Jump to content
The Education Forum
Micah Mileto

David Lifton teases Final Charade on the Night Fright Show

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Cliff, 

I believe that McGeorge Bundy was in communication with J. Edgar Hoover in Washington DC before that call.   

Professor David Wrone says that J. Edgar Hoover invented the Lone Nut theory of LHO at 3pm CST (4pm EST) on 11/22/1963.  We know from FBI records that by this time Hoover had called RFK with the news that LHO was neither a Communist nor an FPCC officer.

Do you have an approximate time for McGeorge Bundy's call to AF-1, Cliff?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

"Wrone says"? "I believe"?

That's not evidence.

See Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 288.

Hoover wanted to frame the ambush on Commies.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know it makes most conspiracy theorists roll their eyes and sigh heavily with boredom whenever I do this, but nevertheless I'm going to post the following excerpts from Vincent Bugliosi's 2007 JFK book anyway, because (IMO) there is no better reference book to consult than Vincent's "Reclaiming History" when it comes to the many sub-topics associated with the assassination of President Kennedy.

These "RH" excerpts pertain to the topic of "Alleged Zapruder Film Fakery"....

[Quotes On:]

"I want to address one of the craziest allegations that conspiracy buffs have ever latched onto in their efforts to pull the conspiratorial wool over the eyes of gullible people everywhere. The Zapruder film, of course, was originally touted by the vast majority of conspiracy theorists as incontrovertible proof of the conspiracy that killed the president (Connally reacting later than Kennedy, head snap to rear, etc.). As prosecutor Jim Garrison argued in his final summation in the Clay Shaw murder trial in 1969, the head snap to the rear on the film proves the fatal head shot "came from the front." Though the Warren Commission's investigation of Kennedy's death, he said, was "the greatest fraud in the history of our country," how wonderful, he told the jurors that they had seen the "one eyewitness which was indifferent to power — the Zapruder film. The lens of the camera tells what happened . . . and that is one of the reasons two hundred million Americans have not seen the Zapruder film."

Even the zany Garrison would have never believed that the latest big rage in the conspiracy community today is its charge that the film, through alteration, is a forgery, created by photographic experts (hired by the "conspirators") in an effort to conceal the truth about the shooting in Dallas and frame Oswald.

Can you imagine that, folks? The deliriously wacky conspiracy buffs are now claiming that the Zapruder film itself, the film of the assassination, is a hoax, a fraud, a forgery. What's next? Kennedy is still alive in a suite on the top floor of Parkland Hospital? G. Gordon Liddy was the grassy knoll assassin? Oswald was, as rumored, Ruby's illegitimate son? Just stay tuned to the buffs' wacko network.


[...]

One would think the "alterationists" (the name applied to those in the conspiracy community who believe the Zapruder film was altered) would have a difficult time with the fact that the Zapruder film shows that the back of the president's head always looks intact (negating the conspiracy position that there was a large exit wound to the rear of the president's head) and also shows a large exit wound to the right front of the president's head (validating the Warren Commission's and HSCA's position that the head wound shot came from the president's rear, not the grassy knoll). But where there's a will there's a way.

Alterationist David Lifton, while conceding "it wasn't easy" for the conspirator-forgers of the film to do it, claims that they "blacked out" the back of the president's head to conceal the large exit wound, and "painted on" what looked like a large exit wound to the right front of the president's head. But Lifton offers no evidence to support his absolutely incredible allegation, nor is he troubled in the least, apparently, by the fact that Zapruder testified that while viewing the motorcade through his telephoto lens he saw the right side of the president's head open up and "blood and everything" come out.


[...]

The list of alleged discrepancies, contradictions, and anomalies seems to grow in direct proportion to the number of amateur Internet-based film experts who take up the challenge of finding the "proof of conspiracy" that they believe is imbedded somewhere in the frames of Zapruder's film, just waiting to be extracted, like DNA from a crime scene.

Most of this thoughtless nonsense is sold on the strength of what is theoretically possible today using modern computer technology. However, twenty-first-century technology is hardly a measuring stick for events that allegedly occurred more than four decades ago. In fact, there is nothing simple about the kinds of wholesale changes that are alleged to have been made during the course of altering the Zapruder film, even with today's technology.


[...]

Since the alleged conspirators couldn't have known at the time that it was Zapruder's film, not any of the many others, that they had to seize because it was the only one that captured the entire assassination sequence, their only going after his film makes absolutely no sense. If we're to govern our reasoning on this issue by common sense, the above reality, all by itself, would tell any reasonable person that the Zapruder film was not altered.

Another reason why it's obvious the Zapruder film was not altered is that, as we know, at the very heart of nearly all conspiracy arguments is the contention that the fatal shot to the president's head came from the grassy knoll to the president's right front, not from the right rear where Oswald was. We also know that the head snap to the rear has convinced Americans more than any other thing that, indeed, the head shot came from the president's front, and this, without an explanation, exonerates Oswald at least as to the fatal shot.

Since the whole alleged purpose of the forgery of the Zapruder film, per the conspiracy theorists, was to frame Oswald as the lone gunman and conceal the truth from the American public (the truth, per the buffs, being that the shot to the head came from the grassy knoll), if there were one thing, and one thing only that the forgers would have altered, they would have altered the Zapruder film to make it look like Kennedy's head had been violently thrust forward (indicating a shot from the rear, where Oswald was), not backward, as the film shows.

Instead, if we're to believe the conspiracy theorists, the conspirator-forgers decided to alter everything else in the film, including the height of a spectator, but not the most important thing of all, the head snap to the rear. Leading alterationist Dr. David Mantik claims that the conspirator-forgers excised frames that he said would have shown "tissue debris" from Kennedy's head going backward. "Backward going debris would have been overwhelming evidence of a frontal shot (or shots) and would have posed too serious a threat to the official story of only posterior [from the rear] shots."

But if the forgers would delete the backward movement of the spray, they all the more so would want to delete the much more visible head snap to the rear.


[...]

The original Zapruder film was proved to have been shot using Zapruder's camera, which effectively eliminates the alterationist argument that the film is actually a forgery of selected frames created by using an optical printer. In 1998, at the request of the ARRB, Roland J. Zavada, the retired standards director for imaging technologies at Kodak, and Kodak's preeminent 8-millimeter film expert, analyzed the "out-of-camera" original film (i.e., the actual film that Zapruder had loaded into his camera on November 22, 1963), several first-generation copies, and a number of prints of the Zapruder film, as well as the actual Bell & Howell camera used by Zapruder to create the film.

Edge print codes embedded in the original film show that the film was manufactured in 1961 at Kodak in Rochester, New York, and processed (i.e., developed) in November 1963, both of which are very strong indications that the film being examined was, indeed, the original film. The processing number 0183, perforated vertically along the width of the film (a common practice used to match up processed films with customer orders), was traced to the Kodak developing laboratory in Dallas where Zapruder took his film to be processed.

The link between the processing number (0183) and Zapruder's film was confirmed by the technicians involved in the developing process, and proves that the Zapruder film, as we know it, was developed in Dallas on the afternoon of November 22, 1963, and not at some other time and place after alterations had been made.

Further, Zavada concluded that whatever "anomalies" there were in the Zapruder film "can be explained by the design and image capture characteristics of [Zapruder's] Bell & Howell 414 PD Camera."


[...]

Even hypothetically assuming that a forgery were possible, the forgers would have had to alter the original Zapruder film before any copies were made, since an altered copy could immediately be exposed as a fraud when it was compared with the original. But we know from the record that Abraham Zapruder kept the original film in his possession until it was sold to Life magazine on Saturday, November 23, 1963, which means, of course, that no one could have altered the film before then. Yet by that time, multiple copies of the film were already in the hands of the Secret Service and the FBI, both of whom were, in turn, making second- and third-generation copies for their files.

Or do the alterationists want us to believe that the "conspirators" altered the original film after these second- and third-generation copies had been made? But in that case, any one of the copies could expose the fact that the original had been altered.

The fact that each of the many copies of the Zapruder film matches all others as well as the original film proves beyond any doubt that no alterations were made.


[...]

Richard W. Burgess of the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Ottawa...in addition to noting that “I have personal knowledge of the sorts of processes and effects that were available to film-makers in 1963 and I can state categorically that the Zapruder film has not had anything added to it or removed from it apart from the splices that everyone knows about,” he finds the hypothesis set forth by [Harrison] Livingstone and [David] Lifton ludicrous on its face. He writes that such an alteration “would result in a ridiculously amateurish mess that would not fool a four-year-old, even in the hands of a skilled miniature painter under a microscope.”

Burgess tells of the enormous complexity, and ultimate futility, of such an endeavor. He writes, “Any attempted modification would necessitate [as Lifton says] the enlargement of the film to 35 mm (to maintain clarity, and reduce changes in color saturation and balance, contrast, and grain), various types of optical printing with traveling mattes, and then reduction back to 8 mm. The conspirators would have to begin by rear-projecting each frame onto the back of an animator’s drawing table and tracing each successive frame of Kennedy onto a piece of paper. This is known as rotoscoping . . . Then an animator would have to animate the ‘blob’ by drawing it onto the successive rotoscoped images of Kennedy’s head. These drawings would then be transferred to animation cels and painted. The area around the painted wound on each cel would then be painted black. Another set of cels would then be copied, but with the wound painted black and the rest of the cel clear. These images would then be filmed with an animation camera onto two sets of film, one with the wound surrounded by black (film 1) and the other with a black blob floating in mid-air on clear film (film 2). This is a traveling matte. Next the Zapruder film enlargement would be run through an optical printer with film 2 on top in correct frame register, producing film 3. This film would show a black hole where the wound should be. Film 3 would then be rewound and film 1 (the wound surrounded by black) would be run through the printer exposing film 3 again. Since black does not expose the film, the surrounding black of film 1 wouldn’t expose the already exposed Zapruder film and, if the copying of the cels was done exactly and the job was done properly on a high quality optical printer, the painted wound would fit right into the unexposed hole in film 3 like a moving jigsaw puzzle piece. Film 3 is reduced back to 8 mm and there you have it: faked Zapruder film.”

“Unfortunately,” Burgess writes, “this would and could never work, for a number of important reasons.” He goes on to give several independent reasons, just one of which being the poor quality of the image to start with resulting in a final version that would be “so murky as to be almost useless, even with fine grain, low contrast 35 mm masters and specialized color duping film, a new development in 1963.”

He then goes on to discuss “the problem of registration,” keeping each frame in the same relative position. He writes that “it was easy . . . to describe the process of rotoscoping and optical printing, but it would have been impossible for anyone to have been able to maintain perfect registration of the [fake] wound on the head. Without perfect registration the wound would move around on the head, as if it weren’t attached. This goes for movement in all three dimensions. Not only would the animated [fake] wound have to move back and forth and up and down in perfect synchronization with Kennedy’s head, but it would also have to shift with changes in depth and angle; it would have to show foreshortening in exact calibration with Kennedy’s head movements. This is impossible since even a half a grain’s shift would cut the animated wound free of Kennedy’s head and make it look like some grotesque free-floating balloon. In the film, the wound is firmly part of Kennedy’s head. Indeed, part of the flap in front actually flops about in reaction to the violence of Kennedy’s head movements. Such virtually invisible ‘finessing’ in a process already unbelievably complex is simply impossible.” ('Fourth Decade', September 1994, pp.5–7)"


-- Vincent Bugliosi; Via "Reclaiming History" (Pages 504-511 and Pages 350-351 of Endnotes)
 

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/02/dvp-vs-dieugenio-part-120.html

 

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Von Pein opines:

[...]

Richard W. Burgess of the Department of Classical Studies at the University of Ottawa...in addition to noting that “I have personal knowledge of the sorts of processes and effects that were available to film-makers in 1963 and I can state categorically that the Zapruder film has not had anything added to it or removed from it apart from the splices that everyone knows about,” he finds the hypothesis set forth by [Harrison] Livingstone and [David] Lifton ludicrous on its face. He writes that such an alteration “would result in a ridiculously amateurish mess that would not fool a four-year-old, even in the hands of a skilled miniature painter under a microscope.”

[...]

 

LMAO, "amateurish mess"? Therein lies the problem with YOU amateurs, you're simply amateurs! If there is anything "ludicrious" about your post DVP its the fact you use amateurs to opine re professional post-production film craft. C'mon dude, you might have newbies impressed, however, those that have been around for the last 15+ years or so know better... sheeeesssssh!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@David Von Pein:

What really aggravates me about Vincent Bugliosi's analysis of the Z-film (or whoever Vince farmed the work out to...possibly Dale Meyers?) is no one bothered to ask the person who developed the original Z-film and the 3 copies to describe what they observed when they ran the developed films while quality checking them for Mr. Zapruder. There were in-house witnesses to those projections. No one talked to them either. Those folks saw the Z-film BEFORE Life's Dick Stolley & Dallas based CBS TV journalist Dan Rather did.

All of those people could have quite easily answered questions on if JFK's parade car rounded the intersection of Houston & Elm Streets, did the car come to a complete stop, what the head shot debris gore looked like, and if they saw activity in the film not present in the original stored at the National Archives.

Simply arguing something cannot be done or is impossible doesn't cut it. Ask Christopher Columbus (if one could, that is) if a voyage around the world is possible in the face of being told not only was it not possible, but it would end up in death when the ship fell off the flat earth. Who told Chris that BS? The 'experts' that knew everything there was to know at the time (lol).

Brad Milch

 

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Brad, unless Abraham Zapruder himself was part of a plot to secretly "alter" his own film, then I don't see how it was possible for the film to be faked/altered. When could it have been done with Mr. Z there the whole time?

But this "timing" problem never seems to bother the conspiracy theorists. ~shrug~

Edited by David Von Pein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a 'gap' in the Zapruder story, David. It was during that period of time when Dick Stolley was phoning his home every 30 minutes or so trying to set up a deal meeting for the film. IIRC, no one knew where Mr. Z. was or what he was doing. The story I read was he went driving around Dallas trying to 'clear his head'. Perhaps the answer to your question lies there.

This statement will probably get me in trouble with Jim DiEugenio again, but it needs to be said: accepting the WC's version of events is always the easiest route to put this story to bed.

Just because I said it doesn't mean I subscribe to it (lol).

Before closing, I do have some comments to EF readers concerning Mr. Zapruder's film:

1. To fully appreciate just how close to JFK Mr. Zapruder & Marilyn Sitzman were when the doomed President was shot in the head & killed, one needs to visit Dealey Plaza & stand on the filming 'pedestal'. It was that close; directly in front of both Zapruder & Sitzman. As a comparison, imagine taking a home movie of Jonah & capturing a whale breaking the ocean surface & swallowing him up (lol).

2. Had I been doing the filming, I would have been in trouble the instant I smelled Marilyn's perfume. When she made contact with my body (to steady me), there would have gone the camera. Dropped like a hot rock (lol).

3. There are a number of interesting Zapruder themed videos one can find on YouTube with a variety of theories contained within. Everything from Mr. Z had advance knowledge of the assassination to he being the shooter.

4. Mr. Zapruder's WC & Clay Shaw trial testimony is a good read. The subject of alteration of his film was addressed. Mr. Zapruder believed he had cleared the Stemmons sign. The WC failed to pinpoint the exact frame(s) Zapruder told them JFK was 1st struck.

5. Marilyn Sitzman was not called to testify before the WC or any other Government investigative body. Jim Garrison did not call her to testify either in the Clay Shaw trial. We first heard from Marilyn in Josiah Thompson's blockbuster 1967 CT book, 'Six Seconds in Dallas'. Marilyn tells us in that book that a young black couple were sitting on the park bench midway from her & Mr. Z. & the end of the retaining wall they stood on while filming the Z-film (a dual effort). The frightened couple both threw down & smashed soda bottles when the gunfire erupted as they ran away from it. In 'The Men Who Killed Kennedy', Marilyn tells us Mr. Z began filming 'just before they (JFK & entourage) came around the corner'. It's not known if Mr. Zapruder shared the wealth his film brought him with Marilyn Sitzman, Zapruder's filming partner.

6. In 2016 dollars, it was calculated that Abraham Zapruder's film brought him just under 1 million dollars from Life magazine. Zapruder died not long after receiving his final payment. When the AARB classified the Zapruder film as an 'assassination record', the US Government paid Zapruder's heir 16 million dollars.

7. Had Mr. Z not gotten on the pedestal with Marilyn Sitzman, but simply walked forward just a few feet & positioned himself in the vicinity behind the Newman family, he would have cleared the obstacles that obstructed his view in his film. Ironically, had the Newman family brought their home movie camera to Dealey Plaza with them (they had forgotten it when they left their home that morning) and made their own film of JFK's parade car making its journey down Elm Street when it came under attack, the Newmans probably would have produced a better film than Zapruder did. The Newmans missed the big bucks by fate.

8. After Life Magazine purchased the Zapruder film, it published select frames. First in black & white & then later, in color. The magazine reported that the film showed JFK turning around in his seat to look back at his assailant in the TSBD's 'sniper's nest' & was subsequently shot in the throat. The magazine never published a retraction. Neither the FBI or SS ever protested publicly what Life had reported to global readers.

9. J. Edgar Hoover did not consider the Zapruder film to be of 'evidentiary value'.

Respectfully & sincerely,

Brad Milch

 

Edited by Brad Milch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

"Wrone says"? "I believe"?

That's not evidence.

See Larry Hancock's Someone Would Have Talked, pg 288.

Hoover wanted to frame the ambush on Commies.

Cliff,

So, your evidence is Larry Hancock's SWHT (2010).  I have discussed Larry's ideas with him on this Forum, and we disagree on some basics.  According to me, Larry's CIA-did-it CT is still filled with guesswork.

For one thing, Larry admits that the JFK Kill Team required a man in Dallas to organize matters -- but Larry believes that this underworld pimp, Jack Ruby, was adequate for the job.  On the other hand, Larry claims that the victorious WW2 US General, Edwin Walker, only 54 years old in 1963, was "a crazy old nut."  

Hmm.

Anyway, Cliff, to your final point -- you say that "Hoover wanted to frame the ambush on Commies" -- but actually Hoover said something very different to RFK on 11/22/193, and something very different even to the Warren Commission in sworn testimony.   Let's just look at what Hoover told RFK on 11/22/1963:

FBI Hoover Record #5478

November 22, 1963 4:01 PM

MEMORANDUM FOR  MR.TOLSON
  MR. BELMONT
  MR. MOHR
  MR. CONRAD
  MR. DE LOACH
  MR. EVANS
  MR. ROSEN
  MR. SULLIVAN

I called the Attorney General at his home and told him I thought we had the man who killed the President down in Dallas at the present time.  I stated the man's name is Lee Harvey Oswald; that he was working in the building from which the shots were fired that hit the President and the Governor; that apparently be left the building and a block or two away ran into two police officers and, thinking they were going to arrest him, shot at them and killed one of them with a side arm; that the rifle had been left in the building.

I told the Attorney General at his home that we have a case on Oswald as he has been involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I stated that the Dallas police have him down at headquarters and I have our Agents there.

The Attorney General asked if Oswald is a communist.  I said that he is not a communist but has communist leanings.  I related that Oswald went to Russia and stayed three years; came back to the United States in June, 1962, and went to Cuba on several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for.  I stated he a very mean-minded individual; that it is entirely possible he may have some communist sympathies but, so far as we know, is not a member of the Communist Party...

Very truly yours,
JEH
John Edgar Hoover
Director

For another thing, in his WC testimony on May 14, 1964, Hoover said this:

Mr. HOOVER. We found no indication at all that Oswald was a man addicted to violence...We went back into his Marine Corps record. He was a "loner." He didn't have many friends...The first evidence we had of him in our file was a statement to the press in Moscow. And then later, about 22 months later, he returned to the Embassy there and according to the report of the Embassy we have and which the Commission has been furnished, the Embassy gave him a clean bill. He had seen the error of his ways and disliked the Soviet atmosphere, et cetera, and they, therefore, cleared him, paid his way and paid his wife's way to come back to this country...After those interviews had been completed, the next incident was the difficulty he had at New Orleans. We were concerned there as to whether he was functioning officially for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee which was financed and supported by Castro and Castro's government, and if he was, where he obtained money and with whom he had dealt. He apparently had the leaflets printed himself on plain ordinary paper. There was no reason for us, then, to have any suspicion that he had any element of danger in him.

There is nothing in Hoover's words on 11/22/1963, or in his WC testimony on 5/14/1964, that suggests that the Communists were running LHO, or that "Hoover wanted to frame the ambush on the Communists."   That's made up stuff.  CIA-did-it CTers are continually making stuff up.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

Cliff,

So, your evidence is Larry Hancock's SWHT (2010).  I have discussed Larry's ideas with him on this Forum, and we disagree on some basics.  According to me, Larry's CIA-did-it CT is still filled with guesswork.

For one thing, Larry admits that the JFK Kill Team required a man in Dallas to organize matters -- but Larry believes that this underworld pimp, Jack Ruby, was adequate for the job.  On the other hand, Larry claims that the victorious WW2 US General, Edwin Walker, only 54 years old in 1963, was "a crazy old nut."  

Hmm.

Anyway, Cliff, to your final point -- you say that "Hoover wanted to frame the ambush on Commies" -- but actually Hoover said something very different to RFK on 11/22/193, and something very different even to the Warren Commission in sworn testimony.   Let's just look at what Hoover told RFK on 11/22/1963:

FBI Hoover Record #5478

November 22, 1963 4:01 PM

MEMORANDUM FOR  MR.TOLSON
  MR. BELMONT
  MR. MOHR
  MR. CONRAD
  MR. DE LOACH
  MR. EVANS
  MR. ROSEN
  MR. SULLIVAN

I called the Attorney General at his home and told him I thought we had the man who killed the President down in Dallas at the present time.  I stated the man's name is Lee Harvey Oswald; that he was working in the building from which the shots were fired that hit the President and the Governor; that apparently be left the building and a block or two away ran into two police officers and, thinking they were going to arrest him, shot at them and killed one of them with a side arm; that the rifle had been left in the building.

I told the Attorney General at his home that we have a case on Oswald as he has been involved in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. I stated that the Dallas police have him down at headquarters and I have our Agents there.

The Attorney General asked if Oswald is a communist.  I said that he is not a communist but has communist leanings.  I related that Oswald went to Russia and stayed three years; came back to the United States in June, 1962, and went to Cuba on several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for.  I stated he a very mean-minded individual; that it is entirely possible he may have some communist sympathies but, so far as we know, is not a member of the Communist Party...

Very truly yours,
JEH
John Edgar Hoover
Director

For another thing, in his WC testimony on May 14, 1964, Hoover said this:

Mr. HOOVER. We found no indication at all that Oswald was a man addicted to violence...We went back into his Marine Corps record. He was a "loner." He didn't have many friends...The first evidence we had of him in our file was a statement to the press in Moscow. And then later, about 22 months later, he returned to the Embassy there and according to the report of the Embassy we have and which the Commission has been furnished, the Embassy gave him a clean bill. He had seen the error of his ways and disliked the Soviet atmosphere, et cetera, and they, therefore, cleared him, paid his way and paid his wife's way to come back to this country...After those interviews had been completed, the next incident was the difficulty he had at New Orleans. We were concerned there as to whether he was functioning officially for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee which was financed and supported by Castro and Castro's government, and if he was, where he obtained money and with whom he had dealt. He apparently had the leaflets printed himself on plain ordinary paper. There was no reason for us, then, to have any suspicion that he had any element of danger in him.

There is nothing in Hoover's words on 11/22/1963, or in his WC testimony on 5/14/1964, that suggests that the Communists were running LHO, or that "Hoover wanted to frame the ambush on the Communists."   That's made up stuff.  CIA-did-it CTers are continually making stuff up.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

If Hoover wasn't part of the "frame Oswald as a Red Agent" operation why did he claim Oswald had gone to Cuba "on several occasions"?

I related that Oswald went to Russia and stayed three years; came back to the United States in June, 1962, and went to Cuba on several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for.  I stated he a very mean-minded individual; that it is entirely possible he may have some communist sympathies but, so far as we know, is not a member of the Communist Party...

From Hoover's 12/12/63 memo to FBI #2 Clyde Tolson, emphasis added:

http://www.jfklancer.com/Hoover.html

I said I personally believe Oswald was the assassin; that the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern; that we have several letters, not in the report because we were not able to prove it, written to him from Cuba referring to the job he was going to do, his good marksmanship, and stating when it was all over he would be brought back to Cuba and presented to the chief; but we do not know if the chief was Castro and cannot make an investigation because we have no intelligence operation in Cuba; that I did not put this into the report because we did not have proof of it and didn't want to put speculation in the report; that this was the reason I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man.

Hoover wasn't comfortable with the Oswald-alone scenario, clearly.

Why push the lie that Oswald went to Cuba unless Hoover wanted to frame him as a Fidelista?

You're splitting hairs making a distinction between having "communist leanings" and being a CP member.

It's YOU who make up stuff about Bundy speaking to Hoover before calling AF1, which is the major point here.

 

Added on EDIT: the 12/12/63 memo.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

If Hoover wasn't part of the "frame Oswald as a Red Agent" operation why did he claim Oswald had gone to Cuba "on several occasions"?

I related that Oswald went to Russia and stayed three years; came back to the United States in June, 1962, and went to Cuba on several occasions but would not tell us what he went to Cuba for.  I stated he a very mean-minded individual; that it is entirely possible he may have some communist sympathies but, so far as we know, is not a member of the Communist Party...

Why push the lie that Oswald went to Cuba unless Hoover wanted to frame him as a Fidelista?

You're splitting hairs making a distinction between having "communist leanbings" and being a CP member.

It's YOU who make up stuff about Bundy speaking to Hoover before calling AF1, which is the major point here.

 

 

The LBJ JEH phone recording, agreeing that a congressional committee "would be very bad" and then deciding on a Presidential Comission is the nail in the coffin. They knew and decided that there could not be sworn testimony under the threat of perjury charges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

It's YOU who make up stuff about Bundy speaking to Hoover before calling AF1, which is the major point here.

Cliff,

All I said was please tell me the hour that McGeorge Bundy called AF1.   What's the big deal?   Do you know or not?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Cliff,

All I said was please tell me the hour that McGeorge Bundy called AF1.   What's the big deal?   Do you know or not?

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

I don't know the exact time, no.

I do know that this line in the 12/12/63 Hoover memo destroys the Wrone/Trejo claim that Hoover invented the lone assassin myth.

Hoover: ..."I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

 

I don't know the exact time, no.

I do know that this line in the 12/12/63 Hoover memo destroys the Wrone/Trejo claim that Hoover invented the lone assassin myth.

Hoover: ..."I urged strongly that we not reach conclusion Oswald was the only man."

Cliff,

Like most CIA-did-it CTers, you jump to conclusions.

Hoover knew good and well that LHO was never alone -- not in Dallas and not in New Orleans.   Hoover knew that the FPCC in New Orleans was a Fake, and he knew that Guy Banister, former FBI man, was in charge at 544 Camp Street.

As soon as Hoover saw the FBI file on LHO, he saw right through the JFK plot.

Everything.

But at 4pm EST Hoover decided that the Lone Nut theory was the best solution to the problem. Hoover always knew who did it, and that LHO was never alone.

Now -- why would Hoover make the claim that you quoted, Cliff?

Here's my take on it -- Hoover was already under pressure for pushing the "Lone Nut" theory.  So, this was Hoover's way of denying that he was the actual source of the "Lone Nut" theory -- and that the "facts" convinced him.

Hoover knew better.  But Hoover, LBJ, Dulles and Warren had already agreed -- this was a question of National Security.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Edited by Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Varnell and Trejo dissing each other.

And its free.

James,

At least Cliff Varnelli makes good points and cites actual documents. 

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I can't say for sure who did it, but it appears that the perps may have been supra-institutional actors.

It was, perhaps, a major dope ring which included people with lots of different backgrounds, including the CIA, the military, the State Dept.

And the Federal Bureau of Narcotics,

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...