Discussion:
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza ??????
(too old to reply)
Raymond
2008-03-04 02:39:31 UTC
Permalink
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©

This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.

It's worth a look see.

(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)

http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
YoHarvey
2008-03-04 03:07:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Anthony Marsh
2008-03-04 18:04:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.
Raymond
2008-03-04 21:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham(c) & Martha Schallhorn(c)
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
JFK Authority, Tony Marsh wrote:
"Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.-"

Most?

Certainly, the three tramp theory was nonsense.

However, the HSCA opinion on Milteer was just that, an opinion based
on the available height record of Milteer.

SEE (HSCA Volume 6, pp. 242-257)

The only available height record of Milteer gives his stature as 64
inches. This corresponds to about the seventh statural percentile of
American males. That is, about 93 out of 100 adult American men would
be taller than Milteer. Also, about 35 percent of adult American
females would exceed Milteer's reported height. In contrast, the
spectator alleged to be Milteer is taller than 4 of the 7 other males
and all of the 16 females in the line of spectators shown in the
motorcade photograph. Based upon Milteer's REPORTED height, the
probability of randomly selecting a group of Americans where so many
are shorter than Milteer's reported height is .0000007. Moreover, an
analysis based upon actual measurements of certain physical features
shown in the photograph yields a height ESTIMATE for the spectator of
about 70 inches -- 6 inches taller than Milteer's REPORTED stature.
(HSCA Volume 6, pp. 242-257)

Did anyone debunk the evidence that Braden and Florer were in the
Plaza?
Both testified that they were there and were questioned by the police.

As to Morales and the others: Do we know where they were on 11-22-63?
Maybe you do. I don't

Also. just because I posted the article, it does not mean that I
accept it as fact. I did find it interesting and like to pass it on.

It's no wonder that so many people dislike you. You are one arrogant
ass hole that just may not know as much as you think you do about the
event. I don't know who is worse, you or McAdams ?

You should be a warden in a children's reformatory where you could
scold the children when they don't agree with your dogmatic airs.
t***@hotmail.com
2008-03-05 05:45:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony - How was it debunked? You should read A Farewell to Justice
by Joan Mellen, and I wonder if you will trust anything the HSCA tells
you again?
Anthony Marsh
2008-03-06 04:05:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony - How was it debunked? You should read A Farewell to Justice
by Joan Mellen, and I wonder if you will trust anything the HSCA tells
you again?
I SHOULD read? Please don't tell me that I should read something when I
read it long before you did.
As far as I know, I am the ONLY critic who wrote a long detailed letter
to the HSCA pointing out their errors. All I ask is that you actually
read the HSCA report (online) and see that they debunked those ideas.
Then if you doubt their methods, read the reports in the volumes.
t***@hotmail.com
2008-03-07 01:27:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony - How was it debunked? You should read A Farewell to Justice
by Joan Mellen, and I wonder if you will trust anything the HSCA tells
you again?
I SHOULD read? Please don't tell me that I should read something when I
read it long before you did.
As far as I know, I am the ONLY critic who wrote a long detailed letter
to the HSCA pointing out their errors. All I ask is that you actually
read the HSCA report (online) and see that they debunked those ideas.
Then if you doubt their methods, read the reports in the volumes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well excuse me! I don't have time to read everything that gets posted
on here as I work full time and go to uni part time, and I know you
are extemely well educated on this topic but funnily enough I don't
keep a list of who reads what book. I thought that was the whole point
of discussion forums like this one - people can ask questions and get
pointed in new or different directions. All I know is that those men
actually do look like the men the authors claim they might be (unlike
the tramps photos - what a joke) Lansdale (or the man walking by the
tramps) does have certain characteristics that are similar to
Lansdale, ie height, stoop and ring. I know it is just a "snapshot" in
time, but why would John Q citizen walk along a fence with three men
who have been arrested for maybe killing the president and two cops
with guns on the other side of him? Why would the police let "Joe
Bloe" get anywhere near men who have arrested in such suspicious
cirumstances? John Q citizen doesn't even seem curious about the men
arrested. lansdale probrably did want the men to see him if they were
arrested to reassure them that it was ok. Makes sense to me.
Also, the police are as laissez fair about the "tramps" as all get
out. What did they know about the tramps that would make them so
unwary of them? Suspicious.

I will read more of the HSCA report, but just to save time for , in
one sentence can you sum up how you know that man is not Lansdale?????
Anthony Marsh
2008-03-07 06:47:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony - How was it debunked? You should read A Farewell to Justice
by Joan Mellen, and I wonder if you will trust anything the HSCA tells
you again?
I SHOULD read? Please don't tell me that I should read something when I
read it long before you did.
As far as I know, I am the ONLY critic who wrote a long detailed letter
to the HSCA pointing out their errors. All I ask is that you actually
read the HSCA report (online) and see that they debunked those ideas.
Then if you doubt their methods, read the reports in the volumes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well excuse me! I don't have time to read everything that gets posted
on here as I work full time and go to uni part time, and I know you
are extemely well educated on this topic but funnily enough I don't
keep a list of who reads what book. I thought that was the whole point
of discussion forums like this one - people can ask questions and get
pointed in new or different directions. All I know is that those men
Yeah, you didn't ask a question and listen politely. You made a claim
that I had not done my homework and read the books you have, when in
fact I had read them before you did.
Post by t***@hotmail.com
actually do look like the men the authors claim they might be (unlike
the tramps photos - what a joke) Lansdale (or the man walking by the
tramps) does have certain characteristics that are similar to
Lansdale, ie height, stoop and ring. I know it is just a "snapshot" in
No, that is the problem. They do not look like the people named.
Post by t***@hotmail.com
time, but why would John Q citizen walk along a fence with three men
who have been arrested for maybe killing the president and two cops
Many other people were walking in the same area and you don't claim they
were also CIA agents or whatever.
Post by t***@hotmail.com
with guns on the other side of him? Why would the police let "Joe
Bloe" get anywhere near men who have arrested in such suspicious
The cops were very casual because they thought they had everything under
control. Why would the Dallas cops allow a Mafia punk to kill their
prisoner?
Post by t***@hotmail.com
cirumstances? John Q citizen doesn't even seem curious about the men
arrested. lansdale probrably did want the men to see him if they were
arrested to reassure them that it was ok. Makes sense to me.
No, you are imagining a scenario first and then molding the evidence to
fit it.
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Also, the police are as laissez fair about the "tramps" as all get
out. What did they know about the tramps that would make them so
unwary of them? Suspicious.
They were found in a box car and the police were bringing in a lot of
people for questioning. Doesn't mean they were shooters. They might be
witnesses. But the need to be cleared.
Post by t***@hotmail.com
I will read more of the HSCA report, but just to save time for , in
one sentence can you sum up how you know that man is not Lansdale?????
Martin Shackelford
2008-03-08 00:40:06 UTC
Permalink
The "tramps" were led from a point two blocks south of Dealey Plaza back
along the tracks to the Plaza (perhaps for Bowers to identify them), and
then walked across to the Sheriff's office. In the course of that trip,
they passed many people, not just the character misidentified as Lansdale,
whom Fletcher Prouty purported to identify from the photo of the man from
behind. The man wasn't "walking with" the tramps--they simply passed by
him on the sidewalk. The men weren't "maybe arrested for killing the
president," they were arrested for vagrancy, for riding a freight train.
The reference to "two cops with guns" (standard in the area after the
assassination) is somewhat undermined by the fact that the "two cops" saw
no need to handcuff the three men. You attempt to turn this into cause for
suspicion--based, again, on nothing, but your own false assumption that
they were "maybe arrested for killing the president," for which no
evidence exists. When the Dallas Police Intelligence Division files,
released in the late 1980s by the Dallas City Council, were finally
examined by researchers Ray and Mary LaFountaine, the arrest reports of
the "tramps" were found and described (photocopies were later published by
Harrison Livingstone). I've seen nothing from any serious researcher
clinging to the "tramps" myths of the 1970s since reporters interviewed
the two surviving men and the families of all three. Those few who
continue to rail about E. Howard Hunt, Charles Harrelson/Frank Sturgis,
and several candidates for "Frenchy the tramp" do so without any valid
evidence. For a while, some took seriously the opinion of a forensic
artist named Lois Gibson, but she had no background in forensic
anthropology, a discipline which shattered the myths. Do you really
believe that the guy in charge of Operation Mongoose, appointed by JFK,
was loitering around Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, coordinating the
assassination of the man who had appointed him?

Martin
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony - How was it debunked? You should read A Farewell to Justice
by Joan Mellen, and I wonder if you will trust anything the HSCA tells
you again?
I SHOULD read? Please don't tell me that I should read something when I
read it long before you did.
As far as I know, I am the ONLY critic who wrote a long detailed letter
to the HSCA pointing out their errors. All I ask is that you actually
read the HSCA report (online) and see that they debunked those ideas.
Then if you doubt their methods, read the reports in the volumes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well excuse me! I don't have time to read everything that gets posted
on here as I work full time and go to uni part time, and I know you
are extemely well educated on this topic but funnily enough I don't
keep a list of who reads what book. I thought that was the whole point
of discussion forums like this one - people can ask questions and get
pointed in new or different directions. All I know is that those men
actually do look like the men the authors claim they might be (unlike
the tramps photos - what a joke) Lansdale (or the man walking by the
tramps) does have certain characteristics that are similar to
Lansdale, ie height, stoop and ring. I know it is just a "snapshot" in
time, but why would John Q citizen walk along a fence with three men
who have been arrested for maybe killing the president and two cops
with guns on the other side of him? Why would the police let "Joe
Bloe" get anywhere near men who have arrested in such suspicious
cirumstances? John Q citizen doesn't even seem curious about the men
arrested. lansdale probrably did want the men to see him if they were
arrested to reassure them that it was ok. Makes sense to me.
Also, the police are as laissez fair about the "tramps" as all get
out. What did they know about the tramps that would make them so
unwary of them? Suspicious.

I will read more of the HSCA report, but just to save time for , in
one sentence can you sum up how you know that man is not Lansdale?????
Anthony Marsh
2008-03-08 18:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Shackelford
The "tramps" were led from a point two blocks south of Dealey Plaza back
along the tracks to the Plaza (perhaps for Bowers to identify them), and
then walked across to the Sheriff's office. In the course of that trip,
they passed many people, not just the character misidentified as Lansdale,
whom Fletcher Prouty purported to identify from the photo of the man from
behind. The man wasn't "walking with" the tramps--they simply passed by
him on the sidewalk. The men weren't "maybe arrested for killing the
president," they were arrested for vagrancy, for riding a freight train.
The reference to "two cops with guns" (standard in the area after the
assassination) is somewhat undermined by the fact that the "two cops" saw
no need to handcuff the three men. You attempt to turn this into cause for
suspicion--based, again, on nothing, but your own false assumption that
they were "maybe arrested for killing the president," for which no
evidence exists. When the Dallas Police Intelligence Division files,
released in the late 1980s by the Dallas City Council, were finally
examined by researchers Ray and Mary LaFountaine, the arrest reports of
the "tramps" were found and described (photocopies were later published by
Harrison Livingstone). I've seen nothing from any serious researcher
clinging to the "tramps" myths of the 1970s since reporters interviewed
the two surviving men and the families of all three. Those few who
continue to rail about E. Howard Hunt, Charles Harrelson/Frank Sturgis,
and several candidates for "Frenchy the tramp" do so without any valid
evidence. For a while, some took seriously the opinion of a forensic
artist named Lois Gibson, but she had no background in forensic
anthropology, a discipline which shattered the myths. Do you really
believe that the guy in charge of Operation Mongoose, appointed by JFK,
was loitering around Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, coordinating the
assassination of the man who had appointed him?
Correct except for the speculation at the end. It does not speak to
evidence. One can not rule him in or out just based on bias about what
you think would be typical or practical. Like the nonsense about Nixon,
we need to find evidence one way or the other. Either it was possible
for him to be in Dallas then or he is know to have been elsewhere. If it
was possible, then you can't just laugh it away. Then you'd need to deal
with specifics.
Post by Martin Shackelford
Martin
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony - How was it debunked? You should read A Farewell to Justice
by Joan Mellen, and I wonder if you will trust anything the HSCA tells
you again?
I SHOULD read? Please don't tell me that I should read something when I
read it long before you did.
As far as I know, I am the ONLY critic who wrote a long detailed letter
to the HSCA pointing out their errors. All I ask is that you actually
read the HSCA report (online) and see that they debunked those ideas.
Then if you doubt their methods, read the reports in the volumes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well excuse me! I don't have time to read everything that gets posted
on here as I work full time and go to uni part time, and I know you
are extemely well educated on this topic but funnily enough I don't
keep a list of who reads what book. I thought that was the whole point
of discussion forums like this one - people can ask questions and get
pointed in new or different directions. All I know is that those men
actually do look like the men the authors claim they might be (unlike
the tramps photos - what a joke) Lansdale (or the man walking by the
tramps) does have certain characteristics that are similar to
Lansdale, ie height, stoop and ring. I know it is just a "snapshot" in
time, but why would John Q citizen walk along a fence with three men
who have been arrested for maybe killing the president and two cops
with guns on the other side of him? Why would the police let "Joe
Bloe" get anywhere near men who have arrested in such suspicious
cirumstances? John Q citizen doesn't even seem curious about the men
arrested. lansdale probrably did want the men to see him if they were
arrested to reassure them that it was ok. Makes sense to me.
Also, the police are as laissez fair about the "tramps" as all get
out. What did they know about the tramps that would make them so
unwary of them? Suspicious.
I will read more of the HSCA report, but just to save time for , in
one sentence can you sum up how you know that man is not Lansdale?????
Raymond
2008-03-13 04:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Martin Shackelford
The "tramps" were led from a point two blocks south of Dealey Plaza back
along the tracks to the Plaza (perhaps for Bowers to identify them), and
then walked across to the Sheriff's office. In the course of that trip,
they passed many people, not just the character misidentified as Lansdale,
whom Fletcher Prouty purported to identify from the photo of the man from
behind. The man wasn't "walking with" the tramps--they simply passed by
him on the sidewalk. The men weren't "maybe arrested for killing the
president," they were arrested for vagrancy, for riding a freight train.
The reference to "two cops with guns" (standard in the area after the
assassination) is somewhat undermined by the fact that the "two cops" saw
no need to handcuff the three men. You attempt to turn this into cause for
suspicion--based, again, on nothing, but your own false assumption that
they were "maybe arrested for killing the president," for which no
evidence exists. When the Dallas Police Intelligence Division files,
released in the late 1980s by the Dallas City Council, were finally
examined by researchers Ray and Mary LaFountaine, the arrest reports of
the "tramps" were found and described (photocopies were later published by
Harrison Livingstone). I've seen nothing from any serious researcher
clinging to the "tramps" myths of the 1970s since reporters interviewed
the two surviving men and the families of all three. Those few who
continue to rail about E. Howard Hunt, Charles Harrelson/Frank Sturgis,
and several candidates for "Frenchy the tramp" do so without any valid
evidence. For a while, some took seriously the opinion of a forensic
artist named Lois Gibson, but she had no background in forensic
anthropology, a discipline which shattered the myths. Do you really
believe that the guy in charge of Operation Mongoose, appointed by JFK,
was loitering around Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, coordinating the
assassination of the man who had appointed him?
Correct except for the speculation at the end. It does not speak to
evidence. One can not rule him in or out just based on bias about what
you think would be typical or practical. Like the nonsense about Nixon,
we need to find evidence one way or the other. Either it was possible
for him to be in Dallas then or he is know to have been elsewhere. If it
was possible, then you can't just laugh it away. Then you'd need to deal
with specifics.
Chinese proverb:
"One who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; one who does not
ask a question remains a fool forever".

Nixon's Three Stories of Where He Was on November 22, 1963

In the first place, strange things which could scarcely all be coincidence
happened even before JFK was killed. On the morning of November 22, 1963,
the day Kennedy was killed the New York Times carried an item on a back
page, It was datelined Dallas. And it said that ex-Vice-President Richard
M. Nixon had made a speech in Dallas before a group of businessmen,

Not only did the Times carry that story on the very day JFK died, but
Nixon was in Dallas the day Kennedy died, and it is very possible that he
was still in Dallas at the moment Kennedy died. Despite all other reports
to the contrary. And of course the thing that makes this so very important
is that Nixon and others have for some reason tried to conceal that fact..

By itself, this would not be important. Being in Dallas on November 22nd.
1963 does not make just anyone. for example, Nixon, a murderer; but the
record of Nixon's visit to Dallas has been deliberately obscured. Let's
pick three "official" versions of Nixon's actions that day and see how
they compare and then what the differences may signify.

Story One

Not long after Kennedy was shot, Nixon wrote an unusually long article for
the Reader's Digest. It appeared in the November 1964 issue under the
strange title, "Cuba, Castro, and John F Kennedy." Prepared as it was by
Nixon or for his signature and prepared for the massive worldwide audience
of the August Reader's Digest, we are asked to believe that this is the
factual account of what took place. Nixon says

"I urged, in a statement to the press [ Dallas on November 21 that the
President and the vice-president be shown the respect to which their
office entitled them."

Nixon added,

"I boarded a plane in Dallas on the morning of November 22 to New York. We
arrived on schedule at 12:56. I hailed a cab. We were waiting for a light
to change when a man ran over from the street corner and said that the
President had just been shot in Dallas. This is the way that I learned the
news."

Story Two

Now let's look at another Nixon account of the same day The November
1973 issue of Esquire magazine carried the following Nixon quote;

"I attended the Pepsi Cola convention [ in Dallas ]and left on Friday
morning. November 22, from Love Field. Dallas, on a flight back to New
York , . . on arrival in New York we caught a cab and headed for the city
the cabbie missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway . . . a
woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab
window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even
paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas,"

Story Three

Now let's look at the "official" account from "The Day Kennedy was
Shot, by Jim Bishop:"

"At Idlewild Airport now JFK Airport) in New York , reporters and
photographers had been waiting for the American Airlines plane among (the
passengers) was Nixon. As he got off the plane he thought that he would
give 'the boys' basically the same interview he had granted in Dallas .
Nixon posed for a few pictures . . . got into a taxi-cab was barely out of
the airport when one of the reporters got the message: The President has
been shot in Dallas."

Comparison

Now let's compare these. Nixon was in Dallas on November 22. The versions
agree that he took some plane out in the morning Bishop says it was
American Airlines and that it went into Idlewild. Nixon says that it
landed precisely at 12:56 nearly one half-hour after Kennedy had been
shot. Certainly the crew would have heard over their radio that the
president had been shot and would have told their passengers. Then Bishop
says reporters and photographers were there. Certainly they too would have
known about Kennedy's murder by then. Everyone else in the world did.
Bishop says the photographers took pictures. Where are they?

Nixon says he traveled to New York from Dallas with a friend. Who? And
what is his story?

Nixon says he got in a cab, presumably well after 12:56. What cabbie in
New York City would have not known the news by then? And then Nixon tells
a strange story. The first time a man ran out to the cab with the news,
and the second time the cab was "lost" and a woman ran out screaming and
crying the news. These different accounts do not hold water.

With all of this very contrived series of accounts it looks as though
someone has been fabricating a cover-up of Nixon's actions that day. Why?

The True Story

Actually, Nixon was in Dallas when JFK was shot. On April 2nd 1975 a young
man was listening to a talk at his school when he heard the lecturer tell
about the Esquire account of Nixon's trip to Dallas, and how and when
Nixon had learned about JFK's death. That young man then told the
lecturer, "My father was an executive for the Pepsi Cola Company, and he
was in Dallas on November 22nd 1963 at that convention. He has told me
that Nixon was there in Dallas at the convention when the announcement was
heard that JFK had been killed, Nixon left later that afternoon,"

This young man is the son of Mr. Harvey Russel of the Pepsi Cola Company.
When Mr. Russel was informed of his son's account, he agreed that his
son's story was true. Mr. Russel confirmed that Nixon was attending that
meeting at the time the shots were fired. He added Nixon was there
representing the Pepsi Cola Company's law firm Mudge, Rose, Nixon et al.
The Dallas newspapers stated that Nixon was attending a board meeting.

Mr. Russel confirmed that the session Nixon was attending broke up when
the assassination news came through. Nixon then returned to his hotel and
later in the afternoon had been driven to the Dallas airport by a Mr.
Deluca, also a Pepsi Cola official.

Nixon was registered at the Adolphus Hotel

These surprising series of events and the manner in which they unfolded
after all these years underscore that there was something unusual about
Nixon's visit to Dallas. Telephone calls to Deluca and again to Russel did
little more than highlight their growing concern over the inadvertent
disclosure of this story.

http://www.prouty.org/nixon.html
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Martin Shackelford
Martin
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham� & Martha Schallhorn�
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony - How was it debunked? You should read A Farewell to Justice
by Joan Mellen, and I wonder if you will trust anything the HSCA tells
you again?
I SHOULD read? Please don't tell me that I should read something when I
read it long before you did.
As far as I know, I am the ONLY critic who wrote a long detailed letter
to the HSCA pointing out their errors. All I ask is that you actually
read the HSCA report (online) and see that they debunked those ideas.
Then if you doubt their methods, read the reports in the volumes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well excuse me! I don't have time to read everything that gets posted
on here as I work full time and go to uni part time, and I know you
are extemely well educated on this topic but funnily enough I don't
keep a list of who reads what book. I thought that was the whole point
of discussion forums like this one - people can ask questions and get
pointed in new or different directions. All I know is that those men
actually do look like the men the authors claim they might be (unlike
the tramps photos - what a joke) Lansdale (or the man walking by the
tramps) does have certain characteristics that are similar to
Lansdale, ie height, stoop and ring. I know it is just a "snapshot" in
time, but why would John Q citizen walk along a fence with three men
who have been arrested for maybe killing the president and two cops
with guns on the other side of him? Why would the police let "Joe
Bloe" get anywhere near men who have arrested in such suspicious
cirumstances? �John Q citizen doesn't even seem curious about the men
arrested. lansdale probrably did want the men to see him if they were
arrested to reassure them that it was ok. Makes sense to me.
Also, the police are as laissez fair about the "tramps" as all get
out. What did they know about the tramps that would make them so
unwary of them? Suspicious.
I will read more of the HSCA report, but just to save time for , in
one sentence can you sum up how you know that man is not Lansdale?????- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony Marsh
2008-03-13 20:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Martin Shackelford
The "tramps" were led from a point two blocks south of Dealey Plaza back
along the tracks to the Plaza (perhaps for Bowers to identify them), and
then walked across to the Sheriff's office. In the course of that trip,
they passed many people, not just the character misidentified as Lansdale,
whom Fletcher Prouty purported to identify from the photo of the man from
behind. The man wasn't "walking with" the tramps--they simply passed by
him on the sidewalk. The men weren't "maybe arrested for killing the
president," they were arrested for vagrancy, for riding a freight train.
The reference to "two cops with guns" (standard in the area after the
assassination) is somewhat undermined by the fact that the "two cops" saw
no need to handcuff the three men. You attempt to turn this into cause for
suspicion--based, again, on nothing, but your own false assumption that
they were "maybe arrested for killing the president," for which no
evidence exists. When the Dallas Police Intelligence Division files,
released in the late 1980s by the Dallas City Council, were finally
examined by researchers Ray and Mary LaFountaine, the arrest reports of
the "tramps" were found and described (photocopies were later published by
Harrison Livingstone). I've seen nothing from any serious researcher
clinging to the "tramps" myths of the 1970s since reporters interviewed
the two surviving men and the families of all three. Those few who
continue to rail about E. Howard Hunt, Charles Harrelson/Frank Sturgis,
and several candidates for "Frenchy the tramp" do so without any valid
evidence. For a while, some took seriously the opinion of a forensic
artist named Lois Gibson, but she had no background in forensic
anthropology, a discipline which shattered the myths. Do you really
believe that the guy in charge of Operation Mongoose, appointed by JFK,
was loitering around Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, coordinating the
assassination of the man who had appointed him?
Correct except for the speculation at the end. It does not speak to
evidence. One can not rule him in or out just based on bias about what
you think would be typical or practical. Like the nonsense about Nixon,
we need to find evidence one way or the other. Either it was possible
for him to be in Dallas then or he is know to have been elsewhere. If it
was possible, then you can't just laugh it away. Then you'd need to deal
with specifics.
"One who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; one who does not
ask a question remains a fool forever".
Nixon's Three Stories of Where He Was on November 22, 1963
In the first place, strange things which could scarcely all be coincidence
happened even before JFK was killed. On the morning of November 22, 1963,
the day Kennedy was killed the New York Times carried an item on a back
page, It was datelined Dallas. And it said that ex-Vice-President Richard
M. Nixon had made a speech in Dallas before a group of businessmen,
Not only did the Times carry that story on the very day JFK died, but
Nixon was in Dallas the day Kennedy died, and it is very possible that he
was still in Dallas at the moment Kennedy died. Despite all other reports
to the contrary. And of course the thing that makes this so very important
is that Nixon and others have for some reason tried to conceal that fact..
By itself, this would not be important. Being in Dallas on November 22nd.
1963 does not make just anyone. for example, Nixon, a murderer; but the
record of Nixon's visit to Dallas has been deliberately obscured. Let's
pick three "official" versions of Nixon's actions that day and see how
they compare and then what the differences may signify.
The differences are not significant.
Post by Raymond
Story One
Not long after Kennedy was shot, Nixon wrote an unusually long article for
the Reader's Digest. It appeared in the November 1964 issue under the
strange title, "Cuba, Castro, and John F Kennedy." Prepared as it was by
Nixon or for his signature and prepared for the massive worldwide audience
of the August Reader's Digest, we are asked to believe that this is the
factual account of what took place. Nixon says
"I urged, in a statement to the press [ Dallas on November 21 that the
President and the vice-president be shown the respect to which their
office entitled them."
Nixon added,
"I boarded a plane in Dallas on the morning of November 22 to New York. We
arrived on schedule at 12:56. I hailed a cab. We were waiting for a light
to change when a man ran over from the street corner and said that the
President had just been shot in Dallas. This is the way that I learned the
news."
Story Two
Now let's look at another Nixon account of the same day The November
1973 issue of Esquire magazine carried the following Nixon quote;
"I attended the Pepsi Cola convention [ in Dallas ]and left on Friday
morning. November 22, from Love Field. Dallas, on a flight back to New
York , . . on arrival in New York we caught a cab and headed for the city
the cabbie missed a turn somewhere and we were off the highway . . . a
woman came out of her house screaming and crying. I rolled down the cab
window to ask what the matter was and when she saw my face she turned even
paler. She told me that John Kennedy had just been shot in Dallas,"
Story Three
Now let's look at the "official" account from "The Day Kennedy was
Shot, by Jim Bishop:"
"At Idlewild Airport now JFK Airport) in New York , reporters and
photographers had been waiting for the American Airlines plane among (the
passengers) was Nixon. As he got off the plane he thought that he would
give 'the boys' basically the same interview he had granted in Dallas .
Nixon posed for a few pictures . . . got into a taxi-cab was barely out of
the airport when one of the reporters got the message: The President has
been shot in Dallas."
Comparison
Now let's compare these. Nixon was in Dallas on November 22. The versions
Yes, he was. So what?
Post by Raymond
agree that he took some plane out in the morning Bishop says it was
American Airlines and that it went into Idlewild. Nixon says that it
What difference does it make which airline?
Post by Raymond
landed precisely at 12:56 nearly one half-hour after Kennedy had been
shot. Certainly the crew would have heard over their radio that the
Jeez, it's simple little mistakes like this that remove any respect I
have for people like you. You can't even do simple math so you turn your
error into some conspiracy theory.
IF the plane landed at 12:56 that is a half hour BEFORE Kennedy was
killed. Go pedal your nonsense in a wacky newsgroup where they won't
know the difference.
Post by Raymond
president had been shot and would have told their passengers. Then Bishop
says reporters and photographers were there. Certainly they too would have
known about Kennedy's murder by then. Everyone else in the world did.
Bishop says the photographers took pictures. Where are they?
In the newspaper. It's been posted before. I know some people think
Nixon was handsome, but only one picture is more than enough. He didn't
rate a 5 photo spread.
Post by Raymond
Nixon says he traveled to New York from Dallas with a friend. Who? And
what is his story?
What difference would it make?
Post by Raymond
Nixon says he got in a cab, presumably well after 12:56. What cabbie in
New York City would have not known the news by then? And then Nixon tells
No one in NY could have known by then because Kennedy had not yet been
shot, unless Jean Dixon happened to be in NY that day.
Post by Raymond
a strange story. The first time a man ran out to the cab with the news,
and the second time the cab was "lost" and a woman ran out screaming and
crying the news. These different accounts do not hold water.
All meaningless differences. Maybe all are true. A guy runs up to the
cab, a woman is crying in the streets. That was the first chance that
Nixon had to learn about the assassination.
Post by Raymond
With all of this very contrived series of accounts it looks as though
someone has been fabricating a cover-up of Nixon's actions that day. Why?
No, it doesn't. I looks as though you are tying together erroneous
information to create a conspiracy theory.
Post by Raymond
The True Story
Actually, Nixon was in Dallas when JFK was shot. On April 2nd 1975 a young
man was listening to a talk at his school when he heard the lecturer tell
about the Esquire account of Nixon's trip to Dallas, and how and when
Nixon had learned about JFK's death. That young man then told the
lecturer, "My father was an executive for the Pepsi Cola Company, and he
was in Dallas on November 22nd 1963 at that convention. He has told me
that Nixon was there in Dallas at the convention when the announcement was
heard that JFK had been killed, Nixon left later that afternoon,"
That is a lie. Nixon was photographed in New York about 1 PM.
Post by Raymond
This young man is the son of Mr. Harvey Russel of the Pepsi Cola Company.
When Mr. Russel was informed of his son's account, he agreed that his
son's story was true. Mr. Russel confirmed that Nixon was attending that
meeting at the time the shots were fired. He added Nixon was there
representing the Pepsi Cola Company's law firm Mudge, Rose, Nixon et al.
The Dallas newspapers stated that Nixon was attending a board meeting.
It's a lie and it's stupid.
Post by Raymond
Mr. Russel confirmed that the session Nixon was attending broke up when
the assassination news came through. Nixon then returned to his hotel and
later in the afternoon had been driven to the Dallas airport by a Mr.
Deluca, also a Pepsi Cola official.
Nixon was registered at the Adolphus Hotel
These surprising series of events and the manner in which they unfolded
after all these years underscore that there was something unusual about
Nixon's visit to Dallas. Telephone calls to Deluca and again to Russel did
little more than highlight their growing concern over the inadvertent
disclosure of this story.
http://www.prouty.org/nixon.html
Consider the source. Prouty = Wacko.
Post by Raymond
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by Martin Shackelford
Martin
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham� & Martha Schallhorn�
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony - How was it debunked? You should read A Farewell to Justice
by Joan Mellen, and I wonder if you will trust anything the HSCA tells
you again?
I SHOULD read? Please don't tell me that I should read something when I
read it long before you did.
As far as I know, I am the ONLY critic who wrote a long detailed letter
to the HSCA pointing out their errors. All I ask is that you actually
read the HSCA report (online) and see that they debunked those ideas.
Then if you doubt their methods, read the reports in the volumes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well excuse me! I don't have time to read everything that gets posted
on here as I work full time and go to uni part time, and I know you
are extemely well educated on this topic but funnily enough I don't
keep a list of who reads what book. I thought that was the whole point
of discussion forums like this one - people can ask questions and get
pointed in new or different directions. All I know is that those men
actually do look like the men the authors claim they might be (unlike
the tramps photos - what a joke) Lansdale (or the man walking by the
tramps) does have certain characteristics that are similar to
Lansdale, ie height, stoop and ring. I know it is just a "snapshot" in
time, but why would John Q citizen walk along a fence with three men
who have been arrested for maybe killing the president and two cops
with guns on the other side of him? Why would the police let "Joe
Bloe" get anywhere near men who have arrested in such suspicious
cirumstances? �John Q citizen doesn't even seem curious about the men
arrested. lansdale probrably did want the men to see him if they were
arrested to reassure them that it was ok. Makes sense to me.
Also, the police are as laissez fair about the "tramps" as all get
out. What did they know about the tramps that would make them so
unwary of them? Suspicious.
I will read more of the HSCA report, but just to save time for , in
one sentence can you sum up how you know that man is not Lansdale?????- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Raymond
2008-03-09 03:33:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Martin Shackelford
The "tramps" were led from a point two blocks south of Dealey Plaza back
along the tracks to the Plaza (perhaps for Bowers to identify them), and
then walked across to the Sheriff's office. In the course of that trip,
they passed many people, not just the character misidentified as Lansdale,
whom Fletcher Prouty purported to identify from the photo of the man from
behind. The man wasn't "walking with" the tramps--they simply passed by
him on the sidewalk. The men weren't "maybe arrested for killing the
president," they were arrested for vagrancy, for riding a freight train.
The reference to "two cops with guns" (standard in the area after the
assassination) is somewhat undermined by the fact that the "two cops" saw
no need to handcuff the three men. You attempt to turn this into cause for
suspicion--based, again, on nothing, but your own false assumption that
they were "maybe arrested for killing the president," for which no
evidence exists. When the Dallas Police Intelligence Division files,
released in the late 1980s by the Dallas City Council, were finally
examined by researchers Ray and Mary LaFountaine, the arrest reports of
the "tramps" were found and described (photocopies were later published by
Harrison Livingstone). I've seen nothing from any serious researcher
clinging to the "tramps" myths of the 1970s since reporters interviewed
the two surviving men and the families of all three. Those few who
continue to rail about E. Howard Hunt, Charles Harrelson/Frank Sturgis,
and several candidates for "Frenchy the tramp" do so without any valid
evidence. For a while, some took seriously the opinion of a forensic
artist named Lois Gibson, but she had no background in forensic
anthropology, a discipline which shattered the myths. Do you really
believe that the guy in charge of Operation Mongoose, appointed by JFK,
was loitering around Dealey Plaza on November 22, 1963, coordinating the
assassination of the man who had appointed him?
Martin
Post by Anthony Marsh
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham(c) & Martha Schallhorn(c)
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Anthony - How was it debunked? You should read A Farewell to Justice
by Joan Mellen, and I wonder if you will trust anything the HSCA tells
you again?
I SHOULD read? Please don't tell me that I should read something when I
read it long before you did.
As far as I know, I am the ONLY critic who wrote a long detailed letter
to the HSCA pointing out their errors. All I ask is that you actually
read the HSCA report (online) and see that they debunked those ideas.
Then if you doubt their methods, read the reports in the volumes.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Well excuse me! I don't have time to read everything that gets posted
on here as I work full time and go to uni part time, and I know you
are extemely well educated on this topic but funnily enough I don't
keep a list of who reads what book. I thought that was the whole point
of discussion forums like this one - people can ask questions and get
pointed in new or different directions. All I know is that those men
actually do look like the men the authors claim they might be (unlike
the tramps photos - what a joke) Lansdale (or the man walking by the
tramps) does have certain characteristics that are similar to
Lansdale, ie height, stoop and ring. I know it is just a "snapshot" in
time, but why would John Q citizen walk along a fence with three men
who have been arrested for maybe killing the president and two cops
with guns on the other side of him? Why would the police let "Joe
Bloe" get anywhere near men who have arrested in such suspicious
cirumstances? John Q citizen doesn't even seem curious about the men
arrested. lansdale probrably did want the men to see him if they were
arrested to reassure them that it was ok. Makes sense to me.
Also, the police are as laissez fair about the "tramps" as all get
out. What did they know about the tramps that would make them so
unwary of them? Suspicious.
I will read more of the HSCA report, but just to save time for , in
one sentence can you sum up how you know that man is not Lansdale?????- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza ??????

"Though those that are betrayed Do feel the treason sharply, yet the
traitor Stands in worse case of woe."
-----: William Shakespeare
Source: Cymbeline (Imogen at III, iv

Texas School Book Depository
1963

FBI memo, photo link Bush Sr to JFK Dallas murder scene

"Actually, however, Congress was being manipulated. This is how the war
machine operates. Behind the seeming concern for national security are the
busy men with the bulging briefcases hurrying form the Pentagon over to
Capitol Hill, the tight-mouthed men hurrying from CIA headquarters over to
the Pentagon; it is eventually a game. It is an operation designed to
produce for the warfare sector and its military hardware supporters
billions of dollars annually and unlimited power in the affairs of the
nation."

"Since the end of World War II, the United States has spent a thousand
billion dollars--one trillion dollars--furnished by the American people,
who have been colonized by these men and their hunger for power. Could the
CIA kill a President to keep such an operation going? Kings have been
beheaded for infinitely less." New Orleans District Attorney Jim
Garrison, "Heritage of Stone" (1970)

by Tom Flocco

Dallas--March 23, 2006--TomFlocco.com--A November 29, 1963 Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit memo unearthed in 1977-78 proves that
former President George H. W. Bush was a member of the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the recipient of a full briefing on the day
after the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963
when Bush was 39 years old, despite his protestations to the contrary.

SEE
http://www.tomflocco.com/fs/FbiMemoPhotoLinkBushJfk.htm
http://www.tomflocco.com/Docs/63/BushJfkBookDepo.htm
b***@live.com
2008-03-13 19:53:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by YoHarvey
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Exactly why is it worth a look?
Ted Shackley, Edward Lansdale and Lucien Conein all in the same place
at the same time! Sounds like a party to me!

I bet Big Ming was in Dallas that day too.

Bill Clarke
t***@hotmail.com
2008-03-05 04:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Wow! Thanks for that, a very impressive article. It is my belief that the
assassination was a military style ambush. If these men are not who the
article says they are, then WHO are they?? Were they ever identifies and
called as witnesses? That Lansdale photo is particularly interesting, I
would bet a lot of money it was Lansdale. He actually looks like he is
trying not to get photographed while letting his presence be known to the
"tramps" almost like he is their "handler." By the way, the HSCA was a
currupted commitee, completely controlled and manipulated by the CIA so I
don't believe much of anything they had to say.The men identified at least
look like the men the article purports them to be, unlike the tramp photos
which are downright laughable.
Anthony Marsh
2008-03-06 04:09:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham© & Martha Schallhorn©
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Wow! Thanks for that, a very impressive article. It is my belief that the
assassination was a military style ambush. If these men are not who the
article says they are, then WHO are they?? Were they ever identifies and
Just ordinary spectators. No one ever tried to identify every person who
was in Dealey Plaza. Who was the little old lady? Maybe she was an
assassin, eh? It's nonsense.
Post by t***@hotmail.com
called as witnesses? That Lansdale photo is particularly interesting, I
would bet a lot of money it was Lansdale. He actually looks like he is
No way.
Post by t***@hotmail.com
trying not to get photographed while letting his presence be known to the
"tramps" almost like he is their "handler." By the way, the HSCA was a
currupted commitee, completely controlled and manipulated by the CIA so I
don't believe much of anything they had to say.The men identified at least
look like the men the article purports them to be, unlike the tramp photos
which are downright laughable.
It's all junk.
Raymond
2008-03-13 04:18:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham� & Martha Schallhorn�
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Wow! Thanks for that, a very impressive article. It is my belief that the
assassination was a military style ambush. If these men are not who the
article says they are, then WHO are they?? Were they ever identifies and
called as witnesses? That Lansdale photo is particularly interesting, I
would bet a lot of money it was Lansdale. He actually looks like he is
trying not to get photographed while letting his presence be known to the
"tramps" almost like he is their "handler." By the way, the HSCA was a
currupted commitee, completely controlled and manipulated by the CIA so I
don't believe much of anything they had to say.The men identified at least
look like the men the article purports them to be, unlike the tramp photos
which are downright laughable.
Whether it is Lansdale or not, he certainly is a suspect in assassinating
JFK.

Gen. Edward G. Lansdale was a celebrated CIA man who masterminded various
assassination plots for the CIA and was heavily involved in Vietnam. He
was CIA, but worked under the cover of an air force colonel. At the time
of the assassination, Lansdale was supposed to be visiting his son in San
Antonio, but a claim check found in his personal papers places him at a
hotel used by the presidential entourage the night before the
assassination.

http://www.prouty.org/giamarco.html

JFK assassination Edward Lansdale

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CIAlansdale.htm

SUSPECTS IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id140.htm

Lansdale's protege in the CIA was Allen Dulles who was fired by
President Kennedy because of the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs and then
appointed to the Warren Commission to Investigate JFK Assassination.

Of course, we will have to wait for the final authority on the JFK murder
to inform us that we are probably wrong in even having such a thought
about Lansdale being involved. That would be Tony Marsh who has already
said, "Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA".

Dealing with know-it-alls--even if you are one yourself

Know-it-alls are among the most annoying types encountered in the
laboratory. These exasperating experts may be knowledgeable in their
respective fields, but when they condescend to share their wisdom,
they belittle others. They intimidate us with their air of superiority
and frequent put-downs.

How does someone become a know-it-all? Who are the most likely
candidates? The truth is that any of us can fall into the trap.

--- By Nations, Kenneth H., III
Publication: Medical Laboratory Observer
Anthony Marsh
2008-03-14 02:43:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Raymond
Post by t***@hotmail.com
Post by Raymond
Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza
by Allan Eaglesham� & Martha Schallhorn�
This article was originally published in JFK Deep Politics Quarterly
Volume VI Number 1, October 2000, pages 28-35.
It's worth a look see.
(Please click on the thumbnail image to display the full page)
http://www.jfkresearch.com/faces.htm
Wow! Thanks for that, a very impressive article. It is my belief that the
assassination was a military style ambush. If these men are not who the
article says they are, then WHO are they?? Were they ever identifies and
called as witnesses? That Lansdale photo is particularly interesting, I
would bet a lot of money it was Lansdale. He actually looks like he is
trying not to get photographed while letting his presence be known to the
"tramps" almost like he is their "handler." By the way, the HSCA was a
currupted commitee, completely controlled and manipulated by the CIA so I
don't believe much of anything they had to say.The men identified at least
look like the men the article purports them to be, unlike the tramp photos
which are downright laughable.
Whether it is Lansdale or not, he certainly is a suspect in assassinating
JFK.
No, he isn't.
Post by Raymond
Gen. Edward G. Lansdale was a celebrated CIA man who masterminded various
assassination plots for the CIA and was heavily involved in Vietnam. He
was CIA, but worked under the cover of an air force colonel. At the time
of the assassination, Lansdale was supposed to be visiting his son in San
Antonio, but a claim check found in his personal papers places him at a
hotel used by the presidential entourage the night before the
assassination.
I doubt it, but how about providing some proof?
Post by Raymond
http://www.prouty.org/giamarco.html
Prouty is not a reliable source.
Post by Raymond
JFK assassination Edward Lansdale
http://youtu.be/V1Wmj9GPsQo
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CIAlansdale.htm
SUSPECTS IN THE JFK ASSASSINATION
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/id140.htm
Lansdale's protege in the CIA was Allen Dulles who was fired by
Protege? Do you even know what the word protege means? Jeez. Dulles goes
back to WWII.
Post by Raymond
President Kennedy because of the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs and then
appointed to the Warren Commission to Investigate JFK Assassination.
Dulles is a possible conspiratorial connection.
Post by Raymond
Of course, we will have to wait for the final authority on the JFK murder
to inform us that we are probably wrong in even having such a thought
about Lansdale being involved. That would be Tony Marsh who has already
said, "Not worth it. Most of that nonsense was debunked by the HSCA".
I don't think the HSCA knew about any allegations related to Lansdale.
Post by Raymond
Dealing with know-it-alls--even if you are one yourself
At least know-it-alls know that Dallas time is one hour behind New York
time. That's why we need a know-it-all to debunk nonsense from people
who do not know basic facts. Did you know that you had to change your
clock last weekend?
Post by Raymond
Know-it-alls are among the most annoying types encountered in the
laboratory. These exasperating experts may be knowledgeable in their
respective fields, but when they condescend to share their wisdom,
they belittle others. They intimidate us with their air of superiority
and frequent put-downs.
Some people need to be belittled, because they don't know what the Hell
they are talking about and state things as facts which are physically
impossible.
Post by Raymond
How does someone become a know-it-all? Who are the most likely
candidates? The truth is that any of us can fall into the trap.
--- By Nations, Kenneth H., III
Publication: Medical Laboratory Observer
Continue reading on narkive:
Search results for 'Familiar Faces In Dealey Plaza ??????' (Questions and Answers)
14
replies
Who is DOC HOLLIDAY?
started 2006-09-01 13:01:06 UTC
movies
Loading...