JFK assassination: Secret Service Standdown?

[deconstruct911]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8

Not sure if it's been discussed here before. If it has it's worth a look again.

[Octafish]

1. Secret Service Agent Henry J. Rybka registered dismay when ordered off the bumper.

The image above is a frame from a video shot minutes before President Kennedy's assassination. The video shows Secret Service Agent Henry J. Rybka expresses shock -- three times -- as recorded on the video, when he is odered off the riding stations, located on the limousine's rear bumper.



The order to leave the back of President Kennedy's limousine unattended was, evidently, issued by Secret Service Agent Emory Roberts at Love Field.

More detail: AGENTS GO ON RECORD.

Get more background on Secret Service Agent Emory Roberts, who ordered Secret Service Agent Henry J. Rybka off the bumper of JFK's limousine at Love Field:

THE STRANGE ACTIONS (AND INACTION) OF AGENT EMORY ROBERTS

Bet you this is the kind of thing that gets left out of Tom Hanks' movie, deconstruct911. It's evidence for involvement by members of the U.S. government in the assassination of President Kennedy.

[SDuderstadt]

2. Look at the first shot of Rybka...

he has a huge smile on his face. Strange reaction for someone who's "dismayed".

[Octafish]

4. Only if you say so, sduderstadt.

Who knows what his actual sentiments were at that moment? His eyes' expressions are hidden behind the sunglasses. Going by his body language, he looks dismayed.

Anyway, Roberts either lied or made an honest mistake in his report logs, stating Rybka was with the motorcade. Either way, the guy guarding the president's back was left behind at Love Field.

[zappaman]

6. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

"Going by his body language, he looks dismayed."
:rofl:

[Octafish]

10. Have you ever had an original thought, zappaman?

Oh, well. Your posts are good for one thing: They demonstrate you are a most faithful mini-Dude.



Speaking of small roles: Have you ever heard of Albert Thomas, zappaman?

He's the Congressman from Texas seen giving LBJ a wink, a moment after he's been sworn in as President aboard Air Force One.

Mrs. Kennedy is on the right, wearing clothes stained with the President's blood. Have you heard, LBJ insisted she watch?

[SDuderstadt]

12. "Have you heard, LBJ insisted she watch?"

So what, Blofish? Are you going somewhere with all of this? What, specifically, are you accusing Thomas and LBJ of?

Serious question: is there ANYONE you won't slime in your "quest for the truth"?

[Octafish]

17. ''We'll wait for Mrs. Kennedy. I want her here.''

Here's where I got that, sduderstadt:

LBJ Swore on JFK's Bible.

Guess that's something Professional McAdams missed, huh, sduderstadt?

One more thing: Don't call me Blofish, sduderstadt.

You wouldn't want me to say what I think of you, would you?

I guarantee, that would hurt a long, long time.

[SDuderstadt]

20. "You wouldn't want me to say what I think of you, would you? I guarantee, that would hurt a long,...

long time".

Oooh, I'm shaking. Dude, maybe you should actually read what you post. You continually attack my motivation and you hardly hesitate to say what you think of me. Here's what you don't understand, dude. Coming as it does from a run-of-the-mill, garden variety JFK assassination conspiracist, I just consider the source and dismiss it.

As far as calling you "Blofish", I'll stop when you stop smearing my motivation. Deal?

As far as LBJ delaying the swearing in until Jackie could attend, so what? What do you think that proves, dude?????

[Octafish]

27. You own words smear your own motivation, sduderstadt.

There isn't any such article, dude...

PS: Knock of the PM threats, too, sduderstadt.

[SDuderstadt]

30. There you go again, dude...

How in the world have I "smeared" my own motivation? Do you agree there are two sides to this debate? By your own admission, the article does not appear in The Nation archives. And your purported proof is dubious and suspect. For example, it's a fax. Beyond that, even though the phone number for The Nation is correct, the fax number is not.

Beyond that, why don't you cut and paste my supposed PM threat, so everyone can see that I actually asked you politely to quit smearing me?

[zappaman]

22. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

what a fascinating find!
which proves what?

[Octafish]

25. The site shows what happened on Air Force One, zappaman.

Here's more for you to "think" about, what LBJ is reported to have done by an Air Force General who was there:

Kennedy Military Aide: LBJ Hid in Bathroom, Cried After JFK Assassination.

Bet you didn't know that, zappaman.

[SDuderstadt]

26. No, it shows you what Gen. Godfrey McHugh SAYS...

happened, dude. Did you read the article? From your own source:

But how credible is McHugh's account?

It is, of course, impossible to confirm or deny whether a private encounter took place between the two men, both of whom are now dead. There are a number of reasons to doubt McHugh's claim. The General intensely disliked Johnson and was fiercely loyal to JFK, and therefore had some reason to invent such a story. Most glaring, McHugh made no mention of what was surely a very memorable encounter in his long interview with William Manchester in 1964. It also stands to reason that if McHugh had witnessed Johnson in a state of utter breakdown, he would have told the story to others within the Kennedy camp. Surely, given how potentially damaging the story would be to LBJ, Kennedy partisans would have leaked it to the media at some point.

Those poor research "skills" of yours rear their ugly head yet once more, dude.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Octafish]

29. Ever hear of Commander John Kistler before this thread, zappaman?

Don't know about you, but most Americans probably have no clue what the pilot of Air Force Two thought about Vice President Johnson:

WWII pilot lived history

By Daniel Wolowicz
theacorn.com
2008-03-14 / Community

SNIP...

Flying LBJ

In the early '60s, (John) Kistler was sent to Washington, D.C., to teach flight school to captains and admirals. It was a job, he said, that required a great deal of diplomacy.

"Can you imagine telling an admiral he didn't qualify?" Kistler asked. "It took a lot of tact."

It was an assignment, he said, given to him by Admiral Arthur W. Radford, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

While in Washington, Kistler took command of Air Force Two, the plane used by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson. Kistler admits he was glad to end his time aboard the vice president's plane.

"To tell you the truth, I really didn't appreciate him," Kistler said of Johnson. "He did too many things that were against the law. I couldn't stand it."

SOURCE...

http://www.mpacorn.com/news/2008-03-14/Community/018.html

One more thing: I don't know and I don't care what you know or say, zappaman. Based on your postings on DU, it isn't much.

[SDuderstadt]

31. Dude...

wtf does this have to do with the JFK assassination?

[defendandprotect]

142. Thanks for the info ... if I ever knew that, I'd forgotten it .... love the diplomacy!!!

To tell you the truth, I really didn't appreciate him," Kistler said of Johnson. "He did too many things that were against the law. I couldn't stand it."

[Octafish]

179. LBJ was connected to the Bush family.

Through Prescott Bush and Hugh and William Liedtke.

An interesting story about LBJ selling his Halliburton stock the day of the assassination.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

23. "So, I would like to know more about that wink"

Well, since Congressman Thomas died in 1966, I'd say you missed the window to discover the answer to the question by, oh, say...44 years. And again, since over four and a half decades have passed, you can make up whatever shit you want to about the "wink" and no one is here to contradict you.

And, it's silly to claim you aren't implying anything about the "wink", inasmuch as LBJ is the apparent recipient. Serious question, dude. After 47 years, do you have anything more substantive than a supposedly nefarious "wink"?

[SDuderstadt]

15. His "body language" also looks like he could be saying...

"but, I'd rather run by the right rear fender at 25-30 mph".

[SDuderstadt]

7. He has a HUGE fucking grin on his face...

dude. He looks like the cat that ate the canary. And your first question is prophetic:

Who knows what his actual sentiments were at that moment?

You don't know, so you and others can make up whatever shit you want to. And Rybka is dead, so you can do so without fear of contradiction.

I'd like to propose a great new slogan for the incompetence of the JFK assassination conspiracy theory "community".

"47 years late and a dollar short".

Catchy, huh...

BTW, here's a picture of JFK's motorcade in Hawaii:



Notice the absence of SS agents on the back bumper, dude? Was the Secret Service trying to have JFK murdered before Dallas? Serious question: do you care how many people you smear in the pursuit of the "truth"?

[Octafish]

13. Is righteous indignation your default setting, sduderstadt?

It's like you're an automaton replaying talking points from the notorious debunker John McAdams: Stay on script, or you'll lose your place.

Perhaps that's why you always echo his work, without linking to him. To save readers time, here's the URL to McAdams' website.

To help readers learn about McAdams: Visit the cached FAQ:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:SjSHa8-Rtm0J:www.prouty.org/mcadams/faq.html+mcadams+faq&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

The regular URL, when the hosting site is back online:
http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/faq.html.

FYI: Here's a picture of JFK's motorcade in Germany.



Notice the Secret Service officers riding in back.

BTW: Using four-letter words will limit searches for browsers equipped with certain filters. Schools, libraries, homes. Interesting how you operate, sduderstadt.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Octafish]

19. John McAdams: ''Sonia Sotomayor - Quota Queen.''

Doesn't sound like he reqally likes Liberals, which helps explain his interest in conservative perspectives.

McAdams pegged.

As for Prouty: He stood up and he faced his critics, fair and square. Want me to detail what McAdams has done?

[SDuderstadt]

24. "Want me to detail what McAdams has done?"

No, not really. I've read that stupid Hargroves thing before. Tell me...why did Prouty write for Liberty Lobby?

P.S. How do you know that is actually McAdams' blog?

[Octafish]

36. So? What you should find interesting is what Prouty wrote, sduderstadt.

No mainstream publications -- from the left to the right -- were brave enough to carry Fletcher Prouty's articles. Gallery also carried his work:

THE GUNS OF DALLAS

© 1975 by L. Fletcher Prouty
Photographic Research by Richard E. Sprague
Reprinted with permission of the author

EXCERPT...

It is astounding to learn that in their entire work the Commission was permitted to see only twenty-six of these pictures, and that the FBI limited its examination to some fifty of the 510. The Commission principals interviewed only four of the thirty professional photographers and saw only about a dozen of their several hundred photographs. Here was evidence enough to arouse the interest and curiosity of any investigator. How could all of this vital, most essential evidence have been kept from the Commission? Today, one of the members of this Commission is President of the United States. He is an intelligent and experienced man. How could it have been arranged so that men such as Gerald Ford did not have the chance to see all of these photographs? In all there were more than 25,000 frames of pictures exposed within that crucial hour at Dealey Plaza. (This includes the frames of movie camera film, some of which have been so vitally important when studied frame by frame.)

SNIP...

These were not the only oversights. I have always been concerned about the failure of the Secret Service to act in accordance with their long-established and highly professional standard operating procedures on Kennedy's Texas trip. We know that the Secret Service does not have the numbers to permit it to cover every possible avenue and angle of danger; but what we also know is that over the years it has keen the practice of the Secret Service to call upon trained elements of the Armed Forces and other technical assistance to flesh out their strength in compliance with "Protection" policy.

In 1963 there was in Washington, D.C. the 113th Army Intelligence Unit, which was highly trained for this purpose. A counterpart of this unit was the 112th at 4th Army Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The 112th had a detachment, the 315th, in San Antonio. Its commanding officer, among others, complained bitterly that his unit was not used in protection along with the Secret Service after he had keen told that the services of his unit would not be needed. On more than one occasion he called his headquarters and called Washington to correct this "oversight." Like the old dog, he and his men had keen well trained and they were ready to go into action. It takes strong and deft control from the top to keep a unit out of the action for which it has been trained.

After the assassination, some of the men of the 112th dug into the unit's files and found that they had note cards on a Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas, Texas. I do not know what other records they had; but failure to utilize this unit and its files was part of the conspiracy and an indication of how far up the hand of the conspirators went.

Not only did the Secret Service disregard experienced and qualified assistance from the Armed Forces, but they did not act in accordance with their own time-tested regulations. I recall, when we walked down Avenida Reforma in Mexico City before Eisenhower's trip, being told that if we found a place where Eisenhower could not be properly protected, the Secret Service "manual" stated that the "President's car must maintain not less than 44 mph until clear of any danger zones." I joked with the Secret Service officer about the "44 mph." Why not "45 mph" or "50 mph." He answered that tests had determined that a car traveling 44 mph was going fast enough to guarantee all but 100 percent assurance that the President would be safe. It was Secret Service men working under the provisions of the same manual who let the President's car creep around that corner at Dealey Plaza at 8-9 mph. Why?

CONTINUED...

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GoD.html

Col. Prouty was a good man who stood up and told the truth. He also asked pertinent and, sometimes apparently, impertinent quesitions. Too bad more publishers are afraid of that. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

38. Fletcher Prouty was an idiot...

dude. He was also responsible for lot of the misinformation in Oliver Stone's "JFK". Knowing you, I'm certain you bought it hook, line and sinker.

You really ought to work on that , dude.

[Octafish]

54. Oliver Stone did this nation a service by creating a counter-myth to the official story, sduderstadt

Here's Michael Parenti's perspectives on the treatment given Oliver Stone:

THE JFK ASSASSINATION II:
CONSPIRACY PHOBIA
ON THE LEFT

From Dirty Truths by Michael Parenti
(1996, City Lights Books)
(Pages 172 - 191)

EXCERPT...

Kennedy and the Left Critics

In the winter of 1991-92 Oliver Stone's film JFK revived popular interest in the question of President John Kennedy's assassination. As noted in part I of this article, the mainstream media launched a protracted barrage of invective against the movie. Conservatives and liberals closed ranks to tell the public there was no conspiracy to murder the president for such things do not happen in the United States.

Unfortunately, some writers normally identified as on the Left have rejected any suggestion that conspiracy occurred. While the rightists and centrists were concerned about preserving the legitimacy of existing institutions and keeping people from seeing the gangster nature of the state, the leftists had different concerns, though it was not always clear what these were.

Noam Chomsky, Alexander Cockburn, and others challenge the notion that Kennedy was assassinated for intending to withdraw from Vietnam or for threatening to undo the CIA or end the cold war. Such things could not have led to his downfall, they argue, because Kennedy was a cold warrior, pro-CIA, and wanted a military withdrawal from Vietnam only with victory. Chomsky claims that the change of administration that came with JFK's assassination had no appreciable effect on policy. In fact, the massive ground war ordered by Johnson and the saturation bombings of Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos ordered by Nixon represented a dramatic departure from Kennedy's policy. On some occasions, Chomsky says he refuses to speculate: "As for what JFK might have done , I have nothing to say." Other times he goes on to speculate that Kennedy would not have "reacted differently to changing situations than his close advisers" and "would have persisted in his commitment to strengthen and enhance the status of the CIA" (Z Magazine, 10/92 and 1/93).

The evidence we have indicates that Kennedy observed Cambodian neutrality and negotiated a cease-fire and a coalition government in Laos, which the CIA refused to honor. We also know that the surviving Kennedy, Robert, broke with the Johnson administration over Vietnam and publicly stated that his brother's administration had committed serious mistakes. Robert moved with the tide of opinion, evolving into a Senate dove and then a peace candidate for the presidency, before he too was murdered. The two brothers worked closely together and were usually of like mind. While this does not provide reason enough to conclude that John Kennedy would have undergone a transition comparable to Robert's, it still might give us pause before asserting that JFK was destined to follow in the direction taken by the Johnson and Nixon administrations.

In the midst of this controversy, Chomsky wrote a whole book arguing that JFK had no intention of withdrawing from Vietnam without victory. Actually, Kennedy said different things at different times, sometimes maintaining that we could not simply abandon Vietnam, other times that it ultimately would be up to the Vietnamese to fight their own war.1

One of Kennedy's closest aides, Kenneth O'Donnell, wrote that the president planned to withdraw from Vietnam after the 1964 elections. According to Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who headed military support for the clandestine operations of the CIA, Kennedy dictated "the rich parts" of NSAM 263, calling for the withdrawal not only of all U.S. troops but all Americans, meaning CIA officers and agents too. Prouty reflects that the president thereby signed "his own death warrant." The Army newspaper Stars and Stripes ran a headline: "President Says - All Americans Out by 1965." According to Prouty: "The Pentagon was outraged. JFK was a curse word in the corridors."

Concentrating on the question of withdrawal, Chomsky says nothing about the president's unwillingness to escalate into a ground war. On that crucial point all Chomsky offers is a speculation ascribed to Roger Hilsman that Kennedy might well have introduced U.S. ground troops in South Vietnam. In fact, the same Hilsman, who served as Kennedy's Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, the officer responsible for Vietnam, noted in a long letter to the New York Times (1/20/92) that in 1963 "President Kennedy was determined not to let Vietnam become an American war - that is, he was determined not to send U.S. combat troops (as opposed to advisers) to fight in Vietnam nor to bomb North Vietnam." Other Kennedy aides such as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. and General Maxwell Taylor made the same point. Taylor said, "The last thing he wanted was to put in our ground forces . . . I don't recall anyone who was strongly against , except one man and that was the President." Kennedy opposed the kind of escalation embarked upon soon after his death by Lyndon Johnson, who increased U.S. troops in Vietnam from 17,000 to approximately 250,000 and committed them to an all-out ground war.

CONTINUED...

http://questionsquestions.net/documents2/conspiracyphobia.html

Going by how the media helped sell the official "WMDs are in Iraq" line, it seems like the media still aren't doing good a job, are they, sduderstadt? 47 years. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

57. Stone's film contained...

100 provable lies, dude.

I also recall the media being somewhat skeptical (with the exception of a few) of the "WMD (it's ALREADY plural, dude)are in Iraq" myth. It was a major embarrassment for the Bush administration. BTW, that also contradicts another one of your fave talking points. Simple question: if the Bushes are as powerful as you claim, do you honestly expect us to believe they couldn't have planted some WMD in Iraq?

At any rate, we're coming up on 47 years since the assassination. Are indictments coming? Y'know, I would think you wouldn't want to broadcast your 47 year failure, dude.

[Octafish]

61. Care to show evidence for the ''100 lies'' in Stone's film, sduderstadt?

You say it, but you don't show it. SOP for sduderstadt.

[SDuderstadt]

64. Dude...

are you saying that you never make an assertion without documenting it? How or why would someone do that? Endnotes? Footnotes? Wouldn't that look weird? If you're claiming that I never document claims then, of course, that would just be another one of your false claims.

I'll gladly document the 100 lies of "JFK" but, first, are you denying that it contains 100 provable lies?

Oh, wait...one of my conditions for moving forward is for you to publicly acknowledge there are two sides to this debate and quit smearing my motivation. Deal?

[Octafish]

66. You monitor me 24/7, sduderstadt?

Any hour of the day or night, you're there to counter my posts. Amazing, your dedication to your "cause" -- not what you post.

As anyone can see by reading this thread, you post swill. You make claims for this and that but add nothing others can use to back it up or refut it. That's not information, then. That's opinion, yours.

As for your "conditions for moving forward": more evidence that you have no evidence to back up your claims other than the swill put out by the professional debunking community. Thousands of your replies on this thread and the rest of the JFK threads you've posted on have yet to show even one.

[SDuderstadt]

67. So, you won't admit that there are...

two sides to this debate and agree to quit smearing my motivation?

Thought so.

[Octafish]

71. Getting monitored 24/7 by sduderstadt is creepy.

I never said there weren't two (or more) sides to this or any debate. I said you never use sources others can check to back up your assertions.



You never did explain what your business is following every single one of my posts, sduderstadt.

[SDuderstadt]

74. It's a public discussion forum, dude...

and, are you sure that you want to claim that I "NEVER use sources that others can check to back up" my assertions? That's not only a demonstrably false claim, it's also monumentally dumb. Are you sure you want to be embarrassed further in front of your little groupies?

[Octafish]

108. Still having my own minder is creepy, seeing how you have to post every time I post, sduderstadt.

It's getting old, in a creepy way.



As for the sources of your wisdom, provide a link when you pull them out of your hat.

[SDuderstadt]

109. Dude...

still on that kick? If you're still peddling that falsehood that I "never post sources", I'd be glad to embarrass you further by proving you dead wrong. You do realize that when you use modifiers like "never", all I have to do is provide one example and it disproves your claim, right? Conversely, if you hold that posting sources automatically makes what you claim true, I'd remind you that Ann Counter writes books loaded with scads of "sources". Using your "standard", her books must be full of "truth", although, in reality, she's just another RW hack.

Most importantly, however, when you post your usual nonsense, I don't have to post sources to refute your "points", as they can easily be dispatched simply using Logic and/or asking you hard questions that stump you everytime. Among the sillier examples from you was your misleading subject line that Hale Boggs said that Hoover lied his eyes out when, in reality, your "source" was Bernard Fensterwald claiming that Hale Boggs said it, with no direct proof whatsoever. Of course, with Hoover, Boggs and Fensterwald all long dead, you can usually get away with claims like that with your little groupies.

Another favorite of mine was your claim that finding George H.W.Bush's "full contact information" in George de Morenschildt's address book nearly 14 and a half years after the assassination of JFK somehow ties Bush to the murder. Dude, saying 1 + 2 equals 4 over and over again doesn't make it so. Similarly, when you're challenged on your goofy conspiracist bullshit, links to more goofy conspiracist bullshit doesn't get you out of your self-created jam.

It's been nearly five decades, dude. It's perfectly valid to ask you when, with such a running start, you're going to bring this thing in for a landing. I know your little groupies would be thrilled. Make us proud, dude.

[Octafish]

185. So you don't find it suspicious that DeMohrenschildt knew Poppy Bush, sduderstadt?

The connection between Oswald's "handler" and George Herbert Walker Bush should have been investigated -- especially now, by looking back we can see how the death of President Kennedy has served to benefit the interests of Bush and the anti-communist hardline warmonger class to the detriment of the American majority. Dude.

[zappaman]

186. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Are you officially adding Poppy Bush to the list of JFK's killers?
Still waiting on your number of how many killers there were...

[Octafish]

187. Did you even hear George De Mohrenschildt and Poppy Bush were chums before this thread, zappaman?

That information comes as a bit of a shock to most people.

Transcript:

Dear George,

You will excuse this hand-written letter. Maybe you will be able to bring a solution to the hopeless situation I find myself in.

My wife and I find ourselves surrounded by some vigilantes; our phone bugged; and we are being followed everywhere. Either FBI is involved in this or they do not want to accept my complaints. We are driven to insanity by the situation.

I have been behaving like a damn fool ever since my daughter Nadya died from (cystic fibrosis) over three years ago. I tried to write, stupidly and unsuccessfully, about Lee H Oswald and must have angered a lot of people I do not know. But to punish an elderly man like myself and my highly nervous and sick wife is really too much.

Could you do something to remove the net around us? This will be my last request for help and I will not annoy you any more.

Good luck in your important job.

Thank you so much.

George de Mohrenschildt

To which Poppy replied to CIA underlings wondering WTF:

(11) George H. W. Bush internal memo on the letter from George de Mohrenschildt (September, 1976)

I do know this man DeMohrenschildt.

I first met him in the early 40s. He was an uncle to my Andover roommate.

Later he surfaced in Dallas (50's maybe).

He got involved in some controversial dealings in Haiti.

Then he surfaced when Oswald shot to prominence. He knew Oswald before the assassination of President Kennedy.

I don't recall his role in all this.

At one time he had/or spent plenty of money.

I have not heard from him for many years until the attached letter came in.

SOURCE: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKdemohrenschildt.htm

For those interested in learning more.

Readers are leaders, right, zappaman?

[zappaman]

188. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Why, yes I did.
I also know it's not some big secret, so why do you act as if it is some revelation?
I answered your question, my good frined, now you can answer mine.

It's really a simple question..
Are you now adding Poppy to the list of JFK's assassins?
And approximately(making it easier for you) how many names are on that list?
It must be quite long, yes?
I eagerly await your response, amigo.

[Octafish]

189. So now you're making demands, zappaman?

Contribute something to the discussion actually worth reading and I'll see about putting your request at the top of my to-do list.



In the meantime, learn more about Poppy and the assassination here:

Poppy Bush brought up JFK Assassination and "Conspiracy Theorists" at Ford Funeral

FWIW: Don't see too many things in your journal, zappaman, so your first-ever informative post would make a good place to start.

[zappaman]

191. Bloviate and DODGE the questions all you want, Octafish

Why can't you answer a simple question?
Guess you haven't added up all the killers yet, eh?
One would think that would be at the top of your list.
:rofl:

[SDuderstadt]

190. Dude....

your connection was that deMohrenschildt had Bush's contact info in his address book FOURTEEN FUCKING YEARS AFTER the assassination. Bush was the national chairman of the GOP.

Why you find that suspicious is apparently known only to you. Do you ever get tired of posting goofy bullshit?

[zappaman]

192. since he won't answer the question

one can only assume he believes Poppy to either have shot JFK himself or at least helped the real killers(the numbers of which, according to Octafish's posts, must run into the hundreds if not thousands).

[smiley]

193. Thanks for all you posts

Very informative and interesting.

BTW - I put "dude" on ignore years ago. It's amazing to me he is still at it. He must get paid well to hijack this forum.

[deconstruct911]

194. LOL

I'd almost feel better knowing there's at least something in it for the dude.

[smiley]

195. I'm sure...

he loves the exposure - :)

[deconstruct911]

196. Ah yes

at the very least.

[SDuderstadt]

197. I am absolutely honored to...

be put on "ignore" by conspiracists. It's kinda funny, however, that they continue to talk about me after having supposedly done so.

What a hoot.

[k-robjoe]

69. 100 provable lies?

I haven´t seen JFK. But I´m wondering ; is it the kind of "lies" that Connally was sitting more to the middle of the car, but in the movie Jim Harrison has it reconstructed, and he doesn´t have Connally more to the middle of the car?

Is this the kind of lies you are talking about?

[SDuderstadt]

81. 100 provable lies in "JFK"

http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100menu.html

[Octafish]

86. Dave Reitzes is most interesting, sduderstadt.

In his own words. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

87. Yeah...

unlike you, he finally came to his senses.

I'm sure you regard him as a traitor to the cause. I find it interesting you don't try to refute his list of 100 lies in "JFK".

[k-robjoe]

90. Lee Bowers

I just had a look at the part about Lee Bowers.

And it seems to me that this guy is just stupid. This is what you do in a movie. You have to "squeeze" things together.

And so Oliver Stone has Lee Bowers telling he saw a flash of light or smoke by the picket fence. So Stone takes the testimony of other witnesses and puts it in with what Lee Bowers said, so what? You have to do that kind of things to make it a movie.

But it seems David Reitzes is just too stupid to understand that.

Here´s a clip with witnesses who reported seeing a puff of smoke by the picket fence :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uB_68m6yDHY

And here is a clip about Lee Bowers. If you go 3:30 out, you will see that Lee Bowers told the hole story about what he saw to a friend. That he saw the two men behind the fence. And that hey fired shots:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcXJJsZs7LE

[SDuderstadt]

91. Dude...

when Stone made "JFK", they couldn't find a rifle that emitted smoke when fired, so they created the puffs of smoke with a smoke machine. What does that tell you?

Do you think JFK was shot with a muzzleloader?

[k-robjoe]

92. Smoke

Seems to me like it tells us Stone had a clear idea of how much smoke he would need for the scene in the movie, and wasn´t happy with the smoke he got from the rifles he tried out. Who told you the rifles emitted no smoke?

Did you doublecheck it?

[SDuderstadt]

93. Jesus fucking christ...

dude, how long do you think it's been since rifles emitted smoke when fired? With all due respect, a little research on your part would keep you from asking stupid questions.

[Octafish]

94. Internet filters and search engine optimization schemes don't like profanity, sduderstadt.

So when one writes "fuck" in the post subject line, it reduces the size of the potential readership for a particular posting or link.

[zappaman]

95. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Internet filters unfortunately don't filter out your long debunked links and suppositions.
Stop dodging my question...how many were involved in this assassination plot you have discovered?
At this point, with all your "research" I would expect you have a good answer.

[Octafish]

96. Congratulations on another disappointing appearance, zappaman.

Nothing to add, as always, mini-Dude.

[zappaman]

97. bloviate all you want, Octafish

maybe someday you will answer a direct question.
Nah, that would mean you have some confidence in your "research"...
So just continue bloviating.

[SDuderstadt]

99. Why can't you answer his question...

mini-fish? So you have ANYTHING to show for your hard "work"?

[SDuderstadt]

98. Well, then...

don't use profanity in your search terms, dude!

Problem solved. See how easy that was?

[k-robjoe]

100. SDuderstadt wrote

>"Jesus fucking christ...dude, how long do you think it's been since rifles emitted smoke when fired?"

I did a quick search for videoes. And it looks to me like they still emit smoke :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqg9mKqH1jo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHr7W5sFRtA&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MTl8iyR1E&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTyBM4wM9Mk&feature=related

[k-robjoe]

101. Continued

Don´t know what´s up with this one. If it´s supposed to make all that smoke...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXoa5zNn0TU&feature=fvw

[SDuderstadt]

104. Damn it, dude....

You're making my point. It's making that much smoke because it's a blackpowder rifle. You DO realize, of course, that "smokeless" ammunition has been around since the 19th century, right?

Simple question: why would the "perps" want to call attention to themselves by using a rifle/ammunition that emitted clouds of smoke????

[k-robjoe]

107. See my reply below - Post 106 n/t

[SDuderstadt]

102. Jesus, dude....

do you recognize the difference between gas and smoke? Do you understand the difference between a single fire rifle and something firing at full auto?

Simple question: did any of the witnesses who saw LHO firing from the 6th floor window mention "smoke"?

[k-robjoe]

103. Smoke / gas

So tell me, in the last video I posted ( "continued" ), is it smoke or gas? And what difference does it make?

You tell me what the witnesses who saw firing from the 6th floor said, and why we should share your idea that it must have been the same type of weapon used from the Grassy Knoll?

[SDuderstadt]

105. Dude...

I am saying modern ammunition emits minimal smoke.

[k-robjoe]

106. Sure

But even these 2010 rifles emit enough gas/smoke that the eyewitnesses, hearing the shot, and looking in that direction, would see it.

[SDuderstadt]

110. Yes...

when they are fired in automatic mode. Do you understand how that's different?

[k-robjoe]

111. What I was replying to

was your claim that the reason that Oliver Stone used a smokemachine in the movie, was because "they couldn't find a rifle that emitted smoke when fired".

When I asked if you were sure about this, your answer was :

"Jesus fucking christ dude, how long do you think it's been since rifles emitted smoke when fired?"

But it seems to me that even rifles made in recent years emit some smoke :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obf-YMJIG6w&feature=related

You seem to have this idea that it had to be a big cloud. While I reckon it wouldn´t need to be that big for Sam Holland and others to spot it.

They heard the shot, and immediately looked in that direction.

[SDuderstadt]

112. In your video...

the gas (not smoke) dissipates almost immediately. Again, I ask the question: do you understand the difference between smoke and gas? Do you understand why gas disperses much more quickly, while smoke hangs in the air?

[k-robjoe]

113. Hang in the air

And why would it need to hang in the air, as Holland immediately looked that way.

[SDuderstadt]

114. Nevermind, dude....

you're welcome to follow Octafish's lead and waste the rest of your life trying to solve a self-composed riddle.

[k-robjoe]

115. Well, I can´t promise

anything. My interests tend to "move around". ( Poor english probably. )

I see that the Remington Fireball, when it first came for sale in 1963, produced a "significant muzzle flash".

( Sounds like it would emit quite a bit of smoke as well. )

"The XP-100 was based on a short action bolt action carbine, the Model 600, with a 10¾" barrel set into a nylon stock with an unusual center-mounted grip. Chambered in .222 Remington in early prototypes, the short barrel produced significant noise and muzzle flash."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_XP-100

[SDuderstadt]

116. It's your life...

dude.

[k-robjoe]

117. One thing we agree about :) n/t

[defendandprotect]

143. And, in fact, Sen. Yarborough commented on the "smoke" visible at the Grassy Knoll. ....

and there was a picture I haven't seen in a long time, but it was of a car in the

motorcade and you can see smoke at the level of the license plate.

Everytime I saw that pic I would wonder what that was -- it was only after reading

Sen. Yarborough's comments that I realized it was smoke from the weapons.

[k-robjoe]

147. Thanks

Googling "Yarborough" I came across this site, which gave me good info on a question I´ve been pondering :

http://oswaldsmother.blogspot.com/2009/07/grassy-knoll-shooter-does-have-angle.html

[SDuderstadt]

148. Dude...

here's the question you don't want to answer:

Where's the physical evidence?

[k-robjoe]

118. As I thought

"Nevertheless, a firearms expert engaged by the committee explained that irrespective of the exact type of ammunition used, it would be possible for witnesses to have seen smoke if a gun had been fired from that arena. According to the expert, both "smokeless" and smoke-producing ammunition may leave a trace of smoke that would be visible to
the eye in sunlight.(371) That is because even with smokeless ammunition, when the weapon was fired, nitrocellulose bases in the powder which are impregnated with nitroglycerin may give off smoke, albeit less smoke than black or smoke-producing ammunition.(372) In addition, residue remaining in the weapon from previous firings, as well as cleaning solution which might have been used on the weapon, could cause even more smoke to be discharged in subsequent firings of
the weapon.(373)" "

http://books.google.no/books?id=yRkCBlwWcRQC&pg=PA121&lpg=PA121&dq=%22Nevertheless,+a+firearms+expert%22&source=bl&ots=CB3Gdogxnz&sig=R6suais2xHjh2CCuGZBeujPtaT8&hl=no&ei=mXKwTN3-Fo3sObrC7M8F&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Nevertheless%2C%20a%20firearms%20expert%22&f=false

[SDuderstadt]

119. Then why did Stone have to use...

a smoke machine in the filming of "JFK"? Do you see the problem that presents?

[k-robjoe]

120. I allready wrote in post 92

that Stone must have had a clear idea of how much smoke he wanted for the scene in the movie.

Anyone can understand that making a scene for the movie is something different from making an attempt to show exactly how it would appear.

[SDuderstadt]

121. Not when the movie deliberately misleads...

dude.

Why didn't Stone feel an obligation to stick to the facts as much as possible? How many people do you think saw "JFK", then felt they now knew "what really happened"?

There's a thin line between "artistic license" and propaganda.

[k-robjoe]

122. So all the

"Jesus fucking Christ Dude" and such like, has now come down to :

Stone exaggerated the amount of smoke in the puff of smoke that witnesses saw.

[SDuderstadt]

123. No, dude...

Nevermind.

[k-robjoe]

124. It goes to show

that even though this "Jesus fucking christ - stuff" can seem intimidating, don´t let it intimidate you.

[SDuderstadt]

125. It also goes to show that...

things go right over your head, dude. I get tired of having to explain it to you over and over.

Serious question: do you really find "jesus fucking Christ" "intimidating"???

[k-robjoe]

126. "Jesus fucking Christ"

I don´t find the question to what extent I find it intimidating, interesting enough. Sorry.

[SDuderstadt]

127. Then quit complaining about it, dude...

no one is trying to "intimidate" you or any other JFK assassination conspiracist.

[k-robjoe]

128. Intimidate

Maybe it´s a misunderstanding of the english word "intimidate" on my part. I´m not going to insist that I find your style *intimidating*. Maybe it´s another word I´m looking for.

[SDuderstadt]

129. Dude...

then maybe you should choose your words more carefully.

Here are the two questions that undo this bizarre idea that JFK was shot from the grassy knoll, as Stone wants you to think:

1) With regard to the "puff of smoke", why would the "perps" deliberately try to draw attention to themselves, especially if they were trying to make it appear Oswald was the lone assassin?

2) Why was there zero physical evidence that JFK was shot from that direction? Did the "perps" miss? Where'd the bullet go?

[k-robjoe]

130. So

So if anyone finds that your style is intimidating, they´re being really really unfair?

To your questions.

1 ) The perps didn´t deliberately try to draw attention to themselves. The shot from behind the picket fence was a last resort.

2 ) As you can read in the thread "Were JFK autopsy photos altered?" :

"30 witnesses in Dallas described a large wound in the (anatomical) right rear of JFK's head. Such a massive wound could only be the result of a shot which originated from in front of the limo.

Here's what some of them said:

SSA Clint Hill: The right rear portion of his head was missing. It was lying in the rear seat of the car. His brain was exposed. There was blood and bits of brain all over the entire rear portion of the car. Mrs. Kennedy was completely covered with blood. There was so much blood you could not tell if there had been any other wound or not, except for the one large gaping wound in the right rear portion of the head.

DP witness Phil Willis: It took the back of his head off

DP witness Marilyn Willis: Matter was coming out the back of his head

Nurse Diana Bowron: There was a gaping wound in the back of his head. It was gone. Gone. There was nothing there. Just a big gaping hole. There might have been little clumps of scalp, but most of the bone over the hole, there was no bone there. There was no damage to the front of his face, only wound in the back of his head and the entry wound in his throat. The wound was so large I could almost put my whole fist into it

Nurse Doris Nelson: There wasn’t even hair back there. It was blown away. All that area was blown out(when shown the rear of head autopsy photo)

Nurse Pat Hutton: A doctor asked me to place a pressure dressing on the head wound. This was of no use, however, because of the massive opening on the back of the head.

Dr Malcolm Perry: there was blood noted on the carriage and a large avulsive wound on the right posterior cranium.

Dr Robert McClelland: I was in such a position that I could very closely examine the head wound, and I noted that the right posterior portion of the skull had been extremely blasted… we did not lift his head up since it was so greatly damaged. We attempted to avoid moving him any more than it was absolutely necessary, but I could see, of course, all the extent of the wound.

Dr Marion Jenkins: Part of the brain was herniated; I really think part of the cerebellum, as I recognized it, was herniated from the wound (note "cerebellum", and where it is located)


Dr Ronald Jones: There was large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.

Dr Paul Peters: I noticed the head wound, and as I remember--I noticed that there was a large defect in the occiput. It seemed to me that in the right occipitalparietal area that there was a large defect. There appeared to be bone loss and brain loss in the area…we speculated as to whether he had been shot once or twice because we saw the wound of entry in the throat and noted the large occipital wound

Dr Kemp Clark: I then examined the wound in the back of the President's head. This was a large, gaping wound in the right posterior part, with cerebral and cerebellar tissue being damaged and exposed.

Nurse Audrey Bell: Dr Perry turned the President's head slightly to the President's anatomical left so that she could see a right posterior head wound, which she described as occipital

Nurse Margaret Hinchcliff: the President had a gaping wound in the back of his head and an entrance wound in his throat.

Dr. Charles Crenshaw: The wound was the size of a baseball(photo depicts Crenshaw indicating right rear)

Dr. Kenneth Salyer: This wound extended into the parietal area(photo depicts Salyer indicating right rear)

Dr. Charles Carrico: There was a large, quite large, defect about here(photo depicts Carrico indicating right rear)

Aubrey Rike(Oneal Funeral Home, Dallas):You could feel the sharp edges of the bone at the edge of the hole in the back of the head

Bethesda photographer Floyd Riebe: a big gaping hole in the back of the head

FBI SA Frank O’Neill: a massive wound in the right rear

Petty Officer Saundra Spencer: They had one(autopsy photo) showing the back of the head with the wound at the back of the head. It was just a ragged hole."

[SDuderstadt]

138. Dude...

you can see the fatal headset in the Zapruder film. Where did JFK get hit? Hint: in the rear portion of his head on the SIDE! That's still the back of his head, dude. It just is not the exact back of his head. This whole thing is as stupid as people watching the clip of Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his head as he indicates where JFK was shot and interpreting that to mean Kilduff meant JFK was shot in the temple. If you want to be really literal (and ridiculous), how do you know Kilduff didn't mean JFK didn't die from a gunshot to Kilduff's head, dude?

Serious question: of the witnesses you named, how many went onto to sign up with JFK assassination CT groups?

[k-robjoe]

165. Kilduff

SDuderstadt wrote :

>"This whole thing is as stupid as people watching the clip of Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his head as he indicates where JFK was shot and interpreting that to mean Kilduff meant JFK was shot in the temple."

-------------------

It seems that the press also got that impression :

"During a news conference at Parkland Hospital, White House press secretary Malcolm Kilduff was asked to describe where the bullet entered, he replied,

Dr. Burkley told me it is a simple matter . . . of a bullet right through the head. . . . It is my understanding that it entered in the temple, the right temple.

In a picture that has long been famous among researchers, Kilduff is seen to illustrate his answer by pointing to his own right temple. Veteran reporter Seth Kantor attended this press conference, and in his notes he wrote that the bullet had "entered right temple." At 1:47, CST, about fifteen minutes after Kilduff's press conference, UPI transmitted the following bulletin:

President Kennedy was shot in the right temple. "It was a simple matter of a bullet right through the head," said Dr. George Burkley, White House Medical Officer.

Minutes later, NBC anchorman Chet Huntley repeated this statement on national television."

http://www.mtgriffith.com/web_documents/factmyth.htm

[SDuderstadt]

166. Jesus, dude...

Your "source" is a JFK conspiracist. What do you think he is going to say??

[k-robjoe]

167. Another source

Here´s another source :

"11/22/63 Press Conference by Asst. WH Press sec. Mac Kilduff (please
see "Best Evidence", pp. 330-331 and photo 28 11/22/63, Transcript 1327B-LBJ Library; USSS RIF# 154-10002-10194]: "Dr.
Burkley told me, it is a simple matter, Tom, of a bullet right through
the head": he then points to his right temple! Question: "can you say
where the bullet entered his head, Mac?" "It is my understanding that it
entered in the temple, the right temple." "

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/excerpt_book2.html

I would imagine that if this is not in the transcript, then people will have pointed it out. ( "Listen, this is not in the transcript." )

[SDuderstadt]

168. Dude...

I am not going to go back and forth with you on this, as we've been over it repeatedly. Look up any graphic and/or picture of the temple and the temporal region. If you still insist on interpreting it as only meaning the front of the head, then you'll have to answer two very tough questions:

1) Look at any picture of the limo taken from the rear and you can easily see that the windshield is scarred/marred from the INSIDE. If, as you claim, JFK was shot from the front, why isn't the damaged area on the OUTSIDE of the windshield?

2) If JFK was shot from the front, where'd the bullet go, dude?

The problem with conspiracists is that they only want to deal with the parts of the evidence that confirm their goofy bullshit. Those of us who prefer to be grounded in reality realize all the evidence must be weighed and reconciled.

Convergence of evidence, dude. Maybe beyond this point, you can get Octafish to play with you. He loves this kind of goofy bullshit.

[k-robjoe]

169. "Kilduff meant JFK was shot in the temple"

At this point I was making you aware of the reason for peoples interpretation that "Kilduff meant JFK was shot in the temple".

[SDuderstadt]

170. Which I already knew...

dude. The problem is the temple is a relativelyo large area. Again, if JFK was shot from the front, you're going to have to explain how the limo's windshield was damaged on the inside and where the bullet with which JFK was supposedly shot from the front actually ended up.

[k-robjoe]

171. If you allready knew

then it wasn´t really necessary to tell you.

But I could hardly know that you allready knew. What you wrote seemed to say the opposite.

Quote :

"This whole thing is as stupid as people watching the clip of Malcolm Kilduff pointing to his head as he indicates where JFK was shot and interpreting that to mean Kilduff meant JFK was shot in the temple." "

[Octafish]

131. That's what YOU say and the facts say otherwise, sduderstadt.

There's plenty of evidence President Kennedy was shot from that direction including:

Study Backs Theory of 'Grassy Knoll' - New Report Says Second Gunman Fired at Kennedy

[zappaman]

133. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Can't you post anything new that hasn't been debunked?
46 years...tick...tick...

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

1. The timeline relied on by the NRC report and by Thomas is inaccurate.

2. Both the "hold everything" and the "you want me" crosstalk alignments demonstrate that the suspect impulses happen too late to be the assassination gunshots.

3. There is no evidence that the Audograph machine that recorded channel II ran continuously in the first few minutes after the shooting, and evidence indicates that it did stop. Because the Audograph stopped, later instances of crosstalk cannot be used to align the suspect impulses on channel I.

4. There is no statistical significance of 95% or higher for a shot from the grassy knoll. There is persuasive evidence that BRSW/WA simply found a match to the speech pattern that exists at the same location on the recording.

[Octafish]

134. Quoting John McAdams means you never fail to dissapoint, zappaman.

The guy's own words show what he is.

[zappaman]

135. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Those who think Thomas is a acoustics expert obviously never read Thomas’ own report were he stated on page 1 : “I am not an acoustics expert”
tick...tick...

[Octafish]

136. Ever hear of a carillon before this thread, zappaman?

So if your lone-nut version is true, why did Gerald Ford change the position of JFK's back wound?

The answer to that is Ford had to invent evidence to support the lone-nut version.

Oh well. You still got one thing to going for you -- your record for never contributing a single thing worth reading remains intact, zappaman.

[zappaman]

137. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Why not let Gerald Ford explain it for you?
''My changes had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory,'' he said in a
telephone interview from Beaver Creek, Colo. ''My changes were only an
attempt to be more precise.'

The carillon is tolling for you and the years you have wasted, Blofish.
Will you be cracking the case anytime soon?
Probably not, if you keep relying on bullshit, but good luck anyways!
tick...tick...

[Octafish]

149. Still not ringing any bells, zappaman.

The initial draft of the report stated:
"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine."

Ford wanted it to read:
"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."

Details: Gerald Ford's Terrible Fiction

[zappaman]

150. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Ford gave his own words, yet you and the other "researchers" would rather put your bullshit into his mouth.
By the way, did you ever hear the word "bloviate" before it was so easily ascribed to you?
Again, I ask, now that you've put Gerald Ford on to your list of Kennedy killers, just how many people were involved?
Give us a rough headcount...I lost track after 458.
:rofl:

[Octafish]

153. Is there any point you won't miss, zappaman? Ford lied to make the Warren report work.

The facts show President Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy.
For the conspirators, that reality would cause political problems.
So, the coverup by Corporat McPravda continues to the present day.

What other things have they covered-up?



Remember: The guilty escaped justice.

[defendandprotect]

154. A nearby bank was playing "carillon bells" at the time of the assassination ... picked up on tape ..

which cements the fact that the tape is being made immediately at the time of the

assassination -- about 7 seconds AFTER the last gunshot sound.



Twelve blocks from Dealey Plaza, a bank used to operate a carillon bell which

could be heard all over Dallas.

When Kennedy's motorcade passed, they played "Hail to the Chief"."

That tape still exists.

Livingstone/High Treason I -- pages 250-251-256




The carillon was again recorded in 1965 during a news broadcast on the

first anniversary of the assassination.


In the end, the evidence of quite a number of shots on the tapes will stand - and nothing the

critics have said changes that fact.




BBN = Bolt, Berenek and Newman

Gaps in the recording ..

Channel 2 recording was made on a Gray Audiograph which was VOICE-ACTUATED --

This means that there were many gaps in the recording process.

The Channel 1 tape had no gaps originally at the time of the assassination.

Though BBN were told by the HSCA this was the original Dictabelt when they compared it with a multi-generation tape copy they found they were essentially identical.




Note: According to the FBI ...

Three ways to show whether the Dallas plice recording picked up the sounds in Dealey Plaza during

the assassination accoustically - coinciding with other info on the tape -- just before, during and

just after the time period then high probability that the four impulse patterns thought to be

gunshots also represent sounds produced in Dealey Plaza.

Also note: --

- The AGC would reduce all lower volume sounds such as the noise of crowds and or other

voices too far below audible levels.

- In spite of the highly independent-sounding name, the NAS study was fully funded by the Justice

Dept and staffed with "reliable" panel memers.

[SDuderstadt]

140. Dude...

when you can prove that's actually the same John McAdams? For all we know, that's you masquerading as McAdams.

[SDuderstadt]

146. Dude...

Have you ever proved that is THE John McAdams' blog? Hint: no. For all we know, it could be you masquerading as McAdams. BTW, "Octafish" is also the name of a German rock band. Does that mean when "you" post, it's actually the rock band posting?

In point of fact, dude, I could start a blog tomorrow under the name "Octafish" and make you look as RW as I wanted.

Simple question: Why don't you have any hard evidence of anything after 47 years, dude?

P.S. I'm glad to see you're following my advice and, at least, taking off a few days a week from having your ass kicked on the facts. You seem a little calmer.

[SDuderstadt]

139. Sorry, dude...

where's the physical evidence?

Oh, wait...I forgot...JFK's body was "altered" and all the physical evidence was "faked". Forgive me, I must have lost my mind for a moment.

Serious question: isn't 47 years of falling flat on your face in front of your little groupies enough?

[SDuderstadt]

145. Where's the physical evidence....

dude?

Oh, wait...I forgot...JFK's body was "altered" and all rhe physical evidence was faked. Forgive me, I must have lost my mind for a moment.

How many people did you say were "in on" this "conspiracy" again?

[deconstruct911]

155. Are you saying you think the war was an accident?

And they DID supply Iraq with WMD. Fortunately it wasn't a threat to the western world.

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. hmmm...

I recall, when we walked down Avenida Reforma in Mexico City before Eisenhower's trip, being told that if we found a place where Eisenhower could not be properly protected, the Secret Service "manual" stated that the "President's car must maintain not less than 44 mph until clear of any danger zones."... It was Secret Service men working under the provisions of the same manual who let the President's car creep around that corner at Dealey Plaza at 8-9 mph. Why?

How often do presidential motorcades take corners at 44 mph? Just wondering.

[k-robjoe]

44. Corners

I don´t know this, but my thinking is that they would "walk through" the route, and then they would say : Here ( and here, and here... ) we have a corner where the presidents limousine will have to slow down, so here we will have to put in personell to have the president protected.

So following this line of thinking, I´m thinking that what he´s saying is that if there´s a stretch on the route where they feel that the president can not be properly protected ( because they don´t have the personell to cover every stretch on the route ),
then the speed should be no less than 44 mph. But if the limousine have to turn a corner on that stretch, then they will set in the necessary personell on that corner.

Does this make sense?

[OnTheOtherHand]

46. well, where does that leave us?

At the moment, I'm left with an unsupported assertion that the Secret Service was supposed to have done... something... different if the limo was expected to go so slowly.

If someone has documented that on (several?) prior occasions when a motorcade had to take a corner at under 44 mph, the corner was swarming with security personnel, that would be useful information. Too many of these arguments, it seems to me, proceed from anecdote rather than documentation.

ETA: Sorry, I meant to say also: yes, that does make some sense. I just can't tell how much. ;)

[k-robjoe]

47. I see your point

I don´t know, but it seems to me that the things Prouty says, make sense.

Here´s something about files being destroyed :

" "Conspiracy theorists" don't just "claim" that the beloved Secret Service DESTROYED RECORDS OF PRESIDENTIAL TRIPS: THEY DID!!!!---

according to Chapter 8 of the Official Federal Government's Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB’s) Final Report (1998), given to President Clinton, Newt Gingrich, Trent Lott, and a gaggle of media luminaries and available the world over free---not for profit---online (kind of like my book):

"Congress passed the JFK Act of 1992. One month later, the Secret Service began its compliance efforts. However, in January 1995, the Secret Service destroyed presidential protection survey reports for some of President Kennedy’s trips in the fall of 1963. The Review Board learned of the destruction approximately one week after the Secret Service destroyed them, when the Board was drafting its request for additional information. The Board believed that the Secret Service files on the President’s travel in the weeks preceding his murder would be relevant.

As the ARRB’s Doug Horne wrote in a memo dated April 16, 1996: “The ‘final decision’ to approve the Texas trip made ‘late Tuesday night’ indicates that de-cision came on September 24, 1963 … the Secret Service Protective Survey Re-ports … which were destroyed in 1995 commence with trip files starting on this same date: September 24, 1963 .” In addition, the ARRB’s Joan Zimmerman noted in a May 1, 1997 Memorandum To File: “Thus far, the US Secret Service collection is in 6 gray archive boxes for documents, 7 large, flat gray boxes with newspapers and clippings, and 1 small box with a tape cassette … In Box 5 there are three folders marked “trip file”. All are empty.” The chairman of the ARRB, Judge Jack Tunheim, stated: “The Secret Service destroyed records after we were on the job and working. They claimed it was a mistake that it was just by the normal progression of records destruction.” Former PRS Agent Dale Wunderlich wrote to me: “I assumed that advance reports from the early 1960s had been destroyed years ago.” The agent’s assumption aside, why wait until 1995, after the ARRB began its work?"

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2010/04/gerald-blaines-book.html

[zappaman]

42. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Prouty was a liar who CTer's love since he makes up things to fit their paranoid minds.
But here is the reality about your secret service claims, Blofish.

from The New York Daily News, Nov. 23, 1963.
Top city police with many years of experience in guarding Presidents and visiting heads of state said yesterday that President Kennedy took too many chances.

On Nov. 14 — eight days before the assassin's bullet struck him down — the President rode through New York City without a motorcycle escort and with fewer guards than police and the Secret Service wanted him to have.

Authorities believed that Kennedy was too responsive to criticism for his own good.

A frequent visitor to New York City, the President until last week had been heavily guarded, had a motorcycle escort, and traveled heavily-guarded streets which had been cleared of other traffic to make way from him.
There were those who spoke disparagingly of the interruption of normal living occasioned by the President's visits, and this disturbed him.

He insisted last week that there be no motorcycle escort and that his motorcade stop for traffic lights. His principal protection on the ride from LaGuardia Field to the Hotel Caryle, 76th and Madison Ave., was two city police cars in front of his limousine and one car with Secret Service men immediately behind the limousine.
During the ride into Manhattan, cars containing newsmen on occasion came dangerously close to the side of the President's car before being waved off. While the President's car was stopped for a red light at 72d St. and Madison Ave., an amateur photographer stepped up close and took pictures before he was chased off.

All this was clear evidence to security men that the small guard insisted upon by the President was not adequate to insure his safety.

Queried on this point, Police Commissioner Michael Murphy officially said, "No comment." But those close to him knew that he and his top brass and the Secret Service were deeply concerned.

[Octafish]

45. Secret Service agents own words show you are wrong, zappaman.

Vince Palamara interviewed them.

AGENTS GO ON RECORD:

JFK DID NOT ORDER SECRET SERVICE OFF DALLAS LIMOUSINE
KENNEDY NEVER ORDERED SECURITY STAND-DOWN OR BUBBLE-TOP REMOVAL
PRESIDENTIAL SECURITY MYSTERIOUSLY "STRIPPED" AND OTHERWISE
COMPROMISED FOR FATAL MOTORCADE
SECRET SERVICE IGNORING OF ADVANCE WARNING OF THREATS DOCUMENTED

SNIP...

The following former Secret Service agents told me in on-the-record interviews, and in no uncertain terms, that JFK never ordered the agents off the rear of his car, was not difficult to protect and was in fact extremely cooperative with the Secret Service:

•Gerald A. Behn (chief of JFK's detail),
•Floyd M. Boring (#2 JFK detail agent),
•Arthur L. Godfrey (one of three shift leaders on the Texas trip),
•Donald J. Lawton (on the Dallas JFK detail),
•Rufus W. Youngblood (#2 agent on Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson's detail),
•Samuel A. Kinney (driver of the Secret Service follow-up car in Dallas),
•Robert I. Bouck (head of the Protective Research Section),
•Robert Lilley (a member of JFK's detail from election night until one month before Dallas),
•Maurice G. Martineau (agent in charge of the Chicago office) and
•John Norris (a member of the Uniformed Division)

CONTINUED...

http://www.jfklancer.com/LNE/limo.html

So, you see, you are wrong, again, zappaman. And the story you found reads like disinformation, don't you think?

[SDuderstadt]

48. Dude...

your "proof" is a single source conspiracy theory writer. No corroboration. The problem with your thinking is that you believe that conspiracist writings trump other evidence. It doesn't.

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Octafish]

84. Vince Palamara interviewed the Secret Service agents on-the-record, sduderstadt.

Vince Palamara interviewed the Secret Service men who were there. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

85. Two questions, dude...

1) why so many years later?
2) How does Palamara know those agents would have been in a position to know whether JFK communicated any instructions or not? How does Palamara know they weren't communicated by someone else to someone else?

[defendandprotect]

144. JFK agreed with everything the Secret Service suggested and cooperated with them... anything else ..

is simply right wing propaganda -- and it seems to begin even BEFORE the assassination

gets under way!

[k-robjoe]

157. 112th

Octafish wrote :

"In 1963 there was in Washington, D.C. the 113th Army Intelligence Unit, which was highly trained for this purpose. A counterpart of this unit was the 112th at 4th Army Headquarters at Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The 112th had a detachment, the 315th, in San Antonio. Its commanding officer, among others, complained bitterly that his unit was not used in protection along with the Secret Service after he had keen told that the services of his unit would not be needed. On more than one occasion he called his headquarters and called Washington to correct this "oversight." "

-----------------

Here´s a clip with Oliver Stone mentioning this. He says "some jackass slammed down the phone... said : don´t come ... and still today, nobody can trace that call"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPkCsLHK_FA

I´m also wondering about the comment 1:15 out in the clip, about somebody claiming that before the motorcade came he was chased out of the parking lot area behind the grassy knoll. Does anyone know more about this?

[sofa king]

32. You know what else looks like smiling? Saying, "this is bullshit."

Look at yourself in the mirror when you say it and then tell me I'm wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

33. All of which proves nothing, UNLESS...

you follow the first rule of conspiracists, which is anything unknown automatically PROVES the conspiracy. If Rybka was "dismayed" that JFK was being left unprotected, the time for him to have spoken up about it was sometime just after it happened and if conspiracists thinks it means something, the time to have determined that might have been while the various players in it were still alive.

I have already supplied a picture of JFK's motorcade in Hawaii with NO SS agents either on the rear bumper or walking by the rear fender, so it's silly to claim that it was S.O.P. that was followed everytime because it simply wasn't. I have also pointed out that the motorcade attained speeds of 25-30 MPH along sparely populated areas of the route, so unless conspiracists have some sort of detail about the route following the departure of the motorcade from Love Field, it is pure speculation that it would have made sense for Rybka to walk alongside the car.

What I find particularly distressing is that conspiracists are so hell-bent on proving a conspiracy that isn't there, that they do not care who they slime. The Secret Service was in on the plot?

Please.

[sofa king]

34. I don't disagree with any of that.

It's pretty clear from existing film that one of the high speed areas would probably have been around the underpass.

But the agent could still have been incredulous about it because in his capacity as a blocker, he might be thinking that the place to dismount is just before the high speed area, past the crowds, in the defile of the underpass, rather than exposing the occupants before the final turn. He could be throwing up his hands and saying, "this is bullshit."

My only point being that the apparent smile isn't necessarily a smile.

In re-reading the post I made above, I just realized that it could easily be misconstrued as a horribly rude comment. Please accept my apology and know that it was never my intention to insult you.

[SDuderstadt]

50. No offense taken, SK....

always a pleasure.

[OnTheOtherHand]

52. :)

For about half a second I thought that might have been the most bizarre trash talk I had ever seen on DU. And then I thought, "Oops, OTOH fail."

I think you make a good point. That "smile" is like the "wink" in another recently posted photo: who knows what it really was? (Maybe other visual evidence clarifies it, dunno.)

[zappaman]

3. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

How about telling us how many people were in on it?
I lost track at 235.

[Octafish]

5. Ever hear of Henry J. Rybka before this thread, zappaman?

If you had, you'd know there was something very suspicious caught on videotape that awful day, 47 years ago:

Evidence demonstrating Secret Service agents charged with protecting President Kennedy were ordered by a colleague to stand down.

Almost forgot: Gotta say you really know how to keep at it, zappaman: You never miss a chance to show the world how little you know.

[deconstruct911]

164. Thank you for the amount of information

you have contributed to the OP!

[eomer]

8. There were actually *two* agents ordered to stand down.

From what I recall it is always said that one agent on the right back fender was ordered to stand down. Looking at this video again I noticed that in fact there was also an agent on the left back fender who was ordered to stand down at the same moment. That would seem to rule out the explanation that the one on the right was trying to be cute and get a glory spot that he wasn't really supposed to be in.

[Octafish]

9. Clint Hill also was ordered off the bumper.

He'd been assigned to guard Jacqueline Kennedy.

Vince Palamara has interviewed, on record, scores of the Secret Service agents in regards to the assassination.

More: http://www.jfklancer.com/CHill.html

[SDuderstadt]

11. They weren't ordered to "stand down"

this is being invented by the JFK assassination conspiracy theory "community", who happen to ignore reasonable alternative explanations.

I already provided elsewhere a picture of JFK's motorcade in Hawaii where there were - gasp - NO SS agents on the rear bumper and there are plenty of other examples of that. More importantly, there were stretches of the motorcade route in Dallas which were sparsely populated and the limo would reach 25-30 mph. Unless you know the precise detail of how fast the limo travelled in the moments after it left Love Field, it's monumentally silly to leap to the conclusion that agents were ordered to "stand down". In fact, Rybka and the other agent are seen to be walking briskly/jogging by the respective rear fenders of the limo.

I don't know of any humans that can run 25-30 mph for extended periods of time, do you?

Serious question: is there ANYONE the JFK. assassination conspiracy theory "community" won't slander in their quest for the "truth"?

[Octafish]

35. Dallas motorcycle policeman reported the unit was ordered to stay behind JFK's limo, sduderstadt.

Officer Baker made clear, he was ordered to "stay behind" the president's car.

I. DPD motorcycle officer Marrion L. Baker---

A. To the Warren Commission:
(from 3 H 244; bracketed comments by the author)

Mr. Baker.
At this particular day in the office up there before we went out, I was, my
partner and I, we received instructions to ride right beside the President's car.

Mr. Belin.
About when was this that you received these instructions?

Mr. Baker.
Let's see, I believe we went to work early that day, somewhere around 8 o'clock.

Mr. Belin.
And from whom did you receive your original instructions to ride by the side of
the President's car?

Mr. Baker.
Our sergeant is the one who gave us the instructions. This is all made up in the
captain's office, I believe.
(so far, so good)

Mr. Belin.
All right.

Mr. Dulles.
Captain Curry?

Mr. Baker.
Chief Curry; our captain is Captain Lawrence.

Mr. Belin.
Were these instructions ever changed?

Mr. Baker.
Yes, sir. When we got to the airport, our sergeant instructed me that there
wouldn't be anybody riding beside the President's car.
(the change at Love Field)

Mr. Belin.
Did he tell you why or why not?

Mr. Baker.
No, sir. (important to remember: nothing about JFK or even who told the unnamed sergeant to make this change) We had several occasions where we were assigned there and we were
moved by request.

Mr. Belin.
On that day, you mean?

Mr. Baker.
Well, that day and several other occasions when I have escorted them.
("them" is probably hyperbole for President's Kennedy AND Johnson: see "C" below. Baker only escorted JFK once: 11/22/63)

Mr. Belin.
On that day when did you ride or where were you supposed to ride after this
assignment was changed?

Mr. Baker.
They just--the sergeant told us just to fall in beyond it, I believe he called it the
press, behind the car.

Mr. Belin.
Beyond the press?

Mr. Baker.
Yes, sir.

Mr. Belin.
Did he tell you this after the President's plane arrived at the airport or was it
before?

Mr. Baker.
It seemed like it was after he arrived out there.

Mr. Belin.
Had you already seen him get out of the plane?

Mr. Baker.
Yes, sir.

Mr. Belin.
About what time was it before the motorcade left that you were advised of this,
was it just before or 5 or 10 minutes before, or what?

Mr. Baker.
It was 5 or 10 minutes before.

Mr. Belin.
All right.
Then the motorcade left and you rode along on a motorcycle in the motorcade?

Mr. Baker.
Yes, sir.

SOURCE:

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/motorcycles.html

Parenthetical statements are Mr. Palamara's. The testimony, though, is more evidence for a stand-down. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

51. So what, dude?

Unless you can prove that any of the entities had advance knowledge of either Oswald or a "plot", your musing amounts to the same thing they always do...dick.

In the meantime, this "debate" cannot continue as long as you refuse to acknowledge there are two sides to this debate and continue to smear the motivation of anyone who dares disagree with you on the facts.

You didn't love JFK any more than the rest of us. You aren't privy to information the rest of us aren't. Maybe you think that you can see things the rest of us can't, but I'd chalk it up to a desperate subconcious desire on your part to avoid having to admit you've squandered 47 years of your life.

I already gave you the contact info for the Dallas D.A. Can we expect you to be paying a visit shortly?

[Octafish]

55. Get angry all you want, you're still wrong about what the evidence shows, sduderstadt.

Philip H. Melanson explains the situation:

At least two agents lied to the Warren Commission. Even worse, as they created the fiction about how thorough they had been, they implicitly pinned the blame on the fallen president himself, hinting that Kennedy's recklessness or fatalism -- not anything the agents had done in Dallas -- ignited a tragic sequence of events. Kennedy's critics still chant the mantra that the president brought it on himself. These outright lies and half-truths cannot absolve the Secret Service for losing the life of a president for the first time in its history.

Within hours of the assassination, Agent Roy Kellerman, who had sat in the front seat of Kennedy's limousine, assured the FBI: "The precautions employed in Dallas were the most stringent and thorough ever employed...for the visit of a president to an American city."

He did not relate how he had frozen for those six or seven seconds after the first shot -- a time span that allowed the "kill shot" to the president's head.

Agent William Greer, the driver of Kennedy's car, neglected to admit how he had failed to hit the gas after the first shot or swerve the vehicle to throw off the unseen sniper's aim. The limo continued rolling at a snail's pace down Dealey Plaza. Worse, it actually slowed down almost to a complete stop.

As Greer followed the established procedures and waited for a command from Kellerman to take action, the president was a proverbial sitting duck. The agents had those six or seven seconds to do something, anything, before the president's head was nearly blown off. They did nothing and covered up their actions -- or lack of them -- to the Warren Commission and others.

The Service's advance team in Dallas chose a flawed motorcade route and failed to check out such potential sniper perches as the Texas School Book Depository and other buildings, and to secure an overpass. For years, the fiction that Kennedy had refused to allow agents to place a bulletproof bubbletop on the limousine persisted. The top was not actually bulletproof.

On November 21-22, the night before the assassination, nine of Kennedy's agents who were "on call" were out drinking. The next day, several of the agents failed to notice that the motorcycle formation surrounding Kennedy's limo was all wrong.

Because of poor coordination among the Secret Service, the FBI, and the Dallas Police, agents had no idea that a well-armed band of Cuban exiles, the commandoes of Alpha-66 (who had threatened Kennedy's life) were in Dallas at the time of the assassination.

There was much to conceal in the performance of some of the Secret Service detail in Dallas, and a great deal that sank far below agency standards. From the moment the president's advance security men planned his Dallas trip, mistakes were made.

Source: "The Secret Service: The Hidden History of an Enigmatic Agency" by Philip H. Melanson, pp. 58-59

http://bit.ly/aVO2s3

I don't have all the answers, but I know what the evidence shows: President Kennedy was left unprotected.

[SDuderstadt]

56. Dude...

Y'know, you're really funny when you make bullshit claims like I'm "angry". I'm laughing my ass off at you and your nonsense.

Now, remember that picture I posted of JFK's motorcade in Hawaii with NO SS agents on the rear bumper? Look closely at the red circled area and you'll see people hanging out of windows and on balconies in potential "sniper's perches". The problem with you and all the other goofy conspiracist authors you cite is that you create false baselines (for example, involving Secret Service protocols), then claim your "evidence" proves something based upon the flase baselines.

Maybe you should consider establish one or two nights a week where you take a break from getting your ass kicked on the facts. It might rehabilitate your image with your little groupies.

[Octafish]

63. Odd how you always have to get the last word in, sduderstadt.

Not that it matters, but when will you get around to actually backing up your assertions with sources, articles, links -- you know, facts? Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

70. I think that it's odd that you...

(falsely) accuse me of "having to get the last word" while all the while you keep badgering me to answer your goofy questions.

And, of course, claiming that I never document my assertions is just another one of your silly false claims.

We're still anxiously awaiting any breakthrough you're on the verge of providing, dude.

[Octafish]

73. If I'm wrong, what are you so worried about, sduderstadt?

If I'm wrong, why the 24/7 surveillance, sduderstadt?

[SDuderstadt]

76. "24/7 surveillance"

Wtf are you babbling about now, dude?

[Octafish]

82. It's creepy getting watched by you, sduderstadt.

Nothing better to do, right?

[SDuderstadt]

83. Do you resort to stuff like this because you...

do so poorly at debating the actual facts? I must say, however, I do enjoy your self-cartoons. I dare say most people would not be able to poke fun at themselves like you do.

[Octafish]

88. Even when not written to you, getting a reply from you every time is creepy, sduderstadt.

Look up and down the thread. It's every time. And it's creepy every time. Dude.

[SDuderstadt]

89. It's a public discussion forum...

dude. And, it's certainly no more creepy than your self-cartoons. How about focusing more on your goofy claims about the JFK assassination and less on me?

[Octafish]

158. The question is: 'Why do you follow me in order to respond to each of my posts?' sduderstadt.

That is creepy.

A question for you: If you don't like what I post about the Bushes on Democratic Underground, do you forward it to others you know who do like the Bushes?

[Name removed]

159. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BeFree]

160. heh

I got a restraining order. Finally. You too might apply for one?

[zappaman]

161. Heh

Who served you with a restraining order?
The local elementary school?

[Octafish]

162. Another in your record-setting series of zero contributions, zappaman.

Heh.

[zappaman]

163. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Let me know when I reach your level of futility.
I'm trying but you have a 47 year head start.
tick...tick...tick..

[Octafish]

174. Saddest thing isn't what you don't know or say, it's that you don't want others to learn, zappaman.

So, to help those interested in learning:

Bedrock Evidence in the Kennedy Assassination

EXCERPT...

Why do everyone else in the limousine shift forward at Z308? We can see that the driver, William Greer, turned around and looked into the back seat just before this happened. Did he tap the brake pedal with his foot when he turned? We cannot know for certain but such a tap would explain fully what we see in the film. And why does the President jerk backward and to the left just after Z313? Because his head took a bullet fired from the right front.

[SDuderstadt]

175. JFK jerks...

forward first, dude. Why do you keep leaving that out? If he was shot from the front, unless you're claiming he was shot through the windshield, why weren't there bullet fragments in the left hemisphere of his brain?

Oh, wait...I forgot...all the physical evidence was "faked". Can we expect indictments anytime soon? Why is it taking you so long to blow the lid off this thing?

P.S. How is Zappaman preventing anyone from learning about the assassination, dude?

[zappaman]

176. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Tell me, do you think the driver fired the shot?
Many do.
Do you think a front shot came from the sewer?
Many do.
Many people believe many nutty things.
Have you come up with the "evidence" to prove your theory?
By the way, what is your theory?
How many were involved?
Did you know the word "bloviate" before my posts?
Hmmm...I wonder how many of these questions you will answer...
:rofl:

[Octafish]

180. Did you even hear of David Atlee Phillips before this thread, zappaman?

Going from what you've written, I doubt it. So, instead of putting me down to what "many do," try emptying your mind of what you think is so and let in something new: facts. In the case of Lee Harvey Oswald, you should know about his trip to Mexico City, where someone went to a lot of trouble to impersonate him at the Cuban and Soviet embassies.

Oswald, the CIA and Mexico City

By John Newman, Ph.D.
Copyright ©1999 by John Newman.

EXCERPT...

II. Puzzles and Pieces

SNIP...

The weirdest, most gangly piece is the 28 September phone transcript. In addition to the Oswald impersonator, there are two more speakers on this one. The phone call is between the Cuban Consulate and the Soviet Embassy at a time when no one was in the Cuban Consulate and the Soviets were in the middle of preparing a report to KGB HQ on Oswald’s activities. The FBI confirmed that the Oswald character was played by someone else. Another speaker in this transcript, the secretary in the Cuban Consulate, Silvia Duran, had to have been impersonated if, as she and her colleagues have repeatedly claimed and testified, the Cuban consulate was closed at the time of the telephone call.

This only leaves one other person, the man allegedly in the Soviet Embassy. If he is truly in the Soviet Embassy, then one could advance the argument that this was some sort of CIA penetration operation. If the Soviet man, too, was impersonated, then there was no legitimate intelligence operation even though it was probably designed to look like one. We should bear in mind that the CIA has never publicly claimed these phone calls were part of any intelligence operation and the Russians have no recollection of such a call. In fact, at the very time this phone call was supposed to have been made to the Soviet Embassy, the three staff members with whom Oswald had visited for an hour were still in the building and in the process of assembling all of the details for a cable to KGB Central in Moscow. It is frustrating that, in 1999, when Boris Yeltsin handed over KGB files on Oswald to President Clinton, they did not include the Soviet Embassy cables that were sent at the time of this bogus 3-person telephone call. Those contemporaneous cables could provide corroboration for the later Soviet (Nechiporenko-Kostikov) account.

The second puzzle piece is the 1 October telephone transcript, wherein the Oswald impersonator mentions a meeting with Valery Kostikov—a man known to the CIA as the chief of KGB assassination operations for the entire Western hemisphere. In fact, according to CIA cables and Kostikov himself, the real Oswald did meet Kostikov in Mexico. What, then, was the purpose of this impersonation? When we hold this second piece side-by-side with the first piece, we are drawn to the possibility of a plot to murder the president, an integral part of which was planting—in CIA channels—evidence of an international communist conspiracy.

The third piece is a missing transcript. We know there was a 30 September tape because of the recollection of the CIA translator who transcribed it. Her name is Mrs. Tarasoff and she remembers not only transcribing it but also the fact that the Oswald voice was the same as the 28 September voice—in other words the same Oswald impostor. This piece is all the more unique because Mrs. Tarasoff remembers the Oswald character asked the Soviets for money to help him defect, once again, to the Soviet Union.

Finally, this piece has another side to it as well: it concerns what a CIA officer at the Mexico City station had to say about it. His name was David Atlee Phillips and, in sworn testimony to the HSCA, he backed up Mrs. Tarasoff’s claim about the tape and the request for money to assist in another defection to the Soviet Union. But the Phillips story has another twist. The day before his sworn testimony, Phillips told a different, more provocative version to Ron Kessler of the Washington Post. He told Kessler that on this tape Oswald asked for money in exchange for information. Why was this crucial transcript destroyed? What motivated Phillips to tell two different stories about this piece in less than 24 hours?

CONTINUED...

http://www.ctka.net/pr999-osciamex.html

Ever hear of Valery Kostikov before this thread, zappaman? Either way, I can understand why it's not worth asking if you ever wonder why all that didn't make it to the Warren Commission report, let alone into The New York Times?

[zappaman]

181. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

Blah blah blah
It's a fact LHO went to Mexico City, so why would someone(who looked nothing like him, BTW) be impersonating him at the same time?
Keep digging, Blofish...you're getting closer to unraveling this mystery inside an enigma!
:rofl:

[Name removed]

182. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SDuderstadt]

183. "Is your job to supply plausible deniability to traitors"

Rejecting your goofy bullshit is not supplying anything except, perhaps, a trigger for another one of your smears, dude. We're one day short of the 47th anniversary of JFK's assassination. Shouldn't you be applying your efforts to solving the murder, rather than smearing DU members?

Don't worry, dude. Your 47 year record of failure and futility is safe, although you do run the risk of being overtaken by other conspiracists.

[zappaman]

184. Bloviate all you want, Octafish

wow.
you countered my facts with bullshit!
congrats on your years of futility my good friend!
oh, and thanks for the smear.

[terrafirma]

37. I'm curious....

What would the point be in removing SS agents from the rear of the car if conspiracists think he was shot from the front??

[k-robjoe]

39. No problem

I explained this in another thread a week ago, to another debunker who didn´t understand this.

Kennedy was to be shot from behind, and Oswald the lone assassin.

That is the plan. So they need a clear view of Kennedy, from behind the limousine. Hence Secret Service agents ordered off the rear of the limousine.

But what if the snipers firing from behind the limousine for some reason fail?

They couldnt risk it, so they had a sniper behind the picket fence. For this sniper to have a clear view, in case he had to step into action, they need him to have a clear view as well. Hence all the motorcycle officers riding behind the limousine.

[zappaman]

41. ok, now I understand

How many shooters were there?
And do you have any actual evidence for the what you have posted above?

[k-robjoe]

43. How many shooters? / Do I have any evidence?

To the first question : I don´t know. ( I guess my last reply was formulated like I was stating a fact, but that´s not how I think about it. )

Do I have any evidence? If I had the clinching evidence I wouldn´t hesitate to share it with you. :)

But of course I don´t. Just a lot of arguments. ( If you check back on my posts in the thread "Former FBI Agent Says Oswald Didn't Kill Kennedy", you will find quite a few of them. )

One question for you. On the link below, you will find what is alleged to be a police report about two guys sighting in a rifle, two days before Kennedy was shot, and they were reportedly situated behind the wooden fence on the Grassy Knoll.

"Two days before the assassination, two Dallas police officers were making their usual rounds on patrol. As they entered Dealey Plaza, they observed several men engaged in target practice with a rifle. The men were situated behind the wooden fence on the Grass Knoll. By the time the policemen reached the area the men had vanished, apparently leaving in a car parked nearby."

http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html

Well, I guess it´s more a question to anybody reading this. Does anybody know if this really is from a police report, or is it just bullshit?

[SDuderstadt]

49. You mean the blog from the same guy that posts about...

Jack Ruby still being alive?

Does that answer your question?

[k-robjoe]

59. Michael Kurtz

I don´t know if you noticed, but it seems that the blogger is citing a book called "Crime of the Century" by Michael Kurtz :

"Michael Kurtz in his book "Crime of the Century", where on page 218 of the second revised edition he says:

Two days before the assassination, two Dallas police officers were making their usual rounds on patrol. As they entered Dealey Plaza, they observed several men engaged in target practice with a rifle. The men were situated behind the wooden fence on the Grass Knoll.

Kurtz cites an FBI report, 26 Nov 1963, from Federal Bureau of Investigation. Papers on the Assassination of President Kennedy. 15 vols., 3847pp. Linus A. Sims Memorial Library, Southeastern Louisiana University, Hammond, LA"

http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html

So thanks for your information about the blogger. But I still don´t feel that I can say for certain that this is crap. Maybe somebody reading this knows a thing or two about Michael Kurtz as well?

[SDuderstadt]

60. Have you ever been to Dealey Plaza?

How logical does it sound to you that potential assassins would be drawing attention to themselves by taking "target practice" from the grassy knoll?

[k-robjoe]

65. Looks like it´s been misinterpreted

I looked around, and found this article :

"Another example of misleading wording in documents and researcher speculation and assumptions involves the report of two men sighting-in a rifle.

. . . The police have interviewed a witness who has stated that a man fitting subject's description in company of another man were observed by this witness on 20 Nov 63 in the immediate vicinity of the place where President Kennedy was killed. These men were observed sighting-in a rifle at two silhouette targets . . . <9>

This document also appears to have been incorrectly interpreted by various researchers who have reported the men were seen sighting-in a rifle on the grassy knoll. The following quote from an FBI document clarifies where the alleged incident took place.

. . . had heard on Friday afternoon, November 22, 1963, while at the Dallas Police Department that the Police Department had received a call Wednesday at night regarding two men sighting-in a rifle on Continental Street . . .

Continental Street crosses over Stemmons Freeway beyond the area of Dealey Plaza and is no where near the grassy knoll."

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/weberman/tfdrev.htm

So this leads me to believe that the police report is factual, but it´s been misinterpreted. So that clears it up. Almost. If we assume that even though this policereport was factual, this report ( below ) is just bullshit :

"I have a copy of a military intelligence report:

(...)

The Police have interviewed a witness who has stated that a man fitting SUBJECT in the immediate vicinity of the place where President Kennedy was killed. These men were observed sighting in a rifle at two silhouette targets. When the police arrived on the scene they realized they were in the direct line of sight so attempted to approach the men by circling around to their rear. When the two officers arrived at the spot where the men were last observed with the rifle. The description of the car fits the description of the car that SUBJECT was driving. Witness there was a man sitting in the car. (this info has not been released to the public)"

http://coverthistory.blogspot.com/2005_08_01_archive.html

The blogger interprets this that "SUBJECT" is referring to Oswald. Of course it could be the case here also, that the report is factual, but the interpretation is wrong.

[SDuderstadt]

68. As is the case with almost all...

JFK assassination conspiracist bullshit. The authors promise definitive proof but, when you read it, it doesn't quite say what they claim.

[k-robjoe]

72. The authors are convinced

that it was a conspiracy. They lack the definitive clinching evidence, but they write as if they have it, because they are convinced.

Just like you are convinced about the opposite.

[SDuderstadt]

75. Except there is definitive evidence...

that shows Oswald did it. Three subsequent investigations (Clark, Rockefeller and the HSCA) corroborate the WC. Where's the physical evidence from the conspiracists?

[k-robjoe]

77. It´s been 47 years

and how big is the percentage of people who are convinced Oswald was the lone assassin?

It seems to me like the percentage of people who are convinced is shrinking.

People believe evidence has been fabricated, don´t they?

[SDuderstadt]

78. The truth is not determined by public opinion...

and, it's more than a little silly to believe that four investigations either fabricated or accepted fabricated evidence.

[k-robjoe]

79. No it´s not

But the way I see it, the sceptics ( sceptical of the lone-nut explanation ) are on track to getting to the truth in the case.

[SDuderstadt]

80. Why haven't they made more progress...

in 47 years? Where is their physical evidence?

[Octafish]

132. For starters, CIA, FBI and Secret Service have obstructed justice, sduderstadt.

FBI

CIA

Secret Service

[ryan_cats]

172. You missed this...

Is this real or is it conspiracy woo? At least it is from the 70s so the info has been out there for years.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/gemstone_files.htm

[zappaman]

173. bloviate all you want, Octafish

Do you count the CIA, FBI and Secret Service as one each when you are counting the number of people who killed JFK?
Or do all the people who worked for those organizations count as one apiece?
How many people are you up to now that you believe killed JFK?
Has it crossed a 1000 yet?

[MinM]

53. It's obvious that Lee Harvey Oswald ordered the Stand Down...

:sarcasm:

Visual Evidence of Conspiracy

Could LHO have ordered the Stand Down in Dallas?
***

The Kilduff Announcement

Assistant Press Secretary Malcolm Kilduff officially announces the death of President Kennedy, attributing the death to a bullet that entered through the front of the skull.

***
Best Witness: The Limousine, by Anthony Marsh


http://in-broad-daylight.com/

[SDuderstadt]

58. Jesus...

Kilduff was indicating that JFK was shot in the HEAD by pointing to his head. Listen to the words he is speaking. Did you expect him to point to the back of his head?????

[defendandprotect]

141. Great pictures .... Keep on tellin' it --- !!!

:)

[defendandprotect]

151. Can't get sound up high enough to identify the guy calling them OFF ... ???

[zappaman]

152. it's dick cheney

the same guy who masterminded 9/11.

[k-robjoe]

156. "identify the guy calling them OFF"

You mean Emory "They got him, they got him" Roberts?

http://www.tvclip.biz/video/b9aSy5o6j40/jfk-assassination-truth-part-33.html

[Octafish]

177. ''They got him! They got him!''

I wonder how Emory Roberts' words came across that awful day?

FROM: ATSAIC Emory P. Roberts, The White House Detail US Secret Service

November 29, 1963

SUBJECT: Schedule of events prior to and after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on Friday November 22, 1963.

SNIP...

After the usual greeting of approximately 20 people, upon deplaning, the President and Mrs. Kennedy walked to roped off area and shook hands with a number of the assembled persons gathered there, and autographed a few papers and pamphlets. I accompanied the President, as well as other Special Agents while he greeted the people. The President and Mrs. Kennedy returned to their car.

11:55 am. The President (right rear seat), Mrs. Kennedy (left rear seat) Governor John Connally (of Texas) (right jump seat) Mrs. Connally (left jump seat) ASAIC Roy T. Kellerman front seat, with SA William Greer driving, (SS car 100 X--top removed) departed Love Field.

SA Donald Lawton of 8 am-4 pm shift remained at Love Field with SA Warner and Rybka to set up security for the President's departure for Bergstrom AFB, Austin, Texas. The Presidential aircraft was due to depart Dallas at 2:35 pm.

The following persons departed Love Field in Secret Service Follow-up car, 679 X and were located in and on running boards of car as follows:

ATSAIC Emory P. Roberts -- front seat -- operating radio.
SA Samuel Kinney -- driving (did an excellent job)
Mr. Kenneth O'Donnell, Appointment Secretary to the President, left jump seat.
Mr. David Powers, Presidential Aide, right jump seat.
SA Glen Bennett, left rear seat.
SA George Hickey, right rear seat (manning AR-15 (rifle)
SA Clinton Hill, left running board, front.
SA William Mclntyre, left running board, behind Hill.
SA John D. Ready, right running board, front.
SA Paul Landis, right running board behind Ready.
Note: On shift report for Nov. 22, 1963, I listed SA Rybka as riding in center of rear seat, which was in error, as he was not in car. As mentioned above, he remained at Love Field.

The Presidential motorcade toured downtown Dallas, through huge crowds, that were sometimes so close, that motorcycles of the Dallas Police Department had to drop back from flanking the Presidential and Secret Service cars, so the two cars could get through. On several occasions the Special Agent working the running boards of the Follow-up car "hit" the ground and ran along side of the President's car; and SA Hill climbed on rear step of the President's car (left rear) where he remained until the crowd thinned and motorcycles had returned to their positions, flanking the rear of the President's car.

The Presidential motorcade was enroute to Trade Mart to attend Luncheon sponsored by the Dallas Citizens Council, The Dallas Assembly and the Graduate Research Center of the Southwest.

12:29 pm. SA Winston Lawson (Advance Agent for Dallas stop) riding in lead car, gave "five minutes away," signal via radio, meaning five minutes away from Trade Mart. I immediately wrote 12:35 p.m. on Itinerary, as the time of arrival at Trade Mart.

12:30 pm. First of three shots fired, at which time I saw the President lean toward Mrs. Kennedy. I do not know if it was the next shot or third shot that hit the President in the head, but I saw what appeared to be a small explosion on the right side of the President's head, saw blood, at which time the President fell further to his left. Mrs. Kennedy was leaning toward the President, however, she immediately raised up in the seat and appeared to be getting up on back of same. About this time I saw SA Clinton Hill trying to get on left rear step of the President's car. He got aboard and climbed up over the back of the car and placed himself over the President and Mrs. Kennedy. After SA Hill got on rear step of the President's car it appeared that SA John Ready was about to follow and go for the right rear step, however, I told him not to jump, as we had picked up speed, and I was afraid he could not make it.

It is estimated that we were traveling approximately 15-20 miles per hour at the time of the shooting and it is believed that the follow-up car was approximately 20 25 feet behind the President's car.

The crowd was very sparse, in fact only a few people were along the motorcade route at the time of the shooting.

Just after the third shot was fired, I picked up the car radio and said "Halfback (code name for SS. Follow-up car) to Lawson, the President has been hit, escort us to the nearest hospital, fast but at a safe speed." I repeated the message, requesting to be cautious, meaning the speed. I had in mind Vice President Johnson's safety, as well as the President's, if he was not already dead.

The Vice President's car was approximately one-half block behind the Secret Service car, at the time of the shooting, and some of us waved for it to close in closer to the Secret Service car. The Vice President's car quickly closed the gap.

When I turned around to wave the Vice President's car to come closer, at same time, trying to determine where shots had come from, I said, pointing to SA McIntyre, ''They got him, they got him," continuing I said "You (meaning McIntyre) and Bennett take over Johnson as soon as we stop" (meaning the hospital).

I turned around a couple times, just after the shooting and saw that some of the Special Agents had their guns drawn, I know I drew mine, and saw SA Hickey in rear seat with the AR-15, and asked him to be careful with it.

12:34 pm. Presidential motorcade arrived at Parkland Hospital. (I did not look at my watch, however, I overheard someone at the hospital say that it took four minutes to get there.)

Upon arrival at Parkland Hospital, I immediately ran to President Kennedy. Mrs. Kennedy was lieing over him. I said to Mrs. Kennedy to let us get the President. She said in effect that she was not going to move. I got one look at the President's head and remarked to ASAIC Kellerman, "You stay with the President, I'm taking some of my men for Johnson." SA's McIntyre and Bennett were already with Vice President Johnson, having joined SAIC Rufus Youngblood and other Special Agents assigned to the Vice President, as the Vice President arrived at the hospital.

The first thing we did, was request a room for the Vice President. After getting the Vice President and Mrs. Johnson in a room, at the hospital, I said in effect to the Vice President, in the presence of Mrs. Johnson, Mr. Cliff Carter, Executive Assistant to the Vice President and SAIC Youngblood, as well as others, that I did not think the President could make it and suggested that we get out of Dallas as soon as possible.

We (SAIC Youngblood and myself) suggested that he (Vice President) think it over, as he would have to be sworn in. I suggested that we leave Dallas via AF 1, and SAIC Youngblood agreed and suggested that we return to the White House.

SNIP...

/s/ Emory P. Roberts

Wish Roberts had written more.

[SDuderstadt]

178. Given the context of what happened that day...

and since one cannot deduce Roberts' tone or inflection, why do you think anything he said was suspicious? Do you regard this as some sort of confession?

Serious question: do you sometimes see hidden messages from TPTB in your Alpha-Bits?