 |
| Credit: MATTYMOO101 |
So there *is* a connection between David Koresh and Cyrus Reed Teed? I always kind of wondered about that one...
Dude!
This is an almost one-hour long presentation by our "house ufologist" Richard Dolan on the latest (fourth) tranche of released UFO files c/o the Trump admin. Despite the frankly boring format, it does contain some very interesting information. Although of course no "disclosure" sensu stricto.
For instance, the air force was aware of at least two UFO observations *before* that of Kenneth Arnold. One of these involved multiple trained observers of weather balloons, who also saw a very large metallic object shaped like a disc. The military also noted that many UFOs were observed around Los Alamos, various nuclear facilities and air force bases. Trained balloon observers in New Mexico saw strange objects making impossible maneuvers.
In 1949, high-ranking members of the military, the government and even the FBI held a classified conference at Los Alamos to discuss the "green fireballs" which had appeared around the research facility. None other than Edward Teller was there, trying to explain away the UFOs as meteorites, but eventually admitting that they couldn´t be so - provided the reports were accurate. Teller still thought that the physics of the fireballs made no sense!
The main suspect was (surprise) the Soviet Union. The military believed that the objects such be intercepted and identified. The matter is treated as a legitimate security / intelligence problem. Many of the witnesses were high quality: air force officers, air line pilots, astronomers, police officers. But in public, Project Grudge said that all UFOs have conventional explanations and that many witnesses are kooks or hoaxers!
Can all "skeptics" please go home now?
Frankly, none of this is super-surprising, but I suppose it´s good to finally get official confirmation. On a funnier note, the secret files also mention the avrocar, an actual attempt by the US military to build...ahem...a flying saucer. This in a CIA report dismissive of UFO observations?!
More disturbing is a 2015 case, during which an unknown flying object was spotted over the Pantex nucelar power plant, the most sensitive military installation in the United States (where the nuclear missiles are assembled). It could have been a drone, but if so, who was daring enough to send it there? Let´s hope it was just a drill!
On YouTube, everyone concentrates on a number of fairly bizarre videos, but Dolan is unimpressed by these. One probably shows a deformed balloon (something even the observer himself suspected), while the "star-shaped UFO" is just an artefact of the tracking equipment.
We´re either subject to some kind of next level disinfo, or objects far exceeding human technological capacity have been observed in "our" airspace (and in "theirs" too) since at least the end of World War II.
Hmmm...
So Belgium defeated the US in that soccer game. The "Trump card" didn´t work. That was that, I suppose. On to the next occasion for scandal...
Belgien slog ut USA i fotbolls-VM. Trumps personliga ingripande för att ändra ett tidigare domslut hjälpte alltså inte.
Vad synd, LOL.
It seems the Alex Jones era is finally over. InfoWars have definitely been taken over by the satirical liberal magazine The Onion. The new owners have even hired an Alex Jones impersonator, who will presumably make fun of the real one. But for how long? I don´t think the concept can last for more than a couple of episodes. Not even sure if anyone gives a damn about Alex Jones in 2026. It´s not 2006 anymore, guys...
A new "free energy" paper has just dropped, and Sabine Hossenfelder isn´t terrible impressed. Neither am I. But...note that Zabineh actually says that vacuum might really be a medium, a kind of non-luminiferous aether as it were. Or rather that such an idea isn´t completely "out there" in and of itself.
Are we finally getting somewhere? Bring back pre-Lost Generation science!
What is the difference between the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and Independent Baptists? In case this question keeps you up at night, well, here is our man Joshua with the answer. But I wasn´t *that* surprised. OK, maybe a little bit, since the SBC seems to be *somewhat* less conservative than I expected. But not by much. By contrast, the Independent Baptists were pretty much as fundamentalist as I thought.
A far right(?) opponent of mass immigration into the United States is unhappy with the ICE raids in Minnesota, arguing that Republican-run states have a substantially larger problem with illegal aliens. However, corporate profits depend on them, so no action is ever taken there. The author calls ICE´s actions in the North Star State "enforcement theater" and "culture war".
Is everyone turning on the Donald?
This is how a "regular" Christian (or Preterist, for that matter) reacts to Israel Only Full Preterism (see previous blog post). You preach it, boy!
Yes, it´s Doreen Virtue. Probably not a co-incidence that she talks about *this* topic right now...
Of course it´s Epstein.
Overheard somewhere on YouTube: A Woke "Satanist" says "May Charlie Kirk burn in Hell". All but un-ironically.
Oookay...
Some links on the fall out after the Charlie Kirk assassination. First, Michael Tracey protests cancel culture both left and right. Next up: Trump apparently used the FCC´s chair to pressure ABC into firing Jimmy Kimmel. Finally, it seems Ted Cruz (!) is criticizing the FCC´s actions. Does the senator from Texas "want out"? Hmmm...
The Right finally gets its George Floyd moment
How Brendan Carr helped take down Jimmy Kimmel
"Dangerous as hell": Ted Cruz compares FCC chair´s threats to mob tactics
Men vad *har* Aftonbladets ledarsida spetsat jordgubbarna med? Den här artikeln är antingen önsketänkande, ett resultat av noll koll, eller en medveten provokation. Tucker Carlson är högerradikal isolationist och rysstillgång. Det är *därför* han agerar som han gör. Det finns inget mysterium här.
Plötsligt verkar Trumps MAGA-supportrar tvivla
Och här kommer sanningen...
 |
| - Tom Stamm, I presume? The Agency is very interested in your work! |
I´ve been wondering about this for over 30 years. I never found any info on it before. But ChatGPT saved the day!
I couldn't find any evidence that Hugo Oehler wrote or published anything about the JFK assassination. If he did comment on it, it doesn’t appear in any widely recognized sources or bibliographies.
However, Tom (Thomas) Stamm does appear in the historical record—though not as the author of a standalone book. He is mentioned by Sylvia Meagher in her influential 1967 work Accessories After the Fact. According to Meagher, Stamm viewed the Zapruder film at the National Archives in 1965 and concluded from the timing and movement captured that Kennedy was struck by a bullet from the front. Meagher includes this note in her analysis, praising it for exposing how the fatal shot caused Kennedy to lurch backward, then forward—suggesting the possibility of a frontal shooter .
| Name | Known Publication or Mention |
|---|---|
| Tom Stamm | Cited by Sylvia Meagher (1967) for his observation on the Zapruder film—suggesting a frontal shot |
| Hugo Oehler | No record of publications or comments on JFK assassination |
His commentary appears in Meagher’s chapter summarizing expert observations on the headshot.
It’s not a full booklet but rather a key footnote credited with adding forensic insight.
Would you like me to help locate Meagher’s exact wording or explore other little-known researchers like Stamm?
It appears that the Tom Stamm cited by Sylvia Meagher in her 1967 Accessories After the Fact — who reviewed the Zapruder film and pointed out the headshot movement — is almost certainly the same Tom (Thomas) Stamm active in the 1930s–40s as a co-founder of the Revolutionary Workers League with Hugo Oehler.
Sylvia Meagher refers to a “Tom Stamm” who analyzed the Zapruder film in 1965 and concluded that Kennedy’s head movement suggested a frontal shot marxists.org+12revolutionsnewsstand.com+12revolutionsnewsstand.com+12.
The historical record confirms a well-documented Thomas Stamm (1904–1980s) who, alongside Hugo Oehler, helped found the Revolutionary Workers League around 1935 and led a splinter group until about 1941 .
The existence of Tom Stamm’s papers (including diaries and writings) spanning into the 1970s suggests he lived long enough to have reviewed the Zapruder film in the 1960s .
Yes — the Tom Stamm who appears in JFK assassination literature is highly likely to be the same revolutionary leftist Tom Stamm who co-founded the Revolutionary Workers League with Hugo Oehler.
If you'd like, I can help explore Stamm’s post-1940 activities or see if his later work touched more on political analysis beyond Marxist activism.
Here’s what I found:
A Thomas Stamm authored a memo titled “On Viewing the Zapruder Film…” in September 1965, housed in the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth archives. The document analyzes the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films—confirming the same individual noted by Sylvia Meagher reddit.com+5archivesspace.lib.umassd.edu+5barryvacker.medium.com+5.
The Tamiment Library at NYU holds Stamm’s papers (1934–1979), showing he was the same Thomas Stamm (1904–1980s) who helped co-found the Revolutionary Workers League with Hugo Oehler and later led a splinter group publishing Revolt from 1938 to 1941 en.wikipedia.org+6findingaids.library.nyu.edu+6marxists.org+6.
Therefore, the JFK–era film analyst Stamm appears to be the same veteran Trotskyist activist from the 1930s–40s.
Co-founded the Oehler–Stamm Revolutionary Workers League in 1935 with Hugo Oehler marxists.org+1findingaids.library.nyu.edu+1revolutionsnewsstand.com+3en.wikipedia.org+3findingaids.library.nyu.edu+3.
In 1938, Stamm led a faction that split from Oehler’s group, continued under the same name, and published the journal Revolt until it disbanded around 1941 marxists.org+5revolutionsnewsstand.com+5en.wikipedia.org+5.
His papers (1934–1979) cover political writings, diaries, and correspondence—even into the 1970s findingaids.library.nyu.edu.
Yes, Tom Stamm the film researcher and Tom Stamm the revolutionary activist are one and the same.
He transitioned from Marxist activism in the 1930s to JFK assassination analysis in the 1960s and beyond.
Would you like to explore Stamm’s 1965 memo or his Trotskyist writings in more depth?
Here’s what I found about that 1965 memo by Tom (Thomas) Stamm on the Zapruder film:
According to researcher David Lifton, Thomas Stamm prepared an early written analysis in September 1965 after viewing the Zapruder film at the National Archives.
Lifton noted Stamm's observations were so clear and compelling that Sylvia Meagher included a substantial portion of them in her landmark 1967 book Accessories After the Fact degruyterbrill.com+3archive.org+3educationforum.ipbhost.com+3.
Stamm’s memo emphasized Kennedy’s head movement in the Zapruder, Nix, and Muchmore films, drawing attention to the sudden jerking back-then-forward motion—key evidence for the possibility of a frontal bullet.
His insights helped crystallize the argument that the fatal shot may have come from the front — an observation Meagher found “authoritative” enough to quote extensively .
The memo is preserved in the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth archives (Stamm’s papers span 1934–1979), confirming his long-term involvement in both political activism and assassination research .
Yes—Thomas Stamm, the same Revolutionary Workers League activist, authored a memo in September 1965 analyzing the Zapruder film. It was significant enough to be featured prominently in Sylvia Meagher’s influential work, making Stamm one of the early, respected investigators to offer a cinematic forensic perspective.
Would you like the exact quoted passage from Meagher’s book or help accessing Stamm’s full memo as a PDF?
The idea that the Zapruder film shows evidence of a second shooter, particularly from the front, does not originate with Tom Stamm, but he was one of the earliest independent viewers to articulate this clearly and persuasively in writing.
Here’s a breakdown of the origins and Stamm’s role:
The Zapruder film first gained notoriety for showing Kennedy’s head snap backward after the fatal shot (frame 313), which appears inconsistent with a shot from behind (i.e., the Texas School Book Depository).
Early speculations about a frontal shot began almost immediately after the assassination, especially among eyewitnesses and in the press.
When Life magazine published still frames of the Zapruder film in late 1963, the backward head snap raised public doubts, but the full film was not widely shown.
Josiah Thompson, a former Jesuit priest and philosophy professor, viewed the film in 1966 and published Six Seconds in Dallas (1967), arguing forcefully that the fatal head shot came from the front — possibly from the Grassy Knoll.
Tom Stamm viewed the film in 1965, a year before Thompson.
He produced a memo in September 1965 analyzing the motion frame by frame and concluding that the backward and then forward movement of Kennedy's body was not consistent with a single rear shot.
His analysis, later cited by Sylvia Meagher in Accessories After the Fact (1967), was among the first serious attempts to use the film as evidence of a frontal shot.
🔍 Stamm didn’t claim to have discovered the frontal shot theory, but he helped systematize and validate it with detailed film analysis.
The idea of a second shooter based on the Zapruder film did not originate with Tom Stamm, but he was one of the earliest analysts to study the film in detail and publicly argue that it showed signs of a frontal shot.
His 1965 memo predates most published works and influenced later critics like Meagher and Thompson.
Would you like to see how Stamm’s interpretation compares with later forensic studies (e.g. HSCA’s conclusions or modern 3D reconstructions)?
So the other day I was reading a typical vanilla anti-conspiracy book about the JFK assassination and decided to test ChatGPT on the issue (see previous post).
Since ChatGPT seems to be programmed to always give the "official" and "skeptical" version, I was surprised about the system´s relative evenhandedness towards JFK conspiracy theories. I suppose there could be two reasons.
One is that there were two official investigations into the assassination of President Kennedy. The Warren Commission claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was a lone gunman. But the other, conducted by the congressional committee HSCA in 1976-79, reached the conclusion that Kennedy may have been the victim of a conspiracy! The other reason is that the CIA and the FBI - as far as I understand - didn´t tell the Warren Commission that they actually knew exactly who Oswald was. So clearly *somebody* was lying *somewhere*, something serious researchers must acknowledge.
And hence even the Official Skeptic ChatGPT.
