Posts: 41
Threads: 8
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2011
Jean Hill testified that she saw a puff of smoke and a flash of light. When I first heard that, I thought, "Did they shoot him with Daniel Boone's rifle?". Any CIA involvement would have had a diversion. The adjective "good" CIA operative wouldn't apply. Diversion is so basic to any CIA operation. Diversion is probably taught day one at Langlee. A big explosion was not needed. Just something to draw people's attention away from what really happened. Some people do not think that Jean Hill gave a consistent story, but we can see from the photo that the diversion worked Folks were running up the grassy knoll trying to see what happened there. Everybody except signal man and umbrella man. They sit on the curb calmly looking down the road. Since we are able to see them, I believe, they were part of the diversion, too. The illusion that signal man and umbrella give is that the shooters were far away from the sight. Instead of in the lead car, driver of the limo and someone in back.
Why else would Oliver's Stone's movie be allowed to be made? It reinforces the diversion!
Posts: 5,506
Threads: 1,443
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2009
Oliver's Stone's movie was produced with the support of Arnon Milchan, "identified in one 1989 Israeli report as 'probably [Israel's] largest arms dealer.' A company he once owned was once caught smuggling nuclear weapons fuses to Iraq....."
JFK: the book of the film: the documented screenplay by Oliver Stone, Zachary Sklar, and Jim Marrs
http://books.google.com/books?id=GyskeQl...an&f=false
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
Posts: 41
Threads: 8
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2011
Why would this man care if the truth came out? I know that Jim Marrs is a well respected researcher but if the powers that be didn't want the movie to come out would it have?
Posts: 31
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Betty, great topic.
In my opinion it is highly likely that you are exactly right. I believe the shot came from the front where the overpass meets the fence [with two other shooters behind, possibly one in the Dal Tex and one in the TSBD on the opposite end of the "snipers' lair"].
Have you read the Roy Hargraves Interview with Noel Twyman? He sticks to the script of Castro/Soviet conspiracy but drops in a few nuggets about what you have posted about. He describes 'signal man' [DCM] as his good friend Felipe Vidal Santiago. It is very likely that Umbrella Man is someone Vidal worked very closely with. Hargraves had also had fake secret service ID and admitted to being in Dallas with Vidal. He went on to say that Vidal had a walkie talkie.
Vidal is clearly signalling the crossfire with a series of clenched and unclenched fists while it appears to me that Umbrella Man's purpose was to get the Limo drivers [secret service] to look at him and get their attention and slow down. I think it is the Bronson image where the umbrella is a blur which we can deduce he is pumping it up and down very violently.
The ambush in Dallas was done by professionals who were well trained by the CIA. There would be contingency plans, diversions and false trails planted leading in all sorts of directions. Off-the-books assets like the Cuban military snipers described by Bradley Ayers were probably used. Their spotters were likely trained in infiltration techniques, things that CIA operations officer Dave Morales and his people were teaching them in 62-63. I think Morales planned the assassination and used contacts as cut outs to manage the project who in turn would be on site in Dallas. Hargraves goes on to mention that these people, described as 'handlers,' would be on the ground to let the operators know the op was genuine and the danger was real and shared by all.
Zach
Posts: 111
Threads: 1
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
Zach Robertson Wrote:I believe the shot came from the front where the overpass meets the fence
Based on the description of the head wound from the majority of the people who've spoken of what they saw of it rather than the autopsy records which contradict them, I've no doubt the fatal shot came from somewhere right around there.
As for the knoll, yeah, surely a distraction.
Posts: 5,506
Threads: 1,443
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2009
Betty Chruscielski Wrote:Why would this man care if the truth came out? I know that Jim Marrs is a well respected researcher but if the powers that be didn't want the movie to come out would it have?
The powers that be, whoever they are, can't prevent the flow of information. They would need thousands of multi-armed little boys at the levees and dikes. The way they operate is to present a powerfully attractive story which is almost completely true but packed with an explosive or diversionary mini-falsehood, or perhaps even a big lie. When they see the waters rising, they release the pressure by creating a myth before the dam breaks.
There are dozens of sources to be seen, read or consulted in terms of what are known as MindWars. It is becoming a full-time job for learned people (I'm still a student) to stay on top of its twists, turns, nuances and so on; it moves very fast, given the resources available to the powers that be. It feeds off of hidden networks; see Kris Miullegan's edited work "Fleshing Out Skull and Bones" to learn about them.
"Where is the intersection between the world's deep hunger and your deep gladness?"
Posts: 41
Threads: 8
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: May 2011
Zach Robertson Wrote:Betty, great topic.
The ambush in Dallas was done by professionals who were well trained by the CIA. . Their spotters were likely trained in infiltration techniques,Zach
Zach, Why do you think these people who did the hit were well trained?
I can see the coverup as being done by well trained people. Betty
Posts: 31
Threads: 0
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Dec 2010
For starters, the first clue should be that they have not been identified or caught 50 years later and there was never real evidence, documents etc. A section of the Wave station under David Morales was completely compartmentalized from the rest of its on-the-books projects. He had his own funding and a small army of exiles who were the elite - ex Brigade members, Ft. Benning trained Cubans, AMOTS, and people working at the snipers camps with the likes of John Roselli and Rip Robertson. These people technically never existed.
The plot and the cover up are two totally separate things. The cover up was political maneuvering and opportunism at its best. It was sloppy indeed, done by politicians. It should not be confused that they were part of the original conspiracy plot. CYA by the government, thats all.
Zach
Posts: 5,374
Threads: 149
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2010
Betty Chruscielski Wrote:Why would this man care if the truth came out? I know that Jim Marrs is a well respected researcher but if the powers that be didn't want the movie to come out would it have?
Stone's movie came out at a time when things were getting hot in the Middle East and China. There's a lot of different interests that could be served by showing the real international lowdown as far as government standards and how they really operate. It could actually be in the interest of a certain agenda to weaken the expectation of credible democracy and lower the standard as far as international practices by showing the real deal of the Kennedy Assassination. It could also be in the interests of other states to threaten telling what they know in order to compromise America for their own purposes.
Posts: 3,965
Threads: 211
Likes Received: 0 in 0 posts
Likes Given: 0
Joined: Sep 2008
Uh-huh.
And it also could be as simple as keeping uncertainty alive.
