All Activity

Okay. Here's the brain teaser of the day: In one hour or less, tell me the difference between Fox News and the Natonal Enquirer. You get three guesses, and the first three don't count. Steve Thomas

Matt, Jamelle Bouie published an op-ed in the NYT about this subject a month or two ago. The gist of it was that Rudy Giuliani has always been a sleazeball. Most Americans don't know that Rudy Giuliani lied to the 9/11 Commission about the fact that he was forewarned on 9/11 that the Twin Towers were going to, unexpectedly, collapse to the ground. Giuliani admitted this to Peter Jennings on 9/11. (The NYFD thought Giuliani was nuts when he told them the steel skyscrapers were going to collapse.) Ron: Yes, I'm familiar with the Elizabeth Reed story-- about the headstone and the magic mushrooms. Fascinating rock 'n roll history about Dickey Betts's brilliant composition.

Bill, My point is that the specific forensic details of many of these deaths render mere actuarial probabilities less than significant-- although the actuarial stats indicate high improbability. For example, it's one thing to estimate the actuarial probability of George De Mohrenschildt suddenly dying at age 66, and another thing to estimate the probability that he would suddenly die of a gun shot wound to the head the day before his scheduled testimony about the JFK assassination. Why did De Mohrenschildt die on that particular day, rather than on one of the other 5,100+ days that had elapsed after JFK's murder? The same probabilistic logic applies to Giancana's murder, and most of these JFK witness murder cases. So, yes, we can get a composite number about the actuarial probabilities of all of these witness deaths-- as Beltzer and Wayne did, in Hit List -- but what is even more improbable are the strange, specific circumstances of the murders occurring when, and how, they did by mere chance. What is the probability that Giancana would have been murdered, by chance, by multiple gunshot wounds spelling an "O" around his mouth-- for "Omerta"-- the day before his scheduled testimony about the JFK assassination? What is the probability that a random burglar would have stolen Koethe's JFK assassination notes, by mere chance, after killing Koethe with a karate chop? (We could ask the same question about the Killgallen and Pritchard Smith murders.) Aside from actuarial mortality stats, how frequently do burglars steal manuscripts and notes written by their victims?

Since this linked to Matt Douthitt's YouTube channel, could someone please tell Matt to respond to my comment about SMiLE on his Heroes and Villains reconstruction. It's my other document-centric hobby and I was floored to see another JFKA enthusiast share my passion for reconstructing the greatest album that never was. It's a conspiracy as vast and as far ranging as the JFKA Matt I promise I have stuff you need to see! I promised I would never post on this forum again but since it is for Brian Wilson, I have to 🤷‍♂️

Thanks. Looking forward to watching this.

I would respectfully suggest not including de Mohrenschildt for the reasons stated and more. The facts are contested. I think if you limit it to six people or something like to start with - Koethe, Hunter, Kilgallen, Pritchett Smith, Giancana and Rosselli - you will obtain a very positive result.

Going through “Hit List” entry regarding George DeMohrenschildt, it’s claimed that a doctor who treated DeMohrenschildt for bronchitis apparently induced his mental collapse. It further states that this doctor started this treatment in April 1976 at the time the House Select Committee on Assassinations was beginning to be funded (page 234, hardcover edition). I checked and found that the HSCA was not even created by vote in congress until September 17, 1976. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/94-1976/h1183 It’s further claimed that his wife Jeanne continued to believe he was murdered to silence him. However, the clean up squad let her live for another 16 years. https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/160217231/jeanne-de_mohrenschildt DeMohrenschildt was staying at the residence where he died as a guest. It was quite fortuitous for the clean up squad that there was already a shotgun present in the home. You would think that someone covertly entering an occupied home they were presumably unfamiliar with and had intruder alarms to kill someone and make it look like a suicide would stage it as a self-hanging perhaps withe the aid of a hard to detect tranquilizing agent. Although the shotgun blast was apparently not heard by those present elsewhere in the house, how would a presumptive killer know this? Did the presumptive killer have cooperation of one of the occupants? The authors of “Hit List” ask why such an upscale man would use such a gruesome instrument such as a shotgun to commit suicide (page 237). But didn’t Ernest Hemmingway and Philip Graham of the Washington Post use a shotgun to commit suicide? Here is an detailed report into the investigation of DeMohrenschildt’s death. I realize it has been taken from McAdams site but it appears to be the work of the local police, perhaps at the behest of the HSCA. https://www.jfk-assassination.net/death2.txt

This Rufus Youngblood myth was taken care of by Bob Groden in his book JFK:Absolute Proof. Johnson was upright when the shooting started. ( see page 272)

Silvia Duran was impersonated as well as Oswald on 9/28/63. She has repearedly denied ever seeing Oswald after 9/27/63, despite the CIA transcript documenting that she and Duran were together at the Cuban consulate on 9/28 about noon time. Did the American agencies provide a reaction to this impersonation? Immediately after the Oswald-Duran impersonation, a strong thread of evidence emerges on 10/2/63 about the CIA's concern about the "danger that the FBI's field office in Mexico City had been penetrated". See the cryptonym LAROB, and this in particular: 10/3/63 cable from HQ to Mexico City, DIR 73144 PBRAMPART: "Urgent. Private meeting (illegible)." Next page: "On October 2, a memo went out from CIA headquarters discussing the danger that the FBI's field office in Mexico City had been penetrated. "Re coordination of FBI (oper?)ations in MEXI, -__ in liaison with ODENVY (note: FBI) is still delicate matter which ___ AMDEAD at HDQS 0-- directives foresee that certain types of operations may be coordinated at HDQS rather than in the field. on the whole our relations with FBI on world-wide and PBPRIME and CE (note: US and counter-espionage) matters are extremely productive and still improving and we do not wish at present time to raise new issues in Mexico...FBI has agreed and has instructed its MEXI rep to discuss with you pertinent details of such Russian CE ops as LAROB case." Here's my analysis of the LAROB evidence in Chapter 5: Keep in mind that right after the calls of Sept 28 and Oct 1, the station had immediately responded with a report to HQ admitting its fear that the local FBI field office had been penetrated. On October 1, Bill Bright’s defection target Valentin Bakulin – who was handling the double agents LAROB and LINEB-1 for the Soviets, as seen in Chapter 3 - was seen talking to Yatskov outside the Soviet Embassy.[ 18 ] Yatskov was the consul assumed to be in close communication with Oswald, as seen in a contact sheet for Oswald. This referenced list of contacts makes it clear that the CIA was convinced by October 1st that “Y talked to O” on September 28.[ 19 ] At this point, CIA complaints surface about the FBI’s operation. I believe the concern was that someone from the LAROB or the LINEB-1 operations might have obtained access to LIENVOY, and impersonated Oswald and Duran on the telephone (note: after the Oswald figure spoke in person with Yatskov earlier that day) Bakulin and LINEB-1 met on October 1. Bakulin told LINEB-1 he had no money for him that day. Things had heated up. After the meeting, Bakulin was put on continuous physical surveillance by the CIA’s Mexico City station unit known as LIEMBRACE.[ 20 ] The next day, October 2, a memo went out from CIA headquarters discussing the danger that the FBI's field office in Mexico City had been penetrated, and that any coordination with that FBI office was "a delicate matter" that should be dealt with at the headquarters level rather than in the field. The memo also said that the FBI leadership “instructed its Mexi rep to discuss with you pertinent details of such Russian CE ops (note: counter-espionage operations) as LAROB case”. LAROB was a double agent handled by both Soviet officer Valentin Bakulin and the FBI in Mexico City. Bill Bright had been tracking this story, as discussed in Chapter 3. Although there was a danger that the FBI's relationship with LAROB might have compromised its own security, HQ valued its relationship with the FBI and told the Mexico City station that "we do not wish at present time to raise new issues in Mexico."[ 21 ] On October 5, the Mexico City station reported that “HQs was deferring discussion of the high level of penetration, but would take it up after hearing results of closer liaison between (the Mexico City station and the FBI) in Mexico City."[ 22 ] On October 7, twenty sets of reports about double agent LAROB were sent from the FBI to the Mexico City station and Headquarters.[ 23 ] Why were they sent? Because both the Station and Headquarters were worried that LAROB was insecure. This double agent or his contacts could have impersonated Duran and Oswald on September 28 and October 1. LAROB and his contacts were logical suspects. If the local FBI field office had been subjected to a high level of penetration, then the Mexico City station could have been penetrated as well. The station itself had to be treated as a suspect in the molehunt.

Researcher Matt Douthitt called me up the other night on Zoom and captured the feed while we watched John Lattimer's presentation at the 1993 Chicago conference. For those not in the know, Lattimer was the first non-military doctor allowed into the archives to view the assassination materials, who then parlayed this into dozens of magazine articles, and interviews. It can safely be said that he did more to keep the single-bullet theory alive than ALL those involved with the creation of the theory, and was a huge influence on the thinking of the Oswald-did-it crowd. In any event, Matt decided to put the entire 5 HOUR conversation up on YouTube. Now, there's a lot of blithering on my part and a lot of repetition and almost certainly some mis-statements. But if you're someone with an interest in the case who would like to know what it's like to sit in on a conversation between two veteran researchers, this might be your cup of tea. Now, Matt does provide a lot of images and even some outside interviews, which help to illuminate Lattimer's nonsense. And of course there's the images from Lattimer's own presentation. So it's not just talking heads. In fact, if you are relatively new to this you can probably learn more from this video than probably any other video on the assassination, as it presents arguments for Oswald's guilt from a hero to the Oswald did it crowd, and then blasts gigantic holes through most of his arguments. Now it is FIVE hours long. So I think someone with an interest might want to watch a half hour at a time or so. Or not.

This book I think is a good example of when theorizing about what happened to JFK takes precedence over data and analysis. If you read the second part of my review, what Fetter does with Mexico City is another example of making theory first and then shoving data into it. He wants to conclude that the whole Mexico City mess was about freezing RFK in place. Which is not, for instance, what John Newman thinks. Or Peter Scott as another example. And I think they have done more work on that than Fetter has. Scott, for example, has come up with the whole Phase 1 and Phase 2 idea. That Mexico CIty was done to jump start a war on Castro, but then when LBJ and Hoover put the brakes to that, the idea was to make Oswald into a sociopathic loner model. I have never seen anyone put forth what this book does. And as I pointed out, with evidence, he does not prove his idea.

Uh oh hide the women and children.

I'm amazed this thread has gone on for 3 pages on what is obviously a semantics "divide and conquer" statement, that has no real relevance. It's interesting it went to the third page, before Brown said anything of relevance. As Tom pointed out, he could have worded it differently, from the beginning. But the above statement is true, at least 95%. Most people on both sides don't really know any details. So I've never placed faith in the polling around the JFKA to mean anything significant. Even though often this general ignorance of the issues is what people come equipped with when they vote in our elections. A high percentage of people also thought Saddam was behind 911. I agree with Pat on this. Unfortunately there tends to be more of a wacko element in avid Cter's. In general, the many conspiracies fulfill a need to rationalize that there was never a real chance because life and conspiracies were stacked against them from the onset. I know that's not a popular thing to say. I've become more concerned , as an old parent given the realization that we may have given our kids a better childhood than we had, (with a lot of toys) but they now face the economic reality that most are not going to be better off than their parents. And a misdirected belief in conspiracies about some totalitarian government that doesn't exist might end up holding them back. It is important to get a better idea of what and who is the cause of this marginalization. This is probably the most demanding time since the 60's and it's no time to retreat into an era 60 years ago. It's time for them to get involved and make their issues known. JMO

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.