All Activity

JFK’s notes from the 1960 campaign show he was concerned that his sexual promiscuity would hurt him in the election. JFK wrote these notes after developing laryngitis on the campaign trail: “I got into the blondes.” “I suppose that if I win my poon [slang term for sex] days are over. I suppose they are going to him me with something before we are finished.” Web link: JFK's sexual preferences and fear of being exposed as an adulterer revealed in notes | Daily Mail Online - Daily Mail, March 9, 2020, Ryan Fahey reporter.

In other words, having been given information that reveals the mole -- a la Bill Simpich's "marked-cards" -- have I now tainted the recipients in further protecting the mole's identity, if they do not follow-through? Neat trick, huh?

I always laugh when I read self-anointed human behavior experts disparaging conspiracy believers as mentally deranged kooks who "see conspiracies everywhere." True historic reality has shown us there "are" conspiracies everywhere...at least way more than most average person's ever contemplate. Not around every corner. Not in most daily activities of common working folks. Not in every family drama and relationships. Not in 90% of American small business life and activity. Yet, the higher up the corporate, military, government, private wealth influence and control stakes ladder you go, the more conspiratorial that world becomes. It's inherent in their survival and growth DNA. IMO anyways. In JFK presidency times the highest level power, wealth, control and influence groups and individuals were such ones as American organized crime, world's richest men Texas Oil, extreme minded segregationist organizations, rogue intelligence agencies, ideological factions in our military, heads of extra government agencies like the FBI, Eisenhower's M.I. C. warning corporate wealth ... all JFK adversarial minded to extreme degrees. We all know by common sense and deep historical research in that massively wealthy and powerfully influential world of JFK opposing agendas that all of those entities must have had conspiracies brewing in their shared goal of defeating anything JFK was proposing that threatened their influence and wealth. Conspiracies everywhere? No. But much more in those realms of power and influence than the average person ever imagined during JFK's time?

Small elaboration: "The article you linked by Morley indicates he wasn’t about to climb on the Tennent Bagley train." THAT'S RIGHT. That's why it couldn't come from Morley -- any validation of the mole-hunt story; he had to out-source it to someone else, to Newman (or so I ... speculate).

Richard Bissell, Deputy Director for Plans, Yale '31 (turned down Skull & Bones) Tracy Barnes, Assistant Deputy Director for Plans, Yale '33 (Scroll & Key) McGeorge Bundy, National Security Advisor, Yale '40 (Skull & Bones) Either the Yale crew royally screwed the pooch with the Bay of Pigs -- or the long knives were out for Princeton Allen D. Either way, Dulles never saw it coming.

Hi W First thoughts: I think that there are 2 probability estimates you would need. I might estimate them using simulation if all the data was readily available. Data needed: * witness list * witness sex and age * time frame to use * categories of cause of death of witnesses in that time frame * dates of death * mortality rates by sex and age in each of the categories of death, maybe just the mortality rate alone by murder * dates witnesses were being called to testify or give a statement So the first probability that I would look at is the number of expected deaths in each category vs. actual deaths in that category. I would simulate 100K instances with the following steps. Set count of more_than_observed deaths = 0 Loop = 0 Set simulated_deaths = 0 for each witness generate a uniform random number in the 0 to 1 range -- call this u for each witness look up the appropriate mortality rate by sex and age -- call this p for each witness if their u < p then simulated_deaths = simulated_deaths + 1 if simulated deaths >= observed deaths in category then more_than_observed_deaths = more_than_observed_deaths loop = loop + 1 if loop = 100K STOP else GOTO step 3 After 100k simulations the probability of getting at least the observed number of deaths in the category = more_than_observed_deaths / 100K. ************************ For the second probability - witness death in some time period immediately before testifying (lets say 14 days) I might do this: N = number of days between JFKA and scheduled investigation appearance p = 14 / N then use the cumulative binomial probability distribution to get the probability of at least the observed witness deaths in that short time period. I think those estimates would work and hope that I've explained it well enough.

Let me suggest a broader perspective of understanding. If sending out information on Oswald -- who would go on to be the alleged assassin -- among various persons and departments circa 1963 protected The Mole because it could then be said that Oswald was the mole and you missed him. does sending out information on The Mole circa today -- among various persons (Morley being but one example) and departments undue that protection because it could now be said that the recipients did not act on it? Are you following? Consider the counterintelligence truism that it takes a mole to catch a mole. Has a process of reverse-disclosure been occurring, now trapping those who proclaim to want to solve the Kennedy assassination on the one hand, but cannot because doing so will reveal a bigger secret? Something to chew-on.

What was the McMahon issue? I’ve tried to contact Newman more than once, unsuccessfully. Turf wars, closed shops. The article you linked by Morley indicates he wasn’t about to climb on the Tennent Bagley train. Newman certainly has, and he clearly sees Golitsyn as the real defector and Nosenko as the fake one. It’s like Angleton’s ghost with Bagley as the medium. It is interesting, as you point out, that Newman went on this tangent, and my inclination is to view him as the pied piper.

If that AR-15 had gone off by accident there is not 1 chance in 200 that it would have blown off JFK's head as if picture-perfect assassination aimed, as opposed to the shot going somewhere wild elsewhere. Therefore, if the AR-15 was the cause of the JFK head shot, it can only have been done intentionally, i.e. an allegation that the wielder of the AR-15 in the car behind JFK intentionally murdered JFK. But none of the AR-15 major advocates argue that to my knowledge. You can't have it both ways. Its either one or the other. I don't think intentional murder by the AR-15 is the explanation. Among other reasons it would require the AR-15 to have been aimed before firing, and no witnesses saw aiming.

My interpretation of Lyndon Johnson's behavior in the immediate aftermath of the JFK assassination is that he was "playacting" - pretending to have a heart problem or some medical issue as a way of drawing attention away from his participation in the JFK assassination. LBJ immediately and weirdly blamed a communist for killing JFK after there had been so much worry about the toxic and well documented right wing atmosphere in Dallas, TX - https://robertmorrowpoliticalresearchblog.blogspot.com/2017/02/lyndon-johnson-at-120pm-was-immediately.html LBJ was so hysterical on Air Force One, which he insisted on immediately commandeering, that Gen. Godfrey McHugh had to slap Johnson. Gen. McHugh used to squire Jackie around Washington, D.C. in the early 1950's and he had a soft spot in his heart for her. Jackie, for her part, IMMEDIATELY suspected Lyndon Johnson in the JFK assassination as she told her press secretary "Lyndon Johnson did it." [Eddie Fisher, Been There, Done That: An Autobiography, pp. 257-258] Gen. Godfrey McHugh had to slap Lyndon Johnson to compose him on 11/22/63 QUOTE But Johnson had no intention of leaving until he was sworn in as President- a needless formality that could easily have taken place at a later time, once everyone was out of harm's way. He had placed a call to Federal District Judge Sarah Hughes, and now everyone was forced to sit in the sweltering afternoon heat- the airconditioning could not be turned on until the engines were started- waiting for Judge Hughes to arrive. Johnson, meantime, was cracking. General McHugh, who at first had no idea that LBJ was even on the plane, claimed that at one point he discovered Johnson cowering in the closet of the President's cabin. "They're going to kill us," he whimpered. "They're going to shoot down the plane, they're going to kill us all." It was then, McHugh said, that he actually got LBJ to "snap out of it" by slapping him. McHugh, in turn, was observed by others on the plane as dashing up and down the center aisle a half dozen times, wild-eyed and rambling. Neither man was a picture of composure. UNQUOTE [Christopher Anderson, Jackie After Jack, p. 11] On the flight back from Dallas, Lyndon Johnson was pounding Cutty Sarks, drinking about "half a fifth" according to Air Force steward Doyle Whitehead. A "half a fifth" is about 10 drinks of that cheap scotch.

Indeed. These poll numbers tell us nothing about the JFK assassination evidence, per se. They are merely an index of public ignorance vs. public knowledge about the evidence. Propagandists may find them useful, in line with Ronald Reagan's old concept that, "Perception is reality." As examples of this all-too-common disconnect between reality and mass ignorance, 50% of Republicans in a recent Washington Post survey believe that human activity has not contributed to climate change. The poll tells us nothing about the scientific climate change evidence.

Bill, Getting back to my point (above) about the salience of forensic details, how would we calculate the probability that both Sam Giancana and George De Mohrenschildt would have been murdered, by chance, one day prior to their scheduled testimony about the JFK assassination?

Couldn´t the impersonation just have been part of it, to provide deniability when needed? Easy, fairly simple, and effective till this very day... Sometimes, it doesn´t have to be complicated.

I believe that in a testimony, Youngblood said that he “didn’t remember” vaulting into the back seat, but that “Johnson said he did.” Which is true. Youngblood didn’t remember because he didn’t do it, and Johnson did say that he had done it. Willing dissemination. That said, the motivation may have been to hide Johnson’s “participation” in the assassination, but to hide the SS Keystone Cops type of response to the attack—which included the slow responses by most of the JFK (hungover) protective agents and the AR-15 slam fire accident. So the Youngblood fiction was added to the Clint Hill true-life bravery (not that Hill was all that honest in his accounts of the assassination—my documentary has a video of various Hill interviews in which he gives inconsistent descriptions of the head wound, including his saying “rear” of the head while indicating the front of the head, or sometimes correctly indicating the back of the head blow out, or sometimes saying “above the ear”—not exactly the most honest person) in order to keep the Agency from looking like total morons. The AR-15 accident also explains why LBJ didn’t want too many “trigger happy” (LBJ’s description) SS agents surrounding him. I keep coming back to how shocked LBJ was immediately after the shooting, when he was brought into Parkland Hospital. LBJ was an ass, by all accounts, and may or may not have had anything to do with the motivation behind Oswald or other suspicious dealings, but his Civil Rights Act was a good thing—although that may have been politically motivated rather than morally motivated. But by all accounts, he was genuinely in shock right after the shooting. The words of LBJ’s “mistress” (if she really was) are hearsay and might be revenge for being slighted or something, rather than being true. Or if true, might have referred to something other than LBJ planning to murder JFK—like a plan for political character “assassination” by exposing JFK’s sexual affairs or drug use.

Hi Kevin - it's interesting to think about this, at least for me.

Robert Morrow: "I think Lyndon Johnson was planning to murder JFK as soon as he got on the Democratic ticket and as soon as he was actually elected Vice President in November of 1960." Lyndon Johnson was EXTREMELY UNHAPPY at being JFK's vice-presidential pick even though LBJ and Sam Rayburn had sexually blackmailed and strongarmed the compromised, unhinged sexual degenerate JFK (and weakling I should add) into putting LBJ onto the 1960 Democratic ticket. John Kennedy was quite concerned that his unhinged, degenerate, hyper-adulterous "lifestyle" would soon explode into the public realm and become a dangerous issue in the 1960 campaign. Evelyn Lincoln, his secretary, famously said she spent "half her time" dealing with JFK's paramours. I should add the Kennedys were never going to admit to anyone HOW and WHY Lyndon Johnson was able to get onto the 1960 Democratic ticket because it would reflect quite poorly on John Kennedy: showing just how compromised he was and how he buckled under to the strongarm tactics of LBJ/Rayburn. In the days after the 1960 Democratic convention LBJ would regularly, privately issue death threats against the Kennedys. In fact, he would do this every time (his humiliator) Robert Kennedy's name came up. LBJ spent the 1960 general election drunk as a skunk prowling down the aisles of his hotel rooms trying to get female reporters to have sex with him. LBJ's aides, such as George Reedy, were amazed he could function in this condition. On the night of the 1960 Democratic election, a time when candidates would normally be euphoric at their winning national elections, LBJ was in as a foul, nasty and a sour mood as one could be. That is because he knew the Kennedys totally hated his guts, did not trust him and they had all the power and he had none. On the day of the 1961 Inauguration, the crooked Bobby Baker, LBJ's longtime partner in kickbacks and crime, his fellow manipulator of the U.S. Senate, said that John Kennedy would not live out his term and that he would die a VIOLENT DEATH. Robert Caro describes the LBJ-RFK relationship post 1960 Democratic convention, where RFK had moved heaven and earth attempting to keep LBJ off the 1960 Democratic ticket. QUOTE John Connally, who during long days of conversation with this author was willing to answer almost any question put to him, no matter how delicate the topic, wouldn't answer when asked what Johnson said about Robert Kennedy. When the author pressed him, he finally said flatly: "I am not going to tell you what he said about him." During the months after the convention, when Johnson was closeted alone back in Texas with an old ally he would sometimes be asked about Robert Kennedy. He would reply with a gesture. Raising his big right hand, he would draw the side of it across the neck in a slowing, slitting movement. Sometimes that gesture would be his only reply; sometimes, as during a meeting with Ed Clark in Austin, he would say, as his hand moved across his neck, "I'll cut his throat if it's the last thing I do." UNQUOTE [Robert Caro, The Passage of Power, p. 140] The reason John Connally, the LBJ aide who urge Johnson to take the vice presidency, who would tell Robert Caro about literally everything but would not telling him what Lyndon Johnson said about Robert Kennedy was because LYNDON JOHNSON WOULD ISSUE A DEATH THREAT AGAINST ROBERT KENNEDY EVERY TIME RFK'S NAME CAME UP. On the night of the victory of the JFK-LBJ ticket, or rather early in the morning on Nov. 9th, 1960, Lyndon Johnson was very unhappy, with a rude and surly attitude. Journalist Margaret Mayer: Before she was a journalist for the Dallas Times-Herald, Margaret Mayer used to work for LBJ, so she knew him well. QUOTE Lady Bird was happy; she was going to enjoy being Second Lady, she thought, and she did. Besides, she was always glad when a campaign was over, victorious or not. Lyndon? Did he hoot and holler? Did he even smile except for the photographers? He did not. He was demonstrably morose. Margaret Mayer: “The night he was elected vice-president – very late, when it was quite apparent that he and Kennedy had been elected – I don’t think I saw a more unhappy man. He had been at the Driskill Hotel with the Homer Thornberrys, the Connallys, Jesse Kellam, and sometime after midnight, maybe one in the morning, they all came downstairs and went across the street to an all-night café on Seventh Street. “There was no jubilation. Lyndon looked like he had lost his last friend on earth, and later he was rude to me, very rude, and I tried to remind myself he was unhappy, but he did the same thing the next day in the TV station. He was rude to just about everybody. Now I’ve known Lyndon a great many years, and I’ve never known him to act like that. “It was clear to me and a lot of other people that even then he didn’t want to be vice-president.” UNQUOTE [Merle Miller, Lyndon: An Oral Biography, p. 273] Picture of Dallas Times-Herald reporter Margaret Mayer here: https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2013/10/25/jim-lehrer-news-changed-forever-on-nov-22-1963/ Margaret Mayer - https://discoverlbj.org/item/mayerm Here is a link to LBJ henchman Bobby Baker's prediction of JFK's VIOLENT DEATH which occured on INAUGURATION DAY January 20, 1961 literally at the moment JFK was sworn in as president: QUOTE In January of 1964 the Warren Commission learned that Don B. Reynolds, insurance agent and close associate of Bobby Baker, had been heard to say the FBI knew that Johnson was behind the assassination. When interviewed by the FBI, he denied this. But he did recount an incident during the swearing in of Kennedy in which Bobby Baker said words to the effect that the s.o.b. would never live out his term and that he would die a violent death. UNQUOTE Web link to Esquire article: https://classic.esquire.com/article/1966/12/01/a-primer-of-assassination-theories [“A Primer of Assassination Theories,” Edward Jay Epstein, Esquire, 12/01/1966] All of these threats occurred YEARS before the JFK assassination and before Lyndon Johnson was issuing threats about JFK to his mistress Madeleine Brown literally on the morning of the JFK assassination. Lyndon Johnson to Madeleine Brown: “After tomorrow those goddamn Kennedys will never embarrass me again- that’s no threat- that is a promise!” [Madeleine Brown, Texas in the Morning, p. 166] Lyndon Johnson on the morning of 11/22/63 to Madeleine Brown: “That son-of-a-bitch crazy Yarborough and that goddamn xxxxing Irish mafia bastard Kennedy, will never embarrass me again!” [Madeleine Brown, Texas in the Morning, p. 167] Lyndon Johnson on the morning of 11/22/63 to Madeleine Brown: "His snarling voice jolted me as never before - "That son-of-a-bitch crazy Yarborough and that goddamn xxxxing Irish mafia bastard, Kennedy, will never embarrass me again!" I managed to say, "I'm looking forward to tonight," when he blasted out even louder, "I've got about a minute to get to the parking lot to hear that bastard!", and he slammed down the phone. I was startled ... an uneasiness gripped me over Lyndon's actions and temper." [Madeleine Duncan Brown, Texas in the Morning, p. 167]

Kevin, The issue of actuarial probabilities is one interesting aspect of these cases, but the specific forensic details are more telling, IMO. As an example, we could look at the actuarial probabilities that Sam Giancana and George De Mohrenschildt would be shot in the head at a particular age. But what are the actuarial probabilities that they would be shot in the head immediately before their scheduled testimony about the JFKA assassination? Related forensic examples are endless here. As another example, we could focus on the actuarial probability that Koethe would be killed by a karate chop, but a more salient question might be, "Why did the alleged burglar steal Koethe's notes about the JFK assassination?" The same question could be asked about James Angleton's theft of Mary Pinchot Meyer's diary, or the theft of Dorothy Killgallen's (and Florence Pritchard Smith's) notes about Jack Ruby, after these women were murdered.

I will agree with your basic point, Bill. IF one is asked did Oswald act alone, the vast majority of people will say no, but not because they have an extensive knowledge of the case. IF one is asked what is your particular theory, as to who pulled the trigger, and who made the decision the trigger should be pulled, however, the Oswald did it all by his lonesome will be by far the most common answer. But, once again, it is not because those saying this have an extensive knowledge of the case. And there is a reason for this. if you study the statements of people commenting on the case over decades, you will find that many of those attracted to the more than Oswald theory view the case as part of a larger pattern of evil misdeeds by a they. These people are attracted to conspiracy because they see conspiracies everywhere. But by the same token, many if not most of those claiming Oswald did it now stop talking come from a position of fear--a fear of the unknown, and a fear that Oswald's possible innocence suggests something about America that they just won't let themselves believe. I mean, Earl Warren and Walter Cronkite were wrong? And Mark Lane, Jim Garrison, and Oliver Stone were right? For some that's impossible to fathom, and their whole world is threatened by such a possibility. Now, I have spent countless hours arguing online, and discussing the case in emails and in person with people of both camps--the Oswald did its and the more than Oswalds. And I can say that at least 50% of what most CTs believe is garbage, and at least 20% of what most LNs believe is garbage. So from hearing this, one might think I'm leaning towards LN. But no, far from it, the myth put together by the Warren Commission was stretched so thin that if even 5% of what they claimed is garbage, then a reasonable person would have to accept the possibility there was more to it than Oswald.

In 1965 the clearance rate for homicide was around 80% meaning a murderer had approximately 20% chance of not getting caught. It’s much lower now. https://projectcoldcase.org/cold-case-homicide-stats/ If this probability is applied to the supposed hit squad victims among the 15 JFKA witnesses mentioned in the Charnin analysis whose deaths are “suspicious”, there is only a 0.2^15 or 3X10-11 chance that the murderers would not be caught. However we know of several serial killers who manage to kill 50-100 victims before they are caught. In the case of large body count serial killers, they almost always select victims that are on the margins of society whose deaths are considered unimportant and not investigated very enthusiastically. One could say the success of serial killers justifies the mysterious death hypothesis. On the other hand, the Poisson process used in the Charnin analysis is best applied to objects that are unambiguously homogeneous such as nuclear particles or situations where there is not much subtlety such as Prussian army deaths from horse kicks during the Franco-Prussian War which is where it was first applied. My simplistic analysis of getting away with murder was mathematically correct but obviously broke down. I would have liked to have seen Charnin apply his methodology to a case where several witnesses were murdered to prevent testifying or another probabilistic approach taken with his data to see if he got the same approximate results. When you get numerical results ten orders of magnitude different from your input, at least some skepticism is called for. The most important mysterious death is that of Oswald. I checked out “Hit List” from the library and dug out my old probability and statistics books from deep storage so maybe I will have more to say on the matter.

Rush to Conspiracy? Huh? It has taken years for independent researchers to identify and publish all of the evidence debunking the Warren Commission cover up of the JFK assassination plot-- including the systematic murders of important witnesses. And the Mockingbird contractors in the mainstream and social media have been working to discredit them for decades. Meanwhile, I wonder if Bill Brown and Mark Ulrik have even studied the forensic data in Hit List. Do they know what Lee Bowers said, privately, about what he had witnessed in the parking lot on 11/22/63?

Bill S., if Mexico City was the planned and approved joint CIA/FBI dirty trick op to plant negative discrediting information re the FPCC, would it not be simpler to assume a competent witting Oswald as the operative working for the US side of that, than an impersonator with Oswald either ignorant of or suborned to pretend to go along with some different impersonator? Have you been aware of and considered the strange story of George Demerle, FBI informant of troubled, poor background who worked both left and right radical groups (communist organizations and Minutemen both, gaining confidence of BOTH that he was “really” on their side) … as a possible parallel to Oswald in terms of realism in working both left and right? In Demerle’s case FBI documents show he was a maverick and his own person, not entirely trusted by but found useful to the FBI, cp Oswald?

Can also be borrowed here: JFK Assassination Eyewitness: Rush to Conspiracy (the Real Facts of Lee Bowers' Death)

The question wasn't tailored so narrowly. You write: "The intriguing question is whether Gheesling and Anderson took Oswald off the security watch list based solely on the report about Oswald's cooperation with the FBI, or whether they had also been tipped off that a molehunt was about to begin with Oswald's file." Golitsyn told the FBI, including Hoover, either directly or indirectly, that there was a Soviet agent in the Washington FBI office. You ask why was Oswald taken off the watch list, which went to the FBI's Soviet Desk. Was Oswald taken off because a Soviet agent took him off? Is THIS the question here, and not the framing which you have offered?

Once again I ask you... What makes you think I give two shits about how YOU think I should handle things? I'm curious.

Nope, doesn't work. I'll bet that if you clear your browser's cache, it won't work for you either. (Because the photos might be loading from your cache. I've seen that happen before, many times, back when I used to write HTML.)