Jump to content
The Education Forum

Michaleen Kilroy

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Michaleen Kilroy

  • Rank
    Experienced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Helms has been my No. 1 suspect in this case for some time. The evidence is clear he was up to his eyeballs in secretly directing the DRE during the time of LHO and lying his ass off to WC and HSCA about it after: https://kennedysandking.com/images/pdf/PRandJFKcase.pdf https://medium.com/@macgiollarua/a-jfk-assassination-question-that-still-requires-an-answer-377267b73309 For me, this evidence is more compelling and fruitful than debating murky photos from Dealey Plaza: a top intel official directed a key CIA front group involved with the presidential assassin and is willing to lie to anyone about it to keep that a secret. That to me is evidence of conspiracy. And he's not very convincing at denying the agency's role in the assassination either:
  2. Nothing ever seems to be a coincidence with Mr. Dylan. My guess is he knows the book. Great article. Marks should get a posthumous Congressional Medal of Freedom award. He was eerily prescient.
  3. Yeah, who wants to be the guy who let's everyone know he was involved in the JFK assassination? Broken codes with dead compatriots, humiliation and hatred for the family, historical legacy of infamy forever... There's no real upside. The only guy who would publicly confess to rectify the historical record would, in the end, be a real man of courage. But that's not ever going to be some chickensh!t who ambushes a guy riding in a car with his wife.
  4. Thanks, Larry, for the additional info. I suppose I shouldn't be accusing anyone of the crime who's still alive but if anyone saw what actually happened, it sure seems like Jenkins would be the guy.
  5. I've read through the Wheaton interview and am getting through the rest. This seems like one of the most substantial finds in JFK research to me. Wheaton's bona fides seem beyond reproach, and Carl Jenkins seems like he was perfectly positioned to accomplish the assassination he boasted about. Quintero was just another in a long line of bitter anti-Castro fighters except is more likely a participant because he was being trained by the CIA to assassinate Castro. A few thoughts: It's strange Wheaton didn't talk to authorities sooner as a self-described lawman for life. It's also strange Wheaton didn't have one scrap of detail on the operation that isn't already known or at least theorized, e.g. triangulated crossfire. As an operations person himself, you would think that would've been top of mind in his conversations with Jenkins and Quintero. At the same time, and as the article points out, he never once tried to gain publicity or notoriety from his knowledge of these two. Also, the two different reactions of Jenkins and Quintero - the former claiming it never happened and the latter claiming Wheaton was confused about what they said - bolsters Wheaton's veracity. For what it's worth, my gut tells me these guys were involved. Those involved in the CIA-backed Castro assassination plots were long considered by researchers to have turned on JFK. This article gives a lot of credence to that with the details on their training and who was involved, and makes so much sense in terms of means, motive and opportunity, down to knowing how to frame a patsy (for Castro, to make it look like a non-US hit). What is also shocking, and also demonstrates how essentially institutionalized JFK's murder was, these CIA agents have no fear of telling an outsider about their role in the assassination, as if knowing no repercussions would be forthcoming. They're confessing but with no real fear of going to jail for it. It's groundbreaking research, IMO. Congrats to Larry, David, Bill and all those who contributed. For the first time, it feels like this case could be resolved in my lifetime. One question - is Jenkins still alive? If so, is someone still trying to get him on the record?
  6. I'm friends with Abraham Bolden on Facebook and felt compelled to ask him what he thought of Dylan's song. I got a great response: Just curious what James DiEugenio and Vince Palamara think of Bolden's story and if you've ever spoken with him. He seems to be the only reliable third-party witness still alive who saw the machinations of the conspirators up close before and after the assassination.
  7. Great job, Jim. I especially like the intro where you say it looks like Dylan wrote this specifically for people informed about the case. It sure does seem like that. As an aside, I do think Dylan wouldn't go to all this trouble without at least pointing to who he thinks the perps were. Here's where I think that is in the song/poem: ”Where we ask no quarter, and no quarter do we giveWe're right down the street, from the street where you live” This is when Dylan has taken on the voice of the conspirators in the song. They're talking to JFK - the street where he lives is Pennsylvania Avenue. They are right down the street, which means they are DC based and this is a federal government conspiracy. Notice he doesn't say "on the street where you live." That would point to the FBI which is headquartered on Pennsylvania. But "right down the street" and after the military jargon of 'no quarter' in the lyric? I'd say Dylan is referring to the Pentagon. What I really like about Dylan's song is he doesn't fret about 'figuring out' the ambush. It was a well-planned trick by experts who know how to do this work. That is the best explanation of the operation at Dealey. You don't need to know anything more on that front. It's just a distraction. Neither the official version nor any alternative version tells a believable story. It's all confusion. Which is what happens when a crime is purposefully covered up from the start by local and federal authorities.
  8. Anyone else feeling like the MSM is once again missing the point? The Nobel Prize-winning songwriter/poet and seminal figure of the 60s believes JFK was done in by a domestic conspiracy. And that fact has negatively affected American life ever since. ”Where we ask no quarter, and no quarter do we giveWe're right down the street, from the street where you live”
  9. Great find, Vince. If the document is accurate, it would appear to make Helms full of doo-doo yet again when he told CBS in the 80s he "personally checked" to see if there were any agents in the field in Dallas that day. Of course, he said no. If you had to cast someone from CIA being in the middle of things in Dallas, this guy would fit the bill. And he couldn't have been Secret Service because they said no agent was hanging around Dealey at anytime during or following the assassination. I think you're onto something.
  10. Thanks, Gene. To answer your questions: He's the subject of the recent USA Today story in the second to final slide: Ross Lester Crozier It was Ed Butler of INCA who facilitated the radio 'debate' (ambush?) between LHO and Carlos Bringuier. I meant that any anomalies citizen researchers found were not pursued by media because of the complexity of the case but more importantly journos were afraid of losing their jobs if they even tried to tackle it, I believe. Sylvan Fox, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for the for NY World-Telegram wrote the book in 1964 called 'The Unanswered Questions of the Kennedy Assassination" because he couldn't get his paper to publish his analysis and critique of the WC. He's the only mainstream media person I found who questioned the story in the early days. I believe LIFE and a couple of other outlets were publicly skeptical a couple of years later. Here ya go: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2003/12/18/jfks-assassination/ Looks like it was 2003 not 2005. My bad. I agree with you - the assassination always looked to me like someone wanted a war. I'll take a look at DeBrosse's paper. Thanks for the tip.
  11. No attack but a clarification: the preso wasn't meant to be a comprehensive theory of who killed JFK. It was a brief overview of the PR and propaganda tactics that have been used over the years to influence public opinion about the case.
  12. I added a bit more context here and there but mostly focused on the PR tactics that were used since that was my audience and topic. I got a few questions mostly for confirmation, such as "Butler did a media drop?" referring to the WDSU-TV film, and "The DRE release came out before the assassination?" Also, someone asked how COINTELPRO hurt citizen's movements. I said they would often try to associate them with communism. My impressions were a) the younger crowd was not emotionally tied to the assassination like older generations and b) they expressed no real shock in seeing government disinformation/malfeasance at work. I avoided asking what anyone thought of the case at the end and wanted to leave it up to them. Of course I have my thoughts but kept them to myself. But I'll share them here (naturally). If you look at the facts of the public influence campaign immediately following the assassination and how it was put together, there are only one of 3 conclusions you can make: 1) It all happened organically. LHO found the DRE publicity director, provoked him, the DRE and Butler responded, the media covered it, Butler held onto the film and the debate tape, etc., etc. And the CIA lied about it all for decades just because. (Fat chance, IMHO.) 2) The CIA ran a COINTEL campaign against the FPCC in NO using LHO, and then LHO shot JFK or someone hijacked him as a participant but the CIA knew nothing. Hence the cover-up. (My argument against this idea is if the FPCC was non-existent in NO, then why go to the trouble of damaging the reputation of a chapter that doesn't exist?) 3) By the times Helms hired Joannides, the conspiracy was well underway. So it's either happenstance, Oswald fooled the CIA, or the CIA fooled Oswald. My bet's on the latter.
  13. This is great stuff, Pat. Thanks for sharing. I'm fascinated by the way the CIA attempted to manipulate public opinion from the get-go in this case, while also covering up material evidence for decades with top officials lying under oath. Following that path of public deception and what they're protecting to me is the path to real answers. And whatever Newman says about Veciana, no one's gonna convince me key agency players weren't involved or enablers. There's a reason top prosecutors Sprague and Tanenbaum immediately smelled a rat with David Atlee Phillips but the CIA again managed public opinion to get them removed and replaced by Blakey who was obviously going to focus on the mob. Now a bit of self-aggrandizement. Jefferson Morley was nice enough to post a presentation I gave to some communications underlings recently. If I had the time, I'd love to track every way the CIA tried to manipulate public opinion in the JFK case over the past 50+ years: https://jfkfacts.org/perception-management-public-relations-and-the-jfk-story/
  14. Thanks for posting this, Andrew. For this longtime PR professional and student of the assassination, I personally thought this article was a major breakthrough for MSM after 56 years of dodging the case. It addressed a relevant story from the case on its own terms - no reliance on conclusions from the WC or HSCA It used the factual discoveries of researchers when appropriate The story originated with the paper's own research - not just reporting what Jefferson Morley or other independent journalist found or announced It sets the context for what was to follow with the next DRE case officer - George Joannides It sources primary materials with links in the copy THIS is the way forward, IMHO gents and ladies, if we truly want to resolve the case to the satisfaction of everyone. It just so happened I used this USA Today story in a talk I gave to my fellow communications professionals this past Friday, Nov. 22, providing an overview of the ways PR and propaganda have been integral to the case even BEFORE the assassination. Here's a link to the preso in case you're interested: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hRDDOiiDNz2J8sec3ZraVAiw_OHOLs-A/view?usp=sharing
  • Create New...