All Activity

Christian, why not put all photos for a post in one file, and upload that to File Factory or WeTransfer for readers to download as a set?

[David Lifton email to Robert Morrow]: 8/3/21 - 9:48 PM PDT Robert: Old news (as I’m sure you realize). But… thanks for reminding me. DSL P.S. I’m not sure you realize this, but. . . . This was not LBJ merely “announcing” something. Rather: It was LBJ engaging in a political maneuver which would commit JFK to making a Dallas trip. DSL 8/4/21 Robert Morrow reply: I agree

I give John Connally a complete free pass in the planning of the JFK assassination. It was not his balls that were in the process of being roasted in real time by the Kennedys. Connally's star was on the rise, while Nixon and the newspapers were openly speculating that the Kennedys were getting rid of the hated LBJ - which, of course, they were with a vengeance in November, 1963. John Connally (in 1982 to Doug Thompson): "You know I was one of the ones who advised Kennedy to stay away from Texas," Connally said. "Lyndon (Johnson) was being a real asshole about the whole thing and insisted." Web link: https://www.opednews.com/populum/page.php?f=opedne_doug_tho_060330_is_deception_the_bes.htm March 29, 2006 Is deception the best way to serve one's country? By Doug Thompson for Capitol Hill Blue The handwritten note lay in the bottom drawer of my old rolltop desk, one I bought for $50 in a junk store in Richmond, VA, 39 years ago. "Dear Doug & Amy," it read. "Thanks for dinner and for listening." The signature was a bold "John" and the letterhead on the note simply said "John B. Connally" and was dated July 14, 1982. The handwritten note lay in the bottom drawer of my old rolltop desk, one I bought for $50 in a junk store in Richmond, VA, 39 years ago. "Dear Doug & Amy," it read. "Thanks for dinner and for listening." The signature was a bold "John" and the letterhead on the note simply said "John B. Connally" and was dated July 14, 1982. I met John Connally on a TWA flight from Kansas City to Albuquerque earlier that year. The former governor of Texas, the man who took one of the bullets from the assassination that killed President John F. Kenney, was headed to Santa Fe to buy a house. The meeting wasn't an accident. The flight originated in Washington and I sat in the front row of the coach cabin. During a stop in Kansas City, I saw Connally get on the plane and settle into a first class seat so I walked off the plane and upgraded to a first class seat right ahead of the governor. I not only wanted to meet the man who was with Kennedy on that day in Dallas in 1963 but, as the communications director for the re-election campaign of Congressman Manuel Lujan of New Mexico, I thought he might be willing to help out on what was a tough campaign. When the plane was in the air, I introduced myself and said I was working on Lujan's campaign. Connally's face lit up and he invited me to move to the empty seat next to him. "How is Manuel? Is there anything I can do to help?" By the time we landed in Albuquerque, Connally had agreed to do a fundraiser for Lujan. A month later, he flew back into New Mexico where Amy and I picked him up for the fundraiser. Afterwards, we took him to dinner. Connolly was both gracious and charming and told us many stories about Texas politics. As the evening wore on and the multiple bourbon and branch waters took their effect, he started talking about November 22, 1963, in Dallas. "You know I was one of the ones who advised Kennedy to stay away from Texas," Connally said. "Lyndon (Johnson) was being a real asshole about the whole thing and insisted." Connally's mood darkened as he talked about Dallas. When the bullet hit him, he said he felt like he had been kicked in the ribs and couldn't breathe. He spoke kindly of Jackie Kennedy and said he admired both her bravery and composure. I had to ask. Did he think Lee Harvey Oswald fired the gun that killed Kennedy? "Absolutely not," Connally said. "I do not, for one second, believe the conclusions of the Warren Commission." So why not speak out? "Because I love this country and we needed closure at the time. I will never speak out publicly about what I believe." We took him back to catch a late flight to Texas. He shook my hand, kissed Amy on the cheek and walked up the ramp to the plane. We saw Connally and his wife a couple of more times when they came to New Mexico but he sold his house a few years later as part of a bankruptcy settlement. He died in 1993 and, I believe, never spoke publicly about how he doubted the findings of the Warren Commission. Connnally's note serves as yet another reminder that in our Democratic Republic, or what's left of it, few things are seldom as they seem. Like him, I never accepted the findings of the Warren Commission. Too many illogical conclusions. John Kennedy's death, and the doubts that surround it to this day, marked the beginning of the end of America's idealism. The cynicism grew with the lies of Vietnam and the senseless deaths of too many thousands of young Americans in a war that never should have been fought. Doubts about the integrity of those we elect as our leaders festers today as this country finds itself embroiled in another senseless war based on too many lies. John Connally felt he served his country best by concealing his doubts about the Warren Commission's whitewash but his silence may have contributed to the growing perception that our elected leaders can rewrite history to fit their political agendas. Had Connally spoken out, as a high-ranking political figure with doubts about the "official" version of what happened, it might have sent a signal that Americans deserve the truth from their government, even when that truth hurts. Originally published at and © Copyright 2006 by Capitol Hill Blue

Sandy, who were the "CIA plotters" of the JFK assassination? Do you have any names? For example was it Allen Dulles, James Angleton, Richard Helms, William King Harvey or David Morales? Would Gen. Edward Lansdale of the Air Force be considered a "CIA plotter" against JFK because of his long association with Allen Dulles? You mention the JCS - do you have the names of any JCS plotters who were likely or definitely involved in the JFK assassination? What do you think of Sean Fetter's thesis which is it is more likely that the right wing crazies of the Air Force were more likely involved in the JFK assassination than "CIA plotters?"

LOL (My apologies if this has already been posted.)

The CIA plotters went to a great deal of effort to create a false flag operation where the blame for the assassination would be placed on the Cubans and Soviets. It's hard for me to believe they'd done that knowing in advance that LBJ would reject the opportunity to retaliate against either one. To me it makes a lot more sense that it was a military-backed operation whose primary goal was to eliminate a treasonous Kennedy, and whose secondary goal was an add-on false flag operation that could give the military icing on the cake in the form of a Cuban invasion. Possibly even a nuclear first strike against the Soviet Union during a period when it was thought that the Americans would win. That is what the JCS wanted. Indeed, there is some evidence (a little) that the military sent fighter jets to Cuba the day of the assassination. Cooler heads prevailed when Undersecretary of State Averell Harriman shortly afterword declared that the top Sovietologists had all agreed that the Russians weren't involved in the assassination. Which was a false story. But it may have been the genesis of the decision to cover up evidence of a conspiracy and to blame only Oswald. Which seemed possible because there was evidence for both 1) a communist conspiracy with Oswald, and 2) a lone gunman Oswald. (This is Peter Dale Scott's Phase 1 / Phase 2 theory). Obviously LBJ chose to go with the lone gunman scenario. Ironically, the CIA plotters had intentionally made that a viable choice so that, if chosen, the governments focus would be on blaming Oswald rather than looking for the real plotters. The CIA plotters made that choice viable by controlling the autopsy and Dealey Plaza films, and making it appear as though a lone gunman could have killed Kennedy. No conspiracy was required to explain the evidence. But regardless of that decision by LBJ, the plotters' preferred outcome would have been a Cuban invasion or a war with Russia. Remember, it was a military coup. (Carried out by the CIA.)

I believe the correct quote is, "At least wait until next November before you shoot him down." https://robertmorrowpoliticalresearchblog.blogspot.com/2021/08/lbj-announcing-kennedy-trip-to-texas.html

I am all for anti-war protests on campus. (And off campus.) But I have a suspicion that the police were called in because some of the protesters are disrupting normal campus functioning. A little like the Golden Gate Bridge being shut down due to protests there last week.

I predict that the new lettering system for generations -- Greek -- won't make it past Generation Beta. (Generation Gamma, anybody?) Americans aren't into foreign alphabets... with the exception of scientists, physicists, and engineers. I'll bet that after Generation Beta, Generation C will be used. And alternate names Generations A and B will be used for Generations Alpha and Beta.

I've always had a low opinion of Giuliani, even prior to 9/11. But it's only in the last several years that I've realized he's an idiot.

The differences between the box positions between the Dillard and "Powell" photos can be explained by the difference in camera perspective. The same 3-dimensional box positions can look different in two dimensional photographs taken from different positions. Comparing to photos taken a few minutes later, the boxes do seem to have been moved, but the Powell and Dillard seem to be consistent.

@Bill Simpich, Tommy Graves said that he miswrote something in this. Where he wrote: "...but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the Warren Commission..." he meant to write: "...but hid OS documents on Oswald from the Church Committee and the HSCA..." The changed word is in bold (mine). I will correct the original.

@Christian ToussaySo sorry, the most recent links don't work. A shame. Speaking as an artist, I can say the images you have managed to share are very interesting! I notice there's yet another image hosting service you could try. I see this one allows for hosting a picture indefinitely. https://postimages.org/

And Lyndon Johnson visited Dallas in April 1963 and was reported in a Dallas newspaper saying (as metaphor) to be loyal to the President (Kennedy), likening Kennedy (whom he privately hates) to the pilot of an aircraft flying over ocean waters upon whom the passengers depend, and therefore "don't shoot him down until November". Well, which November did he mean. November 1964 in the election. But he is speaking to Democrats (not the public) concerning criticism of the President, so is he recommending to critics inside the Democratic Party to stop their criticism, support the President, and if they don't like JFK undertake a primary challenge to deny JFK the nomination in 1964? Or does he mean all Americans regardless of party should support the president, then vote him out (by electing the other party) in 1964 if they disagree with him? The latter seems the right reading of that. But it is not quite clear. Or is it a double-entendre, "wait until November to shoot him down"? Or was it a Freudian slip? Or was it some kind of code or signal in a speech like JFK was alleged to give in a speech in Miami that Cubela would hear, in which someone in the netherworld of assassination plotting wanted to hear something from LBJ himself to assure that they were not being set up by false representations of top-level approval on something? Has this last previously been raised or considered? I think it deserves to be. The whole pilot flying the aircraft across the Atlantic, and "don't shoot him down until November" seems so contrived, it is as if that image was invented for the purpose of being able to have a plausible pretext for a line in there "shoot him down in November". At best its an eery coincidence in light of what did happen in the same city, in November, in which LBJ was reported in the press personally speaking that phrase. But I'm not sure it was coincidence.

And, btw, Rafael Cruz, after the assassination, became rich in the oil business: Cruz ran a company called R.B. Cruz and Associates, which provided computer-driven seismic maps to the oil industry, which the big oil firms would buy and then use to begin to drill. (https://www.cnn.com/2016/01/30/politics/ted-cruz-canada-rafael-eleanor-calgary/index.html) The timing of things here seems to indicate that Cruz moved to Canada circa 1970, but I don't know. And then, of course, he moved in to the religion business.

The "solid scientific evidence of a tangential wound" that Pat posted has nothing to do with Kennedy. It's somebody else's wound. Keven has presented Robinson's ARRB testimony explaining what that triangular piece is, at least the part of it above the ear, as indicated in his drawing below. Though apparently he recalled its locationto be a couple centimeters nearer the ear than its actual location. He said that it was a flap of skin. As well as the location of a 1/4 inch wound. Neither Keven nor I have commented on what the beliefs of any authors are. Only Pat has done that. To which I've warned readers not to believe what Pat says about other researchers because of his history of misrepresenting the evidence and what the researchers believe. Keven went one step further and proved that what Pat said were misrepresentations. No big surprise for me. That was Dr. Paul Peters' judgment after carefully observing the autopsy photographs. Why do you consider a medical doctor to be "utterly unqualified?" (See the video in the OP.) Oh, I know. Because his opinion contradicts your preconceived notions. You have already admitted to being a closed-minded ideologue regarding the authenticity of the photos, films, and x-rays. So why not regarding this incision (as described by Dr. Peters) as well?

I recall searching Raphael Cruz Sr's background. After fighting Castro's men as a young man, he was captured and arrested. He escaped and made a harrowing journey out of Cuba and made it to Texas, with maybe just a few dollars in his pockets. Cruz Sr. settled in Texas. He started working as a dishwasher, yet , showing much ambition got into college there and graduated in 1963. I believe he then left Texas and settled briefly in New Orleans for several months. Again, in 1963. Cruz Sr. was the exact same age as Lee Harvey Oswald ( 24 ) in 1963, being born in 1939. Cruz Sr. coincidently lived in New Orleans during Oswald's time there, specifically during Oswald's leaflet passing ventures and his public shoving match with Carlos Bringuier in August of 1963. Cruz Sr. married a Canadian woman (Ted Cruz's mother? ) ... correct? Here's what I always found curious. Cruz Sr. was extremely active in Cuban ex-patriot group affairs in Texas. He spoke frequently at their meetings and gatherings. Recounting his anti-Castro fighting and harrowing escape to the U.S. Ostensibly to help attain funding for these groups in their anti-Castro activities. When he moves to New Orleans in 1963 however, there is nothing to show him being active in any Cuban affairs...at all. He goes from being extremely active in the Cuban Jure activity in Texas. Speaking often. Yet, in a city packed with hot-headed Cuban anti-Castro groups he doesn't interact with any of them at all? I recall there being a "black hole" in this New Orleans part of Raphael Cruz Sr.'s biography. Nothing about his time in New Orleans in 1963. Common sense would suggest Cuban affairs political activist in Texas Cruz. Sr. must have at least kept up to some degree on the activity of all this Cuban anti-Castro group activity in Cuban ex-pat packed New Orleans. He surely knew who Carlos Bringuier was. He certainly knew of Oswald as Oswald made the NO papers and actually appeared on NO radio and even TV due to his downtown leaflet passing and fight with Bringuier. Cruz sr. has never been asked about his 1963 time in New Orleans. And whether he knew of or was involved in anyway with the many anti-Castro groups there? Or if he had seen or heard anything about Lee Harvey Oswald in his time there which again was when Oswald was there. My guess is that Cruz Sr. was involved with one or more of our intelligence agencies at some point in his life. To what degree and starting at what age I could not say.

Yet LBJ & Connally were at Kennedy for months to tour Texas. Connally was a major player in the tour organisation, selecting the Trade Mart against S.S. security concerns, leading to the Elm St., dogleg. LBJ & Connally's feud with Yarborough caused press reports in Texas of Democratic party disunity, forcing JFK to tour with all three men. Always been suspicious to me.

https://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/oh-yes-i-shot-jr-ted-cruzs-dad-tells-the-real-story-of-seeing-jfk-in-dallas "I was working for IBM in Dallas...I saw the motorcade pass about 15 minutes before it happened." As for fleeing to Canada, I used the prejudicial verb "to flee." He would probably say that he moved to Canada. I forget the source for that, but recollection is that he moved his family to Canada some short time after the assassination. And then, inexplicably, his son, a man of no known talents other than being a master debater, became a United States senator. It's a mystery wrapped up in an enigma or something.

I don't believe LHO shot anybody in Dallas. But, he was a witness to what went down and could have shed light on who the conspirators were, but.... Lee Harvey Oswald was interrogated for a total of approximately 12 hours between 2:30 p.m. on Friday, November 22, 1963, and 11:15 a.m. on Sunday, November 24, 1963. There were no stenographic or tape recordings of these interviews.

LBJ's prior knowledge is essential. So he doesn't overreact. So he knows what to do. I think he was given an ultimatum. His crimes exposed or cooperate. How long before? I don't think he was trusted by the plotters. A week, two, a month?

Thank you for this John. A lot of info in there. It was cool to see Hank Albarelli talking briefly, Then Lashbrook, the Army/CIA fellow scientist who was int the room with Frank Olson when he was pitched out the window. It did start drifting away from Pont-St.-Esprit but came back with a good closing by Albarelli. Though in their summation I think they get the method of delivery wrong. It was not the bread. Fank Olson's bio-chemistry research specialty was aerosol delivery of such products. Frank's son Eric referred to a home movie with a short blurb in it of a crop duster taking off from an unknown field. Not much, but Frank was in France or the area specifically on dates before, itself and after per some documentation. The photography of the town is great. Much larger than I imagined. Worth re watching and taking notes for me.

That LBJ-Nixon meeting that Roger Stone talks about never happened. Roger Stone, as usual, just made it up. There are some things in his LBJ book that I think he utterly fabricated. Which is too bad because I put some good material in his book. Remember, Roger Stone could not care less about the truth. It will use the truth if it serves his purposes and he will totally lie about anything anytime.

Ron, Robert Morrow's familiarity with Roger Stone is extremely interesting, IMO. I'm still curious about Roger Stone's claim (in Nixon's Secrets) that LBJ and Nixon had a three-hour private meeting in Dallas on November 21, 1963. Because of Robert Morrow's history with Roger Stone, I'm wondering if Robert has any information about the alleged LBJ/Nixon meeting-- which is, obviously relevant for the JFK assassination. That story aroused my curiosity, since LBJ and Nixon occupied the White House for the next ten years after 11/22/63.

I'm fine with booting it to the Water Cooler. And btw, I am not "sensational" about high level political sex perverts, I merely tell the truth about them.