good news about Darnell and Wiegman

I just watched a news conference with Jeff Morley, Judge Tunnheim, and the two lawyers on the MFF lawsuit.  The subject came about new records not currently in the JFK Collection.

My new best friend, Larry Schnapf, one to the lawyers, spoke up to say it's not just government agencies withholding but NBC, a news organization, is too.  I expected a repeat of what he said on Tucker Carlson Friday about NBC hiding the records of the aide to RFK.

But no!!!  He was talking about Darnell!!  A film, he said, that might be able to establish Oswald's whereabouts.  But NBC won't let anyone examine it.

Regardless of what NARA says to me about my request to add Darnell and Wiegman, it seems clear these guys are going to ask for the films should their suit get that far.

Roger Odisio wrote:I just watched a news conference with Jeff Morley, Judge Tunnheim, and the two lawyers on the MFF lawsuit.  The subject came about new records not currently in the JFK Collection.

My new best friend, Larry Schnapf, one to the lawyers, spoke up to say it's not just government agencies withholding but NBC, a news organization, is too.  I expected a repeat of what he said on Tucker Carlson Friday about NBC hiding the records of the aide to RFK.

But no!!!  He was talking about Darnell!!  A film, he said, that might be able to establish Oswald's whereabouts.  But NBC won't let anyone examine it.

Regardless of what NARA says to me about my request to add Darnell and Wiegman, it seems clear these guys are going to ask for the films should their suit get that far.

Thanks Roger, this is important news, and thank you for sharing it. To have this stuff mentioned in more mainstream platforms is essential. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Roger Odisio wrote:I just watched a news conference with Jeff Morley, Judge Tunnheim, and the two lawyers on the MFF lawsuit.  The subject came about new records not currently in the JFK Collection.

My new best friend, Larry Schnapf, one to the lawyers, spoke up to say it's not just government agencies withholding but NBC, a news organization, is too.  I expected a repeat of what he said on Tucker Carlson Friday about NBC hiding the records of the aide to RFK.

But no!!!  He was talking about Darnell!!  A film, he said, that might be able to establish Oswald's whereabouts.  But NBC won't let anyone examine it.

Regardless of what NARA says to me about my request to add Darnell and Wiegman, it seems clear these guys are going to ask for the films should their suit get that far.

Thanks Roger, this is important news, and thank you for sharing it. To have this stuff mentioned in more mainstream platforms is essential. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.

Oh that's nice news eh guys? PM lives to fight another day.

Edit: Just watched the (partial) press conference as posted on EF. While listening to Schnapf speak, since I know Morley's attitude re PM (it's all a distraction from Johanides), I watched Morley's body language closely. Sure enough he's sniggering at the mention of the possibility Oswald might be on the 1st floor, but Schnapf nails it down tightly (except that he gets cut off on the audio when he starts talking about the media's complicity in the coverup). It's all just so delightful to watch.

I think Schnapf gets it that everything about Johanides and more beyond anyone's knowledge level will flow out of a proof PM is Oswald, while perhaps Morley's ego would rather see his own evidence proved out first.

Yes thanks to Roger Odisio and Larry Schnapf for efforts on these lines. The issue of whether Prayer Man was Oswald is probably the single most important present question on the map calling for an up or down yes or no answer answered decisively on the basis of better images if possible.

Oswald uncontroversially told his interrogators at some point he went "out front with Shelley" but yet no witnesses are on the record as having seen Oswald "out front with Shelley". And since Shelley is seen in the film running away from the front area moments after Prayer Man is confirmed in the position he is seen in the Darnell film, and that was less than 1-2 minutes after the assassination shots, Oswald "out front with Shelley" must have been unseen by any witnesses out front at the same time Prayer Man, unidentified by any witnesses at the time, was also out front. It can be excluded that Prayer Man was Sarah Stanton on the grounds that if it were, Buell Wesley Frazier would know it and have already said so, but he hasn't. Frazier has said he cannot identify Prayer Man at all. Contrary to appearances, it is not unreasonable that Frazier simply would not notice Oswald near him then, despite the images appearing to show him looking right at him (actually Frazier was intently looking out toward the overpass area in the distance where the presidential limousine was last seen, I believe). Yet, there is no confirmation Prayer Man is Oswald either, because the photo is too ambiguous. It is the #1 question to get a true up-or-down decisive answer from a better image, if possible. Thank you Larry Schnapf.

Jake_Sykes wrote:

Mick_Purdy wrote:

Roger Odisio wrote:I just watched a news conference with Jeff Morley, Judge Tunnheim, and the two lawyers on the MFF lawsuit.  The subject came about new records not currently in the JFK Collection.

My new best friend, Larry Schnapf, one to the lawyers, spoke up to say it's not just government agencies withholding but NBC, a news organization, is too.  I expected a repeat of what he said on Tucker Carlson Friday about NBC hiding the records of the aide to RFK.

But no!!!  He was talking about Darnell!!  A film, he said, that might be able to establish Oswald's whereabouts.  But NBC won't let anyone examine it.

Regardless of what NARA says to me about my request to add Darnell and Wiegman, it seems clear these guys are going to ask for the films should their suit get that far.

Thanks Roger, this is important news, and thank you for sharing it. To have this stuff mentioned in more mainstream platforms is essential. Slowly slowly catchy monkey.

Oh that's nice news eh guys? PM lives to fight another day.

Edit: Just watched the (partial) press conference as posted on EF. While listening to Schnapf speak, since I know Morley's attitude re PM (it's all a distraction from Johanides), I watched Morley's body language closely. Sure enough he's sniggering at the mention of the possibility Oswald might be on the 1st floor, but Schnapf nails it down tightly (except that he gets cut off on the audio when he starts talking about the media's complicity in the coverup). It's all just so delightful to watch.

I think Schnapf gets it that everything about Johanides and more beyond anyone's knowledge level will flow out of a proof PM is Oswald, while perhaps Morley's ego would rather see his own evidence proved out first.

Jake, where can we catch a look at the presser you've referred to?

Funny, Mick, I saw the same look on Jeff Morley's face that you did and also thought it was a smirk.  The lawsuit is being run Simpich and Schnapf, the attorneys of record.  I don't think Morley will have an important role to play.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28519-press-conference-with-judge-john-r-tunheim/  The news conference was posted today by Joseph Backes at EF.

Roger Odisio wrote:Funny, Mick, I saw the same look on Jeff Morley's face that you did and also thought it was a smirk.  The lawsuit is being run Simpich and Schnapf, the attorneys of record.  I don't think Morley will have an important role to play.

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/28519-press-conference-with-judge-john-r-tunheim/  The news conference was posted today by Joseph Backes at EF.

It was definitely a smirk.  Some of us here had our battles over PM at his highly censored "Facts" site when it was being policed by a former mod at the EF.

Larry also sounded dubious about Oswald being out there (and from my dealings with him - he is indeed dubious) - but at some level, that only makes his statement something we should be even more grateful for. So... thank you, Larry... thank you Bill. I'll trust that this will be followed through as much as it can be. 

As far as what role Morley has... the media was asked to direct all future questions through him. So it looks to me like he is a gatekeeper. 

Morley... the man who rightly insists on evidence to support all contentions... except when it comes to any allegations about JFK fucking everything within a 100 mile radius of the White Houes. That's fine, allegations will do, no evidence needed to support them and no evidence of the allegations being bullshit will be countenanced.

Is it telling that it has now gone to page 2 with only 83 views and unlike the other threads on the topic, no views replies?

PM is the annoying uncle you can't get rid of, the cat among the pigeons, the myth-breaker, the party-pooper.

When it shows it was Oswald -- poof! There goes a 1001 theories just like that. No one at the ed forum wants to give the possibility of PM becoming front and center of the conversation, any oxygen. It is tacit disapproval of the mention and therefore also tacit pressure to not ho there again.

Good news indeed. Thanks Roger and Larry.

A you tube comment from a viewer.

Vinny wrote:A you tube comment from a viewer.

That'd be the same bloke whose been posting at alt.conspiracy.jfk upsetting my man, Brian. 

Brian won't be happy.

For that matter, I don't think Morley will be either.  Saying the films are the only important things to chase after, may be taken by Morley as suggesting there is nothing to his Joannides quest (except transparency). 

I may have to send over a shipping container of goanna oil. The only liniment on the market that covers the pain of arthritis, rheumatism, lumbago, muscular soreness and bruised egos.

Some of us should have been part of this chat.

I think you may not be giving Larry Schnapf enough credit, Greg.  For growth.  In the discussion of the lawsuit on EF, he started out saying he didn't think NARA, as an administrative agency, had the power to require records be included in the Collection--that they weren't granted that power by Congress--but perhaps such an argument could be made.  But later Bill Simpich said categorically NARA had that power and he referenced the films and Bart's Prayerman work.  
 
I had emphasized that NARA told me that, officially, they indeed welcomed new records and they asked for suggestions.  A couple of weeks ago Larry emailed me to ask for that exchange.  That's available to use should NARA try to backtrack.
 

I think it's significant that Larry injected the issue at the news conference, when he obviously didn't have to.  He included the Oswald had been lying but the films could get at the truth part mainly, in my view, as a lawyer-like statement to pursue the facts wherever they might lead. 


The importance of Darnell and Wiegman and NBC's role in hiding them is exactly what I failed to get Jim Di and Stone to talk about in their doc.  And paired with what Larry said on Carlson about other records NBC is withholding it sets up a focus on NBC as one of the major villains in the case.

Roger Odisio wrote:I think you may not be giving Larry Schnapf enough credit, Greg.  For growth. 

Really?

I thought I was paying him a high compliment in bringing something up he didn't personally believe in - but doing it anyway because it was the right thing to do.

I mean, his is one of the theories that will disappear in a puff of smoke if it is Oswald. 

Not many in this community would have done that. You've seen and experienced the resistance for yourself.

As the song goes...



And to Bill for any role he may have had in turning Larry around on this issue.

greg_parker wrote:Is it telling that it has now gone to page 2 with only 83 views and unlike the other threads on the topic, no views?

PM is the annoying uncle you can't get rid of, the cat among the pigeons, the myth-breaker, the party-pooper.

When it shows it was Oswald -- poof! There goes a 1001 theories just like that. No one at the ed forum wants to give the possibility of PM becoming front and center of the conversation, any oxygen. It is tacit disapproval of the mention and therefore also tacit pressure to not ho there again.

 Still not a single reply in that thread.

The cranially enhanced cognoscenti are far too busy discussing weightier issues. Like what dead horse to flog next. 

Far too many self styled researchers have far too much invested in their chosen pet theories. Prayerman has the potential to render those theories moot. Removing the subject from the ideological ( and the ego fuelled) playground. 

Perhaps ive been way too over cautious and circumspect. Far too many times in the past great revelations predicated primarily on blurry black and white photographs have ended up in disaster ( and recrimination)

Saying that Prayerman is most definitely not a blurry mess , or a pixelated phantom conjured up by wishful thinking,  and perhaps other,  darker motives a la Badgeman. 

It's clearly a male figure with a dark visibly receding hairline. Imho there's a very good chance it is Oswald. I can think of no other viable reason why NBC has been dragging its feet for nigh on 60 fucking years. 

Brian,  I was desperately sorry to hear about your loss. I mean that most sincerely. I genuinely hoped you might get a little perspective back. Realising that the entire world doesn't revolve around your so called correct evidence and your gripes with other researchers. 

You refuse to learn. Preferring to believe the silence of indifference is really the silence of conspiracy. People have seen your evidence. Anyone who has frequented JFK assassination related websites/ forums in the past decade or so could hardly have missed it.

You simply cannot hope to explain ( bluff) away the obvious visual discrepancies that prove,  overwhelmingly and categorically, that Oswald or not, Mrs Stanton cannot be the figure known as Prayerman. 

Kudos to Mr Schapf. To paraphrase the well known saying this one picture has the potential to speak far louder than 12 000 documents

You're right, Greg; I didn't see that was what you were doing.  

Importantly Schnapf is now doing exactly what he should be doing.  He's cultivated a relationship with Carlson's producer and is "sharing ideas" of how to proceed.  He thinks Carlson is "sincere".  It strikes me that having Carlson say more about his eloquent rendering of the societal result of the JFKA, which I would argue is the underlying reason we are all here, should be at the top of his list. 

The usual suspects want to divert him into playing the Washington game of out-the-source, and that will probably be part of the process too. 

I don't think his view, expressed a few months ago, that the mob did it (if he still believes that) will *necessarily* be precluded if Prayerman is Oswald.  That proves Oswald didn't do it and naturally puts the focus on the CIA, particularly with what now seems to be their next limited hangout admitting they and the FBI were well aware of Oswald.  But it still leaves room for a role by the mob, no matter how silly that is.

Roger Odisio wrote:You're right, Greg; I didn't see that was what you were doing.  

Importantly Schnapf is now doing exactly what he should be doing.  He's cultivated a relationship with Carlson's producer and is "sharing ideas" of how to proceed.  He thinks Carlson is "sincere".  It strikes me that having Carlson say more about his eloquent rendering of the societal result of the JFKA, which I would argue is the underlying reason we are all here, should be at the top of his list. 

The usual suspects want to divert him into playing the Washington game of out-the-source, and that will probably be part of the process too. 

I don't think his view, expressed a few months ago, that the mob did it (if he still believes that) will *necessarily* be precluded if Prayerman is Oswald.  That proves Oswald didn't do it and naturally puts the focus on the CIA, particularly with what now seems to be their next limited hangout admitting they and the FBI were well aware of Oswald.  But it still leaves room for a role by the mob, no matter how silly that is.

Sorry to spoil the party but I'm not convinced that the Carlson bus is going where I want to head.

Red flags...

• At first the alleged informant "believed" that the CIA was involved. That belief soon morphed into "were involved". There is a world of difference between those two claims.
  
• Larry has said the Fox people "trust" him because he is a Republican. There goes the call that everyone at the 13 inch emporium is making of bipartisanship. Ask any world-watcher outside the US and they will tell you that the US is the most partisan-driven - and riven  - of all western democracies. It is not even close for second. So, by that alone, Carlson's take is part of Fox's agenda and they have no taste for a bipartisan approach.
  
• Carslon has never done a show that is NOT part of some hidden agenda. 
  
• His defense in court has been no different to the defense of Alex Jones. He is in the "entertainment" business, not news reportage.
  
• RFK, Jr's much vaunted tweet in praise of Carslon has been deleted. Finding out why, might tell us a lot. But none of those shouting out about the tweet when it first appeared seem the least bit interested in finding out why it was deleted. 
  

I don't believe there is a genuine informant. I don't believe this is in any way, not part of some agenda about "deep state" bullshit. 

Carlson and Chomsky would be among the first people rounded up when I take over, as I will, according to the foresoothing of Brian of Sanibel. And when was the last time Brian of Sanibel was wrong about anything?   

I also don't believe his show has had any influence on what other talking heads and journalists have said on various other platforms. To believe he was the catalyst for any floodgates to open, and that they have not spoken out based on their own views, is ludicrous. It was apparent BEFORE the releases that media across the board was getting pissed ogff with the delays and the excuses - and Carlson is NOT the first in the media to talk about CIA complicity. Mainstream publications had given very positive reviews on certain books accusing the CIA over the last couple of years. 

Accusing ANYONE or any agency or group should not be the focus here anyway. 

What can be achieved is proving who DIDN'T do it. All efforfts should be on that. 

So Carlson and his circus at Fox can go fuck 'emselves along with all the fawning bandwagon jumpers.

Sorry to spoil the party but I'm not convinced that the Carlson bus is going where I want to head.

Forget the bus. Jimmy di has gone with a surfing analogy:

Please, if you get a wave, you ride it.

You don't say, "Hey where did that come from?"

This makes Jim the type of tourist that gets themselves into trouble on Australian beaches.

How do you know what wave to catch when surfing?

While sitting on your surfboard, look at the horizon line. 

Compare the angle of the wave with the skyline.

The side of the wave with the steepest angle is the direction in which the wave will break, and that's the direction in which you will ride.

But you also need to know the type of wave it is.

Rolling waves are the most common waves, and the type most surfers prefer because they break in a stable pattern. 

Dumping waves are more unpredictable and are usually limited to experienced surfers. 

Surging waves are the most dangerous and are most often present on steep or rocky shores.

Jim is urging one and all to catch a surging wave. Have the paramedics on hand.

barto wrote:Some of us should have been part of this chat.

Yes, but we are shut out of nearly everything.

I was put forward to be a signatory on the open letter that was published a few years ago. Certain people on that committee vetoed it.

No ROKC representation at any of the conferences.  

I mean, I do understand I put noses out of joint, as do others here. But that should be the litmus test for how fair dinkum they are about their alleged desire for unity/bilateralism. 

I have regularly invited people here for debate that I have serious problems with, but I offer them every coutesy and every advantage I can, to be fair and to be seen to be fair and to allow them the opportunity to put their case.

ROKC gets treated like the black sheep of the family. We are hardly welcome anywhere.

The tweet is still there.

https://twitter.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1604139690629730304

Vinny wrote:The tweet is still there.

https://twitter.com/robertkennedyjr/status/1604139690629730304

Thanks Vinny.

Could have sworn someone at the the  EF said it was hone, but can't find it now.

I guess it is possible I misread this comment Okay, RFK Jr was not on Carlson's cable TV show saying this.  It's just a tweet on Twitter. 

I will amend the post.

RFK Jr's tweet was deleted shortly after it appeared.  I first saw it and then saw it had disappeared.  And has now reappeared.  The usual nefarious sources. The important thing is it's now there for all to see, and it indicates he is becoming more open about what happened.

RO  Note:  I had written a longer response, but it somehow disappeared as I was finishing it.  This is a shorter version.  Consider yourselves lucky.
 
Sorry to spoil the party but I'm not convinced that the Carlson bus is going where I want to head.

Red flags...

• At first the alleged informant "believed" that the CIA was involved. That belief soon morphed into "were involved". There is a world of difference between those two claims.
  

RO:  Not exactly.  Carlson said his source told him the CIA was involved in the JFKA.  The next night he went further and said that some of the withheld documents showed their involvement.  Not so much difference, though I doubt the truth of the second statement in particular.  In fact, I, too, am skeptical of the source story itself (see below), but neither do I think it matters much (except of course if it is used as a diversion from what Carlson said). 

• Larry has said the Fox people "trust" him because he is a Republican. There goes the call that everyone at the 13 inch emporium is making of bipartisanship. Ask any world-watcher outside the US and they will tell you that the US is the most partisan-driven - and riven  - of all western democracies. It is not even close for second. So, by that alone, Carlson's take is part of Fox's agenda and they have no taste for a bipartisan approach.
  

RO:  Larry thinks being a Republican helps him with both Carlson's people and with the House oversight committee, which will now be run by a Republican, who Larry wants to hold a hearing into the performance of Biden and NARA.
 
RO:  But this in no way supports the claim the Carlson is somehow pushing a FOX agenda.  Do you think Murdoch or Hannity is on board with what he said?
 
RO:  Carlson is nothing if not ambitious.  He was on MSNBC before switching to FOX when O'Reilly imploded.  That was before MSNBC was a full fledged arm of the Democrats to counter FOX's ratings, but it was still "liberal".  In '17, I think, Carlson did an interview on FOX with RFK Jr. in which they discuss the JFKA.  Which part was deleted before airing.  The full interview has now surfaced.  That shows a few things.  Carlson's interest in the JFKA didn't just pop up recently.  He has now achieved some independence of status that allows him to be out front on some things (not all of them I see as good of course) 

• Carslon has never done a show that is NOT part of some hidden agenda. 
  

RO  Do you watch him?  Neither do I.  But I have seen more of him lately because he has interviewed people I do follow about things I'm interested in, and which the other corporate shows won't touch.  All of the commentators have an agenda in the sense of pushing their views.  Those who now want to ignore the importance of what he said in order to pontificate about what he really means and whose interests he is serving are doing a disservice. 

• His defense in court has been no different to the defense of Alex Jones. He is in the "entertainment" business, not news reportage.
  

RO:  Or Rachel Maddow as another example.  The court said they were not reporting the news per se, but rather were offering opinions about it, which s why they couldn't be sued for libel

• RFK, Jr's much vaunted tweet in praise of Carslon has been deleted. Finding out why, might tell us a lot. But none of those shouting out about the tweet when it first appeared seem the least bit interested in finding out why it was deleted. 
  

I don't believe there is a genuine informant. I don't believe this is in any way, not part of some agenda about "deep state" bullshit. 
 
RO:  I too am skeptical of the claim of a source.  It could be simply a rhetorical device that allows Carlson to make his point.  Particularly what the source is supposed to have said about what has happened to society since the JFKA (which is probably even more unlikely than the CIA did it part of what he was supposed to have told Carlson).  It's possible Carlson found a source, or says he did, who could "verify" the points about the CIA he wanted to make, because that would make a stronger piece by not leaving him so far out front on the story.  Not to mention grab more people's attention, which, knowing Washington and the media, he knew it would.
 
RO:  The source's statement set up Carlson to say what is the main point of his commentary, and which I suspect he believes, or at least is willing to explore further:  "Within our government are forces wholly beyond democratic control.  They are more powerful than the elected officials who supposedly oversee them.  They can affect elections and murder Presidents.  In short they can do anything they want.  They mock democracy by their very existence."
 
RO:  I wouldn't change a word of that.  Particularly the powerful last sentence summary.  It's now out there for millions to see and hear.  Some may think about it for a while.  It, and RFK Jr's backing of it, are there to be pursued.  That's a major accomplishment.  And certainly nothing you or I or anyone here or on EV could have accomplished.
 
RO:  Whatever the truth about the story of a source confirming what Carlson says, it has worked as an attention seeker.  Most of the new voices point to it and want to explore it.
 
RO:  Deep state bullshit?

Carlson and Chomsky would be among the first people rounded up when I take over, as I will, according to the foresoothing of Brian of Sanibel. And when was the last time Brian of Sanibel was wrong about anything?   

I also don't believe his show has had any influence on what other talking heads and journalists have said on various other platforms. To believe he was the catalyst for any floodgates to open, and that they have not spoken out based on their own views, is ludicrous.
 
RO:  You are mistaken.  Independent journalists and groups of journalists are growing in audience, particularly among the young, while corporate MSM is shrinking.  MSM is predictably trying to ignore what Carlson said, but some of these other writers chimed in; some can be found posted about the JFKA on EF.  I am having trouble keeping up with all of them 
 
It was apparent BEFORE the releases that media across the board was getting pissed ogff with the delays and the excuses
 
RO:  Delays and excuses for withholding was a minor part of what Carlson was saying.  Being pissed off about the withholding, even if it kept growing, was never likely to lead anywhere important, which is one reason why the MSM have been able (allowed) to voice it.
 
- and Carlson is NOT the first in the media to talk about CIA complicity. Mainstream publications had given very positive reviews on certain books accusing the CIA over the last couple of years. 
 
RO:  What books, what reviews?.  What effect did they have?  

Accusing ANYONE or any agency or group should not be the focus here anyway. 

What can be achieved is proving who DIDN'T do it. All efforfts should be on that. 
 
RO:  I have said before that I think it is necessary to first prove Oswald didn't do it before attention can be focused on who did it.  But Carlson, and RFK backing him, have pushed ahead with the whodunit anyway.  They may prove me wrong.  

So Carlson and his circus at Fox can go fuck 'emselves along with all the fawning bandwagon jumpers.
 
RO:  I think Carlson has clearly been important to the question of who killed JFK, why, and what has happened since.  Should I sign up with the fawning bandwagon jumpers?