Recent Posts

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 18, 2025, 03:25:01 PMHere is Jeff Morley's reply:Fact Check on the Joannides FileSpyTalk formula for covering the JFK files: Deny the obvious, ignore the eyewitnesses, and impugn the witnessesJefferson MorleyJul 18The release of the personnel file of undercover CIA officer George Joannides, as covered by the Washington Post, has shifted the burden of proof in the discussion of JFK’s assassination from the critics of the official story to defenders of the official theory of a “lone gunman.”Those of us who have exposed the CIA’s cover story that George Joannides did not exist in 1963 are no longer obliged to concoct conspiracy theories to explain the Agency’s false statements about Lee Harvey Oswald. Those false statements are now a matter of record. It’s up to the defenders of the CIA and the official story of a “lone gunman” to explain the malfeasance that has been revealed.“Nonsense,” snort Mike Isikoff and Gus Russo of SpyTalk. To sustain their argument that the Joannides file is merely a “sleight of hand,” they resort to all-too familiar tactics.Deny the ObviousWhen the new evidence contradicts their claims, Isikoff and Russo proclaim that the evidence doesn’t exist.“There is no evidence of an actual CIA “connection” to Oswald, much less an “operation,” to direct or manipulate him before he alone indisputably shot the president from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22.”In fact, the Joannides file and other CIA records provide abundant evidence of the CIA’s connection to Oswald. Under the code name AMSPELL, the Cuban Student Directorate was funded by the CIA in 1963 to the tune of $51,000 a month. Here’s an excerpt from a document found in the JFK Library.Joannides handled the AMSPELL portfolio from December 1962 to May 1964. Here’s a performance evaluation praising his handling of the Cuban students in that period.In August 1963, the AMSPELL members in New Orleans generated propaganda about Oswald, the local leader of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Here’s a tape of Oswald’s radio appearance that DRE leader Luis Fernandez Rocha sent to “Howard,” a.k.a. Joannides.As former DRE spokesman Jose Antonio Lanuza recently recounted to the Washington Post, the AMSPELL leaders spoke with Joannides on the night of November 22, 1963. The CIA man told them to go to the press and the FBI. The DRE proceeded to generate the first conspiracy theory about JFK’s assassination: that Oswald and Castro were “the presumed assassins.”Isikoff and Russo insist that Oswald was not directed or manipulated into this role by Joannides, which may well be true. Joannides’ undercover work included having a residence in New Orleans in 1963, but I have never said (and the Washington Post did not say) that he had direct contact with Oswald.The first JFK conspiracy theory was published with CIA funds two days after JFK’s death in a special issue of the DRE’s newspaper.In sum, we don’t know if Joannides had personal contact with Oswald but we do have abundant evidence of an operation that was funded by the CIA; that it generated intelligence, political action, and propaganda about Oswald before JFK was killed; that it generated propaganda after JFK was killed; that it was code named AMSPELL; and that it was run by Joannides, whose existence was denied for decades.In response, Isikoff and Russo say there is “no evidence” of this “non-existent operation.”Readers, fact checkers, and podcasters should click the links above and decide for themselves.Ignore Eyewitness TestimonyThe Joannides file shows, among other things, that Joannides won a CIA medal in part for his stonewalling of congressional investigators in 1978. He was saluted for his handling of an “unusual special assignment.”But Joannides didn’t deceive the committee, claims SpyTalk source Fred Litwin. The self-published author claims it is “not clear” if the HSCA investigators ever asked Joannides about his connection to the DRE back in 1978.In fact, HSCA staffers Bob Blakey and Dan Hardway have both said repeatedly — Hardway most recently under oath — that Joannides deceived them.As Hardway told the House Task Force on Declassification in May“When Joannides was introduced to the investigation, we were told that he had no connection of any kind with any aspect of the Kennedy investigation that was the subject of our investigation. In addition to that, the CIA assured us they had no working relationship with the DRE, an anti-Castro student group, when representatives of that group had an encounter in New Orleans with Oswald which they turned into quite a propaganda coup [after JFK’s assassination].”A long time ago Blakey told PBS Frontline:I was not told of Joannides’ background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.Litwin cannot discredit the fact that Hardway and Blakey were deceived, so he seeks to impugn them.Isikoff and Russo go on to assert that Oswald “alone indisputably shot the president from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22.”“Indisputably” means without question. What about Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the doctors who sought to save JFK’s life? He saw the president’s head wound from about 18 inches away. In a 2013 interview with a fellow doctor, Dr. McClelland recounted his experience of that terrible day and gave his unequivocal professional conclusion: “that bullet came from the grassy knoll.”In his May 20 testimony to the House Task Force, Dr. Don Curtis, a medical resident who was part of the team who tried to save JFK’s life, said Kennedy was killed by a shot from the front. (It’s worth noting here that JFK’s personal physician, Dr. George Burkley, also repeatedly declined to endorse the official finding that Oswald killed the president.)In point of fact, Isikoff and Russo are mistaken. It is disputable that Oswald killed JFK with a shot from behind. It is disputed by multiple professional trained eyewitnesses who (unlike the SpyTalk scribes) actually saw the president’s wounds.When Your Argument Fails, Go Ad HominemHow does one fact-check the preening attitude, the sneering tone, the casual smears (conspiracy entrepreneur) that Isikoff and Russo display throughout their piece? They don’t mention my four non-fiction books, three of them about the CIA, because then the smear doesn’t really work, does it? It sounds more like envy, which I suppose it is.Worse yet, they impugn Jose Antonio Lanuza, the former leader of the DRE, who told the Post the remarkable story of talking to “Howard,” a.k.a. Joannides, about Lee Harvey Oswald within hours of JFK’s murder.Lanuza’s story is worth pondering. On the evening of November 22, when Air Force One was still in the air coming back from Dallas with JFK’s body, the chief of CIA covert operations in Miami was talking to his agents about the man who had just been arrested for killing the president of the United States — and the existence of that CIA man would be denied for decades. The implications of Lanuza’s well-corroborated story terrify defenders of the “lone gunman” theory, and it shows in SpyTalk’s screed.Isikoff and Russo sneer that Lanuza is “in his dotage.” Note that neither of these two men who call themselves professional journalists bothered to call Lanuza to actually find out if he is “in his dotage.” If Isikoff and Russo had acted professionally, they would have called and learned that Lanuza is a smart, funny, 83-year-old retired schoolteacher who is certainly compos mentis.Their lazy, baseless smear betrays their desperation. They hope to get rid of his remarkable story about Joannides by insulting him and then not giving him a chance to respond. They have failed as journalists, and they have failed to get rid of Lanuza’s story of November 22. To the contrary, they have only called attention to its importance.Bravo! Great response from Morley. I wholeheartedly agree that some of his critics are envious of the fact that Morley is getting lots of Press in recent years and is viewed as a credible JFK scholar. Ironically, Michael Isikoff was one of the main journalists in 2016 who laundered the "Steele Dossier"/Russiagate conspiracy theories about Trump in the news media during the 2016 election.

  It is definitely worth noting exactly where DPD Motorcycle Officer Hargis STOPPED his motorcycle. Why? Because he then allegedly ran across Elm St and BACK toward the light pole. This course of action does Not line up with the actions of an officer Under Fire. And then there is the Issue of there being absolutely NO IMAGES of Officer Hargis being at the "little wall", "brick wall". Not a single image. Or a single image of SA Lem Johns running down Elm St toward the JFK Limo. ALL of these Missing Images have the common thread of allegedly happening in the LIMO STOP area.

Here is Jeff Morley's reply:Fact Check on the Joannides FileSpyTalk formula for covering the JFK files: Deny the obvious, ignore the eyewitnesses, and impugn the witnessesJefferson MorleyJul 18The release of the personnel file of undercover CIA officer George Joannides, as covered by the Washington Post, has shifted the burden of proof in the discussion of JFK’s assassination from the critics of the official story to defenders of the official theory of a “lone gunman.”Those of us who have exposed the CIA’s cover story that George Joannides did not exist in 1963 are no longer obliged to concoct conspiracy theories to explain the Agency’s false statements about Lee Harvey Oswald. Those false statements are now a matter of record. It’s up to the defenders of the CIA and the official story of a “lone gunman” to explain the malfeasance that has been revealed.“Nonsense,” snort Mike Isikoff and Gus Russo of SpyTalk. To sustain their argument that the Joannides file is merely a “sleight of hand,” they resort to all-too familiar tactics.Deny the ObviousWhen the new evidence contradicts their claims, Isikoff and Russo proclaim that the evidence doesn’t exist.“There is no evidence of an actual CIA “connection” to Oswald, much less an “operation,” to direct or manipulate him before he alone indisputably shot the president from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22.”In fact, the Joannides file and other CIA records provide abundant evidence of the CIA’s connection to Oswald. Under the code name AMSPELL, the Cuban Student Directorate was funded by the CIA in 1963 to the tune of $51,000 a month. Here’s an excerpt from a document found in the JFK Library.Joannides handled the AMSPELL portfolio from December 1962 to May 1964. Here’s a performance evaluation praising his handling of the Cuban students in that period.In August 1963, the AMSPELL members in New Orleans generated propaganda about Oswald, the local leader of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Here’s a tape of Oswald’s radio appearance that DRE leader Luis Fernandez Rocha sent to “Howard,” a.k.a. Joannides.As former DRE spokesman Jose Antonio Lanuza recently recounted to the Washington Post, the AMSPELL leaders spoke with Joannides on the night of November 22, 1963. The CIA man told them to go to the press and the FBI. The DRE proceeded to generate the first conspiracy theory about JFK’s assassination: that Oswald and Castro were “the presumed assassins.”Isikoff and Russo insist that Oswald was not directed or manipulated into this role by Joannides, which may well be true. Joannides’ undercover work included having a residence in New Orleans in 1963, but I have never said (and the Washington Post did not say) that he had direct contact with Oswald.The first JFK conspiracy theory was published with CIA funds two days after JFK’s death in a special issue of the DRE’s newspaper.In sum, we don’t know if Joannides had personal contact with Oswald but we do have abundant evidence of an operation that was funded by the CIA; that it generated intelligence, political action, and propaganda about Oswald before JFK was killed; that it generated propaganda after JFK was killed; that it was code named AMSPELL; and that it was run by Joannides, whose existence was denied for decades.In response, Isikoff and Russo say there is “no evidence” of this “non-existent operation.”Readers, fact checkers, and podcasters should click the links above and decide for themselves.Ignore Eyewitness TestimonyThe Joannides file shows, among other things, that Joannides won a CIA medal in part for his stonewalling of congressional investigators in 1978. He was saluted for his handling of an “unusual special assignment.”But Joannides didn’t deceive the committee, claims SpyTalk source Fred Litwin. The self-published author claims it is “not clear” if the HSCA investigators ever asked Joannides about his connection to the DRE back in 1978.In fact, HSCA staffers Bob Blakey and Dan Hardway have both said repeatedly — Hardway most recently under oath — that Joannides deceived them.As Hardway told the House Task Force on Declassification in May“When Joannides was introduced to the investigation, we were told that he had no connection of any kind with any aspect of the Kennedy investigation that was the subject of our investigation. In addition to that, the CIA assured us they had no working relationship with the DRE, an anti-Castro student group, when representatives of that group had an encounter in New Orleans with Oswald which they turned into quite a propaganda coup [after JFK’s assassination].”A long time ago Blakey told PBS Frontline:I was not told of Joannides’ background with the DRE, a focal point of the investigation. Had I known who he was, he would have been a witness who would have been interrogated under oath by the staff or by the committee. He would never have been acceptable as a point of contact with us to retrieve documents. In fact, I have now learned, as I note above, that Joannides was the point of contact between the Agency and DRE during the period Oswald was in contact with DRE.Litwin cannot discredit the fact that Hardway and Blakey were deceived, so he seeks to impugn them.Isikoff and Russo go on to assert that Oswald “alone indisputably shot the president from the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository on November 22.”“Indisputably” means without question. What about Dr. Robert McClelland, one of the doctors who sought to save JFK’s life? He saw the president’s head wound from about 18 inches away. In a 2013 interview with a fellow doctor, Dr. McClelland recounted his experience of that terrible day and gave his unequivocal professional conclusion: “that bullet came from the grassy knoll.”In his May 20 testimony to the House Task Force, Dr. Don Curtis, a medical resident who was part of the team who tried to save JFK’s life, said Kennedy was killed by a shot from the front. (It’s worth noting here that JFK’s personal physician, Dr. George Burkley, also repeatedly declined to endorse the official finding that Oswald killed the president.)In point of fact, Isikoff and Russo are mistaken. It is disputable that Oswald killed JFK with a shot from behind. It is disputed by multiple professional trained eyewitnesses who (unlike the SpyTalk scribes) actually saw the president’s wounds.When Your Argument Fails, Go Ad HominemHow does one fact-check the preening attitude, the sneering tone, the casual smears (conspiracy entrepreneur) that Isikoff and Russo display throughout their piece? They don’t mention my four non-fiction books, three of them about the CIA, because then the smear doesn’t really work, does it? It sounds more like envy, which I suppose it is.Worse yet, they impugn Jose Antonio Lanuza, the former leader of the DRE, who told the Post the remarkable story of talking to “Howard,” a.k.a. Joannides, about Lee Harvey Oswald within hours of JFK’s murder.Lanuza’s story is worth pondering. On the evening of November 22, when Air Force One was still in the air coming back from Dallas with JFK’s body, the chief of CIA covert operations in Miami was talking to his agents about the man who had just been arrested for killing the president of the United States — and the existence of that CIA man would be denied for decades. The implications of Lanuza’s well-corroborated story terrify defenders of the “lone gunman” theory, and it shows in SpyTalk’s screed.Isikoff and Russo sneer that Lanuza is “in his dotage.” Note that neither of these two men who call themselves professional journalists bothered to call Lanuza to actually find out if he is “in his dotage.” If Isikoff and Russo had acted professionally, they would have called and learned that Lanuza is a smart, funny, 83-year-old retired schoolteacher who is certainly compos mentis.Their lazy, baseless smear betrays their desperation. They hope to get rid of his remarkable story about Joannides by insulting him and then not giving him a chance to respond. They have failed as journalists, and they have failed to get rid of Lanuza’s story of November 22. To the contrary, they have only called attention to its importance.

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell | "1984".

Quote from: Jake Maxwell on July 16, 2025, 06:05:54 PMThe SBT actually functions like an IQ test...7 wounds - breaking a rib, shattering a radius bone, leaving fragments in Connolly till his death... exiting near pristine... taking a somewhat circuitous path to do this?It's all a contrived hoax to do exactly what Hoover wanted it to do... pin the dirty deed on one person, Oswald...Who believes this sort of thing?Yeah, it's an IQ test...IQ test results:🧠  IQ 85 and Below — "Commission Cultist"Believes the Single Bullet Theory (SBT) and thinks the bullet might have acted alone.Has framed posters of Arlen Specter and J. Edgar Hoover above the bed — right next to the Tooth Fairy shrine.Calls anyone who questions the Warren Report a “Putin puppet” or “conspiracy nut.”Considers schoolyard name-calling a valid debate strategy.Believes magic is a valid branch of physics — especially when it serves the narrative.🧠 IQ 86–110 — "Doubting Dave"Scratches head at the SBT, wondering how a bullet can bend without a wand.Suspects the Warren Commission was more about PR than truth.Knows Arlen Specter was Hoover’s obedient water boy.Doesn’t believe in magic — or coincidence on that scale.Still watches History Channel reruns but with increasing side-eye.🧠 IQ 111–139 — "The Informed Skeptic"Thoroughly rejects the SBT — and probably Specter’s haircut.Sees the Warren Report as damage control, not disclosure.Believes Hoover loathed Kennedy, and Specter helped bury the truth.Doesn’t believe in fairy tales — or government objectivity.Open to new evidence and keeps a mental file titled: Things That Don’t Add Up Since ’63.🧠 IQ 140 and Above — "Knows Where the Bodies Are Buried"Understands the SBT was a political tool to wrap it up with one scapegoat.Recognizes the real motive: protect the guilty, not inform the public.Has a filing cabinet of declassified documents, a laser pointer, and a healthy skepticism.Refers to the Warren Commission as The Original Misinformation Machine.Has come to love the truth and fight for justice.

Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2025, 04:43:14 AM There looks to be about 17 fragments in CE-857. There are two in CE-858.https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439a.htmI count 39 fragments in CE-859https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439b.htmYou still haven't read my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," have you? Dr. Olivier said that CE 857 and CE 859 were "supposed to" contain the same fragments, but they obviously do not. This is when Specter took the conversation off-the-record. Now, gee, why do you suppose Specter feld the need to do that?Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2025, 04:43:14 AM There looks to be about 17 fragments in CE-857. There are two in CE-858.https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439a.htmI count 39 fragments in CE-859https://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/html/WH_Vol17_0439b.htmThat's 58 in total.You still haven't read my article "Forensic Science and President Kennedy's Head Wounds," have you? Dr. Olivier said that CE 857 and CE 859 were "supposed to" contain the same fragments, but obviously they do not. This is when Specter took the conversation off-the-record. Now, gee, why do you suppose Specter felt the need to do that?So it's not 58 in total. It's less than 40, and there is considerable doubt, given the test skull x-rays, that those exhibits contained only fragments from one bullet, not to mention the fact that at least 20 of them were sizable fragments and that the fragmentation pattern they produced in the test skull x-rays bears no resemblance to the pattern seen in the JFK skull x-rays.Are you ever going to you explain the fact that the x-rays of the test skull show minimal fragmentation? Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2025, 04:43:14 AMThose are all from one bullet. The tests done for the WC at Edgewood Arsenal did show that FMJ bullets do shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate human skulls.You are kidding yourself. The WC test skull x-rays refute your argument. They show minimal fragmentation. CEs 857, 858, and 859, even ignoring the questions about their validity, do not prove your claim. Lattimer's test produced no more than 23 fragments, 8 of which were sizable, which bears no resemblance to the fragmentation seen in the JFK skull x-rays. The FMJ bullets in the Failure Analysis test behaved in the same way that Dr. Olivier told Donahue the FMJ bullets in the WC test behaved: they broke into no more than a few fragments. Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2025, 04:43:14 AM I'm sorry but I don't see the word skull in that text. DiMaio did not say that FMJ bullets do not shatter into dozens of fragments when they penetrate skulls.I take it you didn't bother to read anything else in DiMaio's book, such as these two paragraphs:A gunshot wound of the head from a high-velocity handgun bullet — typically the .357 Magnum — can produce an x-ray picture superficially resembling the lead snowstorm of hunting bullets. Breakup of the handgun bullet, however, requires perforation of bone which is not necessary with a rifle bullet. The fragments produced by the handgun bullet are fewer in number and larger. Lead dust is also not present (see Figure 11.5). An x-ray of an individual shot with a full metal-jacketed rifle bullet . . . usually fails to reveal any bullet fragments at all even if the bullet hasperforated bone such as the skull or spine. If any fragments are seen,they are very sparse in number, very fine and located at the point the bulletperforated bone. (p. 206)Are we clear now?Quote from: Tim Nickerson on July 18, 2025, 04:43:14 AM S.t.u.r.d.ivan  seemed to grudgingly accept that the "6.5mm object" was in the back of the skull. He was wrong. He should have gone with his skepticism. The "6.5mm object" was not at the back of the skull. It was the 7mm x 2mm fragment remove by Humes from behind the right eye.I've already refuted this inexcusable claim. A 7 x 2 mm fragment is not a 6.5 mm object. The two objects are very different in shape and are easily distinguishable from each other on the AP x-ray. It is amazing that you continue to ignore these self-evident, determinative facts.The four forensic experts on the Clark Panel, the nine forensic experts on the HSCA Forensic Pathology Panel, and the two HSCA radiology consultants (McDonnel and Seaman) said the 6.5 mm object is in the back of the skull. Dr. David Mantik (physicist and radiation oncologist) and Dr. Michael Chesser (neurologist) have examined the skull x-rays and have proved via optical density measurements that there is a 6.3 x 2.5 mm fragment inside the ghosted image of the 6.5 mm object. They've also confirmed the existence of the McDonnel fragment, which is about 1 cm to the left of the 6.5 mm object and 1 cm below the now-debunked cowlick entry site. You don't want to deal with the fact that those back-of-head fragments could not possibly have come from an FMJ bullet.

Quote from: Steve M. Galbraith on July 18, 2025, 02:08:53 PMVincent Salandria remarked that when he gave a talk on the assassination that he would often get a more receptive response from a conservative audience than a liberal one. This was roughly the 1970s era. That's pretty anecdotal but I do think it reflects the idea that there's always been a populist Right that was more open to believing in a conspiracy than the Establishment Right. It's not new. But that's true across the board. It's more of an Establishment vs. Outside split than a Right vs. Left. Historically, it's been Left conspiracists who grabbed the headlines - Mark Lane et al. - but now we see the populist Right figures like Carlson (he is literally nuts, right? what's the explanation?) promoting it.Still I think this is a more recent change on the Right.It's all about Trump.Pre-Trump: The Boomer/1960s New Left generation tended to be more conspiratorial and skeptical of institutions like the FBI and the military. People like Oliver Stone and Michael Moore were highly regarded in Liberal pop culture. Trump's arrival into national politics has scrambled things a bit. He has made it acceptable for Conservatives to question US foreign policies, institutions like the FBI and CIA, and the military industrial complex. And due to political partisanship, many Boomer, MSNBC watching Dems (even those who were part of the New Left in the 60s and 70s), have grown more fond of the national security institutions and foreign policies that Trump is perceived as a threat to. Conspiratorial views have also been shunned more in Democratic circles under Trump. There's not as much space on the Left today for anti-Establishment politics (but that may be changing soon depending on what happens with the NYC mayor's race).How this ties into the Kennedy assassination is, regardless of who Americans hold responsible for Kennedy's assassination the universal view among those who believe there was a conspiracy is that our government lied to us about the facts of Kennedy's murder. To accept that our government would lie about the murder of a US President requires some level of anti-Establishment political beliefs. And as I said earlier, at least in the Trump era, the anti-Establishment politics seems to be more prominent on the Right today. During the recent JFK assassination hearings in the House, as a Progressive, I was saddened to see Congressional Dems express indifference towards the new JFK assassination files while most Republicans at the hearings expressed genuine interest in the new information. Still, I don't think members of Congress accurately represent the views of their constituents. There are still many Democratic voters who believe there was a conspiracy in JFK's assassination. But among the Democratic and Liberal establishment, anti-establishment views and conspiratorial stuff are mostly shunned.

Conspiracy horseshoes. Who said this? Who does it sound like? Especially the last part."It was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy.....The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: 'We are in control and no one -- not the President, not Congress, nor any elected official -- no one can do anything about it.' It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless (sic). And the people eventually got the message. Consider what happened since the Kennedy assassination. People see government today as unresponsive to their needs, yet the budget and power of the military and intelligence establishment have increased tremendously."A major populist/MAGA Rightist? Tucker Carlson? Glenn Beck? Steve Bannon? Answer: Vincent Salandria.Just to add this about Salandria's history: After JFK's assassination we saw the greatest expansion of programs for the people in American history, even surpassing FDR's New Deal. Viz., LBJ's "Great Society" initiatives and more. From Medicaid and Medicare, poverty programs, education programs...a massive investment in people. Salandria's history is just wrong from top to bottom and the middle too. But he does sound like Carlson, doesn't he?

Quote from: Michael T. Griffith on July 17, 2025, 05:03:49 PMIt again seems that you simply do not really read replies before you reply to them. What is mind boggling is the claim that a marked slowdown/near stop is observable in the current Zapruder film played at normal speed. You pretend to be stunned by my point that no such event is discernible in the current film, but you ignore the fact that the only slowdown that Dr. Luis Alvarez could find in the film is the Z295-304 slowdown, which he only detected via frame-by-frame analysis and measurement. And surely you know Alvarez was a devout WC defender. I dare you to conduct a simple test of getting 10 ordinary people who are not JFK researchers, asking them to view the Zapruder film, and asking them if they see the limo slow down before Jackie starts to get on the trunk. I'd bet you my IRAs that not one of them would say they saw any slowdown before that point. As I document in "Evidence of Alteration in the Zapruder Film," the Nix and Muchmore films do not show "the exact same sequence of events" as the Zapruder film. Again, the Muchmore film shows the limo's brake lights on for half a second at a time when the Zapruder shows nothing resembling the obvious slowdown that would occur from pressing the brake pedal for 9 frames. The Muchmore film also shows Brehm's son moving at a different speed than the Zapruder film shows him moving.And the Nix film shows Agent Hill and Jackie in clearly different locations in relation to each other than does the Zapruder film, and no lame appeal to camera angles and distances can make explain that contradiction. The angles and locations would have had to be far more different to even hope to create such an "optical illusion," when in fact, as I've noted before, we see most of the same parts of the limo in the one film that we see in the other--this would not be the case if the cameras had been at drastically different angles and in markedly different positions in relation to the limo.MG-- “Over 40 witnesses from all over Dealey Plaza said the limousine stopped or markedly slowed, yet no such action is seen in the Zapruder film. Are you going to argue that these witnesses amazingly experienced a mass hallucination?” No, their statements confirm what is readily seen in the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films.  -------------------MG-- "I dare you to conduct a simple test of getting 10 ordinary people who are not JFK researchers, asking them to view the Zapruder film, and asking them if they see the limo slow down before Jackie starts to get on the trunk. I'd bet you my IRAs that not one of them would say they saw any slowdown before that point."They would all see the car slow down. The motorcycle cops did not have a problem figuring it out.Did they forget to edit and alter the part where the motorcycle cop pulls up even with the hand hold on the back of the Limo while the Limo slows down? It is exactly the same in the Zapruder film, the Nix film, and the Muchmore film. It does not matter if you can’t understand the logic with camera angles, it is a reality anyway.  Only you care what Luis Alvarez was doing. The motorcycles start to gain on the limo at Z309 at the same time that Clint Hill leaves the SS Car. As the Limo slows down the motorcycle reaches its farthest point alongside of the limo at Z337. At this same point is when Clint Hill first reaches the handhold. After this occurs, the car accelerates. ---------------Possibly seeing brake lights in one film--Seriously? That is your sole issue?

The conspiracist Vincent Salandria remarked that when he gave a talk on the assassination that he would often get a more receptive response from a conservative audience than a liberal one. This was roughly the 1970s era. That's pretty anecdotal - there's a Yiddish saying, "For example is not proof" - but I do think it reflects the idea that there's always been a populist Right that was more open to believing in a conspiracy than the Establishment Right. It's not new. But that's true across the board. It's more of an Establishment vs. Outsider split than a Right vs. Left. Historically, it's been Left conspiracists who grabbed the headlines - Mark Lane et al. - but now we see the populist/anti-Establishment Right figures like Carlson (he is literally nuts, right? what's the explanation?) promoting it.Still I think this is a more recent change on the Right. An uptick. Obviously it comes mostly from the "Russian collusion" controversy where they view the "Deep State" as getting JFK just like "they" tried to get Trump. Meanwhile there's been a decrease among Democrats.