Welcome, Guest
You have to register before you can post on our site.



Search Forums

(Advanced Search)

Forum Statistics
» Members: 1,374
» Latest member: Rikbon
» Forum threads: 16,360
» Forum posts: 51,363

Full Statistics

Online Users
There are currently 5 online users.
» 0 Member(s) | 1 Guest(s)
Applebot, Bing, Facebook, Yandex

Latest Threads
JFK/RFK and the Israel co...
Forum: JFK Assassination
Last Post: Brian Doyle
11-07-2024, 06:11 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 409
Documentary: October 7 Wa...
Forum: Players, organisations, and events of deep politics
Last Post: Lauren Johnson
07-07-2024, 05:01 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 66
If the case against Oswal...
Forum: JFK Assassination
Last Post: Gil Jesus
04-07-2024, 12:11 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 57
Why Mark Knight Should Ne...
Forum: JFK Assassination
Last Post: Brian Doyle
14-06-2024, 05:15 PM
» Replies: 6
» Views: 777
Final Proof Prayer Man Is...
Forum: JFK Assassination
Last Post: Brian Doyle
13-06-2024, 07:04 PM
» Replies: 3
» Views: 262
Forum: 911
Last Post: Richard Gilbride
13-06-2024, 11:07 AM
» Replies: 2
» Views: 212
The Changing of the Guard
Forum: Players, organisations, and events of deep politics
Last Post: Fred Steeves
11-06-2024, 01:15 PM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 239
Forum: Historical Events
Last Post: Fred Steeves
11-06-2024, 12:14 PM
» Replies: 1
» Views: 609
The Fiber Evidence
Forum: JFK Assassination
Last Post: Gil Jesus
10-06-2024, 11:49 AM
» Replies: 0
» Views: 111
Jim DiEugenio: Not to be ...
Forum: JFK Assassination
Last Post: Brian Doyle
10-06-2024, 12:40 AM
» Replies: 22
» Views: 1,681

  Documentary: October 7 Was an Inside Job
Posted by: Lauren Johnson - 07-07-2024, 05:01 AM - Forum: Players, organisations, and events of deep politics - No Replies

Print this item

  If the case against Oswald was legitimate
Posted by: Gil Jesus - 04-07-2024, 12:11 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - No Replies


Print this item

  The Changing of the Guard
Posted by: Fred Steeves - 11-06-2024, 01:15 PM - Forum: Players, organisations, and events of deep politics - No Replies

I no longer believe such thing exists as "The New World Order", not in conspiratorial terms anyway. Those old clips of Bush Sr. talking about that were right in that sweet spot so to speak after the fall of the Soviet Union, and after the US had seen Saddam Hussein swinging at the end of a rope.

At that point in time there truly was a new world order established, a unipolar world order was firmly established out of the ruins of the post WW2 bipolar world order. The United States truly stood alone as literally the rulers of the universe for all intents and purposes, unleashed to do whatever it wanted to around the world, wherever and whenever it so chose, without consequence.

Officially known as the self described Rules Based International Order, or sometimes the Liberal World Order, this US led world order is in a state of rapid collapse. Much of that collapse self induced as a result of desperately clinging to something that's already gone.

We're now in the birthing stages of a multi polar world, and the more the US tries to stop this by bringing Russia and China back to heel the faster this process goes, and the faster it loses respect around the world.

This old unipolar world order, were there any wisdom behind its machinations, could have easily and seamlessly accepted the changing of the seasons and still had a powerful and vital role at the big table; but it can't do that. It only knows one way - my way or the highway. No talks, no negotiating. Do as we say or else! And that shit don't fly no more as might be said on the street.

As of a few months ago I was still questioning whether this old world order, could possibly allow this new world order to birth without forcing an ultimate nuclear confrontation as it clambers up the escalation ladder. Now, that question is all but answered, for me anyway. I'm not even sure if these "people" are even sane any more the more I observe them, nor even in possession of the basic ability to make a rational decision.

Thank goodness I at least see patience, and yes wisdom in our perceived enemies, were they like us we may already be in nuclear winter. But the one thing they CAN'T do, is make this old world order takes its rightful place in the dust bin of history without taking the whole damn thing with them. I'm down to almost thinking we need a friggin miracle to successfully navigate these birthing pangs. Maybe there really is something to that story of ET shutting down a nuclear launch site? 

I hope so...

Print this item

  The Fiber Evidence
Posted by: Gil Jesus - 10-06-2024, 11:49 AM - Forum: JFK Assassination - No Replies

By Gil Jesus ( 2024 )

I. The blanket fibers in the bag

"Inside the bag were...a single brown delustered viscose fiber and several light-green cotton fibers....The fibers found in the bag were compared with brown viscose and green cotton fibers taken from the blanket. The brown viscose fiber found in the bag matched some of the brown viscose fibers found in the blanket....Each green cotton fiber found in the bag matched some of the green cotton fibers from the blanket....." ( Report, pg. 591 )

While the Report was quick to note that the fibers in the bag matched some of the fibers taken from the blanket, it suppressed the conclusion of its fiber expert, FBI agent Paul M. Stombaugh, that because he found too few fibers in the bag, he could not positively identify them as having come from the blanket.

Mr. EISENBERG. Now, in your mind what do you feel about the origin of the fibers you found in the bag ?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I didn't find enough fibers to form an opinion on those. ( 4 H 88 )

The Commission speculates how the fibers got in the bag

The Commission concluded that the rifle picked up the blanket fibers and while it was in the paper "gunsack", released them into the bag.
This conclusion relied on a "hypothetical question" asked of Stombaugh and his opinion:

Mr. EISENBERG.....if the rifle had lain in the blanket, which is 140, and were then put inside the bag 142, could it have picked up fibers from the blanket and transferred them to the bag ?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes. ( 4 H 81 )

It could have, but did it ?

Did the rifle pick up fibers from the blanket and release them into the bag ? And if it did, how many fibers would it pick up ? Would it release all of the fibers into the bag or would some remain on the rifle ?
The Commission never ran any tests with the rifle, blanket and bag in order to prove this is what happened.

No blanket fibers on the rifle

One would think that the Commission concluded the rifle transferred the fibers from the blanket to the bag because blanket fibers remained on the rifle.
But the fact is that the rifle, when examined, contained no fibers from the blanket.
"no fibers were found on the K1 gun that could be associated with the Q12 blanket" ( FBI file # 105-82555, Sec 21, pg. 177 )

If the rifle was the transfer vehicle for the blanket fibers, shouldn't there be evidence for that ? Shouldn't there be fibers still on the rifle ?
Why was the rifle, bound tightly with twine and in contact with the blanket for months and allegedly moved from Dallas to New Orleans back to Dallas, not able to hold onto the blanket fibers but was able to hold the shirt fibers so tightly, that they had to be removed with tweezers ?

Once again, the Commission turned to its fiber expert, Stombaugh, who testified that any blanket fibers loosely adhering to the rifle, "could have been dusted off" during the processing by police for fingerprints. ( 4 H 88 )
This was the Commission's "explanation" for the absence of blanket fibers on the rifle. More "could have been" speculation without proof.
Of course, the Commission could have had that proof had it run tests with the blanket and the rifle.

But it didn't.

Therefore, the Commission's conclusion that the rifle transferred the fibers from the blanket to the bag was based on an opinion rather than evidence obtained from a test.
What the Commission gave us was pure speculation: It provided no evidence that the rifle picked up fibers from the blanket. Absent blanket fibers on the rifle, there was no evidence that the blanket fibers were ever on the rifle. There was no evidence that blanket fibers were dusted away during the processing of the rifle for fingerprints.

And the way police handled the bag with the open end facing down, suggests that there were no fibers in the bag when it left the Texas School Book Depository.

Photographs show police carrying the bag with the open end down

In addition, famous news photographs taken outside the Texas School Book Depository of Detective Robert L. Montgomery with the paper "gunsack" show that he carried the bag with the open end pointed down.
The photo on the right shows Montgomery making an obscene hand gesture to the news photographer with his left hand behind the bag.


If he knew there was something inside the bag, no detective worth his salt would handle an open ended bag with the open end facing down. Even if he didn't know for sure there was something inside, he would not handle the bag that way. The only reason he would handle the bag with the open end down is if he knew the bag had nothing in it and there was no danger of losing evidence that might be inside.

The fact that police handled the bag with the open end down suggests that there were no blanket fibers in it when it left the Texas School Book Depository.

II. The shirt fibers found on the rifle

On the evening of November 22nd, part of the evidence turned over to FBI agent Vincent Drain included the rifle, blanket, gunsack, and Oswald's shirt.
The FBI found a "tuft" of six or seven cotton fibers which were caught by a jagged edge of the butt plate of the CE 139 rifle. The fibers were orange-yellow, grey-black and dark blue. When compared to the cotton fibers from the CE 150 shirt, they matched in shade and twist.

But while in its Report the Commission speculated on how the blanket fibers got in the bag, it offered no explanation for how the shirt fibers got on the rifle. Was it before, after or during the shooting sequence ?

Snugly wrapped

Its fiber expert Stombaugh testified that the fibers were "wrapped around rather snugly to the sharp edge". ( 4 H 83 ) How were they wrapped ? Were they wrapped clockwise or counter-clockwise ? The direction of wrap would tell which direction either the rifle or the shirt was moving when the fibers were caught.
What part of the shirt did the fibers come from ? Did they come from an area of the shirt ( shoulder ) that was consistent with firing the rifle, or did they come from the front pocket, or the back of the shirt ?

The Commission never asked.

Stombaugh testified that the fibers were adhering so tightly to the gun, "I had to take a pair of tweezers and work them out." ( ibid. )
Would this have required more than a normal rubbing between the shirt and the butt plate ?
The snugly wrapped and tightly adhering of the fibers to the jagged edge suggests that an abnormal amount of pressure was exerted on the shirt at the time of contact with the butt plate.
Could the shirt have been rubbed by hand against the jagged edge of the butt plate in order to catch fibers from the shirt ?

The Commission never ran any tests to find out.

The Commission fails again

Not only did the Commission fail to ask questions, it failed to conduct experiments. For example, firing the rifle while wearing the CE 150 shirt could have helped determine whether the fibers were caught during the shooting sequence.

Another test the Commission could have run would be to strongly rub the shirt against the butt plate and see if the jagged edge caught any fibers. An examination of how the fibers were wrapped on the jagged edge could determine whether it caught the fibers legitimately or if the fibers were planted by police.
Stombaugh's testimony suggests that the fibers may have been caught AFTER the rifle was dusted for fingerprints.

The laying of the fibers
Video taken at the scene shows Lt. Day dusting the rifle at the time of discovery, inside the Texas School Book Depository.


If there was no fingerprint powder in the crevice, then the fibers were on the rifle before it was dusted for fingerprints and were pushed into the crevice preventing the fingerprint powder from getting in there. But if there was fingerprint powder in the crevice, then the fibers were added AFTER the rifle was dusted. So the position between the fibers and the fingerprint powder are crucial in determining if the fibers were caught on the jagged edge before or after the rifle was dusted for fingerprints.

Stombaugh testified that there was fingerprint powder, "down and through the crevice there". ( 4 H 83 )

If the fibers were "folded very neatly down in the crevice" by a powder brush as Stombaugh claimed, there shouldn't be ANY fingerprint powder in the crevice. The pushing of the fibers into the crevice would prevent that.
This is an argument that researcher Pat Speer and myself have made on several occasions.

The fact that there was fingerprint powder IN THE CREVICE suggests that the fibers were caught by the jagged edge AFTER it had been dusted for fingerprints.
One question the Commission did not ask Stombaugh was if it were possible to dust the rifle, rub the fibers onto the jagged edge by hand then dust the butt end again to make it look like the dust hadn't been rubbed off.

The "fresh" fibers
Stombaugh testified to the condition of the fibers:
"They were clean, they had good color to them, there was no grease on them and they were not fragmented. They looked as if they had just been picked up." ( 4 H 83 )

Stombaugh testified that his idea of "old" fibers was in the area of 1-2 months. ( 4 H 82 ) So although he declined to give an estimation of how long the fibers were on the rifle, he would only say that, "these fibers were put on there in the recent past." ( 4 H 84 )
Stombaugh described the fibers a being, "fairly fresh" ( 4 H 82 )

But the Commission provided no evidence that the CE 150 shirt had contact with the rifle in the two month period before November 22, 1963.
And its only witness that Oswald wore the shirt on November 22nd was bus passenger Mary Bledsoe, a stroke victim who couldn't remember what bus she was on ( 6 H 408 ) and who testified from notes because she couldn't remember "what I have to say" ( ibid. ). She also couldn't remember what day she made those notes ( ibid. ).
But she remembered Oswald and the shirt he was wearing and was able to positively identify him even though "his face was so distorted" that she "didn't look at him". ( 6 H 409 ).
This was the Commission's star witness connecting the CE 150 shirt with the rifle.

None of Oswald's co-workers identified the CE 150 shirt as the shirt Oswald wore to work that morning.

In many of the areas in this case, the Commission speculated where it had no physical evidence. One of those areas was the fiber evidence.
The Commission failed to run tests to prove that fibers from the blanket could have been picked up by the rifle and transferred into the bag.
What part of the rifle picked them up ? How many fibers were picked up ? Were they all released into the bag or did some remain on the rifle ?

The Commission didn't want to know.

Likewise, it failed to run tests to see if the rifle could pick up fibers from the CE 150 shirt.

The Commission also failed to prove that Oswald wore the CE 150 while in the building on November 22nd. Oswald's co-workers testified that he usually worked in his t-shirt and none of them identified the CE 150 shirt as the shirt he wore while working that morning.

The Commission provided no evidence with regard to when, where or how the shirt came in contact with the rifle.

It failed to run tests, like rubbing the shirt against the butt plate, to see if the jagged edge picked up the fibers or if the fibers were "snugly wrapped" around the edge in the same fashion as the fibers found by the FBI.

These tests would have either proven the Commission's theory, or opened the possibility that the shirt fibers were planted.
But they weren't interested in the truth. They were interested in finding evidence against Oswald.

Print this item

  James Gordon - Here Is Your Opportunity
Posted by: Brian Doyle - 05-06-2024, 06:03 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - Replies (3)

Gordon wrote:

     " The conduct of the Forum has come to my attention. I have spent a good part of today looking through the forum. There is a lot that concerns me  and I may - at some point - take action.
Though I have received numerous complaints - two recent complaints have truly shocked me. In case you are in any doubt I am talking to you as the owner of this site.
1 Pat Speer was a JFK researcher before David Butler, Mark Knight, Kathy Becket and I took this site over. I believe he is seriously ill at the moment
And he has been banned!!! According to the Moderarors Reminders Rules a member needs to infringe 50 points he or she is banned. Where are Pat’s 50 point infringements listed.
It used to be the norm that a moderator would inform the other moderators of his/her intention to ban a member. Was there discussion between the three remaining moderators before Pat was banned. I raise this because often through moderator discussion the said moderator was persuaded not to ban
I am bitterly disappointed that  Mark Knight - a founding member of the admin team from posting  -  has been banned. What astonished me is that Mark was informed that he was no longer a moderator. As owner of this site I inform all that Mark Knight is still a respected member of the admin team.
On page 1 is a topic Moderator Reminders. In that thread is a Penalty Chart. That chart speaks volumes about how this forum is presently being run. What is not listed is what kind of behaviour has to be conducted in order to be given a said penalty. If the EF is to have such a chart then is imperative that all members understand the infringements. A listing of the punishments is not sufficient.
Foolishly I had assumed all was well with the EF. I want to know what are the views of members about this forum. I would be pleased to know what are the present weaknesses of this forum and where and how the site can be improved.
I invite members to use this thread to both describe the present state of the site as well as suggest how the moderators can improve on it.
James Gordon
Owner  "

It seems pretty obvious that someone (probably Mark Knight) contacted Gordon for a rescue from the recent shake-up on the Education Forum by Sandy Larsen...Like I said many times, Gordon has not left the forum...He keeps himself available in order to make horrendous decisions and back them with the threat of punishment...He's a really stupid bastard with total power (very British)...

Predictably Gordon came in and defended Speer and Knight and threatened some kind of action...Gordon, as usual, skips the entire point of Speer's banning and the reasons why in his pompous post...To make matters worse, Gordon comes in and sides with Speer saying that Jenkins was pointing to the top of his head...Ladies and Gentlemen, you are looking, right here, at the reason why the Education Forum is a useless wheel-spinning forum and has done nothing but uselessly prolong the solving of the conspiracy for the time of its existence...

Who is James Gordon, how did he get in to such a position of power, and why does he have so much power?...There's too many ass-kissers on the Education Forum like the posters who take Speer, Knight, and Gordon seriously...Gordon is just a regular member who was promoted to site owner because nobody else wanted to do it...He's an incompetent and a fool and has no earned qualification...He's the idiot who banned the guy who out-argued the entire community on the Prayer Man evidence (with no such protest against that woefully unjust banning like he gives the disinformationist Speer)...Gordon is avoiding answering the point that Jenkins himself totally endorsed Keven Hofeling...Jenkins should have been a little more precise, but there's no doubt he dismissed Speer's claim...Gordon ignores that and he shouldn't be allowed to...

Because the JFK research community signed on to the Prayer Man theory they disarmed themselves of the best weapon they could counter Gordon with... - Myself! - ...Literally the best thing they could respond with to Gordon would be to point out his banning of myself for posting the correct Prayer Man evidence - or his lying about the reason for my banning...I am 100% certain that power-abusing Gordon would respond with more of his lies and threats - the point at which the community should do what it should have done 8 years ago when Gordon forced his bullying and lies to be the rule on the forum by banning me...People are stupid and they fail to see that all that stupid bastard Gordon has is banning and the threat of banning...He has no intellectual research competency of its own merit, as his backing of Speer shows...He's a cowardly man behind the curtain who raises every issue to a grandiose do or die defense of so-called principles that any fool can see he has failed to establish and is only using as an excuse for his terror...He's a pathetic little man who isn't answering for his enabling of Speer's dishonesty and its effect on the Forum...

Members of the Education Forum:  THIS IS THE CHANCE!...When Gordon responds by demoting Larsen and protecting the violators it is time that the members grew a pair and shed themselves of the stupid tyranny and backwards moderation of James Gordon...It is pure case of poetic justice that those Education Forum members who stood by and did nothing while Gordon railroaded me off the board are now getting a taste of their own medicine...

This is the opportunity...It is time to speak up and tell Gordon NO!...It is time to tell Gordon thanks but no thanks and if he too doesn't recuse himself, and preferably remove himself from the board, that they will seek another venue...It is sad to note that this final validation of the Deep Politics Forum is being met by its leadership having backed off its original opposition to the Education Forum, therefore depriving itself of this victory...It is even sadder that the best weapon the banners of Speer could defend themselves with against Gordon (ME) is something they have disallowed themselves through misconduct...

Make the move pay Sandy or forever take your place in the halls of cowardice...If you are going to take that stand for good research and truth do it all the way...Time for Gordon to go because he is the most guilty...He's an ignorant, bombastic fool who goes around bullying people with his site owner avatar...If the Education Forum doesn't put him in his place then they will never recover their credibility...You know what you have to do...

Print this item

  Palamara On "Out Of The Blank"
Posted by: Brian Doyle - 01-06-2024, 06:25 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - Replies (1)


At the very beginning Vince accuses wayward researchers of damaging good research with bogus photo analysis claims...What Vince is referring to there is the bogus Prayer Man claim that was promoted by research sweetheart Bart Kamp - only Vince doesn't say it directly because of his loyalty to certain personalities in the research community...Because of Vince's fealty to those bogus researchers he credits them as being "well-meaning"...Trust me...The Greg Parker Prayer Man trolls are not well-meaning...They are an organized disinformation group that Vince misses the intentional malice of...

Vince gave my important discovery of Sarah Stanton hearing Oswald say he was going to be in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room during the assassination a full page of mention in his book...So while Vince criticizes Paul Landis for omitting his claim that the shot came from the front in Landis's book, Vince does the same thing to me with Robertson by not mentioning Prayer Man directly...I had it out with Robertson because he gave supportive hosting to notorious trolls Bart Kamp and Greg Parker and their bogus theories on his podcast...When I protested to Robertson that he was enabling wrong evidence he responded "Nobody gives a f***" and pal-ed up with the Parker trolls...So although Vinny might be motivated by my refutation of Prayer Man, at the same time he carefully keeps the black shadow of censorship enforced against me by not mentioning it directly...Oswald can't be in the 2nd Floor Lunch Room (as Hosty admitted) and be out on the front steps at the same time...

Print this item

Posted by: Richard Gilbride - 28-05-2024, 01:30 AM - Forum: 911 - Replies (2)


This essay makes the case that the directed-energy weapon that brought down the World Trade Center towers was the particle accelerator at Brookhaven National Laboratory. It is highly recommended that you watch this 3-minute video as an introduction:


The essay is 25 pages with over 40 photographs. It synopsizes Dr. Judy Wood's 2010 book Where Did the Towers Go?  and then extends it into the realm of advances in laser physics discovered by the Strategic Defense Initiative. These advances, coupled with the geo-engineered Hurricane Erin, were used to molecularly dissociate the Twin Towers.

Print this item

  Cyril Wecht Dies
Posted by: Brian Doyle - 15-05-2024, 07:35 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - No Replies

Wecht was the only pathologist of the 9 pathologists chosen to review the Kennedy Assassination forensic evidence by the House Select Committee On Assassinations who held out and said it didn't add up...

I had the privilege to interview Wecht at his Pittsburg office in 2013...

What Wecht represents is the fact one person holding out for the truth is all you need sometimes against a rotten majority of corruption...Something the JFK research community should learn...

Print this item

  Final Proof Prayer Man Is Sarah Stanton
Posted by: Brian Doyle - 07-05-2024, 07:08 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - Replies (3)


(Click on photo link)

Sarah Stanton's clearly-seen dress neckline on Prayer Man...

I'm owed an apology on this by dishonest people who know who they are...

Print this item

  Doudna Is Proxying For Greg Parker On The Education Forum
Posted by: Brian Doyle - 06-05-2024, 06:51 PM - Forum: JFK Assassination - Replies (1)

Doudna has made a post on the Education Forum trying to insert Greg Parker's lie that the second Oswald seen by Texas Employment Agency employee Laura Kittrell was actually a man named Curtis Craford...Doudna showed up in the JFK research community a few years ago after signing on to Parker's troll farm and the Education Forum...He's yet another assassination internet commenter who drank the ROKC Kool Aid deeply and believed Parker's evidence-hacking disinformation...ROKC member Tony Krome made a new website entitled "Jacks" in order to carry on ROKC after Greg Parker quit...Doudna posted a link to a thread on 'Jacks' trying to imply Kittrell was mistaken and she actually witnessed a man named Craford instead of the second Oswald "Lee"...The idea that Kittrell could not tell the difference between Curtis Craford and Harvey Oswald is an act of insanity that has gotten no resistance on Gordon's Forum...The Forum offers no effort at all to protect site integrity and Peer Review...

To show how poisonous Parker and ROKC is, Doudna enters this deceptive claim without ever mentioning the fact that Kittrell had witnessed the real Lee try to stand in for "Harvey"...Being true to Parker's damaging disinformation purpose, Doudna avoids mentioning Armstrong's claim that Kittrell witnessed both Oswalds...Anyone who examines Kittrell's witnessing will instantly see that Kittrell was trying to say she saw two people who were identical who were trying to pass themselves off as each other...Doudna even takes the side of the government and attacks Kittrell calling her "emotionally disturbed"...

The Education Forum says not a word to Doudna and gives him free access to the Forum as Parker's proxy...Nobody defends Hargrove or Armstrong...DiEugenio is silent because there's no clicks in it...

In order to have a credible research community you have to have "Peer Review"...Peer Review means you can't stay silent when such a dishonest, undermining move is made...There has to be some attempt to maintain research credibility when such a pathetic move is attempted...If Knight, Gordon, and Larsen allow this without comment then they are simply not credible and have failed the basic requirement for Peer Review, as have the members...The silence of the moderators and members is directly responsible for Greg Parker's damage... 

Tony Krome banned me from 'Jacks' when I challenged the membership to answer the recent evidence of a woman's dress neckline on Prayer Man in Darnell...That is exactly what UK James Gordon did when I challenged the Education Forum to answer for the woman's face clearly seen on Prayer Man in Davidson's Enhancement of Wiegman...

Print this item