What fingerprints, those on record in the FBI and the DPS? No, I think all the fingerprints that were "lifted" in the depositary.


The book quotes LBJ saying this at a 1963 Christmas party to the Joint Chiefs of Staff: "Just get me elected, and then you can have your war."


". . . a compelling case for the need of a better vetting process for candidates for the presidency and vice presidency." Oh, brother! I'd agree elections don't work as well as the world needs them to, far from that. Here I offer no suggestion for a better system, but just suggest that author Nelson may be presuming American democracy is the best system--despite its manifest failures throughout history, not just the 1960s.


I am going to lay the book aside for a while, so that I may have time to ponder it. But if you wish to know what I think now--or perhaps rather what I feel--
LBJ is guilty as hell as charged.

[Augustine2004]

I still feel the same as when I gave my guilty verdict in the last post. So, no questions? No objections? Suggestions?


For sure we will never know every detail or have every question answered. I now feel disinclined to dig any more.

[Augustine2004]

If every voter read something like this
http://www.naturalnews.com/036112_so...influence.html
history might be very different.

Frightening it is that sociopaths can take control of governments around the world anytime.

[Augustine2004]

"Cato's Letters" was once widely read from Maine to Georgia or Florida, but is scarcely so now. The names John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon now would be met with bewildered "who?" responses. "True Whigs" would also elicit puzzlement. But I shall, undaunted, sally forth with a quotation from Cato's Letters that I think is a lesson that is appropriate here.

[Partly rendered in modern English] From history, far too often, men possessing power, will do anything, even the worst and the blackest, to keep it; and not a man ever on Earth would willingly yield the power that he has or had. Not even the good of the world or the people on it would ever be any man's reason for continuing to keep power or for relinquishing it.

Power is ever seeking to increase, and is ever seeking advantage to do so. All too evident is the success of the drive against Liberty by Power; and the balance between them is almost lost. Tyranny has engrossed almost the whole Earth, and striking against Mankind root and branch, makes the World a slaughterhouse; and will certainly go on to destroy, till it is either destroyed itself, or, which is most likely, has left nothing else to destroy.

------quoted in Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty, pp4-5

[Augustine2004]

Michael S. Rozeff wrote, " . . . the media constantly transmit enough alternative stories and noise to neutralize revelations. The net result is that truth competes with sanitized and self-serving fictions, and the latter, concocted and put across by experts at fiddling with our heads, often predominate."

The truth may be out there but it can be mighty hard to discern.

[marke]

LBJ and Mac Wallace are two names definitely worth looking into for motive and evidence. Mac Wallace's fingerprints were lifted from the Texas Book Depository Bldg. in 1963 but not confirmed until the 1990s. Mac Wallace killed LBJs sister's boyfriend in cold blood, was caught, tried and convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to 5 years probation in an Austin, Texas court with LBJs lawyer defending Wallace. Many more facts are a matter of public record. LBJ was under investigation by Congress that same week and there were more skeletons in his closet than many in Washington wanted to come out, including J. Edgar Hoover. Some also who simply were under subjection to Hoover based on the knowledge Hoover had on them in their personal lives, went along with the coverup for personal selfish reasons.