Tag Archives: politics

Litwin reviews “Six Seconds in Dallas”

mattkprovideo.com/2026/08/18/15185/

On the Trail of Delusion, Episode 44,

A review of Josiah Thompson’s 1967 book: “Six Seconds in Dallas,” F

Fred Litwin’s blog: www.onthetrailofdelusion.com

Music by: Power Music Factory Channel URL : / powermusicfactory • [Suspense Music No Copyright]Suspense Back…

Edited in Adobe Premiere. Upscaled to 4K with “Topaz AI.” Motion graphics created with Adobe Photoshop and Adobe After Effects.

Welcome to another edition of On the Trail of Delusion,

where I try to give you something substantial on the JFK assassination rather than some of the usual nonsense you see on the internet and on YouTube.

And please, if you like this presentation, then please hit the subscribe button. We appreciate your support.
Well, today I thought I’d do something a little different. Well, we’ve actually done this once before, but today I want to do a review of Josiah Thompson’s Six Seconds in Dallas.

I thought it timely to to go through this book um and in a in a short video and sort of go through uh some of the strengths and some of the weaknesses. This book was published he end of November 1967, and the goal was to synthesize the evidence, new and old, and point the way to an emerging conclusion.

And so, Thompson tries very hard in this book to really give you another view of what happened during the shooting. Uh he has a reconstruction of the assassination in detail, um uh which is counter to to the Warren Commission. And Thompson comes to this with with uh some very, very good credentials. Uh he was helping with Life magazine’s reinvestigation of the assassination, and he had access to color enlargements of every frame of the Zapruder film. And that was something a lot of other people did not have, um was those really good reproductions. Um he wanted to put frames from the Zapruder film in his book, and he asked Life magazine, they said no, And so he he used uh sort of very good charcoal drawings in his book. Very very good drawings. And once the book came out, he was sued by Life magazine and they lost the case with the court saying that it was very it was fair use.

Um the book went out of print very very quickly and when I was investigating or when I started my work on the JFK assassination in 1975, the book was out of print. Couldn’t get a copy. And it it drove me crazy because you know on Geraldo Geraldo Rivera and all these other shows they started talking about the book Six Seconds in Dallas and I couldn’t get my hands on one. A

nd then I found out there was a copy of the book at McGill University, which is the major university in Montreal. I didn’t go to McGill, but one of my friends did. And so he took out a copy for me for two weeks and I read it and I was sort of really really wanted to get a copy. And shortly after that, I think in 1976 or so, the book came out in paperback format. Small paperback. And they actually put in the Zapruder frames and I bought a copy and back in the those days I was corresponding with Dr. Cyril Wecht and I told him in one of my letters that this book was now out in paperback. And he didn’t have a copy and I actually sent him a copy in the mail of Josiah Thompson’s Six Seconds in Dallas.

Thompson’s conclusions were that the assassins Oh, by the way, I should I should actually comment on the cover. And this is uh the Saturday Evening Post from 1967. This is December 2nd, 1967. Cover story Saturday Evening Post, major excerpt of the book in the magazine. And basically what happened was that this came out before the publication of the book and they loved Bernard Geis and Associates Associates. The publisher of the book loved this illustration, this picture of Kennedy. And this became the new cover. The the color graphic was so good that Bernard Geis trashed 25,000 book jackets just 1 week before its release costing them $2,000 and this became the the new cover of Six Seconds in Dallas. I haven’t seen what the old cover was. I don’t I’m not sure what what it was. So if we go back to uh Thompson’s conclusions. So Thompson concluded that there were three assassins who fired four shots at the motorcade. The first shot was fired from between Zapruder frame 215 to 224 from the Texas School Book Depository hitting Kennedy in the back and lodging there and then falling out during the autopsy. The second shot he claimed was fired from between Zapruder 234 to 238 and from the Dallas County Records Building and that was the shot that hit Connally and wounding his chest, wrist and thigh. The third shot at frame Z312 was fired from the Texas School Book Depository and hit JFK in the head pushing him slightly forward. Um and a fragment um from that exited his throat. Uh and the fourth shot one frame later at Z313 was fired from the grassy knoll and that hit hit JFK in the head pushing him back and to the left. He claimed that no shots missed and hence the title of the book, Six Seconds in Dallas. I mean if if he had concluded that the first shot had missed uh the book could have been titled 10 seconds in Dallas, but it’s nowhere near as catchy as 6 seconds in Dallas, and that in fact is one of the reasons why we everybody felt so constrained to believe that you know, this was 5.6 seconds were was the entire time length of the assassination. That’s just not true. The strength of his Thompson’s book was he really focused on the photographic evidence and of course particularly on the Zapruder film which he had access to. Um a very very big part of uh Thompson’s book was JFK’s head motion. This is an illustration from page 87 showing the forward motion of JFK’s head from frame 312 to 313 where he was obviously hit by a gunshot wound to the back of his head. And then from three at frame 313 to 316 um the the backward motion of Kennedy’s head which Thompson believes was from a shot from the grassy knoll. That was a major part of Thompson’s book, this double head motion of JFK. And here is a a diagram of his reconstruction of the assassination and you could see the three locations um and the four four shots um during the assassination. This book was very well received. Uh Max Lerner wrote in the New York Post that it was not until this book that I became clear in my mind about some collaborative shooting and about the trap that had been set for the president. And that was quite something. Max Lerner was a supporter of the Warren Report. He was a well-known columnist writing in a variety of newspapers, and this book really really clearly affected him. Diggy Deal wrote in the LA Times that it was the most forceful graphic and well-organized argument for reopening uh the assassination investigation. So people really felt this was well received and as I said, there was a major excerpt in the Saturday Evening Post and the editor, Bill Emerson, wrote upfront in the magazine an editor’s note about why he thought this was so important.

He says here, “With painstaking care and formidable logic, Thompson demolishes the Warren Report by building a case for three assassins and at least four bullets. It is not easy to get back into this horrible business, but we must do it.”

A very, very strong and powerful statement from the editor of the Saturday Evening Post.

But I have to say, there are some very, very big problems with this book and and I’m I’m not just saying it because I disagree with the book in 2026, but back then, a few people noticed some of the problems and George Hall, writing in the St. Louis Dispatch, wondered about the assassins.

He said, “Neither Mar or Thompson identifies the killers or provides a plausible framework for a conspiracy.

This is a major defect in every book that has been written since the Warren Report. No one has ever produced a single piece of positive evidence important enough to overthrow the Warren conclusions. All of the critical studies are based on inadequacies, real and imagined, in the Commission Report. They throw varying degrees of doubt on the Warren findings, they do not offer, in my opinion, anything better.” And I think that’s very, very true that nobody could identify the conspiracy and nobody could identify the positive evidence for both the conspiracy and the cover-up. Um if there was a massive cover-up, who was organizing it? Who was Who was in control? Where are the documents? How would Who was making the decisions? How were these decisions brought downstream to other people to to implement? We have There’s no positive evidence for such a cover-up. And the other thing in this book is that Lee Harvey Oswald is missing. Um Oswald may not have been the gunman in the sixth floor window. That during the shooting he was quite literally where he said he was on the first floor. That two conspirators other than Oswald may well have been in the sixth floor of the depository building during the shooting, but largely Oswald is missing from this book. He’s just not there. Um Thompson thinks he was on the first floor, but that’s it. There’s no There’s nothing else. Um the Tippit uh murder is not mentioned, not in the book at all. Uh the only mention of Jack Ruby in this book is the possibility that perhaps Ruby planted CE399. And Thompson does admit that Oswald’s rifle was used in the assassination. The Mannlicher-Carcano rifle fired shots from the Texas School Book Depository. Uh but somehow it wasn’t Oswald. How that rifle got in there, we don’t know. He also thinks that the Hughes film shows two men in the sixth floor window, and that the exit Those Those two men exited through the back of the building and then were picked up in the Rambler station wagon. And of course he references Roger Craig who had that testimony that he saw somebody, only one person, being picked up by a Rambler who he thought was Lee Harvey Oswald. In this case now, Thompson said he was picking up two men, um and probably not Oswald. There was one reporter from Scripps Howard who actually spoke to Thompson for his review, which was quite something to actually speak to the author. He said, “So, you don’t feel the need to explain why Oswald went to the movies?” And Thompson just replied, “No.”

The The other part of this book and is that beyond the photographic evidence, Thompson relies a lot on the eyewitness evidence. And he’s got gra He does a nice chart of where he shows you where all the witnesses are located in Daily Plaza, and he’s got a big chart um showing the identities of every witness and what they testified to. Um but he inflates the number of grassy knoll witnesses. So, for instance, Emmett Hudson, the Daily Plaza groundskeeper, said the shots came from behind and above me. Um Bobby Hargis testified the shots could have been coming from the railroad overpass, but I had a feeling they might have been from the Texas School Book Depository. Thompson says Robert Jackson is a knoll witness, even though he saw a gun in the window of the Texas School Book Depository. And he places several witnesses in the knoll category, even though they were unsure. I have a chart here that shows you some of the errors, some of his claims that he makes in his uh in the text, and some of the errors that I think uh in his uh clarification and in how he looks at these witnesses. And uh this will be up in my up in the notes, so you can get to a link to see this table um in its full dimension. The the other area which I have trouble with is here is his trajectory for the Connally hit. This is the shot was from the Records Building, Dallas County Records Building, and just hit Connally. And you know, he has the the limousine sort of positioned I I’m not sure if it’s the correct position, but I don’t I’d like to see what Dale Myers would have made of this in terms of looking from the other way around. Would this bullet have missed JFK? I I’m not so sure. There’s only like one eyewitness who says that the shots came from either the two buildings to the east of the Texas School Book Depository. Witnesses did not say shots came from the Dallas County Records Building. And where did this bullet go that hit Connally? Uh Thompson says it disappeared. It was missing. That’s all he could say. Somehow this this bullet never turned up or fragments from this bullet never turned up. And of course, um, he clearly doesn’t think this was CE399, which he thinks was planted at the hospital. And that CE399 was his magic bullet. Thompson actually has a magic bullet in his text and it’s CE399, which he claims was the bullet that hit JFK in the back of the neck and lodged there only to fall out during the autopsy. Uh, but of course, he does admit this was fired through Oswald’s rifle, which was a high-velocity rifle. Um, and so he can only come to this conclusion by claiming that CE399 is a atypical projectile. And in support of this conclusion, he points to the fact that the ammunition was last manufactured in 1944, according to a letter from the Winchester-Western Division of Olin they sent to Mark Lane, which is indeed published in Mark Lane’s book, Rush to Judgment. Uh, but this was not correct. The ammunition was actually manufactured in 1954 under contract to the US Army for use in Europe and particularly in Greece. Um, Thompson relies upon Sylvia Meagher, but in fact, uh, her book hides the fact that a letter that she got from the manufacturer did say quite clearly that the bullets were manufactured in the early 1950s. I have a copy of that letter. You can find that in her files. I will put this in the blog post. She admitted that from her book, that the that she knew the bullets were were fired or were were from the 1950s. And of course, she ignores, and so does Thompson ignores the fact that the FBI tested hundreds, uh, many bullets. They test fired through Oswald’s rifle and there were no misfires. And it’s unclear as to any bullet, uh, would have penetrated just a few inches in soft flesh and then just falling out. But Thompson could have done some of his own testing on this to show that this was indeed possible, could have happened, probable. Um but in fact, he did not do any testing and I think that this is his magic bullet. His reconstruction three assassins firing four bullets. The only fragments that were retrieved in the assassination and the one bullet that was retrieved at the hospital all came from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. No other fragments, no other bullets were retrieved from the other right any other rifle. There’s no physical evidence of another rifle being used in the assassination. I think that’s a a major problem um with his book. And I think there’s some other questions. And here’s one which really I found quite surprising cuz this was brought up in 1967-68 in one of the major reviews of the book and it was written by Arthur Schiller of the DePaul Law Review. And he raises an important question. I’ll read it to you. Herein lies the basic error of his analysis. Has every hypothesis accounting for the double movement been examined and rejected? One glaring unsuggested and unexamined hypothesis is what physical effect would a bullet entering from the rear have if it exploded within a skull in light of Newton’s second law of motion that acceleration is directly proportional to the resultant force and is in the same direction as that force. Because of that failure, Professor Thompson’s conclusions must fall. Now, I think this author is alluding to sort of suggesting some sort of jet effect. He’s gotten Newton’s wrong Newton’s law wrong. I think it’s the third law of thermodynamics, not the second law of motion. Um but clearly he’s pointing to an explosion that occurs in Kennedy’s head. And would that account for the motion that we see in the Zapruder film? And it’s a very good question that was brought up early on um that Thompson does not answer. And the other thing that Thompson doesn’t answer, would a bullet fired from the grassy knoll have enough momentum to actually push his head back into the left? There’s a lot of measurements in the book about the Zapruder film and what it shows about the motion of Kennedy’s head, but there is no examination of whether that bullet would have enough force. And we see from the first the shot that did hit Kennedy in the head in frame 312, even Thompson will admit in this book that the bullet hit him, pushed his head only forward 2 in, and that was it. But somehow this other bullet pushed him way back into the left. That is not explained. The the other problem with this book is his own chart of the witnesses in this this own diagram, four only four witnesses said that the shots came from two directions. All those witnesses, whether they thought they came from the knoll or from the Texas School Book Depository, all thought they came from one direction. That’s a major problem in his own book that he does not address. And so his book I think is very problematic. It is beautifully I have to say and what they are that this book is laid out in an incredible fashion. Uh Arthur Hawkins is the name of the designer of this book. And this book looks great. Really, the layout of the pictures, the diagrams, the text, this book is magnificent. It It is a terrific job in layout. Uh I I give this book full marks. It’s not just good. It’s breathtakingly beautiful. And and I I mean I I hire a designer to design my books. And you know, I wish I could get something that would look this good. This is a beautifully laid out book. The problem is that the text isn’t that good. Just isn’t. A

nd so, uh thank you for tuning in to On the Trail of Delusion, and we’ll be back soon with another episode.

Free to disagree on the word “cult”

Leave a reply

www.mattkprovideo.com/2025/12/05/free-to-disagree-on-the-word-cult/

There was a post responding to criticisms of Fred Litwins blog post of November 24, 2025.

this is my response to that response:

I think anyone who follows Judith Vary Baker could be considered a “cult” in that they are following a single leader- her.
Although it seems to be a benign cult in that I don’t think Baker exerts any control over their lives. They may have bought her book and might follow her writing online, but she isn’t trying to control them in any other way- its not a high control group like Scientology or Nexium or the followers of some Charlie Manson/Teal Swan character.
Does this “real JFK Jr.” person lead a cult? I’ve never heard of him before so I am going to assume he doesn’t have a cult following ( or am I wrong about that?)
Hardcore conspiracy believer Dick Gregory described the critics of the Warren Report as “a kind of a cult” although its a cult he eagerly wanted to join.

I’m not sure the word “cult” is the right word to describe believers of a certain thing in regards to the Kennedy Assassination . At least not compared to actual high control groups like Scientology/Nexium etc..
Maybe the right word might be “camp” or “movement” or …… I dunno- somebody help me out on this one- whats the right word for this?
Its overly simplistic to say that Conspiracy believers are all in one cult, while Lone Gunman believers are in a seperate rival/competing cult.
There is NOT a single person or ideology at the center of these groups.
Whats the difference between a religion and a cult?
Comedian Joe Rogan joked that “in a cult, theres one guy who knows this is all made-up bulls–t, in a religion, that guys dead”
Is judaism a cult? No. There are numerous different offshoots of Judaism: orthodox, reform, modern reformed, etc. Although I would argue that some of the extremely Orthodox Judaism meet most medical definitions of a cult in that the group controls where the members live, how they dress, what they can read, who they can marry, what they eat, etc..
Is Christianity a cult? No, but some Christian groups like Jehovahs Witness, extreme mormonism, the Catholic “Opus Dei” group (among others) definitely fit the definition of a cult.
If you watch all the episodes of “On the Trail of Delusion” you will see that Fred Litwin found a long list of people who are on the Lone Gunman side BUT if you listen closely, have a disparity of opinions on specific matters.
For example:
In Episode Two we hear from Robert Wagner (author of the book, JFK Assassinated) who doesn’t think there was a second shooter, but he disagrees with the Warren Report in that he thinks there was a fourth show. (Most Lone Gunman types DON’T agree with him on that.)
In Episode Six, we have Gus Russo, who thinks Lee Oswald acted alone, ( no second gunman) but he believes that Cuba might have provoked him to act.
Episode 7, has Dave Perry, who has spent years dubunking many theories, but he still believes there might have been some kind of conspiracy.

On the Conspiracy side there are dozens, if not hundreds of seperate competing ( and completely contradictory) ideas about what happened. One shooter, two shooters, three shooters, a dozen shooters…. a shooter in the sewer drain, a half dozen different and contradictory shooters on the knoll, a shooter from the other side of the street, the limo driver shot JFK, a secret service agents rifle accidentally discharged, a shooter somehow right next to railroad workers on the overpass, a second shooter in three different windows on the 6th floor, a shooter on the 5th floor, a shooter on the seventh floor, a shooter on the roof etc etc etc the list is almost limitless. (Almost) every conspiracy book has the position that THEY are right and all the other conspiracy books are either wrong or lies.
Whenever I go to “JFK Truth Be Told” meetups I often have to bite my tongue when someone says something I disagree with, but we all still (more or less) get along. There is no one all powerful group leader telling us what to think.
Neither side has a uniformity of belief, and thus, in my mind, shouldn’t be called a high controlled cult.

So maybe the word “cult” is too extreme, and I think perhaps the word “camp” or “movement” might be a better word, However, using the word “cult” or “cults” to describe competing schools of thought coming up against each other isn’t exactly wrong either.
I don’t think ONE (possibly) mis-chosen word in Fred Litwins essay/travel blog undermines his overall premise. That on November 22, 2025 ( in my words) the harbor of Dealey Plaza was clogged with competing armadas of boats full of conspiracy theorists and Fred had an amusing time navigating through them. It is HIS blog and in HIS opinion these groups look like cults.

You are free to disagree.

Countdown to Dallas, Episode 1, New Channel

Leave a reply

http://www.mattkprovideo.com/2025/06/05/countdown-to-dallas-episode-1-new-channel/

Transcript

The President’s car is now turning on to Elm Street and it will be only a matter of minutes before he arrives at the trademark

[Music] On October 14th, 1963 Lee Harvey Oswald applied and got a job at a place called the Texas School Book Depository

Here’s how it looked at the time
A nondescript red brick building perched on the southeast corner of Houston and Elm Streets
It offered a magnificent view of a place called Daily Plaza.
Here’s the building today
Now the question of just how Oswald got the job just 5 weeks before President Kennedy’s motorcade drove right by has been a longstanding question for those studying the assassination
Some think it’s fishy
Surely they say proof of a conspiracy
I’m Paul Brandus a longtime White House-based journalist speaker at seven presidential libraries
My latest is Countdown to Dallas.
In Countdown to Dallas I tell the rest of the story about Oswald and the depository
And for one surprising twist you might not know about stick around to the end of this short video
That mid-October 1963 story starts here in the Dallas suburb of Irving where Oswald’s wife Marina and their 21-month-old daughter June were living with a woman named Ruth Payne.
Marina was also days away from giving birth to her second daughter Marina the young Soviet

Immigrants a woman she met through the local immigrants

Marina was the victim of spousal abuse
Lee was a wifebeater hitting Marina on a regular basis
Ruth who wanted to improve her Russian took Marina in

That’s the backdrop
Oswald living on his own was also unemployed
He had just gotten back from Mexico City after a futile effort to get a visa to travel to Cuba
He needed a job badly
On the 14th Ruth Marina and some other women in the neighborhood were having coffee and the subject of Lee’s unemployment came up
Oswald had several job prospects
One was at a bakery
the other driving a truck but Lee didn’t know how to drive
One woman at that coffee Lenny May Randall mentioned that her brother Wesley Bule Frasier had just gotten a job at the Depository in downtown Dallas
She thought they might need an extra man
Now Marina Oswald’s English was poor
Lee did not allow her to learn it
So Ruth Payne called the depository and spoke with a boss there
His name Roy Truly
Truly said yes he could use another man to fill orders for school books
Tell Oswald to come down and apply
Now you have to remember what a pathetic work record Oswald had.
He’d been fired from two jobs in just the past 6 months
And a potential third employer checked on a reference who said Oswald was not a good employee
Oswald was unwanted
His skills were minimal
but a menial job filling boxes with books Oswald filled out this job application
His address was a lie
Said he’d lived in Dallas continuously
That was a lie
he had just gotten out of the Marines and was honorably discharged
Two more lies
that he had been on his last job for three years
Another lie
Five lies on one page
It’s a reflection of Lee Harvey Oswald’s habit of lying about well just about everything
But unlike other potential employers Roy Truly did not check on any of this
It was just a menial job after all
So Oswald lucked out
So that’s how Oswald got his job at the Depository
A group of suburban women having coffee
lacking the skills to work in a bakery or drive a truck
having poor references that might have resulted in work elsewhere
on and on
It took a series of small things for this job to work out
Now I mentioned one final twist to this story that may surprise you
I’ll get to that in a second
But it’s also important to remember this
When Oswald got the job President Kennedy’s visit to Texas had not been finalized
A trip had been announced but the final decision on Dallas would not be made until a month later
November 14th when the location for Kennedy speech at the Trademart was set
That decision that location was made by none other than Ken O’Donnell the president’s top White House aid
The Secret Service had recommended other locations
Other parts of town which would have meant different motorcade routes
Conspiracy theorists who are sure that Oswald’s job was some kind of setup
that he was somehow placed in the depository can never explain how all of these little things unconnected ranging from suburban women having coffee to President Kennedy’s own right-hand man picking that final location occurred
And here’s the final twist to this story
You might not know that in 1963 the Texas School Book Depository had another location at 1917 North Houston Street.
Roy Truly the boss nearly assigned Oswald to that location.
Had he done so Lee Harvey Oswald would have been nowhere near Dealey Plaza on the day of the president’s visit.
Great tragedies often take a series of small and seemingly unconnected events to occur
This was one of them
There are other stories to tell about Oswald his life
that very different era
decades of presidential security and the attitude of numerous presidents towards it
And also the science of cognitive dissonance
why humans are wired to think and process information and data the way they do
and why this fuels the beliefs that so many people have in assorted conspiracy theories
Not just the Kennedy assassination
but everything from Pearl Harbor to the moon landing to 9/11 even Princess Diana’s car crash
The science behind our beliefs that’s also explored
All of this and much more can be found in my latest book Countdown to Dallas and in a podcast of the same name Both are available everywhere

The Warren Report was imperfect, and that makes it authentic

Leave a reply

www.mattkprovideo.com/2024/09/23/the-warren-report-was-imperfect-and-that-makes-it-authentic/

Some thoughts on the flaws and imperfections in the Warren Report.

Some conspiracy theorists say they think that Lee Oswald was some kind of intelligence agent, maybe for the FBI or the CIA.

They also point out to many of the flaws, contradictions and overall imperfections of the story told in the Warren Report as evidence that it is false.

I’ve never been an FBI agent and neither have any of you, so I can only go on second hand reports of what its like to be one.

I really liked the movie “Donnie Brasco” and then I read the book. Agent Joe Pistone ( aka Donnie Brasco) tells what I can assume to be a true story of his time as an undercover FBI agent.

In the opening scene of the movie, Donnie Brasco takes a jewel from gangster Lefty Ruggiero and examines it with a “jewelers loupe.” A loupe is a handheld magnifying glass. After just a brief peek at the jewel, Brasco says to Ruggiero “this jewel is a fake!”

How could he tell that?

I read up on it and learned that a trained/prepared person can look at a jewel and tell if its real or fake because… real gems/jewels are organic natural things and are composed of crystals and such. A real organic jewel is authentic because you can see all of the naturally occurring flaws and imperfections that ALL natural authentic things have.
How can we tell the difference between a department store mannequin and a real human person? The mannequin is smooth and “perfect” and a real person has thousands of wrinkles, flaws and naturally occurring imperfections.

If you go into a furniture store and look at displays of kitchen furniture…
There will probably be a bowl of fruit on the table.

Fake fruit.

Whoever makes fake fruit have really upped their game. As a kid fake fruit looked ridiculously artificial. It looks more believable nowadays, but you can still tell its fake fruit because…. it looks too perfect. No flaws, no dents, no spots or imperfections. And even if its world class fake fruit that looks 100% real, as soon as you pick it up it feels fake and it has no smell.

Hundreds of books have picked apart the Warren Report and found many flaws. Some of these supposed flaws are exagerrations or outright lies from the conspiracy authors, but not all of them. There ARE imperfections in the Warren Report.

Which is all the more reason I think we should believe it.

Different witnesses describe the same thing vastly differently.
Does that mean one of them is lying? No, it means one or all of them brought their own personalities and emotional baggage to their memories of an event.

Different witnesses describe the rifle found as either a Mauser or a Mannlicher Carcano. Both conflicting reports are in the Warren Report.

Different witnesses describe the origin of the shots as coming from vastly different places. The conflicting testimonies are all included in the Warren Report.
Even the witnesses who said the shots came from the Book Depository disagreed as to which window the shot came from.

The paraffin and fingerprint evidence is less than perfect. These facts are are included in the Warren Report.

Some witness testimony seems to make it seem it couldn’t have been Oswald. These testimonies have not been suppressed.

Frazier said Oswalds package was only 2 feet long. His sister says it was between 2 or 3 feet long. A man at the door of the depository says he didn’t see Oswald with any package at all.
These 3 stories contradict each other and go against the official Lone Gunman narrative. But they are all included in the final report.

The witnesses of the Tippet shooting almost universally disagree on the details. They give different descriptions of of the time, Oswald/s hair, the color of his jacket, even the color of HIM ( his skin). They give different descriptions of the direction he was walking in. All of these conflicting testimonies were included in the final Warren Report.

The Dallas cop who knocked on Ruth Paine’s door said she said “come in we’ve been expecting you”
She says she didn’t say that.

Explanation?

One of them is lying? Both of them are lying?

One or both of them “mis remembered” the incident?

These 2 contradicting statements are both in the final report.
(By the way fellow JFK buffs….. Surely Ruth Paine had numerous visits from law enforcement after November 22. Did she maybe say that on a different visit from the cops? Im not saying she DID, I just wonder if….. maybe???)

An FBI rifle expert test fired Oswalds rifle and found several flaws with it. The scope was off, it sometimes jammed and it often fired “high and to the right.” These flaws were all included in the Warren Report.

Some witnesses went from being “Maybe I saw Oswald” witnesses to “It was definitely Oswald” witnesses. Someone got them to change their story?

One of the autopsy doctors burned his original bloody autopsy notes and turned in a cleaner, bloodless copy. Conspiracy Theorists think there was something different, perhaps incriminating in the original notes.
If that were the case, then WHY do we know about the original notes? If the second version of the notes were a part of some kind of deception, why do we KNOW that they are a second version? If I were that autopsy Doctor and and some gun wielding agent of “The Conspiracy” had threatened me and coerced me into writing up a second autopsy report with different information, then ordered me to burn the original, I would be too terrified to ever ever EVER tell anyone what I had done.

Whats the best way to keep a secret?

Don’t tell anyone.

Why did the autopsy Doctor TELL us he burned his first version of the notes??? If he were (forced to be?) in on a cover up, wouldn’t he just tell us the second notes were the first notes?

How would ANYONE ever know about the first notes if he didnt tell us?

Doesn’t everything, (EVERYTHING!) ever created in this world have a first draft?

A first version that ends up night and day different from what eventually gets released?

A company like Microsoft probably has many people working on a new software before it gets released. They probably create dozens, if not hundreds of revised versions of the software before they THINK they’re done? And even then, isn’t it all but expected by both the company and the customers that there is a 99.9% chance there are flaws and imperfections in their “final” version, and we should expect them to release Version 1 point two, version 1 point two, 1 point three in the weeks after we buy the software?

And of course there are the theories of The Mysterious Deaths and the suppressed/altered evidence.

We’ve all seen the part of GOODFELLAS wherein DeNiro’s character Jimmy kills everyone who might slip up and expose the Lufthansa heist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kyAK1iXqxiQ

And there is the similar THEORY that the criminals who killed JFK then went and killed anyone who might expose them.

J. Edgar Hoover, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, all the members of the Warren Commission and President Lyndon Johnson were all supposedly afraid to speak up against “the conspiracy,” but various housewives, waitresses and other powerless nobodies were NOT afraid to speak up and appeared in various JFKA documentaries with no ill response to them.

We can easily disprove the “Mysterious Deaths” by seeing who WASN’T silenced. Ruth Paine and Marina Oswald are still alive, as well as several other witnesses who said things contrary to the Lone Gunman theory. And most if not most of all contrary witnesses lived for decades after the assassination and died of natural causes after telling their accounts to numerous magazine and book authors with no repercussions.

The official story of the Zapruder film and other autopsy materials was that they was suppressed (kept from the public) because they were too graphic and offensive. The CT story is that they were suppressed in order to hide the truth.
And yet the pictures and film(s) eventually leaked out anyway.

If the Warren Report really was one big lie, if it really left out/altered anything that might prove a conspiracy, why did they leave in all of these contradictions and imperfections?

If it was all a fake, they would have left out ALL of the contradictory testimony. In a fake Warren Report there wouldn’t be these one or two people who thought they saw a Mauser. In a fake Warren Report every witness would have seen Oswald’s Carcano and no other.

A fake Warren Report would tell us of perfect fingerprints on the rifle and boxes and a faked paraffin test would have found definite proof that Oswald fired a rifle (and pistol).
A fake Warren Report with coerced/altered testimony would have Frazier his sister, his mother and the door monitor seeing an over 3 foot long package in Oswald’s hand. They would have maybe even seen the rifle peeking out from the paper bag.

A faked Warren Report would have had all of the Tenth and Patton witnesses seen the same thing. Definitely Oswald, definitely at the right time for him to have walked from the rooming house.

A faked Warren Report would have the FBI rifle expert report that the rifle was perfect and absolutely capable of doing what the WC said it did.

A powerful conspiracy would NEVER leave outsiders/civilians alone with the photos and films and give them a chance to make copies/smuggle them out.

If the burning of the autopsy notes was in pursuit of keeping a secret, why do we know of the first version? We should only know about the second version, and not know it WAS a second version.
I know if I altered/forged something, I wouldn’t tell anyone about the first version. Its not like the autopsy notes were turned in, included in the final report and then years later someone put in a new/different version.

Oswald’s rifle is a few inches different than the one in the ad. Proof of a conspiracy?
Lee Oswald was the first, last and only person in the history of the world to get something through mail order that was a little different than what was advertised?!?!?
A high powered conspiracy wouldn’t make an error like that.

I read somewhere ( I can’t remember where) that Gary Shaw ( of the Sixth Floor Museum) bought a copy of the gun magazine that Oswald ordered his rifle from. AND he also bought the next months issue- and in THAT issue the same company ( Klein’s) was selling Carcano rifles that were the same length that Oswald got. So that explains the discrepancy, they ran out of 40.2 inch rifles and started filling orders with the second lot. I wonder if anyone at Kleins even KNEW that the second lot of rifles was slightly different. I wonder if Oswald himself even realized the rifle in his hands was a few inches off from what he ordered>

Lee’s mother and wife described the details and the number of backyard photos differently. Why didn’t the conspiracy alter their testimonies to make them match up?

The Dallas Police said they remembered finding a Minox spy camera in Ruth Paine’s house. The FBI said the same item was a light meter. Why include BOTH descriptions in the final Report?

And if Ruth Paine WAS some kind of spooky agent, and IF she WAS expecting the Police to show up soon, why would she SAY “We’ve been expecting you”?

If she were a spook and was expecting the Police to show up, why didn’t she get rid of any supposedly incriminating evidence from her house? The Minox spy camera, the “aluminum file cabinets of spy reports” and anything else that might tie her to a conspiracy?

Yes the Warren Report is full of imperfections. Which is proof that it was organic and real.

2 Bills. Cosby versus Clinton

Leave a reply

mattkprovideo.com/2018/05/01/2-bills/

Bill Cosby versus Bill Clinton.

I saw a meme floating around facebook asking why Bill Clinton is applauded while Bill Cosby is now a convicted rapist.

https://www.facebook.com/TheCSConservative/photos/a.572477586106380.1073741829.572064949480977/1840141096006683/?type=3&theater
There is a big difference. I don’t think Clinton used knockout drugs. I’m pretty sure most of his encounters were consensual. Inappropriate yes, but mostly consensual.

Consensually fooling around when you’re married, and when you’re a Governor and PRESIDENT, its also quite scummy. Rape is wrong. Just as wrong for liberals and conservatives.

But lets discuss the difference between Cosby and Clinton. Clinton was a powerful dynamic attractive man who forgot to say NO many many times when he should have known better. But in MOST reported cases these star struck women came to HIM. Cosby lied from the get go, told women he was going to audition them for his G Rated TV show and snuck them knock out drugs. I see a HUGE difference.

I don’t get why these millionaires who have a naughty itch to scratch don’t just call Heidi Fleiss?

I can’t say I’m “pro prostitiution” but better that than rape or sexual harrassment.

Heidi’s girls know from the get go whats what and know they have to shut up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Cosby

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paula_Jones

https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/sex-and-relationships/sexual-consent

Bill Cosby routing about doping women with “Spanish Fly” on a 1969 Comedy Album

This routine appeared on his “Its True! Its True!” Album.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_True!_It%27s_True!

How ironic that in answer to the rumors that Bill Cosby was a rapist, he all but admits it on an album called “Its True”!