Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald

Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald


by Jim Fetzer and Jim Marrs


The deliberate dissemination of false information about JFK continues to this day. Professor Hany Farid, a member of the computer science faculty at Dartmouth, affords a stunning illustration, where he injected himself into a long-running dispute concerning the authenticity of photographs related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. These photos reportedly of the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald are collectively known as “the backyard photographs.” What Farid has done, however, simply perpetuates the fraud.

Claiming to have studied one feature of one of these photographs and declaring his support for their authenticity, Farid’s analysis immediately raised the ire of many assassination researchers, who for years have known the photos are clever fakes. In an article published in The Huffington Post (November 5, 2009), however, Fraid  asserts his conclusion that it is “extremely unlikely” that backyard photographs of Oswald are fake, based upon his digital analysis of the shadows.

Apparently referring to the more famous of the backyard photos — the one published on the cover of Life on February 21, 1964 nearly eight months before the Warren Commission handpicked by Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, concluded that Oswald was the lone assassin — Farid says, “You can never really prove an image is real, but the evidence that people have pointed to that the photo is fake is incorrect. As an academic and a scientist, I don’t like to say it’s absolutely authentic … but it’s extremely unlikely to have been a fake.”

Farid, who has previously conducted research on how poorly the human visual system can be at correctly judging how shadows are cast, admitted, “[W]e are really bad at judging shadows. I’m bad at it and this is what I do for a living.”

Despite this caveat, Farid jumped feet first into the controversy of the backyard photos, causing further tumult in the issue. While his announcement of no fakery, propelled by an unquestioning mass media, caused a sensation with some segments of the public, serious students of the photos expressed dismay and concern that Farid had further muddied the issue without seriously delving into the abundant literature on the issue, which remains quite important as the Life cover-photo was successfully used to convince the public of Oswald’s guilt.

Most researchers into the backyard photos, which includes an official with the Canadian Defense Department and a retired British detective expert, consider the evidence of fakery to be simply overwhelming. But Farid appears to be unaware that other experts have studied them before him.

To appreciate the magnitude of the issue, consider the words of Robert Blakey, now a professor of law at Notre Dame but who served as Chief Counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) during its reinvestigation of the deaths of JFK and of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1977-78. Speaking to the committee about these very photographs, Blakey stated,

“If [the backyard photographs] are invalid, how they were produced poses far-reaching questions in the area of conspiracy, for they evince a degree of technical sophistication that would almost necessarily raise the possibility that [someone] conspired not only to kill the President, but to make Oswald a patsy.”

It might be recalled that Oswald himself used that same word — “patsy” — meaning a person set up to take the blame for a crime. In light of the major importance of the backyard photograph issue, Farid immediately drew critics, who claimed his research was superficial and not as definitive as he implied.

No Literature Search

If Farid had only conducted a literature search, he would have known that the shadows were but one of multiple indications of fakery and that, even if he were right about the shadows, he would be wrong about the photos.  Unfortunately, neither the news reporters nor the professor seems to have known enough to appreciate that his conclusion is contradicted by multiple lines of proof, including digital analyses, which are easily accessible — even by Google!

Such proofs include that the chin in the photos is not Oswald’s chin; that there is an insert line between the chin and the lower lip; that the finger tips of one hand are missing; and that the figure in the image is too short to be Oswald.  Farid’s involvement therefore raises serious questions about the integrity of his research and the abuse of his standing as a Dartmouth professor to make public pronouncements impressionable to a wide general audience.

According to the Manchester, NH, Union Leader (November 6-7, 2009), Farid created a 3-dimensional model of Oswald’s head using a computer program called “Facegen” to determine if he could replicate the shadow beneath his nose by manipulating a source of light that simulated the sun. He said he had a difficult time until he realized that he had modeled the neck “too thin”.

Farid told the Union Leader that, given the technology available 46 years ago, “there is no way someone would have been able to get the internal and external elements of the photo just right in order to fabricate not only the one photo, but two others in the series.” But his own conclusions make it difficult to believe that he was even aware of, much less that he had studied, even two of them.

The professor could have learned much more had he only conducted a search of the literature. Even YouTube includes this documentary, FAKE: The Forged Photograph that Framed Lee Harvey Oswald. One of the most interesting has been posted by Judyth Vary Baker, whom we believe to be who she claims — a cancer researcher who became acquainted with Oswald in New Orleans.

In her study, she notes that digitizing a backyard photo creates a problem of trustworthiness, where the strongest conclusion he is justified in drawing is that the pixels in the copy of a copy of a copy he analyzed were not tampered with. He simply reconstructed portions of a backyard photo — we do not know which one he chose — but only seems to have reconstructed the head and neck, not a full figure corresponding to the image.

Nor does he appear to have used the sun as his light source, which means that his “conclusion” is based upon a flawed methodology. Since digital photography did not exist in 1963, it is also relatively effortless to state — with a high degree of confidence — that no digital tampering of the original photos took place.

Misleading JFK Studies

The manipulation of the scene and pre-positioning of the elements to achieve a desired effect is reminiscent of a recent Discovery Channel program, “Inside the Target Car”, in which a rifle anchored to scaffolding was fired into a carefully-designed wooden box representing Kennedy’s limousine striking dummies with gelatin heads. The resultant splatter of matter was then studied in an attempt to prove the Warren Commission’s theory of one bullet causing seven wounds to both Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally.

The program assured its audience that all the elements were exactly the same as in Dealey Plaza in 1963 — except that a modern telescopic sight was used for greater accuracy. Of course, Oswald did not have the advantage of a modern telescopic sight and no mention was made of the fact that, even according to the official version of the assassination, Oswald was firing at a target moving laterally and downhill away from him with tree branches obscuring the line of sight.

And this is far from the only time that “documentaries” and other studies that claim to have vindicated The Warren Report (1964) have appeared, many of which attempt to support the “magic bullet” theory, even though it has not only been proven to be false but is not even anatomically possible. If you have any doubt, Google “Reasoning about Assassinations”. And there are many more.

There appear to have been at least four photos — plus a negative and a missing color transparency — in the entire set. We suspect Farid thought there was only one. Oswald’s face is tilted in different directions in different photos, yet the v-shaped shadow under the nose never varies, which is an obvious indication of fakery. Since he studied the nose shadow, he should have discovered this.

The most charitable interpretation of his work is that he naively assumed that the shadow beneath the figure’s nose in the image that was published in Life was the basis for rejecting the photographs as fakes — and nothing else.

Had Farid simply entered the words, “backyard photographs, Oswald”, on Google, he would have found a study entitled, “EXAMPLES OF DIGITAL EVIDENCE ANALYSIS AND PRESENTATION // BACKYARD PHOTOS EVIDENCE OR FAKERY // PRESENTED BY RALPH THOMAS”. It should have captured his attention, since Farid was planning to do a digital analysis himself.

Thomas illustrates and explains not only that there is an apparent inconsistency in the shadow of the nose in relation to the shadow of the body but also that the body shadows in different photos indicates they were taken at different times. And, under the heading, “Close Ups Of The Two Faces”, he makes key points about two of the backyard photographs:

For many years researchers have said these faces were faked. (1) A fine line runs through the chin. (2) The shadows appear to be the same under the nose. (3) The second head has merely been tilted to fit into the rest of the photo. (4) Although taken just seconds or minutes apart, the tilt of the head on the second photo also tilts the nose shadow.

Under the heading, “Overlay Of The Two Faces”, he also explains that, when the second face is turned into a transparency and titled to the same angle of the first one and the photos are overlaid on top of each other, (5) they match up perfectly, as indeed he shows in an additional third photo. But this would be impossible if the photos were authentic.

These studies contradict Farid — even about the shadows that he claims to have studied. They raise serious questions about the integrity of Farid’s research and suggest he considered only a single aspect of a single photograph. And this is far from the only contrary evidence that a Google search would have produced.

Ignoring Expert Testimony

The day following the assassination two photographs and the negative to one of these were found by Dallas police in the garage of the Irving home where Oswald’s wife was staying. These two were designated as Warren Commission Exhibits (CE) 133-A and B.

In 1976 the Senate Intelligence Committee discovered yet another backyard photo in the hands of the widow of a Dallas policeman. Mrs. Roscoe White said her husband once told her the picture would be very valuable some day. In this heretofore unknown version of the backyard photo, Oswald is depicted holding the rifle in his left hand and newspapers in his right.

This is the same pose used by Dallas police in reenacting the photo for the Warren Commission — clear evidence that authorities were aware of the suppressed picture long before it became known to the public. This photo has been identified as CE 133-C by researchers.

In the same study, Thomas himself provides a summary of far more detailed testimony from Jack White, a longtime analyst of JFK photos and films, who presented his findings of fakery to the HSCA but which the HSCA chose to disregard. Here are his observations:

1) STANDING OFF CENTER: White concluded that Oswald is standing off center and outside the weight bearing alignment of his feet. A person could not stand in such a position.

2) PROPORTIONS: When the body proportions are brought into alignment from the knees to the head by adjusting the size of the photographs, one head is much larger than the other.

3) OVERALL BODY SHADOWS: Although the photos were supposed to have been taken just seconds apart, the overall body shadows in the photographs are all different. In 133-A the photograph has a 10 o’clock shadow, 133-B a 12 o’clock shadow and 133-C a 10 o’clock shadow again.

4) ARM AND ELBOWS: White said that the elbow is too high in one photograph and the elbow doesn’t show up on the one photograph of the arm were Oswald is holding the rifle. Attempts to duplicate this pose have been unsuccessful.

5) HANDS AND FINGERS: In the photographs, the left hand and finger looks normal. Yet the right hand is missing fingernails and the hand appears too stubby to be normal.

6) WATCH: The photographs reveal that Oswald is wearing a watch but all witnesses have stated that Oswald did not wear and didn’t own a watch. No watch was found among the possessions of Oswald and he was not wearing one when he was arrested.

7) RIFLE: When the photographs are blown up to the actual height of Oswald that was 5’9″, the rifle in the photograph is too long. When the rifle is adjusted in the photograph to it’s proper length, Oswald’s height is six inches too short.

8) SCOPE: White noted that in the photograph the rear end of the rifle scope is missing and pants wrinkles appear where the end of the scope is supposed to be, raising the prospect that the photo was retouched before being found by the Dallas police.

9) FACE: The face shows Oswald with a broad flat chin but Oswald’s Dallas Police mug shots depicted him with a pointed and cleft chin. There is a line that breaks up the grain of the photograph that runs across the chin that many say is where a cut took place to paste Oswald’s face onto the photograph. This strongly supports Oswald’s complaint to police that someone had pasted his face onto another’s body.

10) PHOTOGRAPHIC OVERLAY: When Mr. White took 133-A and 133-B, adjusted and overlaid them, nothing in the background or figure matched up as expected in two separate photos made moments apart with a handheld camera, as stated in the official testimony. However, the face of Oswald was a complete match on both photographs. This could only be explained if someone made a composite photo by pasting the same Oswald face on both pictures.

11) FACE SHADOWS: Both photos show the same V-shaped shadow below the nose. However, on one of the photos Oswald’s head is tilted but the shadow does not adjust for this tilt.

12) NECK SHADOWS: On one of the photos there is light on the right side of the neck but the same photo shows the rifle casting a shadow in the opposite angle.

13) COLLAR SIZE: The figure’s collar size can be determined from the photograph using a mathematical formula, which came out to size 16. Oswald wore a size 14-1/2 collar and all his clothes found among his personal belongings were in the 14.5 to 15-inch range.

14) BACKGROUNDS: White determined that one photograph had the top cropped off and the other photograph had the bottom cropped off making it appear as if they were two separate pictures. However, except for small differences, the backgrounds matched on both photographs, meaning the camera never changed position which contradicts the official story of Oswald’s wife reluctantly walking into the backyard to take the photo.

15) SMALL DIFFERENCES: For many months White was puzzled by the small differences he noted in the backgrounds as they were not off by much. After looking at the photographs some more he determined that on the background of one, the camera appeared to be slightly tilted. He then took another copy of the photo by tilting it on a board and everything came perfectly into alignment.

An elementary “literature search” would not only have revealed to Farid that much more than the shadows he claims to have studied themselves afford multiple indications of fakery, as White notes in points (3), (11) and (12)! If he had been determined to conduct a serious and objective study, it’s difficult to imagine how he could have missed them.

Questions of Authenticity

These photos are authentic only if they are authentic in every respect. Even if he had been successful in his study of the nose shadows, disproving one out of more than a dozen proofs of photo fakery cannot show that these photos are “unlikely to have been faked”, much less that they are authentic. There turn out to have been five versions of these photographs — plus a negative of one and a separate color transparency — as we explain below.

The more we have thought about this, the more obvious it becomes that Farid was unaware of any problem besides the nose shadow or of any photos than the one he studied. Either Farid does not understand the requirements to prove their authenticity — which is absurd, since this is one of his areas of specialization — or he did not conduct a literature search and did not know the history of research on these photos. The only alternative would appear to be that he has deliberately perpetrated a fraud.

Incredible as it may seem, the photo shown here — a “ghost” image, in the words of researcher Robert Groden — was discovered in the files of the Dallas Police files more than 20 years after the fact. In his classic study, The Search for Lee Harvey Oswald (1995), Groden provides an excellent introduction to the problems with the backyard photos on pages 90-95. Indeed, 404 evidence photos that have now been released from an official archive not only include ten photographs of the backyard without figure — which would have been indispensable to fake them, which using multiple lines of proof we know was done in this case — and two “ghost” images, which suggest that they were either produced or planted by members of the Dallas Police Department.

Farid has in fact published numerous articles regarding the use of digital analysis of photographs, which suggests that he possesses the academic ability to have analyzed them properly. Even on our charitable interpretation — that he was simply unaware of other problems and had not done a search of the literature to dispel his ignorance — then at the very least we would expect that his analysis of the nose shadows would be competent.

His conclusion supports our inference. If Farid studied more than one of these photographs, as he claims, then he should have noticed that the nose shadow remains constant across different photos, an obvious indication of fakery. In fact, the figure’s entire face remains constant in these different photographs. Either he did not know there was more than one or he is deliberately deceiving us.

Clearly, Farid has violated a basic canon of scientific research, which is that all the available evidence that makes a difference to a conclusion must be taken into account. It is impossible to demonstrate that a photo is not fake by selecting one issue, excluding consideration of the rest of the evidence, and showing that it would have been possible under special conditions.

Farid focused on the nose shadow, but ignored inconsistencies between the nose shadow and the shadows the figure casts, the similarity in the nose shadow from one photograph to another, and problems with the shadows on the neck. Farid was competent to investigate the shadows, but he did not perform that task in a competent fashion. The question becomes, why was he doing this at all?

Jim Marr’s Response

The author of Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy (1989), Jim Marrs has long been persuaded that the backyard photos are indeed composites, just as Oswald asserted. When separate photographs made at different times with a hand-held camera are turned into transparencies and placed on top of each other, nothing should match. The problem is Oswald’s face (above the chin) is a near-perfect match when they are superimposed, as shown here.

The only difference that Marrs has detected is slight distortion of the mouth in one of the photos, which could have been done with retouching. In “The Many Faces of Lee Harvey Oswald” (YouTube), Jack White has compared the thick neck and block chin of the figure with the narrow neck and pointed chin of Oswald. He also noticed a bump on the backyard figure’s wrist (CE-133A) not on Oswald. A rookie with the Dallas Police Department, Roscoe White, had a thick neck and a block chin, like the image in the photographs, and a similar bump on his wrist.

The first, depicting a man holding a rifle up over his head with both hands, was shown by Marina to Oswald’s mother. Marguerite, the night of the assassination and then again at the Executive Inn, where Marguerite burned it and flushed it down a toilet (WC Vol. I, pp. 146-152). So that photo is no longer available.

The second is the version of CE 133-A with “Hunter of Fascists” handwritten on the back in Russian, which was found long after the assassination in the belongings left behind by George DeMohrenshildt, who appears to have been Oswald’s CIA handler and had filed several reports with the agency. Jeanne DeMohrenschildt, George’s widow, told Marrs during an interview that she had never seen the photo before and believed it was planted in their belongings while they were traveling in Haiti.

Another copy and a third version (CE-133-A and B) were both found in the garage of Ruth and Michael Paine on the Saturday following the assassination, but Marrs has observed there is a major discrepancy in the record. Detectives Guy Rose and R. S. Stovall of the Dallas Police Department told the Warren Commission that they arrived at the Paine home after noon (“about 1 p.m.” quoting Stovall in Vol. VII of the Warren Commission Supporting Volumes, p. 193) on Saturday, November 23, 1963, but only brought the backyard photos discovered in the Paine’s garage back to DPD headquarters around two hours later (Rose, WC Vol. VII, p. 231).

Yet, in his statement to the Warren Commission, Capt. Will Fritz, who was in charge of the JFK homicide, related how Oswald was brought back to his office for further interrogation at 12:30 p.m. that same day, “… in an effort to find where he was living when the picture was made of him holding a rifle which looked to be the same rifle we recovered. This picture showed [by its own internal features] to be taken near a stairway with many identifying things in the backyard…. He was placed back in jail at 1:10 p.m.” (WC Report, Appendix XI, p. 607.)

But how could Fritz have seen a backyard photo before Stovall and Rose found two of them in the garage and had brought them back to the police headquarters?

This account lends great support to the stories of Pat and Robert Hester, a husband and wife team called from home on November 22, 1963, the day of the assassination, to help process assassination-related photos for the FBI and the Dallas police at National Photo in Dallas.

Both of the Hesters told Marrs that they had seen an FBI agent with a color transparency of one of the backyard photos and that one of those Robert processed had no figure in the picture. Hester’s claim was corroborated by his wife, Patricia, who also helped process film on the day of the assassination.

Marrs believes that the FBI had the photos as early as Friday evening and either passed them to the Dallas police (who lied about finding them) or planted the photos in the Paine garage (where a thorough search of the Paine home Friday had not produced them) in order to be found by the detectives prior to the police search during which they claimed to have found the photographs.

He suspects that the fabrication of the photos can be traced back to J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, who was intent on having proof that Oswald would have been convicted of the assassination had he lived to stand trial. And, indeed, there are multiple indications that Hoover took steps necessary to block a real investigation, which made him at least guilty as an accessory after the fact.


Most of what Marrs wrote about the backyard photos in Crossfire: The Plot that Killed Kennedy (1989), one of the main sources for Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, remains valid today. The book is a classic in this field and one that anyone with a serious interest in the case should have read. If Farid had only read it, he would have known that multiple experts had studied the photos long before and concluded that they were fakes as well as a great deal more.

The Warren Commission heard from Oswald’s accommodating wife, Marina, that she had taken these snapshots with a hand-held Imperial Reflex camera at the insistence of her husband. The Commission, based on Marina’s testimony and the order form for Oswald’s rifle, pinpointed the date as March 31, 1963, a date which later investigation with the US Weather Service showed had been overcast and cloudy, making it impossible to have made them that day, since they evince bright sunlight and dark shadows. She said she took one shot then handed the camera back to Oswald, who advanced the film and had her take another picture.

When shown one of the backyard photographs by Dallas police, Capt. Will Fritz has said, Oswald made the following remarks:

“He said the picture was not his, that the face was his face, but that this picture had been made by someone superimposing his face, the other part of the picture was not him at all and that he had never seen the picture before. . . . He told me that he understood photography real well, and that in time, he would be able to show that it was not his picture, and that it had been made by someone else.”

Photo experts told the HSCA that the most famous backyard picture — CE 133-A, which was used on the cover of Life — was obviously made from the original negative while in the hands of Dallas authorities. And yet the negative itself was never accounted for by the Dallas police. As the Committee astutely observed, “There is no official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative.”

Marrs also discusses questions regarding the Imperial Reflex camera that was said to have been used to make these photographs. Oswald’s brother Robert claimed to have obtained the camera from the Paine home on December 8, 1963. He said he did not mention it to authorities because he didn’t realize anyone would be interested. Robert was only told the camera belonged to his brother by Ruth Paine; and the FBI did not receive the camera until February 24, 1964. About that time, Marina was shown two cameras but failed to identify either as belonging to her husband.

When the government received the camera, it was inoperable. FBI photographic expert Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt told the Warren Commission, “In order to be able to make a photograph with the camera, I had to make slight repairs to the shutter lever, which had been bent. I straightened it and cleaned the lens in order to remove the dirt which had accumulated.”

Then, in June 1964, Marina identified the camera as the one she used to take the photographs. Marina, who originally claimed to have only taken one picture, had revised this statement in her testimony to the Commission in February 1964. She said, “I had even forgotten that I had taken two photographs. I thought there was only one. I thought there were two identical pictures, but they turned out to be two different poses.”

She never mentioned any other photos. But this incident was not the only time Marina’s testimony reflected inconsistencies and rehearsal.

Experts told the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) that the most famous backyard picture — the one used on the cover of Life magazine — was obviously made from the original negative [and the fifth of the total set of five] while in the hands of Dallas authorities. Yet the negative itself was never accounted for by the Dallas police. The Committee noted: “There is no official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative.

Internal Problems

As Marrs notes, objective viewing of the three available backyard photographs reveals internal problems aplenty. Although all three pictures were reportedly taken with a hand-held camera, the background of all three is identical when brought to the same size.

That is, while they are cropped differently, in the three photos, the elements of the background — shadows, leaves, branches, stairs, etc. — are exactly identical. This sameness of background could be produced with a stationary camera on a heavy tripod, but it is almost impossible with a hand-held camera.

In addition to the v-shaped shadow under Oswald’s nose, the photos all show a discernible line marking a break in the print’s emulsion across Oswald’s face just above a flat, broad chin. In Dallas police photos, it is clear that Oswald had a sharply pointed, cleft chin.

It was pointed out in Marrs’ 1989 book that when all three photos are brought to the same size and placed on top of each other as transparencies, nothing matches except the face of Lee Harvey Oswald — strong evidence that he was telling the truth when he said his face had been superimposed on another body.

Oswald’s assessment that the photos are superimposed fakes has been confirmed by two foreign authorities. In 1977, Major John Pickard, commander of the photographic department at the Canadian Defense Department, made these statements after studying the backyard pictures:

“The pictures have the earmarks of being faked. The shadows fall in conflicting directions. The shadow of Oswald’s nose falls in one direction and that of his body in another. The photos were shot from a slightly different angle, a different distance, with the gun in a different hand. So, if one photo is laid on top of another, nothing could match exactly. Yet, impossibly, while one body is bigger, in the other the heads match perfectly, bearing out Oswald’s charge that his head was pasted on an incriminating photograph.”

Author and British Broadcasting Corporation investigative reporter Anthony Summers had the photos studied by retired Detective Superintendent Malcolm Thompson, a past president of the Institute of Incorporated Photographers in England. Thompson said he detected retouching in the photos around the area of Oswald’s head and on the butt of the rifle. He also noted inconsistencies in the location of shadows and the different chin on Oswald.

Thompson stated: “One can only conclude that Oswald’s head has been stuck on to a chin which is not Oswald’s chin. . . . My opinion is that those photographs are faked. . . . I consider the pictures to be the result of a montage.” However, like Farid, neither Pickard nor Thompson had access to the original photos.

Astonishingly, the Photographic Evidence Panel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, which did study the originals, concluded in 1978 that it could find “no evidence of fakery” in the backyard photos.

This conclusion rested primarily on studies that showed markings on the edges of the negative of one of the original photographs were identical to markings on other photographs made by the Imperial Reflex camera. This ballistics-type evidence convinced the panel that the photos must be genuine.

However, Texas graphics expert White pointed out that if a knowledgeable person wanted to fake the backyard pictures, it would have been a simple matter to produce a high-quality montage photograph using one backyard scene, a figure with rifle and papers and a head shot of Oswald, which then could be photocopied using the Imperial Reflex camera. This procedure would produce a backyard photo that could be proven to have come from the camera traced to Oswald.

Another method to achieve the same results, according to White, would be to make an exposure through the Imperial Reflex camera that would include the markings on the edge but nothing else. Then, when the composite photo is combined with this, the markings become part of the negative.

Asked to study the sameness of the different photos’ backgrounds, the House Committee’s experts said they measured the distances between certain objects in the pictures — such as wooden fence posts — and determined differences in distance, indicating that the photos were indeed separate shots.

White, on the other hand, claimed that the differences were simply the result of “keystoning” or tilting the easel on which the photograph was exposed in an enlarger. He said he, too, had been concerned with what appeared to be differences in the photos but discovered that, by simply tilting the photographic print in an enlarger’s easel, the backgrounds of the supposedly separate pictures overlapped and matched perfectly.

Furthermore, in recent years White discovered other problems with the backyard photos. In one picture, the tips of Oswald’s fingers appear to be missing as does one end of the rifle’s telescopic scope. White believes this resulted from sloppy airbrushing. In another, the figure can be seen to be wearing a large ring on his right hand, yet the ring is missing in the other photos. That point alone ought to have been enough to prove that these photos are fakes.

JFK Evidence Fakery

A search of the literature on a subject is usually the first stage in defining the scope of a research project, since it would be pointless to undertake studies that have been previously conducted, unless there happen to be good reasons to suppose they had not been conducted properly. That has occurred in relation to the autopsy X-rays, which David W. Mantik, M.D., Ph.D., demonstrated to have been altered in studies published in Assassination Science (1998).

A Ph.D. in physics who is board-certified in radiation oncology, the treatment of cancer by using X-ray therapy, Mantik used a simple technique from physics called “optical densitometry” to evaluate the X-rays in the National Archives and found evidence that none of them are originals, that there are indications of a second shot to the head in the lateral-cranial X-ray, and that a 6.5 mm diameter, metallic sliver had been added to the anterior-posterior X-ray.

Mantik’s discovery of X-ray alteration has been substantiated by Jerrol F. Custer, the Bethesda Naval Hospital radiation technician who actually took the JFK X-rays. In May 1992, Custer told the news media that the negatives in the National Archives presented by the government as assassination evidence were “fake X-rays, which has been reinforced by other research by serious students of the crime.

Blakey’s words concerning conspiracy surely apply with even greater force to the alternation of X-rays that were under the control of the Secret Service, medical officers of the US Navy, and the president’s personal physician. Adding a 6.5 mm metallic slice was an obvious attempt to implicate an obscure WWII Italian Mannlicher-Carcano as “the assassination weapon”.

But the conspirators committed a blunder by this choice of weapon. As other authors — Harold Weisberg, Whitewash (1965), Peter Model and Robert Groden, JFK: The Case for Conspiracy (1976) and Robert Groden and Harrison Livingstone, High Treason (1989), among others — have observed, the Mannlicher-Carcano is not a high velocity weapon.

Since The Warren Report (1964), The Final Report of the HSCA (1979), and articles published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (1992) all affirm that JFK was killed by the impact of high-velocity bullets, Oswald cannot have fired them.

It seems preposterous that, with instance after instance of conclusive proof that Lee Harvey Oswald could not have assassinated JFK, the debate continues. As Martin Schotz, History Will Not Absolve Us (1996), has observed, the objective of disinformation is not to convince us of the official account but to create enough uncertainty that everything is believable and nothing is knowable.

As Marrs has noted relative to the backyard photos in spite of the sameness of backgrounds and especially of Oswald’s face, conflicting shadows and distances, and the loss of portions of the photos, this vital piece of evidence remains “controversial” even though their inconsistencies can be viewed by any layman and their lack of authenticity has been the studied opinion of multiple experts.

“Of course, this is the cover-up in the Kennedy assassination,” said Marrs. “There has been no real cover-up from the standpoint of lack of evidence. Instead, it has been a cover-up of obfuscation, with one expert countering another expert in order to create controversy and confusing the issue — until the public grows tired and turns away.”

And now Hany Farid continues a “controversy” long thought resolved, not by government officials or a formal investigation, but by private experts who have contributed their time and effort in the only sincere search for truth about the death of JFK.

The Dartmouth Dilemma

Anyone who wants to know the latest research on the administration of JFK and the assassination that brought it to an abrupt end should read James Douglass, JFK and the Unspeakable (2008), and Phillip Nelson, LBJ: Mastermind of JFK’s Assassination (2010). Or they can access John F. Kennedy: History, Memory, Legacy (2009), including “Revisiting Dealey Plaza: What Happened to JFK?”, which features a backyard photograph.

James H. Fetzer, who presented this material during the conference held at the University of North Dakota on November 22-23, 2008, was introduced by John R. Tunheim, now a federal judge in Minneapolis, who served as the Chair of the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB), a five-member civilian panel with the authority to declassify documents and records held by CIA, FBI, Secret Service, and other agencies.

Created by legislation that was motivated by the resurgence of public interest in the case after the release of “JFK”, the ARRB succeeded in declassifying some 60,000 documents and records, which was a remarkable achievement and where their work is discussed in his edited book, Murder in Dealey Plaza (2000), which begins with 16 “smoking guns,” each refuting the official account.

Dartmouth, alas, confronts a dilemma. Hany Farid is not a teaching assistant but a full professor of computer science. He has immersed himself in a controversy that he could have avoided had he conducted due diligence in his research. A literature search would have revealed the full dimensions of the problem and have afforded ample indication that the photos are fakes.

Farid appears to have proceeded on the false assumption that the nose shadows were the source of concern about their authenticity. Yet, even in relation to the nose shadows, his work has been incompetent, as we have demonstrated here — unless controversy was his goal. Even if he were right about the shadows, he would still be wrong about the photos.

If Dartmouth wants to perform a service on behalf of the nation, then it should conduct an objective and comprehensive review of Hany Farid’s research and publish the results. Unless this bastion of Ivy League academia desires to bear the stain of incompetence in a matter of this magnitude, this appears to be the least that it can do.

Jim Fetzer has chaired or co-chaired four national conferences, including the Duluth symposium on the Zapruder film, has also edited three books and produced a 4 1/2 hour documentary on the death of JFK. 

Jim Marrs, one of our nation’s foremost investigative journalists, has authored many books, but is best known for “Crossfire: The Plot That Killed Kennedy”, which was a basis for Oliver Stone’s film, “JFK”.

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts:

Short URL:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT or any other VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners and technicians. Legal Notice

Posted by on Aug 19 2011, With 0 Reads, Filed under Editor, Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for VA Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Get Your Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for your VA Home Loan Now
Apply for Jobs on Now
Apply for Jobs on Now
Apply for Jobs on Now
Austins School of Spa Technology
ME Online


To post, we ask that you login using Facebook, Yahoo, AOL, or Hotmail in the box below.
Don't have a social network account? Register and Login direct with VT and post.
Before you post, read our Comment Policy - Feedback

Comments Closed

61 Comments for “Framing the Patsy: The Case of Lee Harvey Oswald”

  1. If I understand what you have written here, you believe Jim and I have “hit the nail” on the head! But that’s the most I can make of this.

  2. S Gruber’s comments are right on. How many here have read what I call the definitive book on JFK’s assassination – Michael Collins Piper’s ‘Final Judgment?’ The Missing Link in the JFK Assassination Conspiracy. This book of 768 pages has over 1,000 footnotes and is going for as high as $1,000 on, so I hear.

    As whistle-blower Mordechai Vanunu has said, JFK’s obstinate efforts to prevent Israel from building nuclear weapons of mass destruction, which Ben Gurion craved, played a critical role, as did JFK’s new currency was a threat to the Zionist banksters, in the conspiracy behind the good President’s assassination.

    The key player was the damn MOSSAD! Its motto: “By Way of Deception Thou Shalt Do War!” I think it has dropped this motto, but…

    • Of course, that is a possibility, Jupiter. But this is a case of (what is known as) over-determination. There were many different groups who had powerful motives for wanting to replace the policies of JFK with those of LBJ, including the CIA, the Joint Chiefs, the Mafia, the anti-Castro Cubans, Texas oil men, J. Edgar Hoover and Lyndon Johnson. Please spell out how you believe the Mossad made a difference here, because I have not found it.

      Based upon two decades of research with the most highly qualified experts to ever study the case, it appears to have been an all-American job. I have identified a Dallas Deputy Sheriff, an anti-Castro Cuban, a CIA operative, a Dallas Police Officer, an Air Force expert, and LBJ’s personal hitman as the probable shooters. See, for example, “What happened to JFK–and why it matters today”, which I presented in Portland, OR, on 12 December 2009:

      Low res:
      High res:

      NOTE: I have noticed that, in reviewing the shot sequence, I misstated the name of the person who I believe fired the shot that entered the right temple, an Air Force expert named “Jack Lawrence”, not “(Jim) Lewis”, who has been traveling around the South firing bullets through junked cars at dummies in the back. A slight simpler version can be found in “Revisiting Dealey Plaza: What Happened to JFK?”, archived on

  3. So what is all of this hullabaloo and bullshit about those photos all about? What do they attempt to prove or disprove?

    I was sort of a typical American boy…

    At the age of ten, my father took me out into the field behind our house, handed me his old Iver Johnson 12 gauge full choke single, showed me a few safety features about handling it, and how to load and fire it.

    Then he handed me a load of number ten and said, “Now see if you can hit that old fire barrel out there.”

    I hit the barrel and the gun liked to have knocked me on my ass in the snow…. but it was mine after that, and we went hunting ring-necked pheasants,ducks and cottontails for years together.

    When I had grown older, and proven that I knew how to handle a shotgun sensibly in company with other men, he gave me his .30-30 Winchester lever-action carbine, the old saddle gun like the one John Wayne used,in the movies. I shot my first deer through the heart with it, a hundred yards, two hits running, both through the heart.

    During the course of our years of hunting together, he and I must have had dozens of photograph taken with those guns, standing in the back yard, next to some hanging or dead game, under a tree in Northern Michigan or just sitting in the back yard, having target practice out into the corn fields behind the house.

    They prove not a goddamned thing. for my father nor I have ever killed or fired those guns at anyone.

    I remember when those photos of Oswald and his funky Italian rifle were posted as “evidence” that he was the shooter from the Book Repository, and I also recall recognizing instantly that the photos had nothing to do with what actually happened that day, and that Oswald was a set-up patsy. It was all so obvious.

    And, as the facts subsequently unraveled it became obvious who did do the number on JFK, then Oswald himself, and ultimately, Jake Ruby, and the many who followed because they knew too much.

    So, what in hell relevance do those photographs have one way or another? And why is this such an important issue today?

    You looking for some glory and fame? Or do you just need the job?

    A photo of an American boy standing in the backyard with an old rifle in hand? Real or fake? What does it matter? Hell, it could be any one of us.

    Methinks you are straining too hard at a gnat. What is you problem? How do you see that these photos have any relevance at all, one way or the other?

    Now, don’t go calling me a fool for raising such stupid questions. It was not me who wrote this inane, nonsense f…ing article!

    And, don’t go accusing me of being a disinterested American., I will bounce my DD-314 against yours any day or the week.


  4. This video seems to sum the argument about the authenticity of 33rd Degree Freemason, Abraham Zapruder’s Film that was released to the public after quite some time. Over enlarged backgrounds compared to the foreground, the line of sight questions, the mysterious but changing motionless people…but more so, the missing footage before the turn is made. If they could do this in 1963 using knifeblades to cut up analog 8mm tape…just imagine what they could be capable of doing in…2001.

  5. In “Oswald and the CIA” historian and former intelligence executive John Newman documents his belief that Oswald was a patsy in a plot orchestrated by Alan Dulles with the help of ONI and CIA CI.

  6. When JFK said he wanted to break up the CIA and scatter it to the wind, it obviously sealed his doom. Which is why I totally agree with JFK . The CIA has done more damage to America than any enemy real or invented.
    If I’m ever in Texas, which is a long shot at best, I would go up to front door of the LBJ library and piss on it!

    • You are on the mark, JohnZ. James Douglass, JFK AND THE UNSPEAKABLE, traces his presidency and how he antagonized the most powerful interests in the nation from the Joint Chiefs and CIA on to the FED.

      • Douglass’ book is so exhaustively researched and footnoted and so overwhelmingly convincing, at 57 I’m finally satisfied I know what happened. Strange thing is, I now see that the important thing is the “why” instead of the “who” and “how.” Once you read Douglass’ impeccable dissertation as to “why,” the logistical details start to fade into irrelevance. After all, we’re 50 years down the road. The important thing is learning about the motivations and methods of those who can’t and won’t accept the will of the people. Would that the people were more interested in awareness of these secretive cabals than they are “Dancing With The Stars” and Kim Kardashian.

  7. Google Dorothy Kilgallen and Jack Ruby(Rubenstein), her interview with Ruby and almost immediate death upon return to NYC. Haven’t seen this before?! Oh, hell, just drink more Kool-Aid and trip into the rabbit hole.

    • Yes, Dorthy Kilgallen had the only one-on-one interview with Jack Ruby and, unfortunately, boasted that she was going to blow the case wide open. See Craig Roberts and John Armstrong, JFK: THE DEAD WITNESSES, summarizing the data on 100 witnesses who died strange, unusual, or deliberate deaths.

  8. Here are some reviews by experts whose names may be more familiar than is that of Trowbridge Ford. Even though Publishers Weekly faulted me for including my correspondence with the Department of Justice, that is actually one of the most striking features of the book because it displays that DoJ has no interest in the scientific evidence about JFK.

    “ASSASSINATION SCIENCE is a watershed. Past and future assassination
    studies will have to be read through the painstakingly logical lens
    with which it scrutinizes the murder of John Kennedy. The contributors
    collectively offer an exhaustively documented and tightly reasoned
    argument bound to give the most loyal defender of the Warren
    Commissioners or Gerald Posner pause for thought. There is no
    sentimentalism or sensationalism here, even though the web of
    bureaucratic roadblocks and deceit encountered by Fetzer in his
    investigations would make for an exciting thriller. Instead, the
    cool clinical breeze of rigorous thinking blows throughout.”
    –Kerry Walters, Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Gettysburg College

    “ASSASSINATION SCIENCE -particularly Dr. David Mantik’s chapter
    on the Zapruder film-constitutes a significant addition to the
    literature on the JFK assassination. Those who believe that the
    Zapruder film (characterized by some as the closest thing to ‘absolute
    truth’ when it comes to the shooting) is unimpeachable are in for a
    surprise. In addition, the publication of certain documents (such as
    the full text of the White House transcript of the Dallas doctors’
    11/22/63 press conference), as well as Fetzer’s musings about what
    is knowable and the record of his jousting with the establishment
    (from the New York Times to the Justice Department) all make
    interesting reading.”
    –David S. Lifton, Author of BEST EVIDENCE

    “Although certain to provoke further controversy, this book supplies
    important scientific assessments of the medical evidence laid before
    the Warren Commission, together with a valuable narrative account of
    the American Medical Association’s entry into this contentious field.
    I was particularly gripped by compelling new arguments that the
    Zapruder film had been altered along with related documentation
    concerning the Warren Commission’s re-enactment of the shooting in
    Dealey Plaza.”
    –Peter Dale Scott, Author of DEEP POLITICS AND THE DEATH OF JFK.

    “Every serious student of the Kennedy assassination should read
    this excellent compilation of articles, which disssect and destroy
    The Warren Commission Report in a meticulous, objective, and analytical
    manner. The authors are all accomplished professionals and their
    investigative studies unquestionably shift the evidentiary burden
    to those who through ignorance, naiveté, or conscious
    pro-government bias continue to defend The Warren Commission Report,
    the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”
    –Cyril Wecht, M.D., J.D., Past President, American Academy
    of Forensic Sciences


    “This is an extremely technical book on aspects of the Kennedy
    assassination and therefore probably for buffs only, though the
    accumulation of carefully researched detail will impress those with
    an open mind. Fetzer, a professor of philosophy at the University of
    Minnesota, takes the position that thorough and disinterested scientific
    research cannot but conclude that more than one assassin was involved.
    He asserts that attempts were made to falsify the president’s autopsy
    records, and that the Zapruder film of the assassination was tampered
    with when it was in government hands, both in an effort to eliminate
    evidence of a second shooter. He offers detailed papers by, among others,
    Charles Crenshaw, the doctor who treated the president immediately before
    he died, and by David Livingston, a brain surgeon [NOTE: here the author
    conflates the names of David Mantik and Robert B. Livingston], and bitterly
    attacks the Journal of the American Medical Association, which, he charges,
    became an apologist for the lone assassin theory. The discussion of the
    Zapruder film is especially noteworthy, and the book is marred only by
    reproductions of Fetzer’s many letters of protest to the Justice Department,
    the New York Times and everyone else he felt distorted the truth”
    (PUBLISHERS WEEKLY, 13 October 1997).

  9. Here is a summary overview of ASSASSINATION SCIENCE (1998) to which eleven (11) experts contributed:

    An Overview

    Assassination Science provides a collection of studies by physicians, scientists, and other serious students that is intended to place the investigation of the death of JFK on an objective and scientific foundation. The contributors are among the best-qualified individuals to ever examine the medical and the photographic evidence in this case, including a world authority on the human brain who is also an expert on wound ballistics, a physician with a Ph.D. in physics who is also board certified in radiation oncology, a philosopher who is an expert on critical thinking and also a former Marine Corps officer, a physician who attended both the dying President and Lee Harvey Oswald at Parkland Hospital, a leading expert on the photographic evidence who served as a special advisor to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA), and other highly-qualified students of the assassination of JFK.

    Assassination Science is distinctive among works on the assassination of President Kennedy for several reasons, First, it is the only collaborative study that brings together the original work of physicians, scientists, and other serious students: there are eleven contributors, rather than only one. Thus, readers have the benefit of exposure to the research efforts of multiple investigators who set forth their findings in clear and accessible language. Second, it includes the most important studies of the medical evidence since the publication of David Lifton’s Best Evidence in 1980 and the most important studies of the Zapruder film ever presented. These results completely undermine previous investigations of the death of JFK, including especially the official government inquiries of the Warren Commission and of the HSCA.

    Third, it provides the only comprehensive and detailed critique and response to a series of articles published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in 1962-63. These articles, which were based upon interviews with the physicians who performed the autopsy at Bethesda Naval Hospital, were hyped by the Editor-in-Chief of JAMA, George Lundberg, M.D., who proclaimed that they were being welcomed into the “peer reviewed” literature on the assassination, in spite of the fact that they had not been refereed by experts on the crime and he knew that at the time. Nevertheless, they received enormous attention by the national press, even though they were based upon the selection and elimination of evidence to provide a biased report in support of a predetermined conclusion.

    Fourth, it reports a and explains the most important scientific findings in the history of the study of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy, which include:

    * the discovery that some autopsy X-rays have been fabricated to conceal a massive blow-out to the back of the head caused by a shot from in front;

    * the discovery that other autopsy X-rays have been altered by the imposition of a 6.5 mm metal object that was not present on the original X-rays;

    * the discovery that diagrams and photographs that are supposed to be of the brain of JFK must be of the brain of someone other than John Kennedy;

    * the discovery that the President alone was hit by at least four shots: one to his throat (fired from in front), one to his back (fired from behind) and two to his head (fired from behind and from in front);

    * the discovery that the official “magic bullet ” theory cannot possibly be true;

    * the discovery that an absolute minimum of at least six shots were fired in Dealey Plaza during the assassination;

    * the discovery that the Zapruder film of the assassination, which has been viewed as the nearest thing to “absolute truth” by some, has been extensively edited using highly sophisticated techniques;

    * the discovery that Lee Harvey Oswald appears to have been framed using manufactured evidence, including the back-yard photograph;

    * the discovery that the Warren Commission inquiry was a political charade featuring -a phoney bullet -a phoney limo -phoney wounds.

    Fifth, it reports and records repeated efforts to bring these discoveries to the attention of the American people, including a national press conference held in New York City on 18 November 1993, which explained many of these findings and how they were discovered, but which the nation’s newspapers have yet to print; strenuous and repeated attempts by telephone, letter, and fax to convince the American Broadcast Network (including Nightline and ABC WORLD NEWS WITH PETER JENNINGS) to cover this story that were without success; repeated efforts to inform the nation’s leading newspaper, The New York Times, that its coverage of the assassination, including book reviews and even obituaries, was biased and irresponsible, but which The Times has chosen to completely ignore.

    Sixth, it reports and records repeated and strenuous efforts to bring these new findings and discoveries, which completely undermine previous investigations by the federal government, to the attention of the Department of Justice. The correspondence between James H. Fetzer, Ph.D., and Mary Spearing, Chief of the General Litigation and Legal Advice Section, provides a case study of the difficulties encountered in the pursuit of justice in a bureaucracy. In spite of his best efforts, he was unable to convince the Justice Department that the new findings concerning the fabrication of the X-rays and the substitution of diagrams and of photographs dictate a reinterpretation of the evidence in this case, even though previous government inquiries took for granted that this evidence was authentic.

    Seventh, it reports and records sustained efforts by American citizens to contribute their time and their talents to clarifying the nature of what has previously been assumed to be the “best evidence” in this case in an effort to bring closure to the American people. The members of this group, including distinguished scientists and recognized authorities within their respective fields, have sought to fill the vacuum created by the failure of the government to adequately investigate the assassination and to compensate for the dismal record of the press by reporting new discoveries that appear to demonstrate conclusively that there was a large-scale conspiracy and cover-up by the government in the death of JFK.

    The studies published here are thus intended to convey at least three general lessons. One, that even journals as prestigious as JAMA are not immune from political abuse, indications of which abound with respect to its coverage of the medical evidence in this case. Two, that new discoveries, including scientific findings of fundamental importance, continue to be made, supporting the possibility that truth is not beyond our grasp. Three, that journals, newspapers, and agencies on which we all depend do not always serve the people’s interests. The pursuit of truth, the protection of justice, and the preservation of democratic institutions require eternal vigilance. As long as we are ignorant, we are not free.

  10. Just the usual stuff I have come to expect from Jim Fetzer – the guy who sent me a copy of Assassination Science unsolicited, and then a copy of Richard E. Sprague’s “The Taking of America” where he stated: “Whether Nixon was directly involved in the PCG’s planning of the assassination is still open to question, although one researcher believes that he was.(10)” (p. 78)
    (10.) Trowbridge Ford, Holy Cross College, Boston MA, Several papers and arttcles.

    In that material; I mentioned Nixon deliberately going to Dallas right before the assassination, and claiming that he needed no protection, though The Dallas Morning News had published a Robert Baskin article on October 20th, stating that he and Dallas Representative Bruce Alger had been receiving threatening post cards from Dallas, Fort Worth, and Irving, Texas, by a person thought to be a sociopath, and another article by Baskin, stating that the Cuban Missile Crisis was starting again after a 13-month delay – indicating that there would be some kind on showdown on November 22nd.

    The post card writer, it seems, could only have been LHO, and still Nixon chose to go there. While there, Nixon attended to Bottler’s Convention without apparently any protection or purpose, right across the street from the Trade Mart where JFK would give a speech on the fatal day. Then DMN had a story, entitled “Guard not for Nixon,” highlighted on the upper right-hand corner of the front page.

    This is what Sprague added right after the footnote to my work: “There certainly is substantial evidence that Nixon was out to at least politically sink Kennedy and Johnson, and aimed to do so in Dallas immediately before Kennedy was killed.” (ibid.)

    Instead of talking about this and more, Fetzer has claimed that he doesn’t have a clue about me, and things were really reversed with LBJ bragging after an alleged meeting that Nixon attended the night before that he would be JFK’s replacement by the next night,

    Think I shall have to post my article about how LBJ finally managed a fight back against Nixon in January 1973 after he had been re-elected, and somehow died while he was being taken back to Texas on Air Force One.

    • Well, if you had read ASSASSINATION SCIENCE, you might know more than you do. That exchange was years and years ago, Trowbridge. I have been trying to recollect where I knew your name. I have a response to an earlier question about Richard Nixon. And I am unclear. Do you think the backyard photographs are actually authentic?

  11. I want to add what lawyer MARK LANE proved to a Judge and Jury in 1985 (carefully unreported by our major “news” media). Lane’s (self-published) book is: “PLAUSIBLE DENIAL. Was the CIA Involved in the Assassination of JFK?” About the Hunt vs Spotlight re-trial.

    Lane provided evidence that Hunt (as paymaster) and the CIA, carried out the murder of JFK. The Judge and Jury awarded the Spotlight and Lane the victory in the “libel” case – and demanded Congress investigate the CIA’s role in the murder of JFK. Many national media reporters were present (especting the Spotlight to lose) – but not one word of the above was reported by them to the American public. No internet then. Only people who read Lane’s book or subscribed to the “Spotlight” weekly, were aware of the preceding.

    MARITA LORENZ’ testimony was presented to the Jury. Marita was recruited into the CIA by FRANK STURGIS. Marita became Castro’s lover and fathered his child. The day before Kennedy’s speech in Dallas, Marita was invited along from Florida by CIA friends. She rode in the first of 2 CIA cars. (She learned later that a passenger in the 2nd car was a “Lee Oswald.”)

    At a Dallas hotel cocktail party with CIA agents the day before Kennedy’s speech, she saw Oswald (who she didn’t know) mingling with the agents. Another visitor arrived to join in. (She also didn’t know who he was until days later when she realized it was Jack Ruby.)

    That night at a hotel room she saw Hunt hand envelopes (of money?) to several individuals who briefly came to the door.

    The day after Kennedy’s assassination Sturgis proudly told her: “We got him!”

    Stone’s JFK movie was originally supposed to be about the Hunt vs Spotlight re-trial (establishing the FBI’s and Hunt’s complicity in the murder). Lane was working with the script writers until Stone (apparently pressured) arrived one day – announced to Lane that he had to include OTHER “versions” in the script. Lane quickly realized the Hunt-Spotlight trial would be excluded – and quit the enterprise. The Hunt-Spotlight trial, orginally supposed to be THE main story, was absent from Stone’s final JFK film.

    • Dick, I appreciate your posts. The question, I believe, was whether Hunt was in Dallas, not whether he had killed JFK. His “Last Confessions” includes the admission that he was there but as a “back bencher” who was not called upon to participate in the actual shooting. See “The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt”, ROLLING STONE. He identified LBJ, Cord Meyer, David Atlee Phillips, William Harvey, David Sanchez Morales, and others involved. See Another of the bones of contention among students of JFK is whether Hunt was the third of the “tramps” escorted through Dealey Plaza. This article includes photos of Hunt and the third tramp. Notice that Hunt’s right ear bends inward, but the right ear of the tramp does not. Jack White and I have long differed about this question, but I am convinced that the third tramp was not Hunt but Chauncey Marvin Holt, who had prepared 15 sets of forged Secret Service credentials for use in and around Dealey Plaza. I knew both Madeleine Duncan Brown and Chauncey Holt, both of whom seem to me to be completely authentic. But I believe that Sturgis was there and fired the shots that hit John Connally.

  12. Sorry Jim but you are incorrect. Greer killed Kennedy and anyone who knows anything about ballistics knows that the “head shot” came from the front.

    • Listen, DDL, I have friends who also believe that Greer shot JFK. But he was sitting to the right/front in relation to JFK, whose brains were blown out to the left/rear, as I have explained. We have gone back to the medical evidence and found that a bullet entered his right temple. Tell us more about your theory that Greer shot JFK, if you like, but we can account for the wounds he sustained without it. I discussed the Greer hypothesis as long ago as the 4.5 hour documentary, “JFK: The Assassination, the Cover-Up, and Beyond” (1994), so I am not averse to discussing it. What is your scenario? What do you believe was the caliber of the weapon that Greer used? Where did it hit JFK? What happened to the debris? How did his body react to having been hit from short range by such a massive round? Why have none of the passengers in the limo, especially Jackie, said anything about it? And would Kellerman, for example, have suffered ear damage from the loud report so close to where he was sitting? I am not suggesting there are no answers to these questions. I have some myself. But I am interested in what you take to be the evidence that supports your conclusion. There is no doubt, by the way, that Greer, after pulling the limo to a halt, watched JFK until he was dead and only then drove off. So spell it out and we can discuss it more.

  13. Oh… my… God.

    We, in America, can see it all around us. Geist, Freude, Gesundheit und Schönheit. Those evil Nazis have got us by our shorts, and the Fourth Reich is already here.

    Lord, have mercy!

    • What kind of nitwit are you, John Sumner? I can hardly believe you are posting this drivel under your own name. Do you have no sense of personal pride? Is your next post going to be praising Hany Farid? I can hardly wait.

      • Mr. Fetzer,

        I apologize for the obnoxious nature of my above comments. I had tried repeatedly to ask you to describe how America is being “Nazified,” and to explain how the “Fourth Reich” is on its way, under the last article that you co-authored. Those requests were not posted. So, I thought I would try to be short and rude to see if such comments would be posted instead. Indeed, they were. Strange.

        I am not trying to flatter you, nor get you to think that I am not a “nitwit,” but I have enjoyed and respected much of your work, as well as your kind nature, which has been displayed in some of the interviews that you have done, and that I have listened to. And I fear that such work could be viewed as less than serious when you write about the machinations of the “Fourth Reich,” and when you claim that America is being “Nazified.” It is as if you believe in the merciless, dishonest and hypocritical anti-German propaganda that has been pounded into to us for decades– propaganda that has, by and large, been shown to be quite nearly empty. I use the term “anti-German” rather than “anti-Nazi” deliberately.

        When I look around this country, the words “Third Reich” do not pop into my mind. There is next to no emphasis on the importance of beauty, civility, order and human dignity, especially for us lowly manual workers. The health, stability and happiness of our citizens is a pathetically low priority. Our lovely leaders have not even tried to convincingly pretend to care about the people of this nation for decades. And our economy is not based on people, creativity, production and actual work, but rather the black magic of finance and debt, a set-up that, time and again, radically benefits a sliver of the population– a sliver in which one small group of people has, time and again, an inordinate and amazing amount of representation.

        Would you, please, explain what you mean by “Nazification” and the “Fourth Reich”?

        Regardless, I hope you are doing well. Take care.

        • John, we have turned into a nation dominated by corporations, which have spun out of control. I do many interviews that deal with this issue, where our nation is no longer “the land of the free and the home of the brave”. We have become a surveillance society. Check out some of Jesse Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” shows, for example, or Jim Marrs’ THE FOURTH REICH. I will expand on this, but I cannot say how much I appreciate this post. Those who are willing to admit mistakes are few and far between.

          • Thanks, Mr. Fetzer. I also believe that we have become a surveillance society. The evidence for this is unequivocal.

            All the best.

          • I have to agree with John Sumner. Firstly, the German Third Reich was NOT dominated by corporations, and those that did exist were harnessed to benefit the people. Keep in mind that workers, farmers and university students counted among Adolf Hitler’s biggest supporters. Secondly, there was no oppressive surveillance society in Germany; but obviously there was a legitimate concern about the spread of bankster-funded, genocidal Marxism which had decimated the populations of eastern Europe, so some attention was needed to prevent it from infecting Germany and western Europe. But, the German “surveillance” was nothing compared to that of the judeo-marxist Cheka and NKVD (see videos on YouTube about it) of the Soviet Union.

            Authors who push “Nazification of America” narratives are either uninformed about the topic or are paid by Zionist/Marxist publishers/producers to divert people’s attention away from the real culprits…which, coincidentally, are the same culprits that pillaged Germany before and after Adolf Hitler’s rather popular tenure.

            If you want real information, then see IHR.

            In addition, here’s a YouTube channel that will help you:
   (.) com/user/THELINDGRENN

            The writings of Ernst and Ingrid Zuendel are of course also considered very reliable.

            Regards, and all the best to you!

          • Well, maybe you are unfamiliar with Operation Paperclip, which brought thousands of Nazis into the American government, many into our own intelligence agencies. We of course have our own indigenous version, so I was not suggesting that the parallel was exact, but it seems to be close enough. The creation of the Department of Homeland Security was a very telling sign, where the US version supports Israeli influence upon our government. Indeed, the comparison of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is highly comparable to that of the Nazis and the Jews. I wrote some time back that, when Jews start acting like Nazis, we are in trouble. And that has been the case for a long time now. Benito Mussolini defined “corporatism” as the merger of big business with big government, where nationalism and militarism are rampant and the leader is deified to the extent that any criticism of him is regarded as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

            Mussolini ought to know. And that certainly was the prevailing attitude during the administration of George W. Bush, in case S. Gruber didn’t notice. Mussolini added that corporatism was also known by another name–fascism! So I am not impressed by S. Gruber’s commentary and I find it fascinating that he would suggest anyone who offers these observations is either uninformed or paid by his Zionist/Marxist masters to divert attention from the true culprits, who, in the case of 9/11, in my opinion, appear to be the neo-cons in the Department of Defense and their friends in the Mossad, as I have explained in “9/11 and the Neo-Con Agenda” and “Is 9/11 research ‘anti-Semitic’?” I am sorry, but those who display these kinds of bias are completely unreliable as critics. Anyone who doubts that we are devolving into a fascistic police-state should watch some of the shows being broadcast on Jesse Ventura’s “Conspiracy Theory” and study the growth of “fusion centers” here in the USA.

          • Thanks for these comments. The Files case is most interesting. When his “confession” tape was first released, I was invited by a local TV affiliate to review it for them, which I did. In my opinion, 80% of what he says about the assassination is correct. But the idea that he could have been introduced into the event as a shooter that very day verges on absurdity. This was meticulously planned to the last detail and no one would have been brought in at the last minute like this. Plus when he describes taking his shot, he does not mention that the limo was brought to a halt by the driver, William Greer, to make sure JFK would be killed. I therefore infer he was not there. The weapon he describes, the Remingon ‘fireball’, however, interests me greatly and may have been the weapon used to hit him in the right temple, assuming it was with a frangible bullet, which set up shock waves that blew his brains out the back of his head to the left/rear..

  14. The story of LHO and the Kennedy assination goes much deeper then this. Besides LHO being involved in the “galloping cancer virus” destined for Cuba, and more accurately, Castro, LHO and Ruby were childhood friends, Ruby had obviously been MK-Ultra’d into shooting Oswald, and then himself, injected with the galloping cancer virus after he won his second trial. Over 200 people very close to the motorcade were murdered or had “accidents” or were “suicided” within two years after Kennedys killing. Want to know why? Because they knew the shots were fired from “INSIDE” the car. So let’s skip all of this “stuff” that most of us researchers already know and get to the meat of the subject:
    Kennedy’s protecter and driver, SS agent Willaim Greer shot and killed Kennedy. One only has to watch even the most doctored of the Zapruder film to see it for yourselves. It’s all slight of hand like any magic trick, while you are watching Kennedy, waiting for the infamous “head shot” you aren’t paying any attention to his SS agent driver. That’s the slick part of their plan – again, TPTB hide their evil deeds in plain sight of anyone who’s willing to open their eyes. It’s time to open yours. Ready?
    1. Mary Moorman: school teacher standing next to Jean Hill. She stated she saw Greer shooting back, but thought he was shooting back and the assassin. (Warren Commission taped interview)
    2. Jean Hill: She saw what happened too, but when she brought up the subject of a gun being fired from within the car, satanist, Arlen Spector (33 degree freemason) changed the subject and never allowed it into evidence.
    3. Austin P Miller: Who stood on the railway overpass overlooking Elm Street was asked by (satanist) Arlen Spector where the shots came from, his reply was, “From right inside the car.”
    4. Clinton J Hill: Jaaqueline Kennedy’s bodyguard reports in Vol. II, pp 138-139 of the Warren Commission, “I jumped from the car, realizing that something was wrong and ran to the presidential limousine. Just as I reached it, there was another sound. I think I described it in my statement as though someone was shooying a revolver into a hard object, it seemed to have an echo.”
    5. Hugh Betzner: Had picture published in Life magazine and was standing right next to the drivers side of the motorcade: He saw a gun in the hand of one of the SS agents and heard a sound like firecrackers going off IN THE CAR.”
    What really happened? SS agent William Greer turns to his right with his left hand and shoots John Connally ( LBJ’s little boy) by mistake – the Connally’s then duck to give Greer the clear shot to finish the job. Greer’s second shot is the fatal “head shot” that kills President Kennedy.
    Watch the Z-film, and just watch the driver – totally in plain sight.

    • Well, DDL believes that Greer shot Kellerman. The problem with that theory, alas, is that Greer was to the left/front of JFK, which means that his brains should have been blow out to the right/rear. I agree about the testimony he cites, which is not inaccurate (with a few exaggerations here and there, such as in the case of Jean Hill), but the weight of the evidence is against it. JFK was hit in the throat (from in front); he was hit in the back about 5 1/2 inches below the collar (from behind); and in the head twice (from behind near the EOP; and from in front about the right temple). His brains were blown out so hard that Officer Hargis, riding to the left/rear, thought at first that he himself had been shot. I don’t know why DDL needs to come on so strong with all of this business about Greer, when the article is about framing the patsy; but the ballistics and the blow-out to the left/rear contradict him.

      • I am a huge fan of Judyth Vary Baker, by the way, whom I have interviewed several times on “The Real Deal” and have blogs about her. Those who might find her story (of coming to New Orleans to study medicine and being diverted into a research project to develop a rapid-acting cancer, but then becoming involved with Lee Oswald as well), might like some 15 YouTube interviews I have done with her, which are on JamesFetzerNews, DR. MARY’S MONKEY by Ed Haslam and ME AND LEE by Judyth Vary Baker cast an entirely new light on the alleged assassin.

  15. Nixon and bush senior were in dallas that day.

    • So was Hitler, who really escaped the bunker, and who really was guilty of all the horrible things we have heard about endlessly from the same people who regard as heroes the figures who literally (and purposely) burned hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians alive around the globe with their super planes and bombs.

      Damn those evil, UFO-flying, death-defying Nazis!

      • What am I supposed to do with infantile posts like this one? If John Sumner doesn’t care about the death of JFK, why is he posting here?

    • Wallytron, You are way ahead of DDL and John Sumner by making a post that is both relevant and true. There is a lot to the story about both of them, which I no doubt will get around to with time. Thank you for NOT putting up a juvenile post or a mistaken one. Good work!

  16. Well, TJ, his remark is no more coherent than yours. I don’t understand it any more than I do yours.

  17. It certainly looks odd, doesn’t it? In HSCA testimony, which we cite, Jack White talks a lot about the shadows.

  18. No. Actually, Nixon was in Dallas and flew out of Love Field just a few hours before JFK flew in. He was at (what I take to be) the ratification party the night before at the home of Clint Murchison, where he had been driven by a prominent local Republican leader who worked in the same bank building with Madeleine Duncan Brown, a comely advertising executive who began an affair with Lyndon in 1948 and bore him a son, Steven, in 1950. It was a small event with only perhaps a couple of dozen, including J. Edgar Hoover, who often stayed with Murchison en route to the Del Mar Race Track in California. Others included George Brown of Brown & Root, heavy construction, and John J. McCloy, a former CEO of Chase Manhattan Bank, who had served as our High Commissioner in Germany after WWII. Late in the evening, Lyndon appeared unexpectedly and these heavy hitters disappeared into a boardroom for 15 or 20 minutes. When their meeting broke up, Lyndon strode toward Madeleine, while she expected to hear sweet nothings, but instead he told her in a hateful tone of voice that, after tomorrow, he would not have to put up with embarrassment from those Kennedy boys any longer. About six weeks later, during a rendezvous on New Year’s Eve at the Driskill Hotel in Austin, Texas, she confronted him with rumors, rampant in Dallas at the time, that he had been involved, since no one had more to gain personally. He blew up at her and told her that the oil boys and the CIA had decided that JFK had to be taken out. She wrote about this in her book, TEXAS IN THE MORNING, where Billy Sol Estes, A TEXAS LEGEND, Barr McClellan, BLOOD, MONEY & POWER, and E. Howard Hunt’s “Last Confessions” support her regarding LBJ’s complicity. The new book by Phillip Nelson, LBJ: MASTERMIND OF JFK’S ASSASSINATION, is by far the best on Lyndon. Nigel Turner, who produced the series, “The Men Who Killed Kennedy”, did a ninth segment entitled “The Guilty Men”, in which some of the evidence incriminating Lyndon was presented, including the driver who brought Edgar to the home and the chef who prepared the food. But it was too hot. Lady Bird and others brought pressure on The History Channel, which had originally broadcast it, to disavow it, which was done in a sham event with three historians who knew next to nothing about the assassination but were certain that Lyndon could not have done it! Nixon was not only in Dallas, therefore, but even participated in the ratification meeting to go ahead with the assassination, where it was important to involve him, since he was likely to become President and none of those involved wanted to be held accountable for this monstrous crime in any way. He was also quoted in The Dallas Morning News that day as saying that he thought JFK was not going to run with LBJ in 1964, which was a decision that Jack had already made and shared with a few.

  19. TJ Bronco You are partially right , Nixon found out about the JFK assassination in a taxi cab in front of Radio City in New York ,However this taxi picked him up at LaGuardia Airport , NIXON was coming back from DALLAS where he was with Donald Kendall president of Pepsi Cola at the bottlers convention in Dallas Market Hall in the morning of November 22 , that is why Kennedy had to go to the Trade Mart instead, because Market Hall had the bottlers conventions (8000 guests). The night before the Assassination he was a guest at Clint Murchinson House (the Oil industry millionaire) J Edgar Hoover and Lindon Johnson were there as well it was confirmed by Madeleine Brown (LBJ mistress,who I met in 1993 she confirmed that LBJ knew that Kennedy was going to get assassinated, she died a few years ago but what she said about LBJ is very well documented) Check Madeleine Brown confession on Youtube.
    George H.W Bush was at the time President of Zapata Offshore Drilling Company in Houston TX and was also working for the CIA (he became Director of the CIA later on, under Gerald Ford) his address was 5525 Briar Houston TX his Office Tel number was CA 2-0395 and indeed BUSH was in Dallas on November 21 & 22 1963 he was staying at the Sheraton Dallas Hotel and left on November 23 the following day, It was actually confirmed by his wife Barbara Bush in 1994 in her book “Barbara Bush: A memoir


  20. Well, I think we are talking about a .45, which is not a pool ball and would not behave as you describe. I have invited DDL to elaborate on his theory. The hypothesis that Greer shot JFK has been around a long time and is one of the most controversial in the history of the study of the assassination, so we can discuss it further here.

  21. Another interesting aspect is when they could not talk RFK into waiting till 72 to run for President. After Bobby was in Lyndon came out with will not seek, nor accept the Nomination for President in 68, no doubt so that questions were not raised about JFK, and Lyndon when Bobby was killed. He had nothing to gain, on the surface that is.

    Another clip to see, is when McNamara was resigning so tearfully, the look on LBJ’s face left no doubt in my mind he could kill with no problem. I think LBJ thought he was just going to spill major beans, and he just looked like he wanted to wring his neck.

    The last time I seen LBJ alive on some TV interview he looked like some hippie, or even like some hip version of George Washington with his long white hair. He seemed in great shape, and what was shocking was when he said he thought JFK was killed by a conspiracy, then he died a few days later. I am sure he was just another lose end, that was still P.Oed about having to stand down in 68.

    Great article Jim, and Jim


  23. Nixon was a lawyer for Pepsi so that was his legit reason for being there right before the assassination. If it was a cover for another more important meeting we’ll probably never know.

  24. Rey, you are wrong. Nixon was in Dallas and even attended the ratification meeting at the home of Clint Murchison the night before. I have explained that in an earlier post in this very thread. I think you should be more respectful of others who post, who might be inclined to say the same of you. It was one of Nixon’s clumsy attempts at covering up his role that he used the learned-in-a-taxi story.

  25. Thanks, TJ. Earlaiman doesn’t consider it important to expose that the backyard photos were faked? that the Dallas Police Department appears to have been involved in faking them? that one of them was on the cover of LIFE and used to incriminate him in the minds of most Americans? that it should not have been necessary to frame a guilty man? that this is the most important murder in American history? that disinfo about it continues to this day? that even institutions as prestigious as Dartmouth are not immune from being used to promote the cover-up? I really don’t understand how some here can be so incapable of appreciating the depth of exposure of complicity by government officials in this case. For an introduction, see “Dealey Plaza Revisited: What happened to JFK?”, and pay special attention to the points that I make right off the bat about the Mannlicher-Carcano, Oswald’s location at the time, the results of the nitrate test, and the arrest report! Has anyone else ever been framed this blatantly in history? And here’s the link:

  26. TJ, Texas Gov. Waggoner Carr launched his own investigation and discovered that Oswald had been working as an informant for the FBI, that he had informant number 179, and that he was being paid $200 a month right up to the assassination. The Warren Commission held an emergency meeting in January 1964 and assigned one of its attorneys to investigate. He would report back that they were just “false rumors”, when they appear to have been true:

    An excellent summary of the case is here:
    Notice, in particular, that, in the wake of the resurgence of interest in the case generated by Oliver Stone’s “JFK”, Congress passed a JFK Records Act that created a five-person civilian panel with the authority to declassify documents and records held by the CIA, the FBI, Secret Service, and so forth. They managed to release 60,000 documents and records, which included revelations such as these:

    * A transcript of a phone call between President Johnson and FBI Director Hoover from the morning after the assassination, wherein Hoover informed LBJ that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City. The tape of this phone call has been erased.

    * In response to a cable reporting Oswald’s call to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City, CIA HQ cabled back false information about Oswald to its own CIA station there. One of the cabling officers said in 1995: “I’m signing off on something I know isn’t true,” and said this indicated “a keen interest in Oswald held very closely on the need to know basis.”

    * Acknowledgment by the CIA that at least one defector to the Soviet Union was part of a false defector program.

    * Revelations of CIA relationships with many of the “independent” writers on the case, including Priscilla Johnson, Hugh Aynesworth, writers at the Miami Herald, and others. In New Orleans grand jury testimony,

    *Marina Oswald stated that the Secret Service warned her to stay away from Ruth Paine, who was “sympathizing with the CIA. She wrote letters over there…”

    * Capt. Will Fritz’ contemporaneous notes of an interview with Oswald on Nov 22, in which Oswald provided an alibi for his whereabouts at lunch.

    * A contact report from Dr. Burkley’s lawyer to the HSCA, saying that his client (JFK’s personal physician) had information that “others besides Oswald must have participated.”

    * Documents showing that the HSCA had tested the Navy camera which was supposed to have taken JFK’s autopsy photographs, and it failed the authenticity tests.

    * HSCA interviews of autopsy witnesses directly contradicting the depictions of wounds presented by the medical panel; the interviews were suppressed and misrepresented by the HSCA.

    * A sworn interview with Saundra Kay Spencer, who developed the JFK autopsy photos, in which she declared that the photos in the Archives are not the ones she developed. Autopsy photographer John Stringer similarly disavowed the supplemental autopsy brain photographs.

    * Papers on “Operation Northwoods,” a proposed program to initiate real and simulated attacks on the U.S. and blame them on Castro, as a pretext for invading Cuba.

    * Plans for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam drawn up in the spring of 1963.

    As for the Bush family, “If the American people really knew what we had done, we would be chased down the street and lynched.” — President George H.W.Bush to White House correspondent Sara McClendon, 1992. Personally, I have no doubt that it is true. The history of this clan is long, sordid and treacherous.

  27. Bruce, not only do we know about the meeting, but I outlined it in another post here. I had over 100 conversations with Madeleine Duncan Brown and interviewed her for the JFK Lancer Dallas Conference in 1998 or 1999. (The interview is available through Lancer Productions.) Lydon had set her up for life, but when he died, Lady Bird cut her off. The safe deposit box in which legal documents establishing her trust were secured was yanked out of the wall! After that, she was not quite destitute but had very limited resources. She was an important witness and the real deal.

Comments are closed


Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Join Our Daily Newsletter
  View Newsletter ARCHIVE


  1. Washington Redskins: Time to Honor our First Nation
  2. Israeli Prime Minister Insults Intelligence of U.S. Christians
  3. NEO – The Real Reason NATO is Courting Georgia
  4. Janes: ISIS Killing “Indistructable” M1A Abrams Tanks
  5. Sandy Hook: My pick of the “Top Ten” articles / videos / interviews
  6. How Egyptians view Muslim Brotherhood(exclusive video)
  7. Two military service awards for Vietnam War era draftees and volunteers
  8. Will ISIS Create al-Sham Caliphate and Liberate Palestine?
  9. America’s Make Believe Democracy – Subversion from Within
  10. Bush & Blair: Blackmailed pedophiles or just war criminals?
  11. The ISIS Crisis – Have the Sunnis Unleashed an Uncontrollable Genie?
  12. Palestinians Must Be Stopped!
  13. Breaking – Major military columns enter Lugansk from border area
  14. The U.S. Trained Terrorist Group ISIS in 2012
  15. US, Israel, KSA trio back ISIL violence: Analyst
  16. George HW Bush Inslaw Back Door Spying Stew Webb Press TV
  17. RCMP Whistle Blower Exposes Bad Policing in Moncton Shooter Fiasco
  18. A good 5¢ cigar and other urgent needs for America
  19. Is ISIL really Sunni?
  20. My Dinner in Homs on Election Day
  1. wolf: Does this mean the MRAP's of the DHS have a vulnerability too? ...hmm...
  2. wolf: Yeah 'Redskins' is definitely politically incorrect. So I've been trying to come up with a team name descriptive of what is done in that know, like Pittsburgh has the ...
  3. DaveE: BRAVO! Well said. As the late comedian Bill Hicks said, "Hitler was right. Too bad he was such an underachiever." When you think ...
  4. Gwenyth Todd: Any time. And I do not think I know everything, so feel free to identify any holes in my statements. And I agree re Dubya. I would throw ...
  5. truthman: This little pimple on the ass of the world in the middle east had grown to be the most annoying and worrisome country (and it's not even a country at ...

Veterans Today Poll

Who are behind deadly attacks by ISIL and Baathists in Iraq?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...