Jump to content
The Education Forum
Paz Marverde

Who changed the motorcade route?

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Can we now get back to the motorcade route?

Without another DVP hijacking.

Amen!

Jim, PLEASE see my latest post (hours in the making) 

President Kennedy: the bubble top and all security issues dissected 1961-1963

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim

The Paul Bleau article is fascinating, an interesting analysis.  He does a good job of connecting the dots, using standard causal analysis techniques … what we call in my business a "support-refute matrix". 

It seems the plots began in June 1963 but intensified in November.  Obviously, the windows of opportunity were dictated by JFK's travel itinerary.  In most of the proposed shooting locations, there is a pattern of using a motorcade route that would have permitted triangulation shooting near the scapegoat’s workplace.  The scapegoats exhibit similar "pawn-like" pre-motorcade movements, suggesting manipulation and handlers.  Several scapegoats moved to the motorcade location shortly before the intended event …  Lopez moved from the Keys to Tampa shortly before the motorcade; Vallee and Oswald exhibit similar behavior.  Marlowe, Garriga and Power probably had analogous movements, if studied more carefully.  Nagell is the wild card of the bunch. Bleau then links ZR Rifle Executive Action tactics used for ambush: an opportune motorcade route, in the right city (coupled with weak protection) and use of surrogates with the right weaponry.  Plus the sheep-dipping escapades in Mexico City, creating false flags to the Soviets and Castro (to guard against "blow-back").  Lastly, a mafia 'sponsor' in each city  (standard Harvey/Angleton modus operandi) to institute logistics, compromise the police force, and provide yet another cut-out for plausible deniability.   

Then there is the most telling commonality amongst the plots/patsies - their close links to the FPCC, a "mysterious misfit magnet of ex-marines and Cuban exiles".  Bleau aptly characterizes this as " yet another coincidence in this case, where improbability is omnipresent".   Motorcade topic aside (for a moment), the common elements in these plots leading up to Dallas of an ex-marine patsy, Mexico City and FPCC become (as Vincent Salandria once described the Paines) "clear beacons leading to the killers"

Gene

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

 

Lifton cannot handle any information that counters his body snatching and body alteration theory.  Especially if it comes from the critics's side. Take a look at what he did to Cyril Wecht in his book.

Now he says he knows about and had the Kunkel interview.  In other words he knew  what Marina said about the pistol, about Mexico City and the rifle a long time ago. But he said what I said about that was a "whopper".  This, more than anything else, indicates two things.

1.) He is willing to ignore the first statements made.  And to say I told a "whopper" about it when he knew it was true.

2.) He will do this to fit the thematic outline of his book.  This is fine if one is writing plays or novels.  Its not fine in non fiction.

Jim:  I find much of your writing gibberish. Its just plain illogical, and this post is a good example.

Re Dr. Wecht and what I wrote about him  In Best Evidence: I wrote the truth about what I found in dealing with Dr. Wecht (in August 1972, when I was asked to be his "briefer" in connection with his examination of the autopsy X-rays and photos).  I spent much of the summer of 1972 --assisted  by someone connected with UCLA--writig some excellent briefing books.   Upon arriving in Pittsburgh, I found he had not read them. Then we flew from Pittsburgh (his residence) to Washington, D.C., To my considerable surprise (and  irritation), I found that Wecht was basically a publicity hound, and, among other things, could not read the X-rays. And so he made his focus, in speaking to Fred Graham of  the New York Times (an interview Hecht requested that I arrange, which I did, and most of which took place in my presence, in a taxi-cab ride from NARA back to Washington's National Airport, where he took a flight back home to Pittsburgh), the fact that the National Archives did not have JFK's brain--a fact that was already known. The result: major headlines to the effect that "the President's brain is missing!"  In recounting this experience in Chapter 20 of B.E., I recounted all this carefully and accurately. Including the fact that Wecht went on to write an article that the evidence showed  President Kennedy was shot twice from behind, that there was--essentially-no indication of any fraud in the evidence, etc.  I ended this episode (my chapter, Ch. 20, titled "The X-rays and  Photographs (Circa 1971-72)" with this sentence: "He [Wecht] was a sheep in wolf's clothing."

You tell readers "Take a look at what he did to Cyril Wecht in his book. . " 

What did I "do" to Wecht? I'll tell you what I did: I told the truth .Wecht looked at the X-rays and photos, was basically flustered and couldn't do a blessed thing, so he resorted to a publicity stunt. He "asked for" the brain (which was not available); and so then he made a major announcement (which led to major publicity and headlines): "The President's brain is missing!" etc.  Then,  in the after-glow of his"missing brain" publicity: he then co-authored an article --his "definitive" take on the materials--stating that the President was shot twice from behind, there was--essentially--no evidence indicating "fraud in the evidence" etc. As I recall, it wasn't until some years later, when Dr. David Mantik obtained access to the materials, and brought in a table-top densitometer, and made critical measurements, that he was able to essentially state (re the X-rays, and particularly the head X-rays): "This stuff isn't real. Its fake."  So again, that's what I did: I told the truth, as I saw it. I refused to be part of some "Wecht-Adoring" club, and play politics with the issue--especially after, as I recounted, Wecht was so incompetent he couldn't locate the entry wound on the X-rays. On that subject, and as I described in Chapter 20 of Best Evidence, I had to stand in the doorway of the examining room and tie a two knots in a piece of thread, and explain to Wecht that  in order to locate the wound (on the lateral X-ray), he should  place one knot on the thread (that I handed him) at the location of the external occipital protuberance, and then "swing an arc" on the X-rays, to locate the image of the entry wound--because he (at the time) misunderstood and apparently thought the "entry" would actually look like a "hole", rather than a different shading of gray.  The whole thing was a farce, and when I got back to Los Angeles, I wrote a detailed report--going to 100 pages single spaced, recounting the entire experience. I never released it at the time, but I recently had it professionally retyped, and am considering different venues for publication, because I think its important, in the service of history, to understand what happened in August 1972.

  About CD 344, the transcript of a taped interview of Marina Oswald, on or about Sunday 11/24/63: I made the document available to everybody as part of a 300 page book that cost about $20, titled "Document Addendum to the Warren Report." All the JFK researchers bought one, word of mouth spread,and I sold about 300 copies.  For reasons I don't completely understand, you come along some 20-30 years later, treat the report as some kind of "find", and perhaps are now embarrassed that I published it, in its entirety,  some 50 years ago.  So sorry, Jim. 

Most important to note, however: The two whoppers that I cited have nothing to do with Marina Oswald or that document. As already stated (in a prior post), they concerned the fact that  (a) you suggested on Black Ops radio, that the explanation for "two coffins" was that on Friday night, 11/22/63,  the naval ambulance stopped when it was carrying Jacqueline Kennedy and RFK (and others) from Andrews to Bethesda  (and, you implied, there was a "switch" at that point).   Of course that is ridiculous--insane, really--but you told that whopper to the audience as your glib "explanation" for two coffins.   And then (b): Second, you told another whopper when--apparently borrowing an idea that you got from you pal, Millicent Cranor--you suggested that the reason Paul O'Connor said JFK arrived in a body bag, was the fact that, on TV, and as a consequence of the Vietnam War, there had been so many stories about people coming home in body bags--so O'Connor mistakenly said JFK arrived at Bethesda in a body bag. And yes, Jim DiEugenio,  I (and/or Pat V.)  accurately noted that absurdity, and yes, that that's a whopper.

DSL 6/10/18  5 AM PDT; updated 12 noon.

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

For those who want to see what a real whopper is, please read the manuscript below as written by the late Roger Feinman.  Its a detailed analysis of BE.  

Pay special attention to  how Lifton  got a transcript he needed from Roger, that will show you the kind of person he really is.

http://www.kenrahn.com/JFK/The_critics/Feinman/Feinmanbio.html

This, in part, is where I got that information which LIfton cannot deal with.The other part I got from Ralph Martin's book on John Kennedy.  Again, its right there in Black and White.

Lifton does not like it so he immediately thinks of  Burger King.

As I have said before, if one does not have anything to say, then one should just read. That is how one learns.(broadcast in June 1967) 

Jim: Let me save the readers some time. The late Roger Feinman was an employe of CBS News. He was very smart, but erratic and somewhat unstable. While at CBS, and during the period they were making their famous four-part documentary on the Warren Report (June 1967, approx.) , he stole a number of documents from CBS files, thinking they would be important in "breaking the story" of what he viewed as perfidy on the part of CBS. Feinman was a serious (if not adoring) disciple of Sylvia Meager, and was often telling her that he would write a "definitive" book on the assassination, or on CBS, some day.

"Someday" never arrived, and the only book he ever wrote was a privately published bizarre multi-hundred page vituperative diatribe about me  But let me not digress.

 I learned about Feynman's  possession of a copy of the White House copy of the CBS transcript of Dr Perry's press 11/22 press conference around 1978/79.    I wanted that transcript to complete my reporting on that topic, as spelled out in Chapter 3 of B.E.:"The Throat Wound: Entrance or Exit?"  So I telephoned Feinman, introduced myself, told him I was under contract writing a book, and requested his assistance, making clear that I needed that document.  Feinman was vague, and meandering, but essentially refused to help.  In a second (or third?) phone call I made clear how serious the situation was--that I didn't want to base my reporting of the Perry press conference, on press reports of what Perry said, when there was an official transcript, and he already had a copy!

In the beginning of this dialogue, it was not clear how Feinman got "his copy" of this document, or why he was behaving so secretly; but then, as I questioned him quite directly (which he didn't like one bit), the truth emerged. Roger's copy was not really "his"; rather, he had stolen it from the files of CBS News (!). 

The impression I got was that he considered it "his", and was not gong to make it available.  At some point, I told Feinman that if he didn't cooperate, I was going to go directly to CBS News and demand that they provide me with a copy, too. I had no intention of publishing a book with a chapter on the throat wound, and without that transcript, while he sat on "his" copy in his apartment in Queens.  Somewhere along the way, he told me that the document he possessed --although it originally came from a White House file--was actually available at the LBJ Library, and that's how I obtained my copy--from the LBJ Library.

FYI: Best Evidence marked the first publication of the critical verbatim excerpts from the official transcripts of the 11/22/63 Clark/Perry press conference (showing that Dr. Perry said, three times, that JFK was struck in the neck, from the front).  And the publication of the critical passages from the transcript made clear that Perry's published statements that the throat wound was an entry were not the result of journalistic error--that that's what Dr. Perry actually said.

No doubt Feinman was enraged when he saw that I published excerpts from "his" transcript, but. . .welcome to the real world.

As to how I obtained the transcript, here's what I wrote in Chapter 3 of Best Evidence, which began with my recounting how CBS anchor Walter Cronkite had quoted from the document, without revealing its source, in one of the broadcasts of their infamous (four -part) June 1967 documentary: 

 "Cronkite's references to "the transcript"seemed to indicate that CBS had a document which no one else seemed to have. I made a fruitless attempt to obtain the transcript from CBS in 1968.  In 1976, I learned that an employee of CBS News had located the document, and knew something about its background. I contacted him and was told that CBS had secured its copy from a file at the White House in the course of interviews conducted in the course of preparing the 1967 broadcasts. it was an official White House transcript, and its designation was '1327-C'  Eventually I obtained a copy from the Lyndon Jonson library in Texas."

What I did not say was that the identity of the person was Roger Feinman; that he stole a copy of the document from the files at CBS News, that he was "hoarding" it; and that I found the whole situation intolerable. Also, I decided that he'd acted in such a hostile, toxic and negative way that it was best that I not mention his name at all.

In the years following--and having nothing to do with Best Evidence--Feinman was fired from CBS; and in addition, and because of his outrageous behavior (in matters having nothing to do with his theft of documents from CBS)--was disbarred as a lawyer. The detailed reasons for his disbarment became a matter of public record when he appealed the disbarment, and the panel of judges who heard his case basically said, "No way, Jose. You are hereby dismissed from the legal profession." ( I can provide the Internet link(s) to that very public disbarment proceeding, and perhaps will return to this post, and add the link(s) at a future time.) 

So much for Roger Feinman, the acolyte of Sylvia Meager, and who subsequently became a "raging bull" when it came to the subject of DSL--making outrageous statements in his privately published manuscript, including the fact that the CIA was paying my bills and implying that I was responsible for a third party's suicide.  Anyway, he's not around anymore, DiEugenio, and its interesting to see that you're part of his fan club.

One other footnote to the story: Roger Feinman (somehow) arrived at the conclusion that the throat wound was an exit wound. (Yes, that's no typo; after all this fuss, Feinman concluded that the throat wound was an exit!)  Which leads me to ask: Since you apparently hold him in such high esteem, Is that what you believe too, Jim DiEugenio?

To those reading this post: There's not much further to say. I have no idea what DiEug is talking about when he brings up "Ralph Martin's book" or "Burger King."  As I said at the outset of this post, he often brings up non-sequiturs and/or talks in gibberish.

DSL; 6/10/18 - 5:30 AM PDT; updated, 12:30 PM PDT

Edited by David Lifton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree Gene.  I thought Paul's article and his chart were really acute and interesting.

And I also agree with that summary about the late arriving patsy, the motorcade, and the FPCC.  And also the Mafia factor.  As I have always asked about this case:  can these all be just coincidences?

This is why I am so interested in the upcoming work on the FPCC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Gene Kelly said:

Jim

The Paul Bleau article is fascinating, an interesting analysis.  He does a good job of connecting the dots, using standard causal analysis techniques … what we call in my business a "support-refute matrix". 

It seems the plots began in June 1963 but intensified in November.  Obviously, the windows of opportunity were dictated by JFK's travel itinerary.  In most of the proposed shooting locations, there is a pattern of using a motorcade route that would have permitted triangulation shooting near the scapegoat’s workplace.  The scapegoats exhibit similar "pawn-like" pre-motorcade movements, suggesting manipulation and handlers.  Several scapegoats moved to the motorcade location shortly before the intended event …  Lopez moved from the Keys to Tampa shortly before the motorcade; Vallee and Oswald exhibit similar behavior.  Marlowe, Garriga and Power probably had analogous movements, if studied more carefully.  Nagell is the wild card of the bunch. Bleau then links ZR Rifle Executive Action tactics used for ambush: an opportune motorcade route, in the right city (coupled with weak protection) and use of surrogates with the right weaponry.  Plus the sheep-dipping escapades in Mexico City, creating false flags to the Soviets and Castro (to guard against "blow-back").  Lastly, a mafia 'sponsor' in each city  (standard Harvey/Angleton modus operandi) to institute logistics, compromise the police force, and provide yet another cut-out for plausible deniability.   

Then there is the most telling commonality amongst the plots/patsies - their close links to the FPCC, a "mysterious misfit magnet of ex-marines and Cuban exiles".  Bleau aptly characterizes this as " yet another coincidence in this case, where improbability is omnipresent".   Motorcade topic aside (for a moment), the common elements in these plots leading up to Dallas of an ex-marine patsy, Mexico City and FPCC become (as Vincent Salandria once described the Paines) "clear beacons leading to the killers"

Gene

I think Gilberto Lopez deserves consideration in this part of the discussion.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks David Lifton,

Some days Marina is a spy.  Some days I listen to better advice and she is not.

Thanks again,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James DiEugenio,

Thanks for the visual.  I had missed that bout.  I will look it up on Utube and watch the whole thing.

I get your point but, the bout shown was absolutely delightful.  I can't remember a time that I was not a boxing fan.

Thanks again

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay.  After spending a lot of time on the motorcade issue, can we all reach an agreement?  I would say that if the motorcade route wasn't changed, it appeared to change based on the reports of both Dallas newspapers prior to November 22.  And again, I'll ask the question...Would it be fair to say that your average, everyday citizen who is possibly reading both newspapers would not be able to know the exact route JFK was planning to take on November 22?  

Rich

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:

Okay.  After spending a lot of time on the motorcade issue, can we all reach an agreement?  I would say that if the motorcade route wasn't changed, it appeared to change based on the reports of both Dallas newspapers prior to November 22.  And again, I'll ask the question...Would it be fair to say that your average, everyday citizen who is possibly reading both newspapers would not be able to know the exact route JFK was planning to take on November 22?  

Rich

I would call that a reasonable conclusion. The dog-leg was clearly spelled out in some reports, and was glossed over in others. One might  deduce the necessity of the dog-leg based upon the presence of buses in the motorcade, but it wasn't clearly spelled out in all reports.

So I have my doubts that the route was actually changed. More likely it was simply poorly reported.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/8/2018 at 10:45 PM, David Von Pein said:

Irony Alert (re: "extreme assumptions")!!!

Hilarious!

That's what tends to happen when an appeal to authority is used.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mark Knight said:

I would call that a reasonable conclusion. The dog-leg was clearly spelled out in some reports, and was glossed over in others. One might  deduce the necessity of the dog-leg based upon the presence of buses in the motorcade, but it wasn't clearly spelled out in all reports.

So I have my doubts that the route was actually changed. More likely it was simply poorly reported.

Mark,

Agreed.  So can we also reasonable conclude that someone or some group of persons wanted Oswald in the TSBD whether or not he was going to be an actual shooter or be blamed for everything?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Rich Pope said:

Mark,

Agreed.  So can we also reasonable conclude that someone or some group of persons wanted Oswald in the TSBD whether or not he was going to be an actual shooter or be blamed for everything?  

I think that would be a reasonable conclusion as well.

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

×