Jump to content
The Education Forum
Cliff Varnell

JFK Conspiracy for Younger Generations

Recommended Posts

BTW, I have to add, I always thought the idea that Morales, Johannides and Campbell were at the Ambassador that night RFK was killed was wrong headed.

For the simple reason that you would not place guys that were that high up at the scene of the crime. 

Share this post


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

BTW, I have to add, I always thought the idea that Morales, Johannides and Campbell were at the Ambassador that night RFK was killed was wrong headed.

For the simple reason that you would not place guys that were that high up at the scene of the crime. 

I agree.  That's why I don't think Lansdale was involved in the plot to kill Kennedy.  I'm pretty sure that's him in the Tramps photo, and he was there as part of the plot to assassinate the Commie Agent Oswald.  Anyone involved in killing Kennedy fled the scene immediately and didn't stop 'til they were far away, I reckon.

Share this post


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

I have never seen any evidence that Morales was running Oswald in New Orleans. (I thought the stuff Tommy Graves produced was a joke.)

Very few people have spent as much time as I have on the Crescent City.  And this includes three visits there with other researchers.

I mean my God, why would you need someone like Morales there, if you have Ferrie, Banister and Shaw? Not to mention Thornley.

To reply to Paul J, if Veciana is accurate--I know he is under attack right now; and if you subscribe to Armstrong's theory, then I would think that would be Harvey with Phillips. For the reasons that it was Harvey in the FPCC operation, and Harvey in Clinton/Jackson.

 

Just now, Ron Bulman said:

 

So the running of Oswald through Ferriei, Bannister, and  Shaw wouldn't have been involved  with Oswald?  Sorry, I'm (easily) confused 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ron:

What I am saying is that why would you need Morales there if you already had Oswald in relations with Ferrie, Banister and Shaw?

Share this post


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

Ron:

What I am saying is that why would you need Morales there if you already had Oswald in relations with Ferrie, Banister and Shaw?

Because he was involved in non-related activity in close proximity and did double-duty observing the Oswald Project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I tell this anecdote all the time.

It's finally in the proper thread!

I once pointed out to a millennial friend of mine that her generation didn't appear all that interested in the Kennedy assassination.

"That's because they make it so boring," she said, and the subject dropped.

A couple weeks later she asked me what I'd been up to and I said --"Giving people hell about the central question of the JFK assassination."  This was in the late summer of 2013.

"What is the central question of the JFK assassination?"

"You don't want to know--"

"No, tell me."

"JFK was shot in the back, there was no exit wound and no bullet found in the autopsy; he was shot in the throat, no exit, no bullet found in the autopsy.  The central question is --what happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"

She thought for a second, then said -- "But was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy, but that was the situation...Some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--"

"Or it was some government s-h-i* that dissolved!" she said with an air of triumph.

About a year later I told this story to another millennial friend of mine and when I got to the line "or some government s-h-i* that dissolved--" she blurted-- "That's what I was gonna say!"

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me add, this relates to my cynicism about the Ambassador Hotel scenario with Campbell, Johannides, and Morales.

You would not expose those kinds of guys in a public place with all those Kodaks, Polaroids and film and TV cameras on hand.

I would buy that there may have been a sealed off room there acting as a control room for the operation.  Something like that could be true, and in fact, someone actually told me that once.

Same with LHO in New Orleans.  If you already have Ferrie, Banister and Shaw in place--along with Thornley--why use a guy like Morales up  the chain?  And for what reason?  For Oswald to print and peddle FPCC flyers on the streets? 

So besides there being no credible evidence for this, it makes little or no sense on an operational level.

Edited by James DiEugenio

Share this post


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

Let me add, this relates to my cynicism about the Ambassador Hotel scenario with Campbell, Johannides, and Morales.

You would not expose those kinds of guys in a public place with all those Kodaks, Polaroids and film and TV cameras on hand.

I would buy that there may have been a sealed off room there acting as a control room for the operation.  Something like that could be true, and in fact, someone actually told me that once.

Same with LHO in New Orleans.  If you already have Ferrie, Banister and Shaw in place--along with Thornley--why use a guy like Morales up  the chain?  And for what reason?  For Oswald to print and peddle FPCC flyers on the streets? 

So besides there being no credible evidence for this, it makes little or no sense on an operational level.

Because he was involved in non-related activity in close proximity and did double-duty observing the Oswald Project?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I tell this anecdote all the time.

It's finally in the proper thread!

I once pointed out to a millennial friend of mine that her generation didn't appear all that interested in the Kennedy assassination.

"That's because they make it so boring," she said, and the subject dropped.

A couple weeks later she asked me what I'd been up to and I said --"Giving people hell about the central question of the JFK assassination."  This was in the late summer of 2013.

"What is the central question of the JFK assassination?"

"You don't want to know--"

"No, tell me."

"JFK was shot in the back, there was no exit wound and no bullet found in the autopsy; he was shot in the throat, no exit, no bullet found in the autopsy.  The central question is --what happened to the bullets that caused the back and throat wounds?"

She thought for a second, then said -- "But was it a real autopsy?"

"A lot of problems with the autopsy, but that was the situation...Some people think the bullets were removed prior to the autopsy--"

"Or it was some government s-h-i* that dissolved!" she said with an air of triumph.

About a year later I told this story to another millennial friend of mine and when I got to the line "or some government s-h-i* that dissolved--" she blurted-- "That's what I was gonna say!"

 

The Prosector's Scenario:

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

<quote off>

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit for the HSCA:

<quote on>

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

<quote off>

With the body in front of them the autopsists speculated JFK was struck with a high tech round that wouldn't show up on x-ray or in the body.

Government stuff that dissolves.

Hew strictly to the facts and younger folks will figure it out.

Present technically involved proofs of conspiracy and younger folks tune out.

I don't blame them.

 

 

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

Because he was involved in non-related activity in close proximity and did double-duty observing the Oswald Project?

I'd rate this as "not likely" but "possible."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

I have never seen any evidence that Morales was running Oswald in New Orleans. (I thought the stuff Tommy Graves produced was a joke.)

Very few people have spent as much time as I have on the Crescent City.  And this includes three visits there with other researchers.

I mean my God, why would you need someone like Morales there, if you have Ferrie, Banister and Shaw? Not to mention Thornley.

To reply to Paul J, if Veciana is accurate--I know he is under attack right now; and if you subscribe to Armstrong's theory, then I would think that would be Harvey with Phillips. For the reasons that it was Harvey in the FPCC operation, and Harvey in Clinton/Jackson.

Well I’m not sure about Morales’ physical appearance on the ground in NO but from a distance. I guess my mind gets going a bit on Morales’ role, of at all, in NO w/LHO.

Even if we conclude Banister/Phillips/Ferrie/Thornlet, well perhaps Morales was using even them in an indirect way but I digress because I don’t want to say that Morales was an ultimate mastermind but if he was a chief planner then things become interesting. We have Morales > Sforza > Emilio Rodrigues > Ernesto Rodriguez > LHO. This is simplifying it a bit perhaps but it is interesting. This is certainly speculation based on a bit of what I’ve come to know and which I’ll never claim as concretely proven (to my knowledge).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Well I’m not sure about Morales’ physical appearance on the ground in NO but from a distance. I guess my mind gets going a bit on Morales’ role, of at all, in NO w/LHO.

Even if we conclude Banister/Phillips/Ferrie/Thornlet, well perhaps Morales was using even them in an indirect way but I digress because I don’t want to say that Morales was an ultimate mastermind but if he was a chief planner then things become interesting. We have Morales > Sforza > Emilio Rodrigues > Ernesto Rodriguez > LHO. This is simplifying it a bit perhaps but it is intere sting. This is certainly speculation based on a bit of what I’ve come to know and which I’ll never claim as concretely proven (to my knowledge).

B.A..

I'd posit two chief planners -- the guys who planned the assassination of Kennedy and the guys who planned the assassination of Oswald.

I'd bet it was Carl Jenkins/Henry Hecksher on Team Kennedy and Ed Lansdale/DA Phillips on Team Oswald.

Edited by Cliff Varnell

Share this post


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

B.A..

I'd posit two chief planners -- the guys who planned the assassination of Kennedy and the guys who planned the assassination of Oswald.

I'd bet it was Carl Jenkins/Henry Hecksher on Team Kennedy and Ed Lansdale/DA Phillips on Team Oswald.

That’s interesting Cliff for sure. No Harvey or Morales involvement or do you assume the two with Hecksher/Jenkins? I take it you’ve heard of Ted Rubinstein’s recent call to Jenkins? Sadly wasn’t as fruitful as I figured it wouldn’t be but glad Ted tried (Dave Boylan, you’re up!). Great anecdote as well Cliff. Interesting how she felt it was “boring” which is why we have James Bond or Bourne or why there’s much drama and sensationalism today...many find the straight facts “boring” unfortunately but for me, nothing is more “exciting” to study and read, the “boring” stuff concerning espionage, etc.

Edited by B. A. Copeland

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

That’s interesting Cliff for sure. No Harvey or Morales involvement or do you assume the two with Hecksher/Jenkins? I take it you’ve heard of Ted Rubinstein’s recent call to Jenkins? Sadly wasn’t as fruitful as I figured it wouldn’t be but glad Ted tried (Dave Boylan, you’re up!). Great anecdote as well Cliff. Interesting how she felt it was “boring” which is why we have James Bond or Bourne or why there’s much drama and sensationalism today...many find the straight facts “boring” unfortunately but for me, nothing is more “exciting” to study and read, the “boring” stuff concerning espionage, etc.

Once I explained the basic facts of the case she was fully engaged.

In my book she's miles ahead of the JFK Critical Master Class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, B. A. Copeland said:

That’s interesting Cliff for sure. No Harvey or Morales involvement or do you assume the two with Hecksher/Jenkins?

I'd bet there were separate operations which didn't need to know about each other.

I'd bet neither Dulles nor Harvey were involved. 

I'd bet it was Charles Siragusa who recruited the Team Kennedy shooters in hand with Jenkins/Hecksher.

 

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...