Jump to content
The Education Forum
  • Announcements

    • Evan Burton

      OPEN REGISTRATION BY EMAIL ONLY !!! PLEASE CLICK ON THIS TITLE FOR INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR REGISTRATION!:   06/03/2017

      We have 5 requirements for registration: 1.Sign up with your real name. (This will be your Username) 2.A valid email address 3.Your agreement to the Terms of Use, seen here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=21403. 4. Your photo for use as an avatar  5.. A brief biography. We will post these for you, and send you your password. We cannot approve membership until we receive these. If you are interested, please send an email to: edforumbusiness@outlook.com We look forward to having you as a part of the Forum! Sincerely, The Education Forum Team

Jason Ward

Members
  • Content count

    486
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Jason Ward

  1. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, as it happens the LITAMILs are a large component of the 2017 document release. I've spent most of August-October reading, cataloging, and summarizing the LITAMIL and LIENVOY intelligence held secret so long. This was kept secret because 100s of Cubans were and are working for both Castro and the CIA - a life-threatening situation. 95% of the withheld documents have nothing to do with Kennedy. Probably a movie could be made of this intelligence effort in Mexico against Cuba and the Soviets - or anyway, at least a Netflix movie. I should play Kostikov because I am a man of action and feared violence - you might play Morales since you are secret and conspiratorial, and we'll get Edward Norton or The Rock to play Oswald, just for celebrity value. 95% of the LITAMIL intelligence is uninteresting to an assassination researcher. But two conclusions are incumbent to anyone who dares read the entire LITAMIL and LIENVOY production from beginning to end (or in my case from 1963 to 1965ish.) LIENVOY is the cryptonym describing perhaps the most massive and successful wiretap operation in CIA history - the de facto ability of the US to tap at will any phone in Mexico. I read transcripts of the Mexican president's phone calls, when he is talking with the Cuban and Soviet amabassadors. LITAMIL is a family (not biological, but topical familly) of spies in the paid employ of BOTH the CIA and the Cuban government. Plenty of implications exist for assassination researchers, but, to keep it pithy I will highlight two: In 1963, the United States has 100% visibility into all Cuban diplomatic missions in Mexico including the first hand reports of dozens of Cuban diplomats - on a daily basis. This is supplemented by 100% visibility into what was then the extent of electronic communication - wired and wireless traffic to Havana, to the Mexican government, and to the general public contacting Cuban government offices in Mexico. Nearly 100% of Soviet electronic communication is visible to the US from KGB and diplomatic missions in Mexico; although there is the distinct possibility that they had other, still unknown, channels of communication with Moscow. So, the whole Mexico City episode needs to be reconsidered in terms of these facts, IMO, by almost all kinds of conspiracy theorists. Assume everything that happens at the Soviet and Cuban embassies are almost the equivalent of happening at CIA headquarters in Langley in terms of US visibility into what is taking place. Jason - - - - - - - - - For those interested in what excellent research analysis and reasonable conclusions based on primary sources looks like; I offer a taste of the raw documents and how the sublime intellect of Bill Simpich composes the mosaic into a picture we can all understand: {LI is CIA shorthand referring to LITAMIL intellgence product; LITAMIL-4 remains unmasked afaik, probably because they are still alive. LI-2 is likely Carlos Maristany, a Cuban ambassador and CIA agent.} {The redactions here shown as [ 01 ] were this year revealed as LITAMIL-9, the CIAs most valuable agent at the MC Cuban Embassy; Cuban diplomat Luis Soeto.} {The CIA's go-to man in the Cuban Embassy is LITAMIL-9, Cuban diplomat Luis Soeto, a proud Cuban but also a great friend of the United States} ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ notice the saturation coverage of the Cuban Embassy the CIA enjoys in 1963^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ... ... ... Bill Simpich's Book State Secret is available free at the Mary Ferrell website: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146586
  2. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    All very interesting, Paul. A few thoughts, but not arguments: Guy Gabaldon is I thought either living full time in Mexico City in 1963 or has a house, office, and substantial presence there The CIA is allowed to tap embassy phones in part because they agree to share intelligence with the Mexicans. So the Mexicans largely know what the CIA knows about the Soviet Embassy. It is in fact the Mexican phone company that logistically facilitates the taps. The Mexicans know about Kostikov. It is not automatically true that knowledge of Kostikov implies a CIA connection - the Mexicans know about him as well. If David Morales is calling the Soviet Embassy impersonating Oswald, this is exceedingly reckless. If he is calling the Soviet Embassy impersonating Oswald with knowledge that the president is about to be killed and Oswald blamed, this is nothing less than suicidal. On top of the uncertain security of the Mexican sharing agreement, Morales would be risking having his voice on tape heard by everyone in the US intelligence community and the top level government executives - who, despite the belief system on this forum, are about half Democrats and half Kennedy supporters. I think it's very reasonable to theorize Morales hired Alvarado to say Oswald took $5k to kill Kennedy - but maybe Gabaldon hired Alvarado. Maybe they both did? But I wonder if a competent true CIA employee like Morales is going to put his voice on this tape. LITAMIL-9, which today we know as Luis Alberu Soeto, Cuban Cultural Attache in Mexico City, was a perfect example of the prodigious sourcing that the CIA (and Mexicans) had in Cuba's Mexico City Embassy. There is a large and fruitful LITAMIL family of spies making a living off both the CIA and Castro such that 100% of everything Cuban in Mexico City is crossing the desk of the CIA and the Mexican president/Mexican intelligence (DFS). Whatever the Soviets told the Cubans, they also told the CIA and the Mexican DFS. One detail CIA staff knew, but which maybe the Mexicans did not, was that the CIA employed a non-CIA subcontractor for language help in the LIENVOY project, which was the multi-decade CIA wiretap operation in Mexico City. The unusual and valuable Russian-English-Spanish trilingual translation ability was hard to come by, so the CIA relied on a husband and wife team to process the rough intelligence from the wiretaps. Hardway and Lopez correctly pinpointed this husband and wife interpretation team as potential witnesses NOT bound by CIA official or ideological bonds of loyalty and interviewed them in depth. They knew everyone worth knowing by voice alone. If the voice on the tapes was someone known to the CIA in Mexico City, we would have had the caller's identity in 1963. Yes indeed the Mexican Establishment is considerably more reactionary than the US government establishment. In the US there are left wing Democrats, mainstream Democrats, and non-aligned moderates who are somewhere between Democrat and Republican in every level of government including the FBI and CIA - but in Mexico of the day there were only hard right wingers in power at the high levels. Gabaldon hiring Loran Hall and indeed Loran Hall's presence in the assassination story should be enough for anyone not trapped in 1968 Garrison-think to maybe allow themselves to toy with the idea that the CIA is not running the show here. The CIA doesn't hire clowns like this. Does the actual voice on the phone really matter that much? I'm not sure I care whether it was Morales or Gabaldon or one of the very few random people in 1963 Mexico City who can speak and switch between English, Spanish, and Russian. What I really care about is who hired the voice on the phone - it's either Gabaldon or Morales in my mind at this point. Bill Simpich is 100% correct that the CIA has no idea what Oswald is doing in Mexico City and that the CIA cannot identify the voice on the phone. Where Bill ends his certainty on this point is where those interested in true research might begin - who directed Oswald and the Oswald impersonator in Mexico Ciy, and, most of all, who hired Alvarado to say Oswald took $5k from the Cubans to kill Kennedy? To my CIA-obsessed Garrison disciples, if Oswald is CIA, why wouldn't they just have Oswald himself make the calls to the Soviet Embassy? Harry Dean is far mare valuable than generally given credit for; everything he's said leads us closer to the truth in my view. Jason PS - - for a brief moment, Hoover seems ready to jump aboard the commie-did-it narrative advertised by Alvarado...LBJ shuts him down fast: (many thanks to my sometime boss Rex Bradford)
  3. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Here's a little Gerald L.K. Smith to supplement your reading plan.... Basically, the same guys who killed Medgar Evers and all the other Civil Rights victims are the same guys who killed MLK, and in my view are the most likely guys who killed Kennedy. These are radical right wing southerners, of violent and crude disposition. These aren't east coast intellectuals. These are Gerald L.K. Smith disciples.
  4. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    I'm looking into this. I have a mini-CT brewing that Gabaldon lures Oswald to Mexico City in order to be "seen" by Alvarado accepting money at the Cuban Embassy to kill Kennedy. In my view the orchestration of Oswald in Mexico City is entirely inconsistent with anyone planning a Lone Nut explanation for Kennedy's death. Oswald was in Mexico City to help pin the assassination on the commies - but LBJ shuts down any talk of this asap. Morales just might fit in here as Alvarado's controller - but so could Gabaldon. Either way, Morales is operating rogue of the CIA, although obviously he is able to exploit his CIA position in whatever he's up to here, if he's even involved at all in MC Oswald.... J This is exactly what LBJ wanted to hear. Did LBJ order Alvarado's repudiation???
  5. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    One of life's many injustices is that there are more books to read than time to read them. Let me know about the Gerald Smith book. It's really hard to imagine that such people were at least as mainstream now as Trump voters today. The fear that gripped their worldview is breathtaking. Jason
  6. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Thus guy and Lechner are two I hope we can discuss further. J
  7. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Hi David, I've read a few of your essays here and there but did not place a lot of resources onto them because I had the impression you weren't citing a lot of primary sources. I know there's something of a battle between writing for a popular audience in a way that is intriguing versus writing for those interested in looking at your sources in detail. Also, I probably saw 2nd or 3rd generation versions of what you wrote, which probably weren't sourced well in the format I saw them. In any case, I'd like to talk to you if you're up for it. I am at the Arizona State University History Department and I work for Rex Bradford at the Mary Ferrell Foundation. At ASU we're developing a tool that elicits from what is colliquilly known as Big Data amazing directions and implications in the Kennedy assassination. As a quick example, by analyzing 3 million documents at the MFF and including the Lexis-Nexis database, and adding in several thousand books in electronic format, we can predict certain associations which are not apparent in an individual artifact, document, letter, book, article, memo, file, etc. It's a derivative of the same tools used to find bin Laden. Instead of using big data in security intelligence applications, we're trying to use big data in historical analysis. Interested in helping, even just by talking to me on email? One of your essays of particular interest to me is nominally about the Christian Defense League. You write a lot about William Gale. I believe you also take something of a tour through the usual hard right figures of the assassination era, i.e., Gerald Smith, Wes Swift, Oren Potito, General Edwin Walker, Joseph Milteer, and so on. Connie Lynch is someone I'm trying to look at more closely. All these guys seem to overlap and relate to each other in some way or another through their organizations - the States Rights Party, the California Rangers, the Christian Defense League, the KKK, the Minutemen, the John Birch Society, the American Educational League, and various 'citizens councils' or quasi-church/relgious groups. You seem an expert on this interlocking labyrinth of ultra-right-wing America. I have no problem talking in public as I believe research should be shared openly - but talking here means a dozen interjections of meaningless opinions, insults, and distracting demands to return our focus to the CIA from non-researchers. Will you talk to me directly, perhaps starting with the message feature on this site? regards Jason Ward A December 1963 expose on the American hard right - from East Germany (!) I've seen perhaps 100+ tips like this from random citizens pointing at Walker, Rockwell and their pals: This is a verbatim reprint of a National Enquirer article - one of General Walker's efforts? Walker .. Rockwell ... Eagle Publishing ... hmmm.... A special treat for my pal Paul Trejo - General Edwin Walker is joined at the US Capitol by George Rockwell, who tastefully sports his Nazi regalia: Delusions of grandeur?
  8. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    'another American' ... hmmm ...
  9. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Alright, Paul, you may have convinced me there is something possibly blockbuster in this. Because of their immense, repetitive and generally disorganized ways, two of our largest and least audited government agencies in1963 (the FBI and CIA) frequently toss around the same kernal of information repeatedly, repackaged a dozen or more times as staff send memos back and forth between themselves. The tidbit from the CIA cable I posted above about Gabaldon and an unnamed source "80%" certain the commies killed Kennedy acts as a marker I've been able to trace through 20+ documents spanning about two decades. I think I've located the original, unedited rough report from a local Mexico City CIA operative; probably that he turned into his boss, who in turn gave it to Winston Scott, who in turn edited it for transmission to Langley (which is the version I posted above). It's always essential to find the original raw intelligence report so that we can filter out the superfluous bureaucratic efforts of staffers, analysts, and paper pushers who like to mix and match intelligence reports into something they imagine is more comprehensive or useful. Here's the potentially explosive part: remember Gilberto Alvarado, the guy almost immediately discredited who initially comes forward to say he saw and heard Oswald taking big cash from some Cuban in Mexico City to kill Kennedy? Alvarado is either the source of the Gabaldon reference or is outright connected to Gabaldon according to documented evidence I've seen today. Likely both. Get it? Alvarado is a hired provocateur of Gabaldon. Chew on that for awhile! Jason {have to be with the family tonight - I may get some time later to post more. I like to verify this 2 or 3 different ways before we call this a secure find.)
  10. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Paul, So Harry Dean was friendly with both the revolutionary Left --- and the reactionaries? It takes a special personality to rail against the injustices of capitalism on Tuesday only to rail against the injustices of communism on Wednesday. Harry Dean has a striking dichotomy of friends. Someone else attached to this case has a similar blueprint of social connections; oh yeah, I remember now. Some guy named Lee Harvey Oswald is friends with both the ultra right wingers like Banister, but also friendly with the pro-Castro types. It's so strange that Oswald is connected to Birchers like Carlos Bringuier, but also maintains a friendly relationship with the CPUSA and the FPCC, is it not? Why do you think Oswald has General Walker's personal phone number in his address book? An eclectic group of friends.... ps - I got called in to work today and only just now got home. I'll do a little Gabaldon work tonight and post the best of what I find.
  11. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    It's CIA. You can tell by the typeset most of all. But also their header, idiomatic style, and CIA-speak paints an easy reveal. I'm already in bed and away from the JFK iMac, so more details I hope can wait until tomorrow. Don't get ahead of ourselves, but we have to ask what the subject's true purpose is here. 80% is an odd reference in my book. Also, the name Gabaldon is enshrined for all eternity in this date, place, and role, as the subject knew it would be. It's almost like deliberately using the most tapped telephone in Mexico. The James Bondish flourishes scream wanna-be 007, but not an actual intelligence operative. Finally, and this is more of my subjective take than anything I can quantify, whenever either a CIA or FBI field office/station tells Washington words to the effect of "investigating all angles, will advise later," this means the angles are already known. The field office / station is in my view saying that they want a yes/no direction in this matter from HQ, and that they can either a. proceed by opening the conduit to this subject and therefore advancing the subject's purpose into the CIA's internal JFK-assassination-conversation, OR, b. they can shut the door, close the conduit, and make no mention of this source ever again. I think b. was chosen in this case: whatever the source (desperately) wants to say, Washington doesn't want to hear..... I'm fairly certain that what this subject wants to say is that the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City is the hemispheric locus for the planned communist takeover of the United States, in cooperation with their Soviet financial and logistical support team......but does the CIA allow him to speak freely or do they cut off his pipeline to Langley? I'll look in more detail tomorrow.... Jason
  12. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Well, maybe we should communicate more often as it seems the documents I rather haphazardly posted above certify the Loral Hall - Gabaldon connection you theorize, right? It seems we are answering each other tonight on accident, without even trying.... Jason
  13. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    Is it a blockbuster? See, this is why I am just a document crunching researcher. Interpretation and strategic meaning is often obscured when you're knee deep in the weeds. ... Here's more Gabaldon stuff, largely from CIA files; including Oswald's 201 file, Ferrie's file, etc...note Loran Hall (somewhere up above in this thread is mention of Hall's late summer 1963 trip through Dallas and onward to Southern California, where he sees all the usual Right wing extremists across the southern states......). Also note how none other than your pal and mine Dan Rather was on to Gabaldon in the mid 70s. If you're CT is correct, Gabaldon could be one of the tracer elements that leads to a certified solution (note to self....) Jason
  14. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    This is one of the benefits of communicating research publicly. Without communicating, we wouldn't realize what is interesting to you is to me so pervasive in FBI documents of the era that I thought literally every knew this. This essential and extensive FBI*credit bureau nexus is so common in the evidence as to seem unremarkably routine to me. I assumed everyone knew this tidbit as well as they knew Hoover was the head of the FBI - but maybe I shouldn't make assumptions? From the 1940s through the 1960s the 100s of local credit bureaus were everything the CIA/FBI-worshiping CTers imagine the CIA and FBI were in terms of data collection and data control. In fact, as today, the FBI and CIA outsourced much of their most essential data collection to private parties and would have been laughably helpless without credit bureaus. ... a little more Gabaldon stuff: from CIA files: (these guys are no doubt interesting and not more than 1 degree separated from the likes of General Walker, Hargis, Carlos Bringueir, Banister)
  15. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    That's very interesting, Paul; as we know this is not the only clue that the identity of the patsy was in flux and that there were likely several candidates. One of the great flaws of the CIA-did-it-religion is the obsession with Oswald. Why obsess endlessly over someone who didn't commit the crime? Although it's ridiculous to think Ruth Paine is the world's first and last completely undocumented CIA resource, or that the CIA would hire guys like Oswald and Ferrie to do anything important - in the end it really doesn't matter if Oswald went to Russia as a CIA spy, or if he took Russian lessons in the marines, or if he, Paine, Ferrie and a cast of 1000s were CIA operatives -----because---- OSWALD DID NOT KILL KENNEDY. Let's just say someone "proves" Oswald was, after Ruth Paine, the world's 2nd and last CIA resource for which no documentary evidence exists .... SO WHAT? Oswald didn't kill Kennedy. ..."proving" that the patsy is in the CIA, (which in Oswald's case is a ridiculous claim anyway) tells us nothing whatsoever about who killed Kennedy. "Proving" or even tending to believe the guy who didn't shoot Kennedy has CIA connections proves nothing. It's a logical fallacy and contrary to criminology 101 to put much effort towards the guy known NOT to have committed the crime. But this folds into an even greater investigative fallacy of attempting to explain every detail - when you read books like Mindhunter or any of Ressler's books, you realize cases are solved in large part because the investigators are comfortable leaving big gaps of the case unexplained, since the only essential piece of knowledge is the author of the crime. What Oswald did in Russia is irrelevant, just as Gabaldon's presence in Mexico City is explosively meaningful. In all big cases there are lots of unanswered questions, gaps in the narrative, and downright contrary pieces of evidence that simply don't make sense. As you say - and as internal FBI/CIA documents bear out, guys like Harry Dean were also on the radar as possibly related to the Mexico City fiasco. In a thread earlier this year we discussed what date Oswald's patsy status was solidified - I think this is an important question which by itself tends to indicate a solution to the case. As far as I can see, there's no evidence Oswald was the certified patsy until around the time of the Mexico City shenanigans....before then the patsy could have been any of a half dozen guys like Dean.... . . . Chew on this doc below....now who could be in Mexico City making waves like this and yelling loudly that it is all a commie plot? hmmmmmmm.. Jason
  16. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    ...and again...you are correct.... . . . As the document below whos, T numbers are assigned not based on occupation (cop or credit bureau clerk or newspaper reporter), nor on how often information is provided, nor on the quality of information. T numbers are provided to mask the true confidential informant number in documents of wide dissemination and/or documents distributed to non-FBI readers:
  17. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    By way of example, the most common way I've seen T-symbols used is when the writer of a FBI documented wanted to temporarily refer to an informant who already had a symbol designation of some kind, typically as a confidential informant. See the example below. In effect, the T number is as far as I've seen just a code often used only once in a single document when the document for whatever reason may be exposed beyond FBI circles. So, rather than expose a confidential informants 'symbol' in a document that might be shared with the CIA, INS, a local police agency and so forth, the document will refer to that person as "T-1". Then, a document-by-document code sheet is created. In the example below, all the T-numbers are created so that the FBI doesn't have to reveal the actual CI numbers, perhaps in a document they will in this case share with the LAPD. T-1 through T-7 are applied to those with already-established symbols/numbers for use in this one document only. It has nothing to do with how often they are called upon to provide information, nor does it have to do with the quality or type of information they provide. T numbers are not assigned to bank officials, credit bureau employees, contacts at veterans organizations, reporters, cops, nor any other particular type of informant - they are assigned based only on a document-by-document need to temporarily obscure the established FBI informant number from readers of the document. In sum, from my review of the evidence, T-numbers are not assigned to temporary or occasional informants, they are assigned on a document-by-document basis so that the reader of the document is not shown the true informant symbol (code / number). Jason T numbers ARE NOT assigned to a certain type of informant, nor is the frequency, type or quality of their information in any way used to create a T designation. For example, the informants below all have established informant numbers (in this case CNDI - confidential national defense informant), but in order to protect their established CNDI numbers from non-FBI clients and sponsors, they were allocated T numbers for this document only.
  18. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    I've read about 4000 documents in their entirety released this year and thumbed through another 10000ish. I agree with your point here. In those days credit bureaus were not national as today, they were local to each city; and were more knowledgeable about average non-criminal citizens than any government agency of the era BY FAR. Before the FCRA and other consumer regulations prohibited such practices, the credit bureaus basically kept a small intelligence file on every local citizen. Step one in any FBI investigation from the 1940s through the 1960s was to check with the local credit bureau. They saved a huge amount of time for special agents because a lot of basic information was readily available (jobs, addresses, finances); but additionally the credit bureaus sometimes provided information well beyond what in any sense of the word might seem credit-related (i.e. drinking habits, friends and family information, sometimes racially stereotypic notations, etc.) In some cities the credit bureau was pretty basic in data-collection standards - while in other cities the credit bureau operated as a full-time domestic intelligence unit complete with gossip and innuendo as part of someone's credit file. Credit bureau employees typically had either they own CI number (rare) or were simply referred to by their name (very common). A T number has nothing to do with the occupation of the informant. T numbers have NOTHING to do with "developing background" of an investigative target. Credit union clerks and assistant managers were never given T numbers or any other informant number in the documents I've seen - with a few rare exceptions. In my sense of the evidence, the T numbers were assigned when the information provided the FBI was illegally obtained even by the flimsy consumer-protections of the day, or if the information was so explosive that danger existed for the source if their identity became known. (example: some credit files had notations like, "rumored to have killed mom for inheritance," or "known to be having an affair with his boss's wife," etc...) In this case, a T number was assigned only to ensure that the ultimate reader of the document would not find the true CI number of the informant. The FBI might do this for documents shared outside of the FBI. So, sorry for the roundabout essay here and apologies if it seems like I'm preaching to the choir, but I do definitely agree the mountains of internal FBI data I've seen supports your statement I quote above. regards Jason
  19. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    How many of us can say we were once considered a serious candidate for the famous unknown man pictured outside the Soviet embassy in Mexico City?
  20. Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

    4011 Turtle Creek Blvd in Dallas today is estimated by Zillow to a salable value of $3.5 million. The area is just south of Highland Park, very close to downtown, Love Field, Dealey Plaza, etc. It's a tony neighborhood, probably beyond the reach of a US army general both then and now. $3.5 million 2016 dollars is equivalent to between $120,000 - $568,000 in 1963 dollars. There is quite a variance because there are many ways to compare the relative value of dollars across the decades, such as by comparing the cost of a typical consumer's basket of goods, or by comparing average wage, or by reversing inflation, and so forth. It is of course possible or probable that real estate in this area of Dallas appreciated faster than even the most inflationary standard economic measures of relative dollar value. From 1958-1962 military pay remained the same. Walker's last rank was Major General (i.e. a 2 star general), which was in the O-8 pay grade. Walker was earning $1350 a month in army pay. $1350/month is of course $16,200 a year. In the early 1960s interest rate and lending environment, Walker's income would at the outside qualify him for a $40,000 home mortgage. However, he has no demonstrable income after he leaves the army. Can Walker afford the Turtle Creek Home on his own? If not, where's the money coming from? An interesting original research find could come from the Dallas County courthouse if we could get someone off their lazy butts to do some easy work.....the value, ownership, and transfer records of Walker's Turtle Creek property might be illuminating. Jason ... A reliable way to compare dollars across the decades: https://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/ military pay of Walker's era: https://www.navycs.com/charts/1958-military-pay-chart.html ... ... ... This pair of dimensions is originally sourced to none other than the illustrious Marguerite Oswald. She sloppily uttered this guess of her son's size around the time he went to Russia. I believe me and my colleagues are on the verge of retroactively concluding what is variously known as a Canary Trap, Blue Dye Test, or Barium Meal Test on this little tidbit of information. Although mother Oswald was unaware of it's later importance, this version of Oswald's height and weight makes an interesting odyssey among the documentary evidence. Precisely because it is uniquely wrong, it is in fact a unique marker in the flow of information. Mom's rather unmotherly knowledge of her son's size is I think about to demonstrate once and for all the source of the information in the DPD's broadcasts post-assassination; as well of course the true meaning of the Mexico City fiasco, among other illuminations now apparent wherever 5'10, 165 pounds appears in the record. (hint: the CIA at all times knows Oswald's true height and weight) Jason
  21. Hi Keyvan, What you've posted here is pretty straightforward and I won't assume your ignorance by explaining the (in)significance of literally every letter in the documents. Because you've expressed an interest in the April 1963 item, I'll limit what I say here to that item in particular. The Rosetta Stone of understanding CIA written documents is their overly James-Bondish fascination with crytopnyms during this era; which is in turn underwritten by their pedantic use of two-letter digraphs. The two letter digraph WU I believe you will find refers to many Haitian operations. The card of April 1963 you link to above was almost certainly generated because of the following contact report I post below my signature. Note the WU digraph in the card you reference. Bill Simpich is I think working on a comprehensive cryptonym and digraph study which promises to provide great insights; it is my privilege to support his work at the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Basically, for your purposes, WU is going to be the prefix signaling Haitian CIA efforts, although I have seen at least one researcher claim that WU can indicate a CIA operative outside of Haiti. I don't think I've ever seen WU in anywhere but Haitian-related reports, but just to expand the conversation I include Joan Mellen's thoughts on this point (I offer no evaluation of Mellen - this is just to show you another perspective beyond my own). George DeMohrenschildt was an espionage target of the CIA, including having his mail read while he lived in Haiti - because, you know, the CIA reads the mail of its own spies, straight after having him shepherd the president's assassin/patsy at CIA request....right.... regards, Jason and here's a little snippet from Joan Mellen's Book Our Main in Haiti: George de Mohrenschildt and the CIA in the Nightmare Republic. A free preview is available here: https://books.google.com/books?id=d_0BBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT58&lpg=PT58&dq=cia+digraph+wu+haiti&source=bl&ots=StRk3VNAmK&sig=zkppzBeEugYZyVTQ--lpCQOpJIo&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiA59mc2rXXAhUB5WMKHUvJCnYQ6AEINDAF#v=snippet&q=proprietary relationship&f=false So, while I very much agree with Mellen's implied point that the digraph is an important concept in understanding CIA-speak of the era; I have not personally verified Mellen's specific claims:
  22. Eugene Dinkin: The Saga of an Unsung Hero

    Gene, you are almost alone as a voice of reason in this thread. Steve Thomas is also maintaining an admirable insistence on evidence. There is no evidence whatsoever dated prior to November 22, 1963 that Dinkin made any statement to anyone about the assassination of Kennedy or that Dinkin had advanced knowledge of the upcoming murder. All there is evidence of is a journalist and the usual tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists making up stories AFTER Kennedy was assassinated alleging an AWOL private heard about Kennedy's upcoming demise. It's equivalent to "predicting" Trump will win the presidency a few days after election results are in. It's pure nonsense. Jason
  23. Souetre picture 632-796

    Hi Steve, although Souetre is a fascinating figure apart from any possible involvement in the Kennedy assassination, I simply find no evidence* that he was involved in Kennedy's murder so I have not put much thought into the documents I have. I will say this: the OAS war against deGaulle was well known, documented, and hardly mysterious. The OAS was, of course, the French Radical Right. For all the same reasons there has been *since the very day of the attacks against deGaulle* no doubt who was attacking him, I reject that the CIA or some other mysterious cabal of US govenment related figures are deeply involved in the Kennedy assassination. There was never any doubt who was attacking deGaulle because the evidence is all over the place and undeniable. The same is true of Kennedy - the evidence exists; there is no room for so much rampant speculation. regards, Jason * there are some slight indications that Souetre may have briefly consulted with the authors of the Kennedy assassination, but in my view his role can be no higher than one-time or perhaps twice-visited consultant.
×