the woman in question was an elderly lady , according to whalley she asked if she could take the cab . at that whalley said that oswald (SUPPOSEDLY IN A GREAT DASH TO ESCAPE ) motioned to get out of the cab and give it to the elderly lady . whalley said there was no need that another cab would be along any second . LNs dont mention this , for obvious reasons , they want to say oswald was in flight and in a hectic rush .

i dont know where the elderly lady came from , i dont think we even have her name , so bad was the so called investigation .

the transfer in oswalds shirt pocket has long bothered me . it is just a little slip of paper . we know multiples of officers pounced on oswald . we know they handled oswald so roughly that they tore all the buttons off the shirt and ripped it in places . the photo of oswald being removed from the theater shows the shirt being pulled in multiple directions . and that transfer emerges from oswalds shirt pocket like it just came out of the ticket machine PRISTINE ?? . the photos of it show it has no kicks , bends or wrinkles which i think is a virtual impossibility .

this is true geoffrey . as i said in another post here david emerling one day says the 3 pathologists are the best people to tell us about jfks wounds , that includes humes . but then david tells us HE DOESNT BELIEVE HUMES about the EOP head wound entry location , nor apparently the other two pathologists that said they saw the same thing lol . we can add to that that humes testified that he could not conceive of where all the fragments in evidence came from ce399 , given that it lost all most none of its mass . and LN dont accept that either .

i believe it was the clark panel geoffrey but im going from memory . they tried to tell humes he was wrong about the head wound . they tried to tell him in effect that he saw an entry wound by the EOP that they said DID NOT EXIST (all 3 pathologists apparently imagined seeing the same wound lol ) , and further to that that all 3 pathologists failed to see an entry wound 4 to 5 inches higher up in the crown area . the autopsy photos show that there was no wound in the crown area , its a spot of dry blood that even has hairs in it . humes vehemently protested that there never was any wound up there . but that fell on deaf ears . but as we know humes and boswell were quite pliant , later humes would go along with the crown entry . i think essentially all 3 originally were honest men , as was earl warren , for what its worth i think they were likely told something similar to what LBJ told warren , WW3 .

this is the same humes who took home the autopsy notes , then re wrote them , burned the original , then heard on sunday that oswald had died and then re wrote them again . oswald living or dying doesnt change jfks autopsy findings so why would news of oswalds death lead humes to again re write the autopsy report ?  . the only answer i can come up with is that NOW THERE WONT BE ANY TRIAL , humes can write pretty much what he wants on the autopsy report and it wont be questioned .

bugliosi as with all warren apologists must shall we say atleast bend the truth / the facts to make his argument work . the warren commission omitted , deceived and lied , so there is not an LN in the world that can make an argument supporting the commission that is honest and truthful .  you cant make a lie THE TRUTH , a lie is a lie , but LN clearly think they can massage a lie . by doing that they think they can make a lie look like a blunder , an error or a mistake . or they omit to mention the lies , i always says a good omission is often better than a good lie . LN can be caught in a lie , and if so they lose credibility , but as posner and bugliosi etc have found that if they simply dont mention something that contradicts them well they often get away with it . thats the mentality we have to deal with every day .

as a quick example , bugliosi in his book mentions that oswald LIED and said he ate lunch with jarmin and norman , as a means to gain an alibi . in essence bugliosi opined that oswald hoped jarmin and norman would lie and say they ate with him . so bugliosi mentality here for the start is HE NEEDS TO MAKE OSWALD A LIAR , if his readers believe oswald was a liar they will then say he must be guilty or why lie ? .  now in his book he mentions the interrogation notes , and cites them . but he omits to mention that in them SEVERAL TIMES oswald was recorded saying HE ATE LUNCH ALONE . bugliosi has to omit this information , because then he cant argue that oswald lied , in bugliosis prosecutorial logic lies equate to guilt , he wants his readers to believe every word from oswalds mouth was a lie EVEN BEFORE THEY KNOW WHAT OSWALD SAID . if they believe oswald lied , they believe he is guilty its simple . so bugliosi HAS LIED to his readers , he has conned them , he told them oswald lied about eating lunch with jarmin and norman , so he conned his readers . now how does he keep that con going ? , well if he tells his readers about the interrogation notes that say multiple times that oswald said HE ATE ALONE well his con is finished . so he omits to mention that oswald said he ate alone , and instead cites some of will fritz inaccurate testimony , given without having his notes , testimony that is contradicted by his own interrogation notes . fritz testified wrongly that oswald said he ate with jarmin . this is completely false . so now bugliosi adds to his own lie and supports that lie with testimony HE KNOWS FULL WELL is wrong and contradicted by multiple interrogation notes .

so bugliosi has to use a variety of tactics in his book in order to make his argument plausible , we have seen one just above . many people have fallen for his tricks , in my experience usually only those people with little research who dont ever check to see if what he said was true .
bugliosi knew about guinn and his work , and he knew the problems with NAA , yet he still went and led his readers to believe that guinn and his tests are accurate and should be relied upon . when you find out that a test is unreliable for any reason you cease using it , because you have to have accurate results . as an example the nitrate test was abondoned even by late 1963 , because it gave false positive results and also false negative results . meaning a person who had never held a gun could test positive (due to things their hands could come in contact with such as print ink ) while a person that had held and fired a weapon could test negative . such a test is useless in determining accurately the guilt or innocence of a person , thus that test cant be used .

NAA we now know has problems , it had those problems while bugliosi was alive , he knew all about them . yet he did not seek to correct/ amend his book with the new information we have regarding NAA . guinn in essence claimed he could link a very small fragment of bullet via NAA to one particular bullet and to a batch of bullets . that led him to state that all fragments in the limo came from one bullet ONLY and from one batch . guinn likely believed in that test and spoke honestly back then , but now we know that the test has serious problems . and its not the only test used by the fbi in regards jfks death that has problems . but i have yet to see any LN at all that will admit or even mention this .

to do so would weaken their already weak argument drastically . but that is the case for many aspects of their argument . bugliosi had the same problem as all LN which is how do you turn BS or a lie in to truth , or how to make a pigs ear in to a silk purse . inevitably they must fail and they do .

the evidence is what the evidence is , you trust it or you dont . that is for example if you trust the pathologists you must trust them 100% , you cant say i trust them 90% but on 10% they were inept . the official entry wound on jfks head is low on the rear of the head , just off center to the right , in an area call the EOP . whether the above is true or not many LN wont accept it . one LN is david emerling . he posts regularly saying THE PATHOLOGISTS EXAMINED JFKS WOUNDS FOR SOME 4 HOURS , AND THEY ARE THE BEST PEOPLE TO TELL US ABOUT HIS WOUNDS . but when they tell david that jfk had an entry wound down low near the EOP he refuses to accept it . which is hypocrisy , but also its because davd is smart enough to understand that the EOP entry location from 6 floors up and fired right to left and exiting where LN say it did (upper right side of the head towards the temple) is a serious problem , the EOP entry is too low . clark panel , and later hsca also knew this . so they eradicated that problem by moving the entry wound up 4 to 5 inches (and a bit to the right also ) to the crown area of the head , specter eradicated a similar problem with the back wound in 1964 by moving it up to the right of neck . this is the entry wound location that emerling tells me is accurate , despite also telling me the pathologists studied jfks wounds 4 hours and were the best people to tell us about these wounds . yet when it suits him he chooses to ignore them .

honest people accept the truth , when they see proof they accept it . LN be they authors like bugliosi or regular LN like david etc continually try to fix the many problems they have with their argument by omitting ,twisting and distorting , in bugliosis case we can certainly add lying . you dont have to fix evidence to make it fit your argument , it either fits or it doesnt . the EOP entry doesnt fit the LN argument so it has to go , because its too low , the crown head entry works better so lets say the entry wound was there . we wont let the fact that the autopsy photos prove their was no such wound or that humes vehemently protested that there was no such wound dissuade us lol .

Guinn's NAA is a dead duck. FBI dont use it at all and havent for over a decade. Its amazing how Bugliosi accepts it but then doesnt realise he traps himself because the supposed bullet fired at Walker is VERY different in its antimony and tin levels. Thats why the Warren Commission didnt use the NAA test results in their report.

Further, Guinn used the same NAA tests to check Oswalds cheek casts and it showed he hadnt fired a rifle. Of course LNers then start shouting that rifles dont emit GSR but then seem to forget that Guinn made 7 control casts were he had individuals fire a carcano rifle and he took paraffin casts of their cheeks and all 7 came back positive

I was watching and listening to the excellent John Judge but he said something that I thought was very odd.

He said Mark Lane isnt really what we think he is and that he is some sort of government stooge. I have read all Lane's JFK books, listened to his debates, his interviews and watched his movie and I find him very genuine.

I know JJ was a staunch friend and was mentored by the excellent Mae Brussel who didnt like Mark Lane and wondered if thats where his feelings originated.

Whats your opinion of Mark Lane?

2 people supposedly got off the McWatters bus and got transfers. One was supposedly Oswald and the other was a woman. They supposedly got off at the same time. Then Oswald got the cab and a woman then opened the cab door and Whaley said he would call the woman a cab. I just wondered if the woman that got off the bus was the woman that tried to get that taxi. After all, she must have seen Oswald get in the cab as she approached it.

A lot of people died in RTAs, too many for it to be just coincidence. Same goes for all the very weird suicides and "accidental" deaths. LNers would never buy it if the 3 pathologists, Markham, Brennan and the Davis sisters all died in similar circumstances within a short period

They also dont believe Humes when he states that he doesnt think CE399 was the bullet that went through both Connally and JFK.

I read a book (cant remember which) and it said that during his HSCA testimony, Humes was adamant that the wound was where he stated it was in the autopsy report, but they threatened to exhume JFKs body and he suddenly changed his mind. I dont remember reading that in the HSCA Report and I am going to have to try and find the book I read it in. Finck and Boswell never changed their mind though.

fobrien1

I read James Di Eugenio's excellent Reclaiming Parkland which is an almost satirical debunk of Bufliosi's Reclaiming History. The latter part of that book does go into great depth about Hanks, Hollywood and the CIA. Apparently he has enlarged upon this in his latest release.

Operation Mockingbird took over the Mainstream Media back in the late 50s for sure.  Unfortunately, it didnt just happen in the USA, we in the UK also seem to have a similar problem. There are many things that seem to taboo here and things that should be on the front page but they end up talking about some celebrity scandal instead.

For the foreseeable future we are only going to be able to read, watch or listen to what they want us to.

id say operation mockingbird is alive and well , probably under another name but alive and well .

it extends even to hollywood movies and tv . i mean in that if you were a director looking to make a movie about vietnam well you would need a lot of guns , and bombs and uniforms , helicopters and so on . the military will be happy to help you for sure . however without any doubt they then would want to know what sort of a movie you were making . if you went along with the usa propaganda then you would get what you want . but if you said oh my movie is going to give the people the truth about vietnam well you would have to get your military hardware etc elsewhere .

the above of course assumes you can get a hollywood studio to allow you to make the movie .

the cia also will provide directors with funds . that is when studios decline to fund the movie the cia will . however they then take a fairly high level of control over your movie . in essence everything they dont like IS OUT . or your money is gone .

if you look at the movie true grit and then read the book that its based on you will see two very different things . it was originally being made true to the book , that quickly changed to what it is now . james di eugenio did a lot of research on tom hanks and his production company playtone . hanks of course wanted to make a series based on reclaiming history , he instead made the awful parkland . another hanks movie is charlie wilsons war , again its far from the truth .

you probably saw the media treatment of jesse ventura over the chris kyle book ? . kyle blatantly lied in his book , saying he punched ventura lights out at a seal / udt reunion . that never happened , ventura had never even met the guy . he gave kyle the opportunity to retract his lies and that would end it , kyle refused , and continued to insist it happened . sadly he ended up being killed . venturas lawsuit was still pending . the media turned on him in vicious form , saying he was suing a widow . no he wasnt he sued kyle , when kyle died he had to sue his estate , kyles wife decided to become executor of the estate . that was her choice . ventura won his law suit . the victory came with legal implications for the media or authors  , IF THEY KNOWINGLY PRINT LIES ABOUT A PERSON TO GAIN FINANCIALLY THEY ARE OPEN TO LAW SUIT . a suit they likely will now lose as result of the ventura V kyle lawsuit .

so what happened ? mrs kyle to my knowledge is not appealing , however ALL THE MAJOR MEDIA IN THE US is appealing the ruling . and ventura lost his conspiracy theory tv show , and no american media will hire him , hence he now appears on russia today .

thats a small measure of how bad the media is in america . talk soon

well it does seem that mcwatters didnt meet with accident , he wasnt shot and killed mistaken for a deer lol . he didnt commit suicide by shooting himself in the head 3 times with a shotgun lol . sadly tho to be serious others were not so lucky , whalley i believe became the only taxi driver in dallas (in dallas history i think but i stand to be corrected ) to be killed while on duty . ok car crashes happen for sure , all it takes is one idiot not concentrating or drunk etc to cause a crash and kill innocent people . i dont know the exact details of whalleys death , if you have any further information id be very interested .

there are quite a few witnesses that would have looked just terrible on cross examination by oswalds lawyers had he lived and went to trial . mcwatters is one for sure , markham another . but the warren commission of course knew they could call who they wanted , believe what ever nonsense they came out with ESPECIALLY if it helped the lone nut official version of events . and im sure they truly believed back then that no one would ever question them let alone be researching . wasnt it dulles who said the american people dont read ? , which shows how they thought back then .

im aware with whalley that the commission ran time trials (they ran other time trials in the depository also ) and basically whalley was made to drive the route over and over and faster and faster untill they got the time down to something the commission could live with . they already knew that getting oswald to 10th and patton was a probelem , if they could get oswald to his rooming house by 12.55 that would help a lot . that it wasnt the truth didnt matter . whalley had to know the speed he was traveling at that day . if he had to drive faster than that speed in time trials (and they did have him go faster and faster each time ) that renders those time trials invalid .

i dont know who the woman you mention is geoffrey unless she is (OFFICIALLY ATLEAST ) mrs bledsoe . she is the only woman on the bus so far that i am aware of that the commission had an interest in . however im just going from memory so im not 100% certain on that . but i do know that mcwatters at the line ups believed he was there to identify roy milton jones . apparently he smirked/ laughed and made certain comments that some have tried to falsely attribute to oswald . the logic being if they say oswald was on the bus when they heard jfk was shot and that he laughed and made nasty comments that it makes him look guilty . problem for LN is that it was roy milton jones not oswald . talk soon