I am arguing that the head shot we see -- in its entirety -- likely is, to one degree or another, not representative of what occurred.
Open your mind to possibilities ... It could have been a front-to-back-and-to-the-left shot, but the blood bubble, among other visual elements, could be fabricated.
For me at least, this discussion is not about the head shot but about the Z-film's authenticity.
Per a concept from Charles as host
I post to propose this spirited toast
That no matter the camera nor limo speed
Our friend Lee's innocent of the deed
One of the more fascinating loose ends of November 22, 1963 is the rather mysterious flight by LBJ's aide Col. Howard Burris to Texas on the eve of the assassination. John Newman is one of the few to have written about Burris by name although a handful of us have studied him as best we could. Newman points out that it was Burris who seems to have been responsible for serving as a CIA back-channel to LBJ. Of course its well known that Johnson had a network of folks within various government agencies (including the Department of Agriculture OK, don't laugh, a Dept of Ag guy functioned as lead political advance man for the trip to Dallas).
Newman examines Burris's role in regard to the trip to Vietnam where Johnson served as President Kennedy's representative its clear that Kennedy wanted Johnson to do little more than "show the flag" but as it turned out, Johnson ended up holding a press conference in which he parroted the CIA line of dramatically increased military support effectively backing JFK into a corner on further commitments. Kennedy was quite unhappy with that and Newman tells the whole story in some detail, including his attempts to discuss it with Burris, who would say little but did remark that of course he was Johnson's adviser on international affairs (and we have a number of documents of reports he prepared for Johnson on that subject) but that he was also connected to and getting input from "the boys in the woodwork."
By itself, that would be interesting, as would Burris later reported ties to Richard Helms and his eventual, highly lucrative oil dealings and connections to Iranian royalty.
While it would be very informative to understand his real connections to the intelligence community, of even more interest is a flight that he took to Texas at the time of the Dallas visit. When asked about the trip, he stated that he was carrying down background and briefing papers for Johnson who intended to confront Kennedy on certain international issues during the JFK visit to Johnson's ranch. Given that on November 22, Johnson was totally focused on the political implications of Kennedy's visit to Texas (and not at all happy with JFK's apparent popularity), totally immersed in the Democratic warfare over seating at the Governor's reception for JFK and beyond that not all that involved with international affairs in any case well the idea that he would be going head to head with JFK on something about international policy seems to need some special explanation.
None of that of course was forthcoming from Burris. He flew down; he flew back. And he later stated that on his flight back he hitched a ride on an AF jet figher, the pilot became unconscious and he had to fly the plane back and land it quite a feat for a WWII multi-engine bomber pilot who apparently had never piloted a jet. And even more interesting in that a study of his expense reports reveal he was paid for a flight back on a commercial airliner.
So what was the real purpose for the trip to Texas to see Johnson at the very last minute during the Texas trip? Was it really to prep Johnson for a head to head with JFK on something (perhaps Vietnam with Johnson acting as a stalking horse for others) or was it to carry some other communication to Johnson?
We don't know, although the few who have studied Col. Burris, and his friend Delk Simpson, have turned up more details on probable connections to the Agency, and more interesting rumors about both men, the whole subject remains largely a mystery. And I've personally been surprised that those researches and authors who want to put LBJ in a key role in a conspiracy against JFK have not devoted a lot more time and interest to Col. Burris?
As for me, his flight to Texas and his explanation for it both continue to trouble me. [/URL]
"[T]he few who have studied Col. Burris, and his friend Delk Simpson, have turned up more details on probable connections to the Agency, and more interesting rumors about both men, the whole subject remains largely a mystery. And I've personally been surprised that those researches and authors who want to put LBJ in a key role in a conspiracy against JFK have not devoted a lot more time and interest to Col. Burris?"
Larry Hancock, for whom I harbor the greatest respect, is wise indeed to throw his considerable credentials behind a call to re-focus on these characters.
I have looked closely at the Burris/Simpson conjoined stories for some time -- so I am not the slightest bit surprised that the LBJ "mastermind" masterminds stay away from them. Burris, from all I can gather, likely was a highest-level Facilitator who represented the interests of the true Sponsors of the assassination. Larry is correct in noting that much more research needs to be done so as to confirm or deny the "interesting rumors" about Burris and Simpson. Such work, I am advised, continues in earnest.
(The Air Force assassination meme is deepened by these guys and, at various levels, by the likes of Thomas S. Power, Curtis E. Lemay, and Roland "Bud" Culligan.)
James H. Fetzer Wrote:"So what was the real purpose for the trip to Texas to see Johnson at the very last minute during the Texas trip? Was it really to prep Johnson for a head to head with JFK on something (perhaps Vietnam with Johnson acting as a stalking horse for others) or was it to carry some other communication to Johnson?"
It's worth reading again: "... with Johnson acting as a stalking horse for others".
Larry Hancock once again has hit the nail on the head: the "others" are, in my estimation (and Larry very well may disagree), the true Sponsors of the JFK hit.
Which is to say, "mastermind" LBJ's true bosses.
The hegemony of "the boys in the woodwork" long predated LBJ's elevation to the ceremonial office of vice-president. They were calling shots when the "mastermind" was stealing dogcatcher elections in the badlands.
And they called the shots -- pun intended -- at the Lorraine and at the Ambassador, when once again the gelding LBJ sat on the sidelines and avoided riding in convertibles.
I operate from the hypothesis that Burris was in Dallas for assassination-related reasons, including to give orders to LBJ -- whose authority as an assassination Facilitator was decidedly inferior to that of the mysterious Air Force colonel, and whose resolve and loyalty, for any number of reasons, could not be trusted.
Might Howard Burris have spoken what may be appreciated as a variation on the infamous line attributed to Madeline Brown: "After tomorrow, Lyndon, those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass you again - that's no threat - that's a promise. So do your goddamn job if you know what's good for you!"
By the way, it was a before-the-fall Gus Russo who, with John Newman, first brought the Burris/Simpson story to attention while conducting an off-the-books workshop at an ASK conference in Dallas.
Given Russo's standing in the ongoing cover-up, should we not look upon his early promotion of that story with suspicion? Perhaps. But this is a complex game; Russo may have been directed to point at an important truth so that, once his perfidy became public knowledge, our sinks would become clogged with bathwater and babies.
13-01-2012, 09:35 PM (This post was last modified: 13-01-2012, 11:28 PM by Seamus Coogan.)
Yeah CD I had a look as well. Not as indepth as yours by the sounds but enough to have some back and forth with Larry.
The back channels this guy was creating were incredible. Now I dont wanna quote Larry, but from what 'Baby Face Nelson' Larry H, told me it looks like LH reckons Burris and Helms were as thick as two planks. Now that's really, really interesting, how this insignificant prat like Burris could inject himself in all this. Lord only knows, I sort of think he is kinda like an Alsop character. But while Alsop was the face, Burris was the dirty job man. Very interesting nonetheless.
Vasilios is very good on the NY angle. Perhaps he can shed some light?
CD i reckon you DM and Jan should invite Larry here for a Q and A session with regards to his new book and his Burris stuff. It'd be some serious fun. If we got Jim D asking some stuff as well it'd be awesome.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Quote:I am aware of most of the above except the headshot being "fake". I have not heard that before and just becasue Dan-I'd- Rather not didnot report it does not mean it did not occur. Tons of witnesses saw it. Just like tons of witnesses saw the second plane in NY. Jim I don't have the time or inclination to argue further with you. I wish you well. I just do not believe Bob Groden would be promoting a film that was THAT faked. You were not in Dallas so you did not see what happened to the president's head. I have read many witness accounts, including Abe Zapruder's. I have also talked with people who saw a plane hit the tower in New York. I was not in NY that day and I doubt you were either.
I have nothing further to say on the subject.
Dawn
Dawn possible misinterpretation. My angle was simply that because I had faulted Fetzer for decrying the fact I had taken the mickey out of JH's productions methods that I somehow 'disagreed' with the idea there were multiple shooters. Which is not true. Dawn I believe there were multiple shooters. Thus, I don't know where this anti-head shot stuff came from? My angle, and I cannot speak for Al is simply that if the Zap film was faked why leave it in there?
It looks perfectly plausible to me that JFK was hit from the front. So I really don't get why if your altering the film, you would leave it in there. That's just how I think and funnily enough in all the alterationist lit I have read, that has never been answered. Sadly, I think what your getting at, is that if we don't believe in JFK/ZAP forgery then Al and I don't believe in a conspiracy. That is simply not true.
Further Dawn, nope I wasn't there, nor was I born lol. But I have been to NY and Dallas. I did so in 2006. I literally put my money where my mouth was and it was amazing. And sheesh going to the Kennedy compound in Hyannis was amazing that almost stuck out for me more than the Plaza. As for NYC my god, I went and saw the WTC well what was effectively 140 ft worth of hole. Sheesh man, I went to the terminal sort of entrance place thing and man that was seriously freaky. I saw Willie Rodriguez hanging around like a salesman lol. By the way he is a big unit!!!! So no I wasn't there when it occurred but Dawn I had the nuts on very limited means to show my respects. And it was amazing. Next time if ever I am in Texas, it would be good to have a beer with you. Your someone I am gutted I didn't meet.
Love Coogs.
"In the Kennedy assassination we must be careful of running off into the ether of our own imaginations." Carl Ogelsby circa 1992
Seamus''Thus, I don't know where this anti-head shot stuff came from? My angle, and I cannot speak for Al is simply that if the Zap film was faked why leave it in there? ''
I just posted Seamus, in the Rich other film thread, i believe Rich says something like, well JFK did not die of a whip lash or, so they had to leave the head shot in, something like that there...take care b
[quote=Albert Doyle]There's a conspiracy theorist named Ralph Cinque on You-Tube right now pushing a new breakthrough discovery of 'proof' of Oswald's innocence in the Altgens blow-up of the Depository front steps. He says he has teamed-up with Fetzer and gotten his blessing on this theory. Myself, I've watched all 10 parts and came away believing this is one of the most laughable attempts by any conspiracy theorist to push through credulous, contrived embarrassingly unprofessional evidence that I've ever seen. If people are worried about unqualified CTer's drawing ridicule and doubt on the entire CT community this is something to really worry about. I'll let you judge for yourself:
Albert; just my comment on what your post means , Perhaps i am in error, if so correct me please, but i take your post to mean that any who follow along with the Dr Fezer studies are bloody bonkers, FYI, there are quite a few then Bonkers. when you read anothers say book on the research into the assassinations, do you buy all verbatum, or do you proceed to then do your own research into such ?? do you question anything, or buy all blind, for your info there are areas where I differ with Jim and others studies, and many students are of the same mind, it seems to me quite an insulting title you wrote, you reminded me of one Bill Miller, and that's no compliment, who would post such derogatory titles and remarks on Rich's and the Simkins Forums...so just for your info, try not to use such a wide paint brush, and that also could be said of some others as well....thanks b..
MAGDA ...this is telling me that i can't post it because it is too short.??????????? I HAVE INCREASED IT BUT IT IS STILL TELLING ME IT CANNOT POST AS IT IS TOO SHORT..B
.[/QUOTE
Bernice Moore Wrote:Albert; just my comment on what your post means , Perhaps i am in error, if so correct me please, but i take your post to mean that any who follow along with the Dr Fezer studies are bloody bonkers, FYI, there are quite a few then Bonkers. when you read anothers say book on the research into the assassinations, do you buy all verbatum, or do you proceed to then do your own research into such ?? do you question anything, or buy all blind, for your info there are areas where I differ with Jim and others studies, and many students are of the same mind, it seems to me quite an insulting title you wrote, you reminded me of one Bill Miller, and that's no compliment, who would post such derogatory titles and remarks on Rich's and the Simkins Forums...so just for your info, try not to use such a wide paint brush, and that also could be said of some others as well....thanks b..
I think it is clear enough from what is written. The specific case of the Depository steps alleged CIA forgery is easily debunked (as shown on Lancer). While I agree with the Deep Politics approach I personally feel it isn't too great an offense for those denizens of the Deep Politics Acropolis to chase-off obvious cranks like Dr Cinque from their temple steps. I'd personally be more worried about crackpot professors bringing contempt right into the heart of the inner sanctum of Assassination research than a title warning about it myself. This particular professor referred to a conspiracy theorist who uses the "STFU" vernacular as "brilliant". The wise should be careful of where protest is best spent in my opinion...
Bernice Moore Wrote:Albert; just my comment on what your post means , Perhaps i am in error, if so correct me please, but i take your post to mean that any who follow along with the Dr Fezer studies are bloody bonkers, FYI, there are quite a few then Bonkers. when you read anothers say book on the research into the assassinations, do you buy all verbatum, or do you proceed to then do your own research into such ?? do you question anything, or buy all blind, for your info there are areas where I differ with Jim and others studies, and many students are of the same mind, it seems to me quite an insulting title you wrote, you reminded me of one Bill Miller, and that's no compliment, who would post such derogatory titles and remarks on Rich's and the Simkins Forums...so just for your info, try not to use such a wide paint brush, and that also could be said of some others as well....thanks b..
I think it is clear enough from what is written. The specific case of the Depository steps alleged CIA forgery is easily debunked (as shown on Lancer). While I agree with the Deep Politics approach I personally feel it isn't too great an offense for those denizens of the Deep Politics Acropolis to chase-off obvious cranks like Dr Cinque from their temple steps. I'd personally be more worried about crackpot professors bringing contempt right into the heart of the inner sanctum of Assassination research than a title warning about it myself. This particular professor referred to a conspiracy theorist who uses the "STFU" vernacular as "brilliant". The wise should be careful of where protest is best spent in my opinion...
thanks for replying albert, i have not seen the research as per lancer, though i will try to get to it, though i have down through the years also seen research done on lancer as being in the end incorrect..''The wise should be careful of where protest is best spent in my opinion.''..[/QUOTE] yes they should though i have seen much protested about on here by you, perhaps you were not heeding your own advice at the time, no one can tell anyone what they can or cannot believe, whether you or anyone likes or agrees with it, or not, that is the way it is, most times the more you hollar and complain and bring attention to said subject the deeper the heels get dug in, there is also imo at times much over reaction to such, be it this subject or another.which only adds much not needed fuel to the fires....take care b
