Research & Links for JFK and other unsolved cases

[frisco kid]

"It's a bomb, it's definitely a bomb." This is the type of footage that would show the orb but we don't get that here. The impact was edited out by someone, that's for sure. It's the girl that says a lot here, but some of it is difficult to hear. She saw something, but it definitely wasn't a big plane. She was confused as to what she saw and how the tower exploded.

9/11 Rooftop Eyewitness - Its A Bomb Definitely A Bomb (Live Raw Video) - YouTube

A blue sky and the haze. Three flight paths with cgi and the ball.. The wide angle never dives but flies straight south to north. There were three distinct cgi paths and the correct path of the ball floating slowly from the west. The official flight myth had fake 175 descending from above the smoke and behind the towers.





Tangible Information: 911 plane "United 175" DID NOT CRASH IN WTC (monitored after!!)

This is Flight 175's descent. A passenger jet cannot drop in altitude this fast and still stay in control.
8:58 AM 25,000 Feet
9:00 AM 18,500 Feet
9:02 AM 9,000 Feet

It hits the south tower at a height of around 1000 feet at 9:02:40 which means the flight descended over 8000 feet in 40 seconds.

The last 52 - 60 miles of fake 175's journey was covered in 4 mins 40 seconds. This places speed between 668 Mph and 771 Mph Maximum cruising speed for Boeing 767 is 568 MPH and that is at cruising altitude. The plane would go much lower speeds at lower altitudes.

This flight data is in the NTSB report. A lot of sources say flight 175 hit the south tower at 590 MPH, even NIST says 540 MPH. These speeds are not attainable at lower altitudes. A plane flying at these speeds would be out of control.

[frisco kid]

As reported by the female reporter in Chopper 4, they were around 5 miles north of the towers when the orb was captured coming from over west.
911conspiracy.tv - 2nd WTC Attack Plane Crash Videos

WB11 (WPIX-TV) Metrocam YouTube 1, 2, & 3

Shot from the Empire State Building, like NY1 above, but from a different camera. It could be guessed that WB11 (now "WPIX Home of the CW") cropped the NY1 wide shot to create a zoomed view with better aesthetic balance... but no. Recently (July 2009) YougeneDebs used trig to discover the WB11 view "seems to be on the western half of the ESB at about the 88th storey. Notice the Staten Island shore line and structures there behind One Liberty Plaza, the old U.S. Steel building, the black building just to the left of center-frame for an estimate of the height of the perspective." The NY1 camera location is described above.

GM Building

This is the 3rd angle WCBS used on 9/11 to show the plane... all in 3 minutes. Here the plane passes the distance between the Empire State Building and the WTC in two successive playbacks (9:04 and 9:05). The full approach of "Flight 175" is shown from this angle later at 9:17 (and 9:22, abbreviated). That is, the tape starts from pause— with the plane in a circle.

The camera location: General Motors Building, aka FAO Schwartz, E 58th St at Madison Ave... 215 meters tall on ground elevated at 48 feet above sea level Lat 40.763595 Lon -73.972781 (Thanks, YougeneDebs)

Every distance would have produced a ledgible image of a 767 for either tower but no image has ever surfaced. The north tower blob compared to a decent fake of UA 175 compared to a real boeing 767. Flight 11 and 175 were both supposed to be 767's.

[frisco kid]

WB11's, wackadoodle coverage of a floating ball and failed computer graphics

She only mentioned choppers being in the area after the ball came in the frame. She was stunned and shocked when the tower exploded because what appeared on screen had no wings or propeller, which is the very reason she said it could be a chopper. She used the smallest aircraft that most people would be familiar that fit closest in size to the unknown flying blob.

"A lot of ah, uncertainty right now as to what is happening, you can see there are choppers--I believe that could be a police helicopter that is co...oooh."

"We just saw another (long pause because she did not describe a plane) live picture of, duhhh, what I believe, duhhh, was a plane that just hit another plane?" So, it went from an unidentifiable chopper, to, duh, what she knew had to be a plane, because that's what was supposed to happen, but didn't.

She first described it as what might be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. These women literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. She simply repeated what it was supposed to be, but the ball was shown at least six more times and called a plane or twin engine jet.

This is the most conclusive evidence of CGI I found. You can see the time change to 9:27. The fake image is so poor that it has no wings and two dots for engines. Notice the ball move directly east and cgi more left/north. START VIDEO AT 5:33.






https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-1d9POXM
WPIX (WB11) 9/11 9:21 - 9:31 - YouTube

The truth on 911 needs no witness other than fake plane images and an orb coming from west of the towers. NO PLANE of any kind could have passed east of tower 1 only two seconds before impacting the southeast corner of tower 2. IT'S IMPOSSIBLE and no one who supports the official lies would say it is either.

I doubled the speed of WB11's ball and fake plane image. The ball was shown 6-8 times between 9:03-9:26, while the CGI made its debut only one minute later. The CGI at 9:27 was altered to make it turn more north, giving a more plausible (but still impossible) flight path. The ball moved west to east in a straight line.




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obt-1d9POXM
WPIX (WB11) 9/11 9:21 - 9:31 - YouTube

[frisco kid]

She (WB11) first described it as what could be a police helicopter and after she realized it caused the explosion, changed her thoughts in that moment. The media literally got trapped in the twilight zone. If it wasn't a helicopter, (no propeller) it certainly could not have been a plane. A chopper (From WB11) passed west after the orb came from the right/west side.

The orb was the orb, helicopters are helicopters and the computer generated imagery utilized on 911 was absurd. The camera zoom demonstrates how a distant object will show more character detail. The zoom on the orb shows no detail of any known flying object and is too small to even be a chopper.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dah...eature=related

[frisco kid]

Techmac's digital attempt at computer generated imagery was laughable. Note that it has no right wing and the left wing and engine dislodge right after it gets below the copyright. It convienently zooms in preventing view of the fake image between the towers. WB11 didn't get its fake plane image until 9:27 and the similarities between the two provide a match in stupidity. Only a cgi could have a fake left wing and no right wing.





2nd Plane Impact: Techmac - YouTube

[frisco kid]

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks the perps wanted us to believe. The nose-out was exposed during live coverage and faded to black upon noticing their mistake. That supports that it wasn't supposed to come through. I believe it was Aaron Brown who said it was an illusion.

Only one relevant point has been made besides the simple truths I've posted on the live footage clearly showing a bogey coming from the west. The fake plane could not explode because it wasn't a plane, it was a computer generated image. Had they created an impact explosion, they would have had to explain why no plane parts fell to the ground on the south side. They logically could not create an impact explosion because there was no plane to produce any plane parts in real-time. Note the drone just right of the southwest corner of tower one. It casts its own shadow left of the north hole with just fire coming from the northeast corner, no NOSE-OUT in any north view footage, live or not. It appears that the initial bomb ignited on the east side but very close to the northeast corner.





I'm the first 911 researcher to capture the bomb igniting in the south tower. Watch the northeast corner as it illuminates during ignition. Bombs were were triggered in the opposite direction of impact and created explosions along the east side and lastly to the drone's impact area on the southeast corner. The drone was used as an ignition device and to have something in the area moving toward the buildings even though it wasn't a real plane. It was at least something people could eyewitness and call a small plane or remote controlled drone like Dick Oliver had.

[frisco kid]

CNN.com - Transcripts
This man had a north view of the towers and saw the drone coming from the west.

OK, we actually have an "Eyewitness News" reporter, Dr. J. Atlasberg (ph) who was downtown at the time and he is on the phone with us live.

Dr. J., what can you tell us?

DR. J. ATLASBERG (ph), REPORTER: Hello, Steve.

I'm actually uptown at 86th and Riverside. I can see the World Trade Center from about half the building up to the top. And about five minutes ago, as I was watching the smoke, a small plane -- I did -- it looked like a propeller plane, came in from the west.

And about 20 or 25 stories below the top of the center, disappeared for a second, and then explode behind a water tower, so I couldn't tell whether it hit the building or not. But it was very visible, that a plane had come in at a low altitude and appeared to crash into the World Trade Center.




ABC News Special Report: "Planes crash into World Trade Center"

He never saw a plane like that before, because it wasn't a plane at all. He said it twice, corroborating witnesses like Burnback and Oliver who described a drone. It was identical to what hit the north tower.

Mr Arraki

"Yeah. I--I saw--yeah, I saw the second plane, it go boom. I--I heard, you know. I just wake up my head like that I saw the side, too"

Arraki claims that the plane that hit WTC2 was identical to the plane that hit WTC1. Arraki's description of the first plane is reproduced below:

"I saw it come up from the left, and I saw the plane coming through to the building, go inside, a small plane, no, no, it was plane, you know, like they teach the people to pilot plane, small plane, you know, it was that kind of plane, yes, going into the building, and I never saw that plane before. It's like something, I don't know, it's like they work with the motors, I never saw a plane like that before!"


These two opposing flight paths are the best from Sept Clues. The height of the towers and the smoke coming from them confirm they are very different paths. Anything that came from right of the towers was nowhere near the smoke or behind the towers in sight from the north view. Without the divebomber myth, you'd have the morph footage seen from the wide east view. It starts as a dot and morphs as it moves north. The northeast view would have posed the same problem of having to create something in frame that wasn't there, so starting it, out of frame was done to avoid the morphing. They wanted to show a plane approach from the north view that was similar to what would've happened if 175 really impacted T2.

[frisco kid]

Tangible Information: 911 plane "United 175" DID NOT CRASH IN WTC (monitored after!!)

This is Flight 175's descent. A passenger jet cannot drop in altitude this fast and still stay in control.
8:58 AM 25,000 Feet
9:00 AM 18,500 Feet
9:02 AM 9,000 Feet

It hits the south tower at a height of around 1000 feet at 9:02:40 which means the flight descended over 8000 feet in 40 seconds.

The last 52 - 60 miles of fake 175's journey was covered in 4 mins 40 seconds. This places speed between 668 Mph and 771 Mph Maximum cruising speed for Boeing 767 is 568 MPH and that is at cruising altitude. The plane would go much lower speeds at lower altitudes.

This flight data is in the NTSB report. A lot of sources say flight 175 hit the south tower at 590 MPH, even NIST says 540 MPH. These speeds are not attainable at lower altitudes. A plane flying at these speeds would be out of control.



JimFetzer
Excellent post, SphinxMontreal! How many here are aware that these are the first airplane crashes in American history that have not been investigated by the NTSB! An FBI official, when asked, "Why haven't these crashes been investigated?", replied, "It wasn't necessary because we saw them on television!" But of course we did not see what happened at the Pentagon or in Shanksville "on television", and what we have seen on TV does not look right. So you are making some excellent points against a group who appears to be completely uninformed and at a loss as to how to cope with the evidence about 9/11.

U.S. military response during the September 11 attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the final moments before impact, according to eyewitness and Newark air traffic controller Rick Tepper, the plane executed ".. a hard right bank, diving very steeply and very fast. As he was coming up the Hudson River, he made another hard left turn..."[11] One or two minutes before it crashed into the World Trade Center, Flight 175 narrowly avoided a mid-air collision with Midwest Airlines Flight 7 (Midex 7).[36] At 9:01, a New York Center manager called FAA Command Center at Herndon. NEADS was notified at 9:03, when the New York Center manager called them directly, at about the time that Flight 175 hit the South Tower.[6] The F-15s were still 71 miles away from Manhattan when United Airlines Flight 175 smashed into the WTC's south tower.

United Airlines Flight 175 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At 09:01, two minutes before impact as United Airlines Flight 175 continued its descent into Lower Manhattan, the New York Center alerted another nearby Air Traffic Facility responsible for low-flying aircraft, which was able to monitor the aircraft's path over New Jersey, and then over Staten Island and New York Harbor in its final moments.[13] (Flight 175 came in from the southwest, apparently heading for the Empire State Building, but turned right, then left into the South Tower.)

9/11 South Tower Strike - New Jersey Air Traffic Controller Accounts Verrazano Bridge 4700 feet .... - YouTube

[frisco kid]

Was there a technical acknowledgement time stamp for the 9:23 message?

It's great to see such a quick response to such a relevant question.


Hi,

The instructions on how to decode the data is in our article.


"The underlined date and time is when the message was received by the airplane. "


DDLXCXA CHIAK CH158R
.CHIAKUA DA 111323/ED
CMD
AN N612UA/GL PIT
- QUCHIYRUA 1UA175 BOSLAX
- MESSAGE FROM CHIDD -
/BEWARE ANY COCKPIT INTROUSION: TWO AIRCAFT IN NY . HIT TRADE C
NTER BUILDS...
CHIDD ED BALLINGER

;09111323 108575 0574

So to answer your question... yes. It was received according to the data.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Full member list at Pilots For Truth List Of Members
Photos here Patriots Question 9/11 - Responsible Criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report

Some have further gone on to speculate that United Airlines Dispatchers routed the messages themselves based on flight planned route. Flight Tracking protocol as described renders this argument moot as the Dispatcher does not have control over ARINC routing of ACARS messages through remote ground stations. This type of premise is the equivalent of saying that when you call someone from your cell phone, you have the capability to choose which cell tower around the world you want your call to be routed. It's absurd. But for the sake of argument, we will explore this hypothesis.

Dispatch Operations Centers monitor flight tracking of the aircraft in near real time on an Airspace Situational Display (ASD). The United Airlines ASD is refreshed every 60 seconds according to another Memorandum For The Record released by the 9/11 Commission(4)


When asked about the technical capabilities of the ASD (airspace situational display) program used by the dispatchers on their monitors to track planes, all United representatives conferred that the program's display refreshes every 60 seconds.

..... ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

McCurdy recollected that at the time of the crash into tower 2, the display on Ballenger's monitor still showed UAL 175 at 31,000 ft, having just deviated from the normal flight plan and heading into a big turn back east.

The reason Dispatchers have an ASD is due to the fact the aircraft across the globe deviate from their cleared flight plans daily due to weather, traffic, etc. With an ASD, Dispatchers can keep track of their flights and alert for weather (or other adverse conditions) along the route. Even if Dispatchers had the capability to choose which specific ground station to route a message, why would they choose MDT and then later PIT if the aircraft is diverting back to the east on their monitors? The answer is, they wouldn't. The hypothesis that Remote Ground Station routing is based on original flight plan is completely absurd and usually attempted by only those who obviously are not interested in the facts, instead need to speculate to hold onto their beliefs. As described, the Central Processing System routes messages through remote ground stations based on Flight Tracking Protocol(5).


PENTAGON 9-11 Here's something the government didn't want you to see - YouTube


Other researchers with knowledge of this said flight 175 was in the air after the explosion. I'm saying that NO commercial airliner crashed into tower 2. And, that only a small object can be confirmed with some tight corroboration as the true thing present before the explosion.

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-C...TER-CRASH.html

UNITED 175 IN THE VICINITY OF HARRISBURG AND PITTSBURGH, PA

The first message at 1259:19Z, as stated, was received by the aircraft, but not crew acknowledged, which is not required as technical acknowledgements are automatic. This is referring to the message noted above sent through MDT by Jerry TSEN (First coded ACARS message at top). The second (1259:29Z) and third messages (1259:30Z) referenced in the MFR were not provided through the FOIA. The last message (1303:17Z) referenced in the MFR is claimed to not have been received by the aircraft according to the 9/11 Commission. However, all we have is their word, which contradicts the statement made by Ballinger and the Technical Acknowledgement time stamp. The coded Rogers initiated ACARS message is included above, third from the top. Of course, the 9/11 Commission cannot admit if the last message was received by the airplane as that would immediately indicate to anyone that the airplane did not crash into the South Tower at 09:03am.

It is interesting to note that the Commission ignores the 9:03am ACARS message sent by Ed Ballinger routed through MDT (second ACARS message printed above), yet claims the 9:03am message sent by Rogers as not being received. Based on sequential numbers of the messages themselves, it is clear Ballinger's 9:03 message was sent before the Rogers message (0545 for Ballinger message, 0546 for Rogers, printed on bottom of the message), yet the Commission ignores Ballinger's message. Why would they ignore Ballinger's message, yet acknowledge Rogers? Is it because Ballinger's message was received by the airplane and they realized that an aircraft cannot receive an ACARS message at that distance and such low altitude? This message is more evidence the aircraft was in the vicinity of Harrisburg, and not NY. At least 3 ACARS messages were routed through MDT between 8:59 and 9:03am, and received by the airplane, according to the technical acknowledgement time stamps at the bottom of the messages.

The last message sent at 9:23AM, routed through Pittsburgh, has been completely ignored by the 9/11 Commission as well. Although important to know whether the messages were received, it is equally if not more important to understand how they are routed, received or not.

Based on Flight Tracking protocol, the only reason the Central Processing System would choose to route messages through the ground stations located at MDT, then later PIT, over the numerous ground stations much closer and surrounding NYC, is due to the aircraft being in the vicinity of MDT, and then later, PIT. This means that the aircraft observed to strike the south tower, was not United 175.

[frisco kid]

[frisco kid]

Flight 175 was a grey and blue plane. The first pic here looks blue at the top but is against a blue sky which matches the fake plane image. I think the fake image was supposed to be a photograph. It's visibly shorter than what it had to be, but the green building and blue sky prove that it had no markings or windows if one wants to believe it was a real plane, which any honest researcher would reject and accept as a poorly done fake. The right wing is angled way too far to the rear and the engines are clearly not aligned compared to real boeings. The left engine also sags.

[frisco kid]

9/11 Airplane Photo Gallery - 9-11-2001 - 2nd World Trade Center Attack

Thanks goes to Rich for comparing fiction against reality. He should have a 1 and 4 at the top, but it's self-explanatory. Rich's post is below the picture. Robert Clark is credited with this and one other fake photo image from 911. Rich didn't line up the fake right engine with its way out of alignment left counterpart. Every discernible plane part is out of sync with a real boeing 767-222, including the joke image being a black smudge with no windows or markings.

1. Horizontal stabilizer
2. Right Wing
3. Tail Fin
4. Left Engine




I've resized the blue/grey plane to make it the same length as the colour photo underneath it... some interesting anomalies pop up right away. I lined the planes up from their ass end to their noses marked A and B. The rest is self explanatory...

I don't know how much these planes need to be twisted and turned, rolled and pushed about to get the 4 anomalies to line up as they should... But I just can't see how they can line up.. No. 2 is the standout for me..

Even if the coloured plane was rolled more to it's left, the right wing that we can see would naturally go up and move further away from the tail section.. not closer to it and right thru it.. not a chance. I also cannot see how a planes fuselage can become 25% thicker.. ok bad photo.. but it shouldn't look like that.. it makes no sense at all..

As Doogle has shown, maybe it's the angle.. I'm not seeing it yet and I'm not sure I will.

[frisco kid]

A fake plane was added for south tower explosion - Page 16 - David Icke's Official Forums

The right angle of the model matches closely to the real plane, but fails completely against the straighter angle of the fake image and real boeing.

[frisco kid]

What we're looking at here are zoomed images. They all must show color detail whether in direct sunlight or not. Color detail is also visible at sunset. The fake 911 image doesn't even rise to the level of a poorly done cgi.

[frisco kid]

It was witnessed by a woman who actually called it a golfball.

She saw the same ball that was filmed by cbs, nbc, ny1 and wb11, above. JERSEY SIDE=NOT 175.

As this terrified woman was running pell-mell away from the first collapsing tower — her hair, coat and feet on fire — Ms. Patricia Ondrovic witnessed vehicles parked along the street spontaneously erupt into flames. She even witnessed an aircraft disappear while in flight:

“I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn’t there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions. I just kept on running north.” And she’s got a lot more to say. - See more at:

http://911scholars.ning.com/forum/to...stimony-of-911




9/11 Reflections Part 2: Interview with Simon Shack of September Clues - Salem-News.Com

An independent journalist in Oregon, Ersun Warncke, actually did perform this tedious task and came up with this data:

Out of 2,970 9/11 victims listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file.

Ersun Warncke Salem-News.com

I did an exhaustive check of the list of victims provided on the CNN website. What I found is that out of 2,970 people listed, only 446 appear in the Social Security death index. Of those only 249 have a confirmed death certificate on file. Of those, not a single one has a valid “last address of record” on file. That is a lot of clerical error, or maybe Simon Shack is not as crazy as it would seem at first glance[2].

If your interpretation were correct, then adding the words foreigners and aliens would've been pointless because it was already understood that ambassadors and foreign ministers were not U.S. Citizens. The words who and belong are also unnecessary to make your fake point. This is shortest way it would've been written. YOUR EXCUSE IS DEBUNKED.

He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States

He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States


Clever article, but it still does not debunk how clearly Senator Jacob Howard clarified the meaning of the Citizenship Clause that he proposed and was ratified. He described three groups and used two words to describe the first group. Howard's comments and clarification came after concerns that the new language was too broad in regards to acquiring citizenship.

Senator Jacob Howard of MI proposed the Citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment in May of 1866. It was ratified in July of 1868. Thankfully, in no uncertain terms Howard confirmed that Illegal alien babies born here are NOT U.S. citizens.

The Citizenship Clause was proposed by Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan on May 30, 1866, as an amendment to the joint resolution from the House of Representatives which had framed the initial draft of the proposed Fourteenth Amendment.[26] The heated debate on the proposed new language in the Senate focused on whether Howard's proposed language would apply more broadly than the wording of the 1866 Civil Rights Act.[27]

Howard said that the clause "is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States."[26] He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons"—a comment which would later raise questions as to whether Congress had originally intended that U.S.-born children of foreign parents were to be included as citizens.

He added that citizenship "will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers.


The 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution - Fourteenth Amendment - anchor babies and birthright citizenship - interpretations and misinterpretations - US Constitution

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by stating:

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Supreme Court decisions

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court appropriately confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called "Slaughter-House cases" [83 US 36 (1873) and 112 US 94 (1884)]13. In the 1884 Elk v.Wilkins case12, the phrase "subject to its jurisdiction" was interpreted to exclude "children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States." In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be "not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/112/94

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1603

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44251.pdf

The Court essentially stated that the status of the parents determines the citizenship of the child. To qualify children for birthright citizenship, based on the 14th Amendment, parents must owe "direct and immediate allegiance" to the U.S. and be "completely subject" to its jurisdiction. In other words, they must be United States citizens.

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.