Former FBI Agent Says Oswald Didn't Kill Kennedy

http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-don-adams-president-k...

Suzanne Stratford Fox 8 News Reporter
6:07 AM EDT, August 18, 2010

AKRON, Ohio - A retired FBI Agent from Summit County is making claims regarding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy that go beyond conspiracy theories.

Don Adams speaks clearly and concisely when describing the events of November 22, 1963, the day President Kennedy was killed, and he doesn't waiver from his position that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill President John F. Kennedy in Dallas.

"It is a fact," says Adams, and he says he has the FBI documents to prove it.

At his home in Akron, Ohio, Adams is surrounded by thousands of reports and records from the National Archives and Records Administration. His name appears on many of the papers, but he says other reports have been doctored, or are missing, "Everything I had done is gone. It's all gone," Adams said...




http://adamsjfk.com /

Almost 50 years have gone by since President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed in Dallas, Texas, on Nov. 22, 1963. Yet, we are no closer to solving this murder today than we were back then.


We are beginning to elicit the truth, but that truth is being revealed in bits and pieces:


We KNOW that there were warnings that the President would be killed...


WTAM Interviews with Mike Trivisonno and Don Adams on JFK


Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5








7-29-10 Mike Trivisonno Hour 3
Former FBI Agent Don Adams in discussing the JFK assassination.

LISTEN NOW | DOWNLOAD TO YOUR COMPUTER
7-29-10 Mike Trivisonno Hour 2
Inequality in restrooms and showers. Former FBI Agent Don Adams is back in studio to discuss JFK's assassination.

http://www.wtam.com/pages/triv/ondemand.html
TRIV ON DEMAND - The BIG One - WTAM 1100 7-28-10 Mike

with a candlestick...

to those of us who remember him, and still feel, in the waning days of November, the melancholy...It can never be "funny".

as they always are. These facts must always be made a joke and must never be taken seriously;

FOR THEY ARE ABOUT THE DAY DEMOCRACY IN THIS COUNTRY WAS SHOT DEAD.

To protect big banking, Wall st. and their intelligence armies.

Funny, how in spite of these watchdogs and clowns, the public still gets it by an overwhelming majority.

fired -- however, NOTHING ABOUT THIS IS A "HOOT" --

And sad to see that anyone here thinks a coup on our "people's" government

is something to be treated as a joke!

Pitiful -- !!

: )

Your kidding, right......

Shouldn't he be using the Cone of Silence for this kind of information?

...ya mean there really, really was no "magic bullet" and our government lied? Imagine that...

Kurt Nimmo shames Corporate McPravda:

JFK Assassination Cover-Up Blown Sky High

by Kurt Nimmo
Thursday, August 26, 2010

It is a story the corporate media, with the notable exception of one lone Fox News affiliate, refuses to report. A former FBI agent, Don Adams, has compelling evidence Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate president John F. Kennedy. Adams was assigned to an FBI office in Thomasville, Georgia, on November 22, 1963. Adams was responsible for investigating Joseph Adams Milteer, described as a radical with connections to the States Rights Party and KKK. Milteer, according to Adams, was involved in Kennedy’s assassination.

As revealed by the Church Committee in the mid-70s and according to internal FBI documents the agency controlled the Ku Klux Klan and other white supremacists beginning in the 1960s. More recently, it was revealed that racist radio talk show host Hal Turner operated as a “national security intelligence” asset for the FBI, thus demonstrating the agency still has its hooks in the lunatic fringe movement.

The racist Milteer “was reportedly one of most violent men in the country,” Adams told Fox 8 News. Years later, Adams discovered that Milteer had threatened to kill Kennedy on November 9, 1963, and the FBI had lied about Milteer’s whereabouts. In order to make his case, Adams played an audio recording of Milteer for Fox News. In the recording, Milteer tells an informant the best way to get the president “is from an office building with a high powered rifle.” Asked if he was sincere about a plot of kill Kennedy, Milteer responded: “Oh yes. It’s in the works.”

Despite the threat and possibility of a conspiracy to assassinate the president, the FBI and Secret Service allowed Kennedy to travel to Dallas. “ should have stopped the President from traveling instantly,” said Adams.

CONTINUED...

http://www.theredmountainpost.com/jfk-assassination-cov... /

John Connley and the republicans were not somehow involved. I will say it over and over. Else why when Martha was going to "spill the beans", she was kidnapped, held in a motel for weeks and then mysteriously was said to have an advanced case of cancer and passed away....For those of you not old enough to have been there, the climate of mistrust of the republicans was overwhelming. Person after person insisted that some of the shots came from the area, OF THE GRASSY KNOLL. They said no amount of government urging would make them change their mind.

about as funny as AIDS.

and buy the official theory hook line and sinker.... I would wager 90% of Democrats, liberals and progressives would be onboard for a real investigation of who shot JFK...(answer : probably fascists elements of the far right)

That's why I'm wondering about the "laughing" here.

Ferr Sherrr doood. Try reading more than the pug clap trap.

Almost 50 years have gone by since President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was killed in Dallas, Texas, on Nov. 22, 1963. Yet, we are no closer to solving this murder today than we were back then.

and this comment from the thread is also uninformed and misleading --

many private investigators have revealed the essential details of the JFK coup on our

"people's" government --

In fact, many in DU the evening of the assassination fairly well knew the names of those involved.

And, the Tunnheim Commission confirmed that --

"OSWALD WAS EMPLOYED BY THE CIA WORKING ON HIGH LEVEL ASSIGNMENTS AND PROBABLY

ALSO FOR THE FBI."

Despite many continuing efforts to bring the truth forward, the coverup remains strong --

and the power to keep the cover up going is stronger than our power to overturn it --

so far ...

a "fictional" account of the assassination and you'll find the name Milteer.
What we have/had was/is the American version of the War of the Roses.
Instead of the Lancasters and the Yorks we have the Bushes and Kennedys. As we know, the Bush cartel prevailed.
Our government has been taken over by a crime family that would make the Genovese look like Mr. Rogers.

Well said. The Mafia never killed a million innocent people for their oil. The War of the Roses analogy is apt, except the Kennedys -- like all Liberals -- tried to play fair and follow the Golden Rule. The other side -- representing the Money Party, the War Party, the Establishment Aristocracy -- has done whatever it takes to win. The results of their victory are all around -- from permanent war to a penured middle class.



Here's a transcript of the text:



Gee. Why was Poppy Bush in Dallas when JFK was assassinated?

Could it be, he was on official business? I suspect he was on Secret Government business. After all, his eldest son bragged during his Texas Air National Guard and Harvard grad school days that his daddy was CIA.

Here's an FBI document from the same week of the assassination in which FBI Director J Edgar Hoover briefed one "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency." Some strange coincidence there, wot?



Here's a transcript of the above:



The paper trail sheds some light on the War. Thank you for the heads-up on DeLillo's book, The Wizard!

George Bush is a very uncommon name.

And never adding one thing to shine light on George Herbert Walker Bush. Dude.

For seconders:

"The paper trail sheds some light on the War"

One assumes here you mean the Vietnam war, which is odd, because that was a war basically started, and vigorously prosecuted by, none other than President John F. Kennedy. Again: when JFK arrived in office on Jan. 20, 1961, there were roughly 600 American military "advisers" whose rules of engagement were so limited that they weren't even allowed to leave their base compounds under any but the most extreme of circumstances. Those orders came straight from the top - right from the Oval Office of Dwight David Eisenhower.

The day JFK died, there were nearly 20,000 combat troops in Vietnam, already engaged in fighting right alongside the ARVN. Every single one of them were dispatched to South Vietnam on Kennedy's explicit orders.

Their Air Force colleagues, meantime, had received their first batch of a charming little combination herbicide/defoliant named after the color of the stripes on the barrels in which it was shipped in. This, too, was carried out on President Kennedy's explicit orders:

"Individual spray runs had to be approved by President John F. Kennedy until November 1962 when Kennedy gave the authority to approve most spray runs to the Military Assistance Command, Vietnam and the US Ambassador to South Viet Nam."*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ranch_Hand

Indeed, here is President Kennedy speaking in Fort Worth in his last delivered remarks before his tragic death at the hands of Lee Harvey Oswald:

"The Iroquois helicopter from Fort Worth is a mainstay in our fight against the guerrillas in South Viet-Nam. The transportation of crews between our missile sites is done in planes produced here in Fort Worth. So wherever the confrontation may occur, and in the last 3 years it has occurred on at least three occasions, in Laos, Berlin, and Cuba, and it will again — wherever it occurs, the products of Fort Worth and the men of Fort Worth provide us with a sense of security....

....In all these ways, the success of our national defense depends upon this city in the western United States, 10,000 miles from Viet-Nam, 5,000 or 6,000 miles from Berlin, thousands of miles from trouble spots in Latin America and Africa or the Middle East. And yet Fort Worth and what it does and what it produces participates in all these great historic events. Texas, as a whole, and Fort Worth bear particular responsibility for this national defense effort, for military procurement in this State totals nearly $1 ¼ billion, fifth highest among all the States of the Union. There are more military personnel on active duty in this State than any in the Nation, save one — and it is not Massachusetts — any in the Nation save one, with a combined military-civilian defense payroll of well over a billion dollars. I don't recite these for any partisan purpose. They are the result of American determination to be second to none, and as a result of the effort which this country has made in the last 3 years we are second to none....

....In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counterinsurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent...."**

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

(Side comment: some real "enemy" of the "military-industrial complex he was, eh? )

The "paper trail" - not to mention the publicly-delivered speeches trail - on "the War" is, indeed, massive, and it all leads back to one conclusion: President Kennedy decisively escalated American involvement in the conflict in Southeast Asia, and till the day he died was determined to continue doing so.

Whether he might have come to a different conclusion about it on November 23rd or anytime thereafter is irrelevant: on November 22nd, 1963, his government was waging war in South Vietnam, and on his explicit orders.

And what, in all that massive "paper trail" that points to President Kennedy's decisive role in inaugurating the major American role in that conflict, do those who continue to clamor that it would have gone otherwise have in the way of "proof" to the contrary?

Here's what: one vaguely worded National Security Action Memo that approved a military recommendation that 1,000 American military personnel by the end of the year, and orders that the news not be made public. And why? The vast majority of credible historians maintain that the Memorandum was a bluff, an attempt to get the South Vietnamese government - which had recently undergone a coup with Kennedy's tacit approval - to stay in line with U.S. policy directives, or a shifting of mission priorities, as the U.S. Air Force & Navy leadership had been insisting that what was called for in South Vietnam was less troops on the ground and more bombers and fighters in the air, and combat ships offshore. Still others insist it was simply a routine reshuffling and rotation of troops, having no larger policy implications whatsoever.

One thing NSAM 263 does not do is establish that Kennedy would have "brought the boys home" in any way, manner, shape or form, had he lived.***

The bottom line is that Vietnam was JFK's war till the day he died. You can blame Johnson and Nixon for anything after that, all the way up to March of 1973. And there is not a shred of definitive, credible evidence that JFK wanted it any other way.


*All emphases added

**Ditto

***See the complete text of NSAM 263 - with "draft" bullet points below the body of the complete memo - here:

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/nsam-jfk/nsam-263.htm

JFK worked to get us out of Vietnam.

OTOH, LBJ lied to get us into war in Vietnam.

And your "bibliography," that was something you made up, right? -- for rhetorical purposes, of course.

Does it occur to you not to draw attention to your failed 47 year campaign to find JFK's "real killer"? Serious question: have you read Bugliosi's book?

Instead of attempting to change the subject, address the historical evidence put to you in the reply above.

"I'm still waiting for your ''bibliography,'"

I am going to deal with this phony issue in depth once and only once in my interactions with you on DU, Octafish, and from here on out whenever you attempt to change the subject from whatever facts I've presented that you cannot refute by bringing up this old diversionary chestnut, I'm simply going to post a link back to this reply.

A "bibliography" is nothing more than a list of books compiled and/or collected for a specific purpose, among other things that word can refer to. Here's a helpful definition for you:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bibliography

It is, indeed, true that I have a large number of books in my personal library that address the life, times, personal and political career of John Fitzgerald Kennedy - everything from general biographies of his life to topic-specific volumes regarding actions of his administration on everything from the Cuban Missile Crises to its dealings with South America. I also have in my collection a sizable body of conspiracy theory works, everything from Jim Marrs "Conspiracy: the Plot that killed Kennedy" to a compilation of conspiracy-related articles compiled and edited by James Fetzer titled "Murder in Dealey Plaza."

But that is not this issue. This is:

1. When people post a reply to you containing any number of facts that refute a position you hold, Octafish, the proper way to reply to them is not to refer to some old post of theirs that is irrelevant to the post at hand, but to address those facts.

2. You, I, and every one else are well aware that my sarcastic reply to you in that singular post was, indeed, a rhetorical reference to the fact that I am not only much better read than you are on this subject, but, also, the content of what I have read is largely from legitimate, credible sources, as opposed to conspiracy-theory rubbish peddled by con-men (in many instances) and/or the genuinely misinformed (in many others). This means that not only the quantity of what I've read is much greater than yours, but the quality is infinitely more intellectually honest and imbued with scholarly rigor.

3. This repeated returning to "I'm still waiting for your bibliography" routine is simply a way to avoid dealing with facts as presented to you, and a pretense, in any event: were you genuinely interested in having me painstakingly put aside an afternoon and compile a list of books I have read, many of which are in my personal library, you would have long ago messaged me privately and said, "you know, apocalypsehow, I know you were being sarcastic in that post about the bibliography, but in all sincerity I would appreciate seeing a list of books you've read and/or recommend on the subject. I would genuinely appreciate it if you would do this for me, thanks!" But that's not what you're interested in: you are interested in scoring some kind of public "debate" points by pretending I have failed to deliver on some "promise" you think I have made and you are due. Of this, you are well aware, but you persist in returning to this tactic anyway because it is much, much, much easier than attempting to refute my solid facts and evidence.

4. Further, you and I both know that if I, indeed, did put aside 5-6 hours of my time, and compile in writing such a list and then forward it on to you via private message or publicly, the result would not be that Octafish would drop his keyboard, run right out to the local library or bookstore and start prowling the stacks looking for reading material: no, the result would be an immediate counter-reply dismissing the works as part of the "cover-up"; an accompanying questioning if not outright smearing of the reputations of the authors of those books in an attempt to discredit them; or a reply simply ignoring the entire thing in lieu of posting an eye-numbing number of links - most of them to conspiracy blogs, opinion pieces, or your own previous posts - supposedly "proving" that it doesn't matter how many actual scholarly works are written that do not square with your view of the events of Nov. 22, 1963, you have on your side of the "debate"....an eye-numbing number of links to conspiracy blogs, opinion pieces, and your own previous posts.

And my time would have truly and completely been wasted.

5. Taken together, everything I have laid out in points 1-4 lay the groundwork for my reply to you regarding this constant diversionary "request" you continue to make every time I definitively refute an assertion you have made in a post on this forum. That reply is as follows:

(a) As to the repeated public, i.e., in a post/reply on DU, business about "I'm still waiting for your ''bibliography'," you can stop waiting: I am not going to burn even ten seconds of my time working up such a list for you, period. Normally, this alone would be sufficient to see the matter dropped, and never brought up again as some kind of "debate" point in future interactions between us. But that's about the only card you got to play in our occasional discussions back and forth regarding this matter on DU, since all the actual, verifiable, credible facts are on my side, not yours. Thus, the card will always be played, because it is human nature to grasp at even weak cards if it is perceived that it keeps us at the table and in the game.

(b) But even that card is now going to either have to be played or flushed, because I'm calling your bluff. This is my offer: if you compose a polite, respectful private message to me, Octafish, and in that message you nicely ask me to go ahead and work up that Bibliography for you, even though we both know the original "offer" was an off-the-cuff instance of internet obiter dictum, I'll be delighted to block off an evening to do so, and get it right to you. You can then do with it what you want: follow its recommendations, ignore it, post an OP here ridiculing or praising it, whatever you want.

And then the (phony to begin with) issue will have been laid to rest, and you can get on with the business of refuting my facts, as opposed to dredging up old posts with no relevance to those said facts.

Which is why my PM box will remain empty, I reckon: you don't want to discuss the facts. You want to discuss everything but.

In any event, you have my (final) word on this diversionary matter you continue to bring to our attention. Any further references to it will simply find a link posted in reply for those interested to follow back to this post, and the explanation contained therein above.

Issue resolved.

?

And I guess Fox made up the part about the audio-tape where Milteer saying a plot is in the works.

but because they have presented not evidence but misinformation --

and especially in Bug's case, mainly an attack on other private investigators

who have produced evidence he doesn't like and which is in disagreement with

his ill-found conclusions.

Fox wasn't the first to present the audio-tape of Milteer and Sullivan -- it was

the Discovery Channel which presented the British documentary "The Men Who Killed

Kennedy" -- and the tape included Milteer's discussion of the original plans to kill

JFK in Miami -- but, needless to say, same concept of "patsy" and other patterns were

used in Dallas. You might also have noticed that Milteer seems to be present among

the crowds welcoming JFK that sad day? Your library probably has High Treason I and II --

think it's "I" which has the photo -- your library probably has these books.

he lost all credibility. He thinks since he gained creds on the forgone conviction of Manson and the good read "Helter Skelter; He can squander that capital and say anything and it will stick. He handily dispels the crackpot conspiracy theories with the trick of a breathless countdown, but fails to see; That the real conspiracy theory is that of the government; Is all too obvious and has been verified too many times to count. For instance, The dismissal or waving off the secret service at Dallas Airport from the footsteps at the back of the Limo in the direct line of fire, being too persuasive to dismiss; And yet not covered. This book is his Waterloo. His book should have been called "Distorting History". The inconvenient truths with no possible argument, he just left out, and concentrated on the ridiculous, the far out and the easy, some he just did not get. I was so furious with this idiots "treatise", even without finishing it, I took it back and got my money back. This book is meant for idiots.

of the SS. Hmmm. Don't you think the "perps" would have made sure that wasn't filmed? Beyond that, have you looked for any alternative explanations? Why does that one SS agent have a broad smile on his face? Here's the reality: the agent in question was actually assigned to guard AF One. His sheepish grin is because he was caught trying to go on the motorcade instead.

Duh.

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

I looked at this film in detail and saw no such imaginings.


The guy shrugged three times each more dumbfounded, as to the why for the obvious question on the secret service mans face, for leaving the customary guard posts built into the limousine at the rear to provide vital protection to the President.

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

Look again for yourself if your righteous propaganda holds up. There are places on the back of the limousine where ss are meant to be for even the barest protection of an open limousine. Duh indeed

The next lame excuse....So AF1 is more important than the president? As if there are not enough SS to do both many times over. Duh indeed.

And the next even lamer excuse. Why would they allow filming of the goings on....That is so stupid it does not even deserve a comment. Gee why are there films of everything that happened that day; Beyond everyone having a camera, there were reporters all over the place, with telescopic paraphernalia to film anything. Films of this president were gold. Duh indeed.

Do you take us for idiots that we would swallow such propagandist claptrap.

to quit using the term "propagandist". If you think smearing me as such helps you win the "debate", you are sadly mistaken.

Secondly, my point is that the agent in question was assigned to guard AF One to begin with. Simple question: if the agent had initially been assigned to the motorcade, then why didn't he come forward and say, "I was supposed to be on the Presidential Limo and was inexplicably pulled off and that's why JFk died"? More importantly, a large number of JFK assassination conspiracists claim JFK was also shot from the front. If that is, in fact, true, why are conspiracists so preoccupied with an agent who tried to abandon his duty post so he could ride along with the "boss"?

Pretty soon nearly every direct eyewitness and/or participant in that day's events (other than the shooting) will probably be dead. After that, you guys can accuse anyone and everyone without contradiction.

Oswald did it, dude. What evidence do you need to see to convince you of that?

question :

>"More importantly, a large number of JFK assassination conspiracists claim JFK was also shot from the front. If that is, in fact, true, why are conspiracists so preoccupied with an agent who tried to abandon his duty post so he could ride along with the "boss"?"

This can be confusing. The theory is that the conspirators had snipers placed behind the limousine ( School Book Depository / Dal-Tex ), and also in front of the limousine ( Grassy Knoll ).

So the plan is that the snipers behind the limousine does the job, and the sniper ( snipers? ) on the grassy knoll will only fire if the others for some reason fail.

So with this plan they would need a clear view from behind. And a clear view from the grassy knoll. ( No motorcycles driving beside the front bumpers, as they usually did. All of them behind the limousine. )

I don't follow this stuff. How do you know that the agent was assigned to Air Force One? (Seems pretty wild to abandon one's duty post to run alongside JFK -- I mean, how was he going to get away with that?)

The video implies that it was routine to have agents stationed at the rear corners of the limo. Status?

I don't see how any of this is pivotal to the assassination; I'm just wondering.

Apparently, after the assassination, Emory Roberts, the guy telling the agent to get off the limousine, wrote in a report that the agent in question ( Rybka ) was in the followup car at the time of the assassination :

http://www.copweb.be/Emory%20Roberts.htm

( Haven´t double-checked this, so let me know if it´s false. )

I was doing this one from memory and, based upon something K-robjoe said, I might have gotten it wrong and Rybka might have already been assigned to drive one of the follow-up cars. In my opinion, taking a very grainy film clip and intuiting from it that Rybka was deliberately and maliciously "pulled off" the limo has no more merit than most of the other JFK assassination conspiracy bullshit.

I'm kinda busy, but I'll track it down.

No hurry.

About how Emory Roberts seemed to "switch" once Kennedy was dead :

"Presidential aides Ken O'Donnell and Dave Powers best summed up the situation when they wrote: "Roberts, one of President Kennedy's agents...had decided to switch to Johnson as soon as Kennedy was shot.” In addition, four other authors have noted Agent Roberts' "switch of allegiance," including Chief Curry.

Once at Parkland Hospital, SA Roberts totally usurped his superior, number-three agent Roy Kellerman. Emory ordered Kellerman's agents around and confided in Rufus Youngblood, the soon-to-be SAIC, replacing the absent Behn.

What William Manchester reports as having occurred at Parkland makes one both sick and repulsed: "…Powers and O'Donnell bounded toward the Lincoln. Powers heard Emory Roberts shouting at him to stop but disregarded him; a second might save Kennedy's life (...)

Emory Roberts brushed past O'Donnell, determined to make sure that Kennedy was dead. 'Get up,' he said to Jacqueline Kennedy. There was no reply. She was crooning faintly. From his side Roberts could see the President's face, so he lifted her elbow for a close look. He dropped it. To Kellerman, his superior, he said tersely, 'You stay with Kennedy. I'm going to Johnson.'" "

http://vincepalamara.blogspot.com/2010/01/kenny-odonnel...

The same guy - Emory Roberts - called back an agent who was about to run up to the limousine when he heard the first shot.

The reason Emory Roberts gave for this, seems pretty lame :

"Special Agent Ready, on the right front running board of the Presidential follow-up car, heard noises that sounded like firecrackers and ran toward the President's limousine. But he was immediately called back by Special Agent Emory P. Roberts, in charge of the follow-up car, who did not believe that he could reach, the President's car at the speed it was then traveling."

http://www.archives.gov/research/jfk/warren-commission-...

Clint Hill must have ignored the order from Emory Roberts to stay put.

Getting the press out of the way?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUUH9jNSXjc

"The press photographers who normally rode in a flatbed truck
directly in front of Kennedy's limousine were relegated to a position behind the presidents limousine. According to reporter Tom Dillard, this change occurred at the last minute at Love Field."

In this video-clip Everett Kay explains that after they got on tape Mr. Miteer, saying that an assassination of Kennedy was in the works, they added extra security for his trip to Miami, november 19.

Then the clip ends with a quote from the HSCA Report, that no word about this was sent to the Agents preparing security for the trip to Dallas.

Pretty unbelievable.

"In this video, lead detective Everett Kay describes setting up the surveillance, discusses the contents of the tape and discloses what security changes for the President's November 18th visit to Miami were made in light of the threat."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdbVyhzCcq4

To me, that pretty much gets it close to the right ball park.

Everybody knows that Johnson and Hoover framed Lee Harvey Oswald, this is all very clear, there is no mystery left.

There's nothing left to debate, the culbrits are clear.

Is anybody not clearly aware of Nixon's involvement in this entire affair?

you realize that this "film maker" not only gets multiple facts wrong, he outright lies in it repeatedly, right? For example, the name of one of the ships in the Bay of Pigs was the "Barbara J", not the "Barbara". Why does the "film maker" lie about this? Because, Barbara Bush's maiden name was Pierce, so the "J" cannot possibly stand for her former name. So what? It probably is her middle initial, right? Just one problem...she didn't have a middle name.

What a bunch of CT bullshit. And you got taken in by it. Any time to want to go head-to-head on this stupid movie, just let me know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Bush

http://www.accuracyproject.org/cbe-Bush,Barbara.html

http://www.whosaliveandwhosdead.com/n/bush__ba.htm

http://www.answers.com/topic/barbara-bush

http://www.answers.com/topic/barbara-bush



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_of_Pigs_Invasion

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

JFK himself talked that day of possibly being shot from an office building. Are you honestly claiming Milteer is providing specific detail? Sounds pretty vague to me. In fact, they don't even have the date right.

Beyond that, in his memoir, EMK reaffirmed his confidence in the WC. Are you suggesting he wasn't really a Dem?

I'm every bit as much a Dem as you are and probably more so.

Milteer was pretty specific:

Thirteen days before Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, a man named Joseph Milteer was tape recorded telling Miami police informant William Somersett that the murder of Kennedy was "in the working," that the best means of killing Kennedy was "from an office building with a high-powered rifle," and that "they will pick up somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off."

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Predictions_o...

BTW: Where did you get the idea I was writing about you?

Because that's your M.O., dude. You can't prevail on the facts, so you assail our motivation.

Not only that, you also try to divert attention away from questions you're asked that you cannot answer. I have no interest in writing a "journal", dude. You're doing a fine job embarrassing the JFK assassination conspiracy "community" all by yourself.

IN the meantime, you claimed that Milteer "pretty much outlined the 'official version of Dallas' before it happened". Really, dude? Did he mention Oswald? Hint: no. Why would that be so hard to include if Milteer had knowledge of a specific plot? It's no secret that Milteer wanted JFK dead, but so did a lot of RW nuts.

I'm certain you think Nostradamus made specific predictions too, dude. But, like all JFK assassination CT's, you leave vital information out, because it undercuts your case. The reader can follow the link below to see what you've "forgotten" to mention.

It's been nearly 5 decades, dude...are you guys close to blowing the lid off this thing?

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

What that is, I don't exactly know. I agree with people who say he is a professional right wing debunker and hate monger. What's odd, to me, is he teaches at a Jesuit university.

Dude...are you really offering up Hargrove as your proof of something? He's not only a very poor writer, he offers little to no documentation for his claims. For example, he claims that one picture is of McAdams gleefully deleting posts from JFK CT's. How, specifically, does Hargrove establish the context for that picture? Does Hargrove claim McAdams has distributed that picture and provided that synopsis? Did Hargrove somehow secretly snap a picture of McAdams committing this "nefarious deed" without McAdams knowing it? Hargrove doesn't say. I'm sure to the casual reader it looks like McAdams simply smiling about something, whatever it is.

The very fact that you would submit something like this as "proof" of anything is why I question your ability to assemble facts, analyze, evaluate and interpret them, then draw reasonable and supportable conclusions from them. You never fail to disappoint me.

No one is questioning your right to question the conclusions of the WCR or the HSCA, for that matter. But, if you want people to embrace your fantasies about whomever you think actually killed JFK, you'll have to come up with some actual proof, not more confused, disjointed JFK assassination CT nonsense. You've had nearly fifty years, dude.

Whether committed by one person or a conspiracy of many, there's no statute of limitations on murder or treason.

The issue is the incompetence and/or stubbornness of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, who, after nearly fifty years, still have exactly dick for evidence. Why can't you point to at least one real breakthrough within that time?

Abraham Bolden was the first African American Secret Service agent, personally selected by JFK for White House duty. He helped stop the Chicago plot to assassinate President Kennedy. He spoke up about lack security after Dallas and got railroaded.

Ex-Secret Service agent reveals Chicago JFK plot

The great author and journalist Edwin Black broke the story, way back when (PDF):

The Plot to Kill JFK in Chicago

Hope these answer your question, sduderstadt: "The issue is the incompetence and/or stubbornness of JFK assassination conspiracy theorists, who, after nearly fifty years, still have exactly dick for evidence. Why can't you point to at least one real breakthrough within that time?"

After reading about Abraham Bolden, you will have learned that there is an abundance of evidence for government cover-up, as well as apparent complicity, in the assassination.

One question you should be asking is: Why don't more people know Bolden's story? That answer must lie with America's corrupt corporate media, for-profit organizations not known for any great interest in spreading inconvenient truth.

man, you'll throw up anything to divert attention away from your spectacular lack of results.

Well, it's not like the media have ignored him:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

And, of course, you neglected to mention that the HSCA took testimony from him and rejected his claims and you also forgot to mention a rather important part of Bolden's history, dude.





http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bolden.pdf

I eagerly await your next attempt to deflect attention away from your rather embarrassing track record, dude.

It's been a year and I'm still waiting for you to show me where I've posted something that wasn't true.

let's start with your assertion that one cannot be satisfied with the conclusions of the WC or the HSCA and still be a good Democrat.

Are you saying EMK was not a good Democrat? Or, are you, more likely, smearing people who dare to disagree with you on the facts?

Next up will be your rather silly claim that George H.W. Bush was somehow involved in the murder of JFK. Sure you want to do this, dude?

Where did I ever say that my opinion was fact? Got a link for your assertion?

I've got more than 22,000 posts. So, it's not easy finding it.

Oh yeah, I've also got a journal where you can read my opinions and posts. That makes it easy to see where I stand.

You on the other hand, don't have a journal, making it more difficult to see the overall concerns of your postings. Thus, I have to rely on the DU Advance Search function and GOOGLEing "sduderstadt + EMK", for example, to find where you stand.

Most revealing, words. They stand for ideas, you know.

dude. What is "most revealing" about my words about EMK?

Simple fact: EMK accepted the conclusions of the Warren Commission. You're still going down this path of questioning the motivation of anyone who disagrees with you on the facts and, more importantly, debunks your goofy bullshit.

And, of course, now you're trying to weasel out of your assertion that one can accept the WCR and still be a Democrat. I'm going to ask you to quit assailing my motivation rather than stick to a discussion of the facts. Your choice, dude.

Still sure you want to go down this path?

I'll repeat my challenge. What, precisely, is "most revealing" about anything I have said about EMK, dude? Or, we can play it a different way and I'll start using your tactics against you. You'll lose either way.

As for "smear," where is your link where I "assert" that only Democrats refute the Warren Commission? I have your assertion, but no reference where we can see what you describe.

While I have written about my beliefs, such as my belief that George Herbert Walker Bush played some role in the assassination, based on his report to the FBI that he was in Dallas on the day of the assassination, I have made clear to indicate it as such. When I present the reasons why I feel that way, I provide a source.

So, I ask again: Where have I posted something that is not true?

What do you find funny about the JFK assassination?

See how it feels, dude?

In the hours after Jack Ruby shot Oswald, the FBI destroyed a note Oswald wrote to Special Agent James P. Hosty.



BTW: Are you trying to get me mad, sduderstadt? All you do is magnify the tiniest fault in what I write and ignore the falsehoods you peddle, specifically that I lie. I've asked you to show me where, yet you can't. LOL! LOL at you, sduderstadt.

"all you do is magnify the tiniest error in what I write and ignore the falsehoods that you peddle, specifically that I lie"

Really, dude? Then it shouldn't be hard for to provide an example of anywhere that I have ever accused you of a lie. I'd be happy with a single example. Good luck with that.

It'd also be great if you could provide an example of a single falsehood I've peddled, especially after it's so obvious I have never, ever once accused you of lying.

This "debate" is suspended until you withdraw your false accusation and apologize, dude. I would throw in one more choice, that of finding an example of any time I have accused you of a lie, but we've already witnessed you step on your dick in an embarrassingly public way.

dude. Your "who, me?" defense isn't working.

what is "most revealing" in what I've written about EMK, dude?

Loud and Lots. All hot air.

response from you. You made the sinister-sounding claim that what I've written about EMK is "most revealing".When I call you on it and request clarification, you, true to your m.o., further mystify it with a bullshit answer, which is why I don't regard you as a serious JFK assassination conspiracy theory "researcher", dude.

Simple question: wtf are you babbling about now?

You don't, because you can't.

withdrawal and apology coming?

What you seem to be doing is trying to incite an angry response from me.

Would that make you happy?

Why don't you do what I asked over a year ago? Show me where I what I wrote was false. I'd be happy to admit a mistake. But, you can't. So, you don't. Dude.

dude.

I suspect you get embarrassed getting shown up in front of your little groupies, so you make false accusations.

I see you can't find an example of my accusing you of a lie, so you try to change the subject.

Are they the same people you sanctimoniously implore to rise above name-calling for 24 hours on September 11?

If so, you are again wrong, sduderstadt. I don't need to team up with anybody to answer your false allegations.

Please, oh please, point to a single false allegation from me.

Please don't let your little groupies down.

About Bolden.

People defending the official theory will not mention the fact that the main witness was a liar, so be ready to point that out.

From another article I read, this one in the Washington Post: "Convicted on testimony from the shadiest of characters, he was denied appeals even when a key trial witness confessed to perjury."

you might want to provide some documentation of them.

Hint: Goofy bullshit conspiracy theory websites don't count, dude.

In point of fact, your "quote" is actually from a book review by Bruce Watson, which, although it did appear in the Washington Post, was not a hard news "article", the impression you leave the reader with.

Which incarnation is this one?

You gave us a link to read...and now you tell us that lies are told in the article?

Washington Post (your link): "Despite having a spotless record, Bolden found himself charged with selling government information to a suspect. Convicted on testimony from the shadiest of characters, he was denied appeals even when a key trial witness confessed to perjury."

And...

Chicago Tribune: "After testifying against Bolden, Spagnoli went on trial himself, accused of counterfeiting. During his testimony, under questioning by legendary Chicago defense lawyer Frank Oliver, Spagnoli admitted he had perjured himself during Bolden's trial—lying about how he made a living to cover up illegal gambling—but a judge cut off further efforts to find out what else he might have lied about.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/eediti...


I guess the newspapers are part of a conspiracy to pretend Spagnoli committed perjury. See? Conspiracies exist!

since when is a "book review" an article?

I see that you're up to your old tricks, whatever your name is.

BTW, dude...I said no such thing. This is just you dishonestly mischaracterizing what I actually said, then trying to have a completely different argument. Just like several other incarnations.

No dice, whatever your name is this time.

... I'm thinking of writing a screenplay for my own version of JFK, except it will take all the conspiracy theories and show that they all coincidentally decided to do it in Dealey Plaza on November 22. (Oswald himself will need to be at least a quintuple agent, but I don't think that's a problem.) As I see it, that's the only possible explanation for why there are so many convincing theories, so my movie will be much better than Stone's.

But I digress. Anyway, I don't seem to see a lot of people, Democrats or otherwise, "cast aspersions on those who are interested in learning more about the assassination of President Kennedy." Making implausible factual claims is a different story, however, regardless of the topic.

My Friend, I look forward to seeing your movie. Let me know when the script is written and I'll be happy to help you get in touch with some people.



BTW: Sorry you don't see a surprising number of DUers, people who call themselves Democrats and democrats, who cast aspersion on those seeking Truth in regards to the assassination of President Kennedy. They are all around.