Calli Robertson

I posted this at Duncans forum but I know it will interest a few of you.. These are rough notes and observations that can be followed. You will need a frame by frame copy of the Nix film, preferably on USB, then to HD TV if possible, for best results. This is a brief outline of the alteration of the Nix film. All frames are referenced as N1 (Nix frame one), etc. N1. Gunshots have already cracked the air. The limo is already in the advanced stages of slowing greatly. The feint white line that appears around two-thirds of the screen and remains throughout the film is a registration mark, cue and splice point for the shifting of time and events. Notice also that in almost every frame, the front of the limo is split into three, sometimes more, separate segments. The very front of the limo is fuzzy black and usually includes some of the flag. The second part is shiny black and usually includes other parts of the flag and parts of the wheel. The third section is usually more blue in colour. These change throughout but are easily distinguishable by quality, angle and other factors. N15. Paying close attention to Gayle Newman, keep your eyes on the dark, horizontal line on her front. Also keep your eyes on what looks like a dark line on the left side of Moormans head. Watching Newman, click four frames to N19 and watch the helmet of Chaney fill the same pattern on the front of Newman. If you are sharp, you will also see the vague figure of Clint Hill appear between Moorman and Chaney. Toggle back and forth if need be. Hill is from this point blended into Chaney as 'they' move forwards past Moormans position. N20. The first version of Hill/Chaney have now been 'released' into motion. His movements are disguised as being the first bike cop. He appears for six frames, N20 - N26, until he is obscured by Hargis/Foster. N22. The second bike on the far side is level with Newman, Hargis has just appeared from behind Moorman. Click to N23 and pay attention to the fact that the second bike is also Chaney, inserted a little higher and that he also brings with him the 'second' Clint Hill starting from N23, depicting exactly the same motions as the first Chaney/Hill figures. Toggle b/f between the frames until your eyes pick it out. They appear from N22 - 31 until they too are obscured by Foster/bike. Now go back to N15 and start again. N15. Now keep watching Moormans head at the line mentioned earlier whilst advancing to N27.... watch for what is the third version of Clint Hill that's been waiting since N14 to be 'released' next to Moorman. By N35, Hill version three has caught his second version of Chaney/Hill, thus becoming number two. By N36, C/H version two, are now left behind. Four frames later, N40, Hill version three has hit the splice point with Hill version one. From N41, C/H version one has now been passed and is now version two. Between N35 & N40, Hill's left hand side has been obfuscated using a bike aerial as a slice point. This is to hide his outstretched arm. The white line referred to earlier becomes the splice point. The two Chaneys catch up with each other at N49. You can still see the faint image of Hill left behind on the bikes. Throughout all that segment, you'll slowly pick out where the rear of the limo actually was. If you can tell your mind that the limo is not a single entity, it will make sense. That is basically how the limo stop was obscured and for me constitutes definite proof of alteration. Closer inspection will reveal so much more. Bear in mind that all this took place at a different location. Also bear in mind that Foster has been 'inserted' to help obscure the actions. As have the bikes. You can tell plain as day by the quality dip. They look like they're in black and white. Starting from N38, notice the white stripe that creeps over the hood, to the trunk, of the limo until N66...when Jackie appears to climb out of the limo. Now, place the limo starting point at roughly the back of the guy with the grey jacket on who is positioned behind Altgens/Bothun. The white line that creeps is actually from when the limo starts accelerating at the steps area, further down Elm St. When you look at the limo wheels throughout the film, especially when they are in relation to people appearing in the foreground, you can occasionally see when they take on a 'normal' appearance between folks legs, eg N66, N70, N77 and the front wheel at N80+. The rest of the time I suspect they are pasted in to disguise motion, angle, etc. This ties back to the limo being in sections. Close inspection reveals the limo to be at differing directions of travel at points that are at total odds with the position on the road and also when compared to Nix's LOS. I don't profess to having a technical understanding of the film processes involved but it doesn't change the fact that I'm right, does it? I may be wrong on a few points but know i'm right on more. I believe that when you 'click' to the process and realise what's been done, it makes it easier to catch the rest of the alterations. Soon, you can't 'unsee' them. You can work out that Greer actually turned because he heard a shot.....a shot that hit right in front of Bill Newman that '..blew his ear off', followed by a second shot that made Jackie jump out the car, etc. You can also see remnants of Jackies actual movements, despite the attempt to try and disguise them. You CAN see parts of it. If you see one bit, the rest of it will follow. This is also true for Zapruder. I've worked a fair bit of it out but any logical analysis is beyond me at this point...though I suspect someone else to cash in soon when they get their chance. Heh. Well, a few people were on the right track after all, props will be given in due course. A boat load of related stuff makes sense to me now. Again, this IS definite proof in my book. A game changer. This should keep all sorts of folk busy, eh? Take the time to properly check this out, please and thanks. Hope it made sense. Now, about those Life transparancies, eh....

Daniel, thanks, I'm aware of the limo stop witnesses but i still hold a degree of scepticism as to whether it came to a complete halt. For the record, I don't believe the Nix film, et al, was altered to remove a complete stop either. Robert, thanks also. I don't believe Chaney ever got in front of JFK to be able to turn back and see him, although in Altgens 6 he looks closer to the back of the limo than the bikes on the offside. I think it's a case of perspective. Pat/ Robin, thanks for the photos and quotes. As before, I agree. I don't doubt that Chaney spoke with the occupants of the lead car, I just think the timing of the event has been blurred, possibly to make the DPD/SS look more on top of things than they actually were.

He didn't race ahead of the limo before the underpass, that's for sure. Chaney stopped with Jackson and Hargis, as seen in the Nix film. He's probably one of the bikes we can see trailing the cars in the Daniels clip. The motorcade then stopped at the Stemmons on-ramp, as witnessed by DPD's Earl Brown stationed on the Stemmons rail bridge.... communications between the lead car/ Chaney more than likely took place there.

Many happy returns, Kathy. Hope you have a wonderful day.

I've already given it some serious thought, thanks. I'll stick by my conclusions. You have NO unimpeachable proof that Chaney passed the limo before the triple underpass. The 'other' evidence being posted is non-existant, ie: Simmons obviously referring to Hargis, Zapruder being taken grossly out-of-context re: his film ID. It still doesn't help you. You write, above, about Chaney's removal from 'some films' like it is a certainty. I beg to differ. You have zero proof ANY film alteration happened to remove him. I have had even less comeback from anyone on the film questions I put down. Why do you think the technical guys are steering clear of backing you up, or trying to explain it to me, save whining about alteration? Simple, they won't touch it. YOUR view is lacking support. As for the limo, there is no doubt that it slowed down, that much is certain, whether it stopped completely is debatable. As for the 'black patch' in frame 317? I'm not qualified to determine what I see. Possible wound at rear? Not sure, as I've said, I'm not qualified. I'm just 'opine' like most folks, apparently. I'm using Image Analyzer, nice head's up from John Dolva...thanks, on various sizes of screen from 17"-50". Thanks, Calli.

Responses in red:

Yes, Robin is a treasure. Thanks also for your kind words, I agree, there is nothing left to talk about. The 'Chaney' issue is done. Beaten from the start. Best of health to you, Josiah. Calli. P.S. There are two requirements to be a smart ass, I see a few folk here that have the second part down pat.

All, I notified a mod yesterday morning, as five or six replies from Jim's '...Proof..' thread also disappeared. I was told they were not 'pinked', (I assume that's code for anything that may be libelous, etc), but am still waiting on notification. They are aware though.... Thanks, Calli. P.S. Thanks, Barry. Just watch your back with this SOPA fiasco ;-)

Due to multiple posts being 'lost' between 5:25~11:25 A.M. 24/01/2012, this post has been re-submitted 26/01/2012 2:32 A.M. GMT My responses to Prof. Fetzer, in red. Sure--and for every other important aspect of the case, we can EXCLUDE the best witnesses to those events! Pretty soon, we will discover that what was actually going on was a circus parade--except we will have to EXCLUDE the witnesses to those events, too! In this case, the witness list is simply unimpeachable, since it includes persons who may well have been involved themselves! The way I see it, is there is no 'best' witnesses to your version of events, other than the lead car occupants. There is not one person watching the motorcade who states that a bike passed the limo before the underpass. No matter how you slice it. Quoting witnesses and then saying that these were the guys who may have been involved, works both ways. Why would you assume Curry, Lawson, and Sorrells were truthful? Why would Secret Service agents, motorcycle patrolmen, and the Chief of Police have been wrong about this? There is no good reason to suppose they would have been. Next you will ask me to prove what Clint Hill has reported saying over the past nearly 50 years--but EXCLUDING CLINT HILL! Too much was going on. There is no reason to suppose everyone there noticed everything. In regards to Chaney, I've got every reason to suspect everyone there noticed nothing. They would have been wrong if the chain of events made them look inadequate, or negligent, or just plain slow, in their actions. This is why Sorrells says he was worried about the limo passing, that he knew they should have been in front. Unfortunately, the limo did pass them (Daniels, McIntyre). This is stated by Lawson in his testimony : Mr. Lawson. "When the Presidential car leaped ahead" (emphasis mine), although there was quite a distance, not quite a distance but there was some distance between the two cars, they came up on us quite fast before we were actually able to get in motion. They seemed to have a more rapid acceleration than we did. Mr. Dulles. Did they actually pass you? Mr. Lawson. No, sir; they never did. We stayed ahead of them. Daniels and McIntyre show Lawson, still under oath, was 'economical' with the truth. Lead car occupants playing CYA. Anyone who is serious about getting to the truth of these matters has to take to heart what Clint Hill has been telling us for nearly 50 years now. Not only is there unimpeachable testimony of Officer Chaney motoring forward, but Clint Hill's testimony confirms it. That Tink and now Calli SHOULD BE IN SOME STATE OF DENIAL ABOUT ALL OF THIS is utterly beyond belief! There is NO 'unimpeachable testimony' that unequivocally states Chaney passed the limo before the underpass. What Clint Hill has to say about the wound(s), has nothing to do with the Chaney issue. Interestingly, neither himself (Hill), Greer, Kellerman, or any of Halfbacks agents mention a bike pulling forwards either. The 'unimpeachable testimony' you keep citing, is vague, almost to the point of being cryptic. "As I approached the vehicle there was a third shot. It hit the President in the head, upper right rear of the right ear, caused a gaping hole in his head, which caused brain matter, blood, and bone fragments to spew forth out over the car, over myself. At that point Mrs. Kennedy came up out of the back seat onto the trunk of the car. She was trying to retrieve something that had gone off to the right rear. She did not know I was there. At that point I grabbed Mrs. Kennedy, put her in the back seat. The President fell over into her lap, to his left. "His right side of his head was exposed. I could see his eyes were fixed. There was a hole in the upper right rear portion of his head about the size of my palm. Most of the gray matter in that area had been removed, and was scattered throughout the entire car, including on Mrs. Kennedy. I turned and gave the follow-up car crew the thumbs-down, indicating that we were in a very dire situation. The driver accelerated; he got up to the lead car which was driven by Chief Curry, the Dallas Chief of Police . . .. No mention of motorcycle. Not only does Clint's description of the wound contradict your characterization, but his account is consistent with what Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry have told us about about Chaney, which refutes the film's authenticity. My characterisation of what? I'm not talking about Clint Hill, or what he proclaimed to see of the President's wounds, Jim. Curry is vague. Sorrells, imo, is misremembering, or covering his ass. Tink has repeatedly claimed this happened AFTER the limo had already passed the TUP and that we have simply not been thinking about the temporal relationship here. My three favorites are Bobby Hargis, Forrest Sorrels, and Chief Jesse Curry: (1) Forrest Sorrels: "A motorcycle pulled up alongside of the car and Chief Curry yelled Is anybody hurt?, to which the officer replied in the affirmative, and Chief Curry immediately broadcast to surround the building. By that time we had gotten just about under the underpass when the Presidents car pulled up alongside, . . ." See above reply. (2) Bobby Hargis: "I remembered seeing Officer Chaney. Chaney put his motor in first gear and accelerated up to the front to tell them to get everything out of the way, that he [the President] was coming through, and that is when the Presidential limousine shot off . . . . Unless Hargis actually stopped to talk to Chaney, how does he know what Chaney is going to do, or say? Recall the statement of DPD motorcyclist Jackson, whose passage I posted previously. Jackson wrote his account of what happened the night of the 22nd, specifically for the reason that he did not want his recollections muddied by the passing of time. It is, in essence, a first day report. Jackson states that he spoke to Chaney 'Let's go after them' Meaning : The limo has gone, we better go after them'. Hence Hargis stating he watched Chaney slam his bike into first gear, then motor off. Why would Chaney need to slam his bike into first gear, if he was already gone? (3) Chief Jesse Curry: "at that time I looked in my rear view mirror and I saw some commotion in the Presidents caravan and realized that probably something was wrong, and it seemed to be speeding up, and about this time a motorcycle officer, I believe it was Officer Chaney rode up beside us and I asked if something happened back there . . ." Vague. The 'speeding up' is the limo now catching, and soon to pass, Curry's car. The 'about this time' is a generalisation with no specific location given. How is that unimpeachable proof? They were tring to play CYA because they were caught napping! James Chaney, Bobby Hargis, and Clint Hill WERE NOT OCCUPANTS OF THE LEAD CAR, in case you have not noticed. And citing other alleged reports and later interviews, whose authenticity is open to question, is not a very persuasive way to argue your case. In fact, such a case as you are attempting to contrive appears to be superfluous. WE ALREADY HAVE SUFFICIENT PROOF AT HAND. I had noticed, I wasn't under the impression they were lead car occupants. I am aware that their recall of events is being twisted to suit your theory though. I was hoping for witnesses like Altgens, Moorman, Hill, anyone on the overpass, etc. You are cherry picking witnesses who are favourable to your outcome. Whilst i'm trying to find corroborating evidence for all of this, i'm coming up short. I'm trying to be impartial, believe it or not, but the evidence is against this happening as you posit. Others can address your questions about how the films and photos were faked or altered, but the agency certainly has the ability to do that, where most of the evidence in this case has been fabricated. Since Chief Curry called for the building to be "surrounded" when Chaney told him JFK had been shot, which he did at the TUP, there really is NO POINT in fantasizing about the entrance to the freeway. Understood, i'll await their input. I'm not denying the 'agency' (whoever that refers to, CIA?) have the ability to alter photographs. They would have needed a time machine for Daniels and McIntyre though..... If this isn't enough proof for you on this point, I can't imagine what it would take to convince you. Since only Tom Robinson and Ed Reed watched Humes take a cranial saw to JFK's head, I suppose you want me to prove that but EXCLUDING TOM ROBINSON AND ED REED? And then it will be the limo stop but EXCLUDING ALL THE LIMO STOP WITNESSES? How dumb are we supposed to be? No, it's not enough proof for me. Nothing will convince me Jim, because I know for a fact you are wrong. How many of your 'limo stop' witnesses can claim Chaney 'motoring forwards'? I don't want you to prove anything, Jim. I'll just shut up and take your word for it, shall I? We are doing what we can to solve the case and you are doing something else. But the fact that someone like you has shown up tells me that we are making progress and that Tink has been outgunned. So they needed to send in the cavalry, which is why you are here. We all have better things to do, however, than to construct proofs WITHOUT THE MOST IMPORTANT EVIDENCE THAT PROVES THEM. The fact that I have 'shown up' here, should tell you that it is going to take a bit more than your blatant misinterpretation of events to pass as fact. Thanks. Calli. P.S. Robin, your clips and pics say it all......

search is your friend Mr. Robertson, your questions raise subject matter dealt with at least 20000 times, in 200 different venues. Perhaps you should explain to us your interest in this subject. Are you writing a book, doing a thesis, cable tv producer, concerned citizen wanting to see delayed justice served, another voice wandering in the democratic darkness or perhaps simply wanting Dr. Thompson's autograph and trying to impress? This forum use to have a requirement that ALL participants post a biography. Did that requirement slide with you? Just curious. All without insult too! I amaze myself sometimes. So, Craig Lamson help C.A.Robertson out, let him know the lone nut, rules of the road... he's a newbie. Well, Mr. Healey, search has failed to produced the truth so far, and I still don't see it 'dealt with' anywhere in the supposed twenty-thousand venues you have alleged it to have been 'dealt with', in. Why do I need to explain my interest? A quick look at my biography you failed to notice, and it would tell you what you needed to know. No book, no thesis, no cable TV show. Concerned citizen? Absolutely. Concerned at the lack of effort put into understanding the timeline of events re: Chaney. Concerned, and worried, that younger folks, like me, will be forever under the impression that what Professor Fetzer is stating as fact, should, unfortunately, be written in history as fact, when, to me, and others, his scenario is patently wrong. I've never communicated in any way, shape or form either with Craig or Josiah in my life, David, neither do I require their 'help' or 'autographs'. What is your point? Is it a thinly veiled fishing expedition to work out whether I share the same opinions, or conclusions, of either, or that i've, somehow, been called upon for 'back up', etc? I'll save you the time... No. So, maybe you'd like to have a shot at answering questions 2 and 3 and 4, seeing as Prof. Fetzer has deferred to 'others' to address my questions? You're obviously aware of the processes that would have to be involved, you obviously have the technical nous, so what's your take, David?. Quit with the 'he-said-she-said', have a look at the films mentioned, and tell me where i've got it wrong. Simple as. No need to rely on any WC witness statements, etc. You up for amazing me, 'dude'? Bell? Daniels? McIntyre? Crack on....... Calli.

Prof. Fetzer, a couple of questions if you please : 1. As Chaney 'motoring forwards' no doubt happened before the limo reached the triple underpass, according to yourself, then surely an abundance of witnesses, if not each and everyone who were in the Plaza watching the motorcade, should be able to testify to this as fact, wouldn't you agree? If so, i'd appreciate it if you could point me in the direction of any witnesses, EXCLUDING the lead car occupants, who have made any statements, or suchlike, regarding a motorcycle pulling ahead of the limo whilst still in Dealey Plaza? 2. Would you, or any film 'experts' of your choice, like to have a crack at explaining the process of how Chaney passing the limo before the triple underpass was removed from the Z- film, besides obvious frame excision? I've watched the Duluth symposium, and read enough of your other work on this subject, but alas, i'm still no wiser as to how this could be done to the Zapruder film, without being detected by the technology we have today. Do also bear in mind, that this would also necessitate his removal from the films of Paschall, Nix, Muchmore, and especially Mark Bell's film. This question has been avoided like the plague. (I suspect the reason being that, the more technically minded souls here, who understand what level of work would have to be done to alter ALL of these films inside the 'weekend' timeframe you've alloted, know it is impossible for Chaney to have been removed from these films.....ghost images in Zapruder or not). Thoughts? 3. Would same like to offer an opinion on how Chaney's removal was undertaken in regards to the Daniels film of the limo exiting the triple underpass? A film which, surprisingly, was overlooked in the first round up of evidence and, a film that was only brought to light in the dying days of the HSCA hearings, in late '79, four years after Groden's Goodnight America broadcast of the Z-film. Yet another issue that's been dismissed with no explanation, for the same reason above, no doubt. 4. Would same like to offer an opinion on how Chaney's removal was undertaken in regards to Mel McIntyres photo of the three 'lead' cycles, JFK's limo, Curry's lead car, halfback, all pictured after they have passed the triple underpass? Again, do bear in mind that the photo in question was never out of McIntyre's possession until published in the Dallas Times Herald as part of the twentieth anniversary, in 1983. Upon recently checking Robin Unger's '...Chaney' thread in here from last year, I had noticed the continuing failure to address this point, a satisfactory explanation for which is, in my view, still conspicuous by it's abscence over a year and a half later, despite yourself and Jack's less than feeble attempts to ignore, or fob off, Jerry Logan, and more recently, Josiah Thompson, and I suspect soon, myself, on this one. (Unless, of course, one of the motorcycles pictured in the background of McIntyre, still in the shadow of the triple underpass, just so happens to be Chaney, and the underpass that the lead car occupants, et al, refer to when mentioning the catch-up and relaying of information, is actually the Stemmons underpass, rather than the triple underpass..... Couldn't be that, could it? Would that be too simple, or too sensible, taking the above into consideration? Also, for what it is worth, consider these statements: ..that Curry told a researcher that he spoke with Chaney at, or on, the Stemmons freeway access ramp. He also reiterated this story for Gary Mack, in 1979. E. V. (Earle) Brown, DPD officer stationed atop the Stemmons railroad overrpass, told Earl Golz, March 1980, that four cars came to a stop on the access ramp to Stemmons. DPD motorcycle officer Jackson stated that he, and Chaney, only caught up with the lead cars at the Stemmons ramp area, again, more than thirty seconds later. DPD motorcycle officer Courson stated that he, too, was able to catch up with the lead cars at, or on, the Stemmons ramp. Courson was roughly two-hundred feet behind McLain, who was himself, over one-hundred and thirty feet, behind JFK's limo at the time of the shots. Opinions, thoughts and insults welcomed, Thanks in advance, C. A. Robertson. P.S. Here's two of my favourites : see if you can guess who wrote this in one of their kids' school notebook the same night...... ....We traveled west on Main then turned north on Houston Street without too much trouble with the crowd then we turned west onto Elm Street. Drove only a short way traveling very slowly. About that time I heard what I thought was a car back fire and I looked around and then to the President's car in time for the next explosion and saw Mr. Connally jerk back to his right and it seemed that he look [sic] right at me I could see a shocked expression on his face and I thought "Someone is shooting at them." I began stopping my motor and looking straight ahead first at the Railroad overpass and saw only one Policeman standing on the track directly over the street. I looked back toward Mr. Kennedy and saw him hit in the head, he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me. Mrs. Kennedy pulled him toward her. Mrs. Connally pulled Mr. Connally down and she slid down into the seat. I knew that the shooting was coming from my right rear and I looked back that way but I never did look up. Looking back to the front again I saw the Secret Service Agent lying down across the car over Mr. and Mrs. Kennedy, the presidential limousine was beginning to pick up speed and the Secret Service men were running past the presidential car drawing their guns as they ran. I said to Jim Chaney "Let's go with them" and we sped away, he pulled past the President's car and up toward Chief Curry's car. Chief Curry came on the radio and notified the Dispatcher that a shooting had occurred, that we were in route [sic] to Parkland Code three and to notify them to stand by. As we were traveling north on Stemmons Freeway Agent Hill raised up looked toward me and shook his head from side to side and held up his hand thumb down. He knew at that time as I did that the President of the United States was dead or dying..... ....I got off my motor, stepped over to the presidential Limousine. An Agent opened the car door and started to get Mrs. Kennedy out but Mrs. Kennedy said no. It's no need she said and raised up from over Mr. Kennedy. I could see the top of his head was gone. Douglas Jackson, riding next to Chaney "...he appeared to have been hit just above the right ear. The top of his head flew off away from me... " from Gary Savage, JFK First Day Evidence, p. 363.

Chaney never passed the limo before the underpass.

Still no attempts to explain the McIntyre phot or the Daniels film, I see. Game over on this one.

Here's a couple of old articles for the mix....... Joseph McBride articles from The Nation, July 16/23 1988 The Man Who Wasn't There (George Bush, C.I.A. Operative Vice President George Bush's resume is the most highly touted asset as a candidate. But a recently discovered F.B.I. memorandum raises the possibility that, like many resumes, it omits some facts the applicant would rather not talk about : specifically, that he worked for the C.I.A. in 1963, more than a decade before he became it's director. The F.B.I. memorandum, dated Nov 29th 1963, is from Director J. Edgar Hoover to the State Department and is subject-headed " Assassination of President John F. Kennedy November 22, 1963." In it, Hoover reports that the Bureau had briefed "Mr George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" shortly after the assassination on the reaction of Cuban exiles in Miami. A source with close connections to the intelligence community confirms that Bush started working for the agency in 1960 or 1961, using his oil business as a cover for clandestine activities. Informed of this memorandum, the Vice President's spokesman, Stephen Hart, asked, "Are you sure it's the same George Bush?" After talking to the Vice President, Hart quoted him as follows: "I was in Houston, Texas, at the time and involved in the independent oil drilling business. And I was running for Senate in late '63." "Must be another George Bush," added Hart. Because the Vice President's response seemed something of a non-denial denial (he described what else he was doing rather than specifically denying C.I.A. involvement), I put the following queries to him via Hart: Did you do any work with or for the C.I.A. prior to the time you became it's director? If so, what was the nature of your relationship with the agency, and how long did it last? Did you receive a briefing by a member of the F.B.I. on anti-Castro Cuban activities in the aftermath of the assassination of President Kennedy? Half an hour later, Hart called me back to say that he had not spoken again to the Vice President about the matter, but would answer the questions himself. The answer to the first question was no, he said, and so he would skip number two. To the third, he repeated Bush's answer quoted above, but added that Bush had also said, "I don't have any idea of what he's talking about." However, when Bush's denial was read back to him, Hart said he preferred that it not be quoted directly, explaining, "It's a week old now, and i'm going off my notes." When I reminded him that we wanted to quote Bush directly, Hart said, "I am a spokesman. However you want to write it, the answer is no" regarding Bush's alleged 1963 involvement with the C.I.A. "This is the first time i've ever heard this," C.I.A. spokesman Bill Devine said when confronted with the allegation of the Vice President's involvement with the agency in the early 60's. "I'll see what I can find out and call you back." The next day Devine called back with the terse official response: "I can neither confirm nor deny." Told what the Vice President's office had said, and asked if he could check whether there had been another George Bush in the C.I.A., Devine seemed to become a bit nonplussed: "Twenty-seven years ago? I doubt that very much. In any event, we have a standard policy of not confirming that anyone is involved in the C.I.A." Richard Helms, who was a deputy director of plans at the agency in 1963, said the appearance of Bush's name in the memo "must have been some kind of misprint. I don't recall anyone by that name working for the agency.....He certainly never worked for me." Hoover's memo, which was written to the director of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, was buried among the 98,755 pages of F.B.I. documents released to the public in 1977 and 1978 as a result of the FOIA suits. It was written to summarise the briefings given to Bush and Capt. William Edwards of the Defense Intelligence Agency by the F.B.I.'s W.T. Forsyth on Nov 23, the day after the assassination, when Lee Harvey Oswald was still alive to be interrogated about his connections to Cuban exiles and the C.I.A. The briefing was held, according to the F.B.I. director, because the State Department feared that "some misguided anti-Castro group might capitalise on the present situation and undertake an unauthorised raid against Cuba, believing that the asssassination of President Kennedy might herald a change in U.S. policy, which is not true." Hoover continues: Our sources and informants familiar with Cuban matters in the Miami area advise that the general feeling in the anti-Castro Cuban community is one of stunned disbelief and, even among those who did not entirely agree with the President's policy concerning Cuba, the feeling that the President's death represents a great loss not only to the U.S. but to all Latin America. These sources know of no plans for unauthorised action against Cuba. An informant who has furnished reliable information in the past and who is close to a small pro-Castro group in Miami has advised that these individuals are afraid that the assassination of the President may result in strong repressive measures being taken against them, and although pro-Castro in their feelings, regret the assassination. The substance of the foregoing information was orally furnished to Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency.... (We attempted to locate William T. Forsyth, but learned that he id dead. Forsyth worked out of Washington F.B.I. HQ and was best known for running the investigation of the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. in the Bureau's subversive control section. Efforts to locate Captain Edwards by press time were unsuccessful.) Vice President Bush's autobiography, Looking Forward, written with Victor Gold (Doubleday, 1987), is vague to the point of being cryptic about his activities in the early 1960's, when he was running the Houston-based Zapata Off-Shore Company ("Running an offshore oil company." he writes, "would mean days spent on or over water, not only the Gulf of Mexico but oceans and seas the world over.") But the 1972 profile of Bush in Current Biography provides more details of his itinerary in those years: "Bush travelled throughout the world to sell Zapata's oil-drilling services. Under his direction it grew to be a multimillion-dollar concern, with operations in Latin America, the Carribean, the Middle East, Japan, Australia, and Western Europe." And according to Nicholas King's George Bush: A Biography,Zapata was concentrating it's business in the Carribean and off South America in the early 1960's, a piece of information that meshes neatly with the available data on Bush's early C.I.A. responsibilities. Bush's duties with the C.I.A. in 1963-whether he was an agent, for example, or merely an "asset"- cannot be determined from Hoover's memo. However, the intelligence source (who worked with the agency in the late 1950's and through the 1960's) said of the Vice President: "I know he was involved in the Carribean. I know he was involved in the suppression of things after the Kennedy assassination: There was a very definite worry that some Cuban groups were going to move against Castro and attempt to blame it on the C.I.A." The initial reaction of Senator Frank Church, chair of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, to the firing of William Colby and the naming of Bush as Director of Central Intelligence in 1975 was to complain that it was part of a pattern of attempts by President Gerald Ford (former WC member) to impede the Church committee's nearly concluded investigation into C.I.A assassination plots, with which Colby was cooperating but which Ford was trying vainly to keep secret. Bush's autobiography skips capriciously over the period of the early 1960's, easing back into coherence only when he makes his official entry into public life as chair of the Harris County, Texas, Republican Party in 1963-64, runs unsuccessfully for the Senate race to Lloyd Bentsen, who had defeated Yarborough in the primary. Asked recently about Bush's early C.I.A. connections, Yarborough said, " I never heard anything about it. It doesn't surprise me. What surprised me was that they picked him for Director of Central Intelligence-how in the hell was he appointed head of the C.I.A. without any experience or knowledge." Hoover's memo "explains something to me that i've always wondered about. It does make sense to have a trained C.I.A. man, with experience, appointed to the job." Bush's appointment as the agency's director in 1975 was widely criticised because, as Bush writes, "Bill Colby, a professional in the intelligence field, was being replaced by a nonprofessional ousider-and a politician to boot." Senator Church commented: "It appears as though the White House may be using this important post merely as a grooming room before he is brought on stage next year as a vice-presidential running mate." Speaking against this appointment, Church said he knew of "no particular reason why (Bush) is qualified for the job. Bush himself characterised the appointment as a "real shocker." In his autobiography Bush points out, "I'd come to the C.I.A. with some general knowledge of how it operated." His remark in the book that his "overseas contacts as a businessman" helped qualify him for the controversial appointment by President Nixon to the post of ambassador to the United Nations could also refer to previous C.I.A. experience. Agents often adopt the cover of a businessman. And business people have also served as informants for the agency, passing along information picked up on their travels. Bush's C.I.A. connections might throw new light on his knowledge of the 'contra' funding and supply operation, and his alleged knowledge of 'contra' drug smuggling and the activities of General Noriega. It is worth noting in this context that, as Leslie Cockburn writes in 'Out Of Control', "The anti-Castro C.I.A. team in Florida were already drawing attention to their drug-smuggling activities by 1963," and that it was Felix Rodriguez, the C.I.A., "alumnus who wore Che Guevara's watch and counted George Bush among his friends," who allegedly coordinated a $10 million payment to the 'contras' by the Colombian cocaine cartel. "Do the American people really want to elect a former director of the C.I.A. as their President?" Tom Wicker asked in the New York Times on April 29th. "That's hardly been discusse so far; but it seems obvious that a C.I.A. chief might well be privy to the kind of 'black' secrets that could later make him- as a public figure- subject to blackmail. Given the agency's worldwide reputation for for covert intervention and political meddling, moreover, one of it's former directors in the White House certainly would be the object of suspicion and mistrust in numerous parts of the globe. And well he might be." It was characteristic of George Bush, when sworn in as Director of Central Intelligence in 1976, to declare: " I am determined to protect those things that must be kept secret, and I am more determined to protect those unselfish and patriotic people who, with total dedication, serve their country, often putting their lives on the line, only to have some people bent on destroying this agency expose their names." Bush has absorbed the code of the C.I.A. well, and he may feel that he is duty-bound to draw a veil of secrecy over his activities of the early 1960's. But now, as candidate for the presidency, he has a highe duty of honesty to the American people. If the man who would be President has a longstanding history of involvement in covert activities, then the people are entitled to know about it. Thus far Bush has refused to directly deny such involvement. Either he is intentionally misleading us, or he is a victim of mistaken identity. If it's the latter, he or President Reagan should instruct the gnomes of Langley to turn over the personnel records of the other George Bush. The claims of national security pale beside the overriding interst in the truth. Where Was George (Cont.) Joseph McBride (The Nation, Aug 13/20, 1988) Where was George? The saga of Vice President George Bush's alleged involvement with the Central Intelligence Agency in 1963 grows curiouser and curiouser. In an article in 'The Nation (previous article-Ed), I reported the discovery of a memorandum from J. Edgar Hoover, then director of the F.B.I. saying that "Mr. George Bush of the Central Intelligence Agency" had been briefed by the Bureau on Nov 23rd 1963, about the reaction of anti-Castro Cuban exiles in Miami to the assassination of John F. Kennedy. After the article appeared, the C.I.A. put out a story that the George Bush mentioned in the memorandum was not Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush; he wa George William Bush, who had worked for the agency in 1963-64. Although the agency claimed that his present whereabouts were unknown, I located George William Bush. He told me he was a coast and landing-beach analyst with the agency in those years, with the rank of GS-%, but that he definitely did NOT recieve the F.B.I. briefing of 1963. As reported in the previous article, VP Bush, through spokesman Stephen Hart, denied that he was the man referred to in the memo: "I was in Houston, Texas, at the time and involved in the independent oil drilling business. And I was running for Senate in late '63. I don't have any idea what he's talking about." Hart added, "Must be another George Bush." When I first asked the C.I.A. about Hart's theory, it invoked it's policy of neither confirming nor denying anyone's involvement with the agency. But after the 'Nation' story received wide coverage in the media, the C.I.A. evidently changed it's mind. On July 19th, agency spokeswoman Sharon Basso told the AP that the Hoover memo "apparently" referred to George William Bush, who had worked in 1963 on the night watch at C.I.A. HQ, which, " would have been the appropriate place to have received such an F.B.I. report." She said this George Bush left the C.I.A. in 1964 to work fo the Defence Intelligence Agency. Why did the agency break with it's longstanding policy of "neither confirm nor deny"? Basso said it believed " the record should be clarified." Another C.I.A. official told the AP, "We put a lot of effort into this." In fact, the latest C.I.A. release seems less a clarification than a strategic obfuscation. Hart of the Vice President's office put out the same data to Sarah Perl of 'The Nation'. Both Perl and I called the Defence Intelligence Agency, and a spokesman confirmed that George William Bush had worked there between February 1964 and July 1965, performing the same duties that he had had with the C.I.A., those of a civilian-grade governement intelligence research specialist, leaving with the rank of GS-7. His last known address was 401 Cambridge Road, Alexandria, Virginia. A check of old Alexandria city directories showed a George W. Bush, "emp US govt." did live at the Cambridge Road address in 1964 and subsequent years, and that he shared the house with Chester K. Bush of the U.S. Army. Cureent city records show that the deed to the house is in the names of Colonel Bush and his wife, Alice, and that a George William Bush at that address paid his automobile decal fee to the city this February. I called Colonel Bush, who said he was George William Bush's father. He confirmed that his son had worked for the C.I.A. and still lived at the house, but said he could not come to the phone because he ws ill; he asked me to call back the following evening. When I did, I spoke to George William Bush, who is 49 and works as a claims representative for the Social Security Administration. He said he had worked for the C.I.A. for about six months in 1963-64. When I read him the Hoover memo about the F.B.I. briefing, his response was, " Is that the other George Bush?" While in the C.I.A., he had never received interagency briefings because he was "just a lowly researcher and analyst" and worked only with documents and photographs. He said he "knew neither one" of two people the memorandum mentions as also being briefed, William T. Forsyth of the F.B.I., and Capt. William Edwards of the D.I.A. " So it wasn't me," he said. Bush said he left the C.I.A. because he was offered a job by the D.I.A. at ahigher grade and salary. He said he stayed at the D.I.A. until he joined the SSA in January 1968. He professes he was " a little bit amazed, but not entirely surprised" that the C.I.A. and the D.I.A. had divulged his employment with them. " I didn't know they were at liberty to release all this," he said. " It was certainly without advance notice." Bush said he had not known of the story in 'The Nation' about Vice President Bush's alleged 1963 ties with the C.I.A. There was a minor discrepancy in this George Bush's account of his background: Although he told me that he went directly from the D.I.A. to the SSA in 1968, the 1967 Alexandria directory list his occupation as city social worker. When I inquired about this job, Bush said he had held if for " About a year" before going to work for the SSA. City personnel records show that he joined the Alexandria Dept. of Public Welfare as a social worker trainee on Aug 2nd, 1965, rose to the rank of social worker on Aug 10, 1966, and left on Jan 12th, 1968. The SSA confirmed that Bsh is currently employed in its Arlington, Virginia, office, and other points in Bush's story also checked out. He told me that before he joined the C.I.A. he had beeen living in Honolulu, where his father was stationed in the Army; that he attended the University of Hawaii; and that he had worked for the Honolulu Dept. of Social Services and Housing. The Honolulu city directory for 192-63 lists Chester K. Bush, "emp USARPAC," as residing at 1172 Loloa St., and city of Honolulu personnel records confirm that George William Bush lived at that address while working as a trainee social worker for several months in 1963. The registrar's office of the University of Hawaii confirmed that he attended classes there from the fall of 1959 through the summer of 1961, graduating with a B.A. in history on Sep 1st, 1961. The age he gave me checked out as well: According to school records, he was born May 18th 1939, in White Plains, New York. In the Alice in Wonderland world of intelligence there is always the possibilty that people are not who they say they are. And there is that discrepancy about his job as a social worker, for ahich there could be a perfectly innocent wxplanation. At my request, Victor Navasky, editor of 'The Nation', called Bush again and had him repeat his story about his work with the C.I.A. in 1963-64 and his statement that he was not the man of the F.B.I. memorandum. Why did the C.I.A. indicate that George William was the Bush in question without attempting to locate him first? Why did the media report the agency's version without checking further? And where was Vice President George Herbert Walker Bush on November 23, 1963? If he was working for the C.I.A. then, why hasn't he told us?

I currently work freelance as a sound engineer, mainly in-house, recording everything from choirs to rock bands. I love my job, but it can be very time consuming, coupled with very erratic hours. I have been studying American politics, from the 50's & 60's onwards since the mid-eighties. My literary input has been almost exclusively saturated by the JFK case. It is both fountain, and drain. I currently live with my partner, Jennifer, and my dog, Ludo. Life is peachy.