Denis Pointing

Tom, I realize that in the official version Connally had to be seen to be hit by the second shot, if it was known that Connally had actually been hit by the third shot everyone would have known that at the point of impact he was not only hiding in his wife's lap but also he was, in effect, using her as a human shield. End of political career etc etc. I also see that when news of Tague's cheek "wound" broke (backed up by at least one policeman) the WC had to 'jiggle' their original story around to suite. But wouldn't it have been far simpler to have said Tague had been hit by shrapnel , rather than coming up with the "shot that missed" scenario which of course then had to include the ridiculous and complicated "magic bullet" BS. I know your not a mind reader Tom but have you an opinion on this? Denis

Duke, try this: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/scally.htm OOPS, sorry Duke, I've just seen Chris Scally's post above. I'll search some more. Denis.

Not sure if this is any help Duke, if not apologies. Denis.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/dpdtapes/

Without having read the previous posts, though I will try to refresh myself of them,

I would have to say neither.

He professed to be a Trotskite, and talks about it during the radio debate and in his writings, but yet he there seems to be no record of him discussing this with his good friend Michael Paine, son of one of the founders of the Trotskite Party in the USA.

I would say that Oswald was an Operative, who could be anybody he wanted, depending on the mission.

BK

Bill, you may remember in a previous thread I stated that, IMO, the only place Oswald was an agent was in his own head. In other words Oswald was "playing games" with himself. That's not to say of course that this trait was not exploited by others at a later date. But I do belive that most of LHO's life revolved around him PRETENDING to be a spy/agent. Which would account for the somewhat amateur and untrained even erratic way he went about it. Grant me a small favor Bill, humour me if you will and read this thread thru again but this time from my viewpoint. There's a good deal here that would seem to back that viewpoint up. Denis.

What I claimed was not "done" was photographing the skull with pieces of bone re-inserted. Autopsy photographs are taken at various stages of dissection, not re-construction.

Note here that in his WC testimony Humes discusses the pieces of bone brought into the autopsy, and the discovery of an exit on one of the pieces of bone. Note that he says they x-rayed this piece of bone. Note that he says NOTHING about reinserting this piece of bone into the skull and taking pictures of it in place.

Commander HUMES - I mentioned previously that there was a large bony defect. Some time later on that evening or very early the next morning while we were all still engaged in continuing our examination, I was presented with three portions of bone which had been brought to Washington from Dallas by the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

These were--

Mr. SPECTER - Might that have been by a Secret Service agent?

Commander HUMES - It could be, sir; these things.

Mr. SPECTER - At any rate, someone presented thee three pieces of bone to you?

Commander HUMES - Someone presented these three pieces of bone to me, I do not recall specifically their statement as to where they had been recovered. It seems to me they felt it had been recovered either in the street or in the automobile, I don't recall specifically.

We were most interested in these fragments of bone, and found that the three pieces could be roughly put together to account for a portion of this defect.

Mr. SPECTER - How much remained unaccounted for, Dr. Humes?

Commander HUMES - I would estimate that approximately one-quarter of that defect was unaccounted for by adding these three fragments together and seeing what was left.

This is somewhat difficult, because as back to when we were actually looking for the fragments of metal, as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various sizes would fall to the table, and so forth, so it was difficult to put that exact figure into words.

However, the thing which we considered of importance about these three fragments of bone was that at the margins of one of them which was roughly pyramidal in shape, there was a portion of the circumference of what we interpreted as a missile wound. We thus interpreted it this because there was, the size was, sufficiently large for us, for it to have the curve of the skull still evident. At the point of this defect, and I will draw both tables of the bone in this defect, at the area which we interpreted as the margin of a missile wound, there was a shelving of the margin. This would, to us, mean that a missile had made this wound from within the skull to the exterior. To confirm that this was a missile wound, X-rays were made of that fragment of bone, which showed radio-opaque material consistent and similar in character to the particles seen within the skull to be deposited in the margins of this defect, in this portion of the bone.

][/quote

Pat, you may well be right in saying that autopsy photographs are not NORMALLY taken during reconstruction. But with this being such a high profile case and this particular piece of evidence being of such vital importance, it seems extremely likely, IMO, that exceptions were made and photographs were in fact taken during reconstruction, do you not agree? Denis.

[name=Karl Kinaski' post='152784' date='Aug 17 2008, 12:36 PM]

KK

Um gee I wonder.....

I suspect Pamela is correct, Altgens and Zappy are two different views.

The Altgens photo show sthat the limo has not quite reached Charles Brehm's location, so if one advances the Zapruder film forward just a little bit ... they will see Charles Brehm being passed. So the proof is that the Zapruder film matches Altgens #6 and its the interpreter who is wrong - as usual!

Bill Miller

Ups. These are the shadows of Brehm, his son, Moorman and Hill...I was wrong...and Bill Miller is right--- for the first time at this forum!

Certainly NOT the first time Bill was correct, and likewise without question not the first nor last time you will be wrong.

The alteration claims just get funnier and funnier, its like the Mad magazine of JFK Research!

Mike

No fair Mike, these alteration claims just could be true...in the TWILIGHT ZONE. LOL

What are you suggesting Ed, yet another alteration?

The Sun is arising for those who have the ability to recognize it and no longer wish to remain in the "dark" of the rabbit holes.

This looks good Tom, congrats. Is your book due for publication? Denis.

The whole Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion was created to attract your attention away from the real gunman in the Moorman picture. In Robert Groden’s video, “The Case for Conspiracy” he shows a close-up of what looks like two men behind the picket fence next to a tree, that area is where I believe a real shooter was hiding. IMO, someone cut out the Groden close-up and pasted it to the other side of the photo to create Badgeman.

Don Bailey

And who exactly do you belive "created" this "Badgeman/Gordon Arnold diversion" Don? Are you accusing Gary Mack? Or perhaps Jack White? Gordon Arnold himself perhaps? Have you actually put any thought at all into this? Denis.

Tom,

This somewhat confirms what I had wondered about, but not conclusively. While I have no reason to doubt Mr. Ayoob, in all fairness one would still have to consider his "testimony" about LHO's right- or left-handed shooting tendancies to be mere heresay, and, as they said on the old Perry Mason TV show, inadmissable. Now, if we could come up with evidence that Oswald actually fired his rifle from a left-handed position--perhaps a photograph of Oswald holding a rifle in his normal firing position, perhaps corroborating testimony of someone who served with Oswald and who witnessed Oswald's actual use of a rifle, then I'd say you have something more than a theory.

But for now, it's looking like a pretty good theory, and one that could explain the reason that right-handed shooters had such difficulty using the scope in the manner it was mounted on Mannlicher-Carcano C2766.

Mark, does this help?

During the time of Betzner's sudden materialization, THE RUNNING ROSEMARY WILLIS

TAKES ONLY TWO STEPS. Her dad steps from the gutter back onto the curb. Halfback,

the yellow SS car, moves about 15 feet. Betzner came from nowhere in one tick of a

clock and is ready to take his photo. Ranks right up there with Greer's impossible head

turns.

Jack

Do you not think it likely he just stepped out from behind some people Jack?

La tristesse durera toujours

Or as long as Healy keeps posting here.

dance sweet Gloria, dance..... I'm embarrassed for you man, Paul Rigby has you tied up in so many knots even Denise Pointing is running the other direction. Happens every time amateurish Lone Nuts are confronted by researchers that .

"Denise" Pointing ?

I realize you have failing eyesight "gramps", that's obvious by the way you see things in the Z film which no one else does. But are they really THAT bad? You really are a poor old fellow aren't you. And this great researcher who has everybody "tied up in so many knots" and who really "know their way around subject matter" This would be your "chum" Rigby, right? The "researcher" who also believes SS agent Greer shot Kennedy, in the middle of a motorcade, with Jacky and the Connally's in the same car...AND NO ONE NOTICED!!! I guess their eyes must have been as bad as yours "gramps" LOL Look, I realise Rigby is probably the closest thing to a friend you ever had but your infatuation with everything he says is getting a little embarrassing. Why dont you just go back to Lancer or alt.conspiracy.jfk whatever and pester them for awhile. It must their turn for a few laughs now, and let the good folk at the ED forum get on with some real research...just go anywhere and take Rigby with you, PLEASE!!

D-E-N-I-S-E, ya see son, Dennis is spelled Dennis in all english speaking countries.... trouble with the English language too, son? We're here to serve you Denise. Now don't go hiding behind Paul Rigby big guy... we gotta see what your film/photo credential look like.... We've no need for more disinfo agents...

WHAT? No bio? You're on this forum with no BIO? Who are you Denise Pointing, we ALL have them, except YOU sonny!

What say you John Simkin Denis Pointing has no bio! What is the lad scared of?

I realise a persons mental age regresses as they get older "gramps" but going by this last post "gramps" if you regress any more you'll be seen crawling round the old folks home on all fours, wearing a nappy. And Ive never claimed to have any "film/photo credential" they are not needed to combat your nonsense Healy, all you require is a brain and common sense, the two commodities you very definitely lack. Now, instead of all this pathetically childish name calling and "Denise" gibberish, try posting something to convince me, some facts, figures, anything to back up your argument on Z film alteration. I know you cant post anything from your "famous" chapter in Fretzers, LOL, "book" as that's all been shown to be pure rubbish long ago, but surely you have something new by now, after all its not much to show for a life times work, is it Healy? Oh, by the way, I received an unwelcome email yesterday from one of your "fans" over at alt.conspiracy.jfk. I sincerly hope the accusations concerning you, circulating over there aren't true, although that would of course explain why your post's are so weired. I was also supplied with a link to a web page dedicated to famous Healy post's and statments, which, I am told, proves the allegations to be true. I'm sure you'll be relived to hear I've resisted the temptation to visit there, as I dont wish to be associated with the foul mouthed bunch from alt.conspiracy.jfk, nor sink to their level, which I suppose, also means I dont wish to associate with you either as you seem to be one of them. Why dont you just stay there Healy and leave this board to the more decent, serious researcher. You really dont belong here, you know. The ED forum standed requires a lot more than having the ability to think up ingenious ways of insulting people and adding a letter or two to their name for amusement. PS Who's Holmes by the way?

I thought I'd answer the question - "How difficult was it to get out of Dallas on 22 November?" - graphically by way of Putnam Exhibit 1, below.

This is the color key:

Red

- "all squads in the downtown area" ordered to report "Code 3 with caution" to Elm & Houston; except

Yellow

- initial responders outside immediate downtown area (including "downtown" officers);

Green

- those who later reported they had gone downtown, whether broadcast or not;

Light yellow

- those who reported they were assigned to Parkland;

Light blue

- those who were not in their districts for other reasons;

Pink

- those who reported that they remained on patrol in their districts;

Dark blue

- the TSBD district, center of activity;

Light green

- Tippit's district (78) and new assignment (91/92, "central Oak Cliff"); and

White

- those who were

not on radio

and

filed no report

, presumed to have been in district.

So the answer is, if someone wanted out of town, as long as they didn't run into a pink or white district, they were home free.

The short answer to "how difficult was it" is: not very.

Truly excellent work Duke...thanks for the help, its appreciated. Denis.

(quote].... as far as Denise Pointing is concerned, what can I say other than; you Lone Nuts have been dancing for a long, long time.... You're not attempting to be the next Gary Mack are ya son?

Didn't Vincent Van Gogh say something like that just before he finished going crazy and cut his ear off .... don't end up like Van Gogh, David - GET HELP!!!

(/quote]

I really think its too late for David "Gramps" Healy to get help now Bill, the kindest thing would be if someone had him committed. Oh, and if Healy = Van Gogh, does that make Rigby his little sunflower. LOL. Denis.

dance sweet Gloria, dance..... I'm embarrassed for you man, Paul Rigby has you tied up in so many knots even Denise Pointing is running the other direction. Happens every time amateurish Lone Nuts are confronted by researchers that .

"Denise" Pointing ?

I realize you have failing eyesight "gramps", that's obvious by the way you see things in the Z film which no one else does. But are they really THAT bad? You really are a poor old fellow aren't you. And this great researcher who has everybody "tied up in so many knots" and who really "know their way around subject matter" This would be your "chum" Rigby, right? The "researcher" who also believes SS agent Greer shot Kennedy, in the middle of a motorcade, with Jacky and the Connally's in the same car...AND NO ONE NOTICED!!! I guess their eyes must have been as bad as yours "gramps" LOL Look, I realise Rigby is probably the closest thing to a friend you ever had but your infatuation with everything he says is getting a little embarrassing. Why dont you just go back to Lancer or alt.conspiracy.jfk whatever and pester them for awhile. It must their turn for a few laughs now, and let the good folk at the ED forum get on with some real research...just go anywhere and take Rigby with you, PLEASE!!

Bill, if I'm wrong about the following please set me straight , but I belive I'm right in saying the photograph you mention actually shows Craig in Fritz's outer office, not the inner office where Oswald was interrogated and Oswald is not in the photo. Also, the point about the 1.06 statement is that Craig said that just as the police found the rifle another policeman came rushing up the stairs to tell Fritz about Tippets murder, Craig then says he looked at his watch and saw the time was 1.06. But Penn Jones states correctly, that the rifle was not found till 1.22 !! The rifle allegedly found on the roof is VERY controversial, the photo that many claim showed it, turned out to be of a police officer holding a SHOT GUN, but the point here is that this is where Craig first says the Mauser was found. And surly if there was already a passenger in the station wagon when Oswald got in, Craig would have stated as much. This email from Craig's daughter is no small thing Bill, it really does cast dispersions on ALL Craig's claims. It's a bombshell. If of course it really is from her. You seem prety sure it is, may I ask why? Denis.

But Bernice, many of Roger Craig's claims have always been suspect, he once claimed to have first heard of Tippets murder at 1.06 pm, Penn Jones himself showed this to be incorrect. When Craig first started talking about the Mauser rifle he said it was found on the roof, only later did he say the sixth floor of the TSBD. There's also no proof he actually confronted Oswald about the Rambler in Fritz office. Apart from a photograph of an officer picking "something" up from the ground there's no real proof a .45 slug was ever found in Dealey Plaza. Yes, there was two other witnesses who saw someone getting into a station wagon, Marvin Robinson and Richard Carr but Robinson could not give a description and Carr said the man was "stocky and wearing glasses" clearly not Oswald. Having said all this, I always had a certain amount of faith in many of Craig's claims, as he always sounded so genuine in his interviews and because of the attempts on his life. I guess the truth is I wanted Craig's claims to be true. But now his own daughter (if she indeed is) has come up with this...well, I'm no longer so sure. Denis.

Thanks to all, a great help. Thank you. Denis.

Presumably there was some kind of lock down after the assassination. Does anyone know the extent? Were the airports closed, were there roadblocks? Does anyone know if it was THEORETICALLY possible for Oswald to have escaped/left via Redbird airport. Thanks. Denis.

Appologies Denis,

You are certainly entitled to your opinion and in retrospect I shouldn't shout but you have to understand that I have, we have, been through this wringer before.

You brought the subject up again and oped that its a viabale documentary with mistakes, and that Castro is a legitimate suspect in the murder of JFK.

Every time this opinion is made, it should be pointed out that the "Castro did it" cover story was part of the plot, and those who have voiced that opinion from day one have all been connected with the network that killed the President.

Now I don't believe you are a shill for "They call me Gus" Russo, and I respect you for even bringing this important topic back to the table, and I didn't mean to chop your head off, but you've made a wild accusation that you just can't defend. And neither can Russo or anyone who promotes it.

I'd like to look at this film closely. I'd like to have a transcript of it if available.

But how come guys like Russo, Bugliosi, Posner, Myers, Holland, all get big buck film deals while real investigators (Russell, Newman, Morley, Talbot, Summers, Hancock, et al) can't get a deal to make a real documentary on the assassination?

I'd like this film to spark two debates - on the Dealey Plaza "Castro did it" cover story and the documentary films that are out there or being made for this anniversary year.

BK

Thanks for the apology Bill, I know it takes a real man to give one. Let's put it down to the hot chicken wings and move on. I said earlier that I respected your opinion and I meant it. So much so that I have been researching Huismann and Russo to see if I can find anything to suggest your claims about them may be correct. Although to be honest my theory (and I admit that's all it is) was formulated long before I saw their documentary. Thanks, Denis.

DENIS, HERE'S MY RESPONSE TO YOUR POST:

Denis: John, yes, the documentary does make a great many mistakes and does indeed go way too far in many of its claims.

BK: THERE ARE NO MISTAKES IN THIS FILM. EVERYTHING IS TOTALLY INTENTIONAL. THEY KNOW THEIR FACTS ARE WRONG, THEY KNOW CASTRO HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSASSINATION, BECAUSE THEY KNOW WHO REALLY DID IT. EVERY WORD IN THIS FILM IS INTENTIONAL AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING ACCURATE AND THERE ARE CERTAINLY NO MISTAKES ABOUT IT.

However, some of the claims are essentially correct. Oswald was indeed recruited by G2 in 1962

DENIS, HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS? HOW DID THIS FACT EXCAPE ME AND EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAS STUDIED OSWALD AND THE CASE FOR THE PAST FEW DECADES?

but not as an assassin, only as a political agitator, hence the Fair play for Cuba incident etc.

OSWALD'S FPCC INCIDENT(S) WERE ARRANGED BY OSWALD'S CONTROL AGENT, WHO WAS PART OF A DOMESTIC, IE USA, ANTI-COMMUNIST INTELLIGENCE NETWORK OPERATING IN USA AND USSR/CUBA, PROBABLY A MILITARY INTELLIGNECE UNIT, MOST LIKELY ONI, BUT MOST CERTAINLY NOT CUBAN G2, UNLESS AS A DOUBLEAGENT.

This role, however, didn't satisfy Oswald who always imagined himself as more of a spy/agent type.

HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT OSWALD IMAGINED HIMSELF?

In fact this explains why Oswald always used false names and fake addresses...

IN FACT YOU CAN'T TEACH YOURSELF HOW TO BE A SPY ANYMORE THAN YOU HYPMOTIZE YOURSELF. MINDS ARE MALABLE, BUT NOT SELF MALABLE. OSWALD DIDN'T TEACH HIMSELF RUSSIAN, CODES, CIPHERS, ELECTRONICS, COUNTER INTEROGATION TECHNIQUES, COUNTER SURVEILLANCE, INTELLIGENCE TRADECRAFT AND SHARPSHOOTING, IF YOU BELIEVE HE SHOT ANYBODY THAT DAY.

LHO USED THE NAME O.H. LEE, NOT BECAUSE HE WANTED TO PRETEND TO BE A SPY, BUT HE DID IT WHEN HE CHECKED INTO THE MEXICO CITY HOTEL, THE DALLAS YMCA AND THE BECKLEY ST. ROOMING HOUSE, ALL TOTALLY OPERATIONAL INCIDENTS.

in his own mind he believed he was indeed a spy.

IN MY MIND HE WAS A SPY, RUNNING AROUND MINSK AND MOSCOW, MEETING UP WITH A WOMEN IN MOSCOW ONE DAY AND A WEEK LATER IN MINSK, ALL TOTALLY A COINCIDENCE. I DON'T THINK SO.

When Oswald discovered the motorcade route was passing the TSBD, a job he got by sheer chance, he contacted G2 and offered to "take out" Kennedy.

OF COURSE IT WASN'T BY CHANCE, BUT BECAUSE OF MRS PAINE, AND OSWALD ONLY CONTACTED CUBAN G2 IN YOUR MIND, AS FAR AS ANYONE ELSE KNOWS, IT NEVER HAPPENED.

No one was more supprised by this offer than G2

NO, NO, NO ONE IS MORE SURPRISED THAN ME, BECAUSE I DON'T BELIEVE IT HAPPENED.

and Oswald wasn't taken at all seriously,

JUST LIKE NOBODY WHO KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THE ASSASSINATION TAKES THE CUBAN G2 STORY SERIOUSLY OR GUS RUSSO SERIOUSLY OR THE GERMAN GUY WHO DIRECTED THIS PROPAGANDA OR ANYONE WHO SAYS CUBA AND CASTRO WAS BEHIND THE ASSASSINTION. IN FACT EVERYONE WHO SAYS CASTRO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR JFK'S MURDER ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE WHO TRIED TO KILL CASTRO. ARE YOU?

but G2 played along, after of course pointing out they could in no way offer any assistance nor be at all invovled,

NOW YOU PLAYED ALONG, YOU ARE INVOLVED, SPROUTING THIS BULLxxxx THAT ONLY KNOWN AND EXPOSED PROPAGANDISTS AND DISINFORMATION ARTISTS BOTHER TRYING TO PUT OUT

but promising Oswald a hero's welcome in Cuba if he pulled it off.

SO OSWALD'S MOTIVE WAS TO KILL KENNEDY SO HE COULD HAVE A PARADE IN HAVANA?

WOULD YOU LIKE TO BUY INTEREST IN A HAVANA CASINO? I CAN GET YOU A GOOD DEAL, IF YOU BELIEVE ME.

A promise G2 did not expect to have to fulfill and had absolutely no intention of fulfilling. Cuba would have denied all knowledge of Oswald, except of course for the cover storey of the failed application for a visa to Cuba. The rest, as they say is history, Oswald did of course successfully carry out the assassination, much to the astonishment and delight of G2.

NOW WHY WOULD CUBAN G2 BE DELIGHTED IN THE DEATH OF JFK, WHO THEY WERE NEGOTIATING WITH IN THE UN BACKCHANNELS? AS SHOWN BY ALL NSA AND CIA INTERCEPTS AND WIRETAPS WITH CUBAN OFFICIALS – ALONG WITH THE REPORT FROM JEAN DANIEL, WHO WAS WITH CASTRO WHEN THEY GOT THE NEWS – THE CUBANS WERE SHOCKED AND DISMAYED BY THE ASSASSINATION. SO THERE WAS NO DELIGHT IN G2 THAT NIGHT, EXCEPT IN YOUR MIND.

Incredibly, the CIA actually knew all along Oswald was a G2 asset

YES, IF SO, NOT SO INCREDIBLY BECAUSE THEY WERE RUNNING HIM, OR WORKING WITH ONI, WHO WAS RUNNING HIM, BUT HE WAS A DOMESTIC ASSET, AND VETERAN, ALL ALONG.

but failed to warn the secreat service agents in charge of the motorcade because they didn't belive Oswald to be a potential danger.

IT WAS THE FBI WHO KNEW OF OSWALD'S PRESENCE ON THE PARADE ROUTE (HOSTY) AND DIDN'T REPORT IT, NOT THE CIA, WHO DON'T HAVE LEGAL DOMESTIC FUCTIONS.

One of the reasons why they were more than willing to go along with Johnson's cover up.

Denis.

THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE REASON FOR THEM TO GO ALONG WITH THE COVERUP, BUT IT WASN'T BECAUSE THE CUBANS MOTIVATED THE PATSY, IT WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A DOMESTIC CONSPIRACY AND NOT A FOREIGN ONE.

DENIS, WHO FEEDS YOU THIS CRAP?

PLEASE DON'T TRY TO FEED IT TO ME, IT MAKES ME CHOKE ON MY BABEQUE.

BK

I respect your opinion Bill, which I gather from the tone of your post is more than can be said for yourself, regarding my opinion. But from what I read that's all you offer as a rebuttal..."just" your opinion. Sure, you do the expected character assassination on Huismann and Russo, suggesting they are disinformation agents. 'Yawn' Then you go on to make the following totally ridiculous accusation at me: quote. "IN FACT EVERYONE WHO SAYS CASTRO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR JFK'S MURDER ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE WHO TRIED TO KILL CASTRO. ARE YOU?" unquote. But very little of any real substance, certainly nothing to change my opinion to fit in with your own. And no one feeds me any "crap" Bill, as you so delicately phrase it, which is no doubt why I am not of the same opinion as yourself. Finally, I'm not trying to "feed" you anything. You can take it or leave it my friend, it makes little difference to me. Enjoy the rest of your barbecue. Denis.

I watched last night Wilfried Huismann’s “The Plot to Kill JFK: The Cuban Connection” The original title in German was “Rendezvous mit dem Tod: Warum John F. Kennedy sterben musste”.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0498709/

The film that I saw used an English narrator, Jim Carter (coincidently, a friend’s former husband). Carter claims that the film is the result of many years research by the German director, Wilfried Huismann. However, the script is written by Gus Russo and he is credited as being a co-producer of the film.

The film starts with a FBI wire-taped recording of two Cubans joyfully talking about the assassination of JFK. The two people are never identified and could easily have been members of the anti-Castro Cuban community. Even if they were pro-Castro, as implied by the film, it is of no relevance to what follows.

We are then told very briefly that there is a LBJ memo that states that it is believed that Fabian Escalante of the Cuban G2, was in Dallas on the day of the assassination. Escalante is interviewed by Huismann in the film. He does not ask him about this claim on film (I expect he did but it was left out because he did not like the answer). He does comment about other evidence that apparently links G2 to the assassination but more of that later.

Huismann’s main source for his theory that the assassination of JFK was carried out by G2 was an unidentified former Cuban agent given the name Oscar Marino. Marino is filmed in the dark from behind. He argues that G2 recruited Oswald to kill JFK and that Escalante met him in Mexico City. Marino says that he is unsure if Castro ordered the assassination.

Escalante is asked about this claim. He finds the idea ridiculous and claims he had never visited Mexico City. Huismann provides an interview with a Cuban exile who claims he saw Escalante in Mexico.

Huismann argues that he met a KGB agent in Austria. He showed him a document that states in 1962 the KGB thought that Oswald was a suspicious character and that they asked G2 to monitor his activities in the US. It was not explained why G2 should be given this job. Escalante also dismisses this idea and says the document the KGB agent showed Huismann must be a forgery.

Huismann shows a brief clip of an interview with the American journalist Daniel Harker who claimed that Castro threatened to have JFK killed. This claim has been dealt with by Dick Russell in his article JFK and the Cuban Connection (March, 1996):

In September 1963, Rolando Cubela travelled to Brazil to meet with CIA contacts about killing Castro. Simultaneously, an American journalist, Daniel Harker, interviewed Castro at a gathering inside Havana's Brazilian Embassy. Harker's article quoted Castro saying: "United States leaders should think that if they assist in terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe." The story, widely disseminated in the US press, would be used by right-wing elements as evidence that Cuba was behind the assassination. But Escalante says the article was a distortion. He says what Castro really stated was: "American leaders should be careful because [the anti-Castro operations] were something nobody could control." He was not threatening JFK, but warning him.

Sam Halpern is also interviewed in the film. He states that the attempt to assassinate Castro was a Robert Kennedy operation. (Halpern argues that it is possible that JFK was unaware of this covert operation). Although Halpern does not say it, the narrator provides the opinion that Castro discovered details of this plot and therefore decided to get his revenge by killing JFK. He adds that this helps to explain why RFK goes along with the cover-up as he does not want to believe that his operation resulted in the death of his brother.

Huismann then looks at Oswald and points out that he was a Marxist, fled to the Soviet Union, returned to the US, formed the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans and then tried to assassinate General Edwin Walker. This, according to Huismann, made him an ideal candidate for the G2 to recruit to kill JFK. (Personally, I would have thought his profile would mean that he was the last person G2 would have employed to carry out this deed.)

Huismann claimed that the conspirators discovered the route of JFK’s motorcade through Dallas. Oswald was ordered to find a job in a company with a building on JFK’s route. After sending in several applications he was finally given a job in the Texas School Book Depository. (Remember, this script has been written by Russo who must be aware of how Oswald really got the job.)

Another major source for is Lawrence Keenan, the FBI agent who was sent by Hoover to Mexico City following the assassination. Keenan admits that he did not carry out a full investigation into Oswald activities in Mexico City. Keenan claims that the reason for this was because Hoover/LBJ wanted Oswald to be seen as the lone-gunman and not part of any larger conspiracy.

Huismann goes to Mexico City with Keenan. They ask to see the archives concerning Oswald’s stay in Mexico. Surprisingly they are given a few documents. Keenan then reads out from one document suggesting a link between Oswald and G2. Huismann then claims that the Mexican authorities decided they had made a mistake and took back these documents and tell them to leave the building.

Keenan tells Huismann that in 1963 he was told that the reason for this cover-up was that LBJ believed that Castro was behind the assassination and he feared that if this became public, it would result in a nuclear war. Surprisingly, Huismann/Russo did not use the LBJ telephone tapes where he tells his friends that he fears that a full-investigation of the assassination would trigger off a nuclear war, to back-up their theory.

Alexander Haig is also interviewed in the film. He claims that LBJ became convinced within a few days that Castro was behind the assassination of JFK. However, he gives another explanation for the cover-up. He claims that LBJ feared a right-wing uprising in America if this information became public.

The last part of the film concentrates on looking at who was running Oswald. Oscar Marino claims that the man within G2 who managed Oswald was none other than Rolando Cubela. Marino claimed that Cubela was a double agent and was only pretending to be working for the CIA.

Huismann interviews Cubela in Spain. He is accosted as he is walking along a street near his home in Madrid. Cubela talks openly about his involvement with the CIA plot to kill Castro. He is not asked why Castro allowed him to leave Cuba alive after making this confession while in captivity. Finally, Cubela is asked if he met with Oswald in Mexico City where he instructed him to assassinate JFK. Cubela admits to visited Mexico but denied he ever met Oswald or was involved in the assassination of JFK.

I think it is highly likely that Cubela was only pretending to work for the CIA in 1963. This explains the way Castro responded to the outing of Cubela by the CIA. After all, Castro is not known for his forgiving nature. However, if Cubela was playing this role, he would be the last person G2 would use to recruit Oswald. They would have known that the CIA would have been suspicious of Cubela’s true motives and he would have been kept under close surveillance.

The film ends with another clip of the Sam Halpern interview. Halpern says he met Castro a few years ago. He added that he liked the man who he considered to be extremely intelligent. Halpern smiled that after outlasting eight presidents, Castro was the clear winner of the struggle between Cuba and the United States.

John, yes, the Huismann documentary does make a great many mistakes and does indeed go way too far in many of its claims. However, some of the claims are essentially correct. Oswald was indeed recruited by G2 in 1962 but not as an assassin, only as a political agitator, hence the Fair play for Cuba incident etc. This role, however, didn't satisfy Oswald who always imagined himself as more of a spy/agent type. In fact this explains why Oswald always used false names and fake addresses...in his own mind he believed he was indeed a spy. When Oswald discovered the motorcade route was passing the TSBD, a job he got by sheer chance, he contacted G2 and offered to "take out" Kennedy. No one was more supprised by this offer than G2 and Oswald wasn't taken at all seriously, but G2 played along, after of course pointing out they could in no way offer any assistance nor be at all invovled, but promising Oswald a hero's welcome in Cuba if he pulled it off. A promise G2 did not expect to have to fulfill and had absolutely no intention of fulfilling. Cuba would have denied all knowledge of Oswald, except of course for the cover storey of the failed application for a visa to Cuba. The rest, as they say is history, Oswald did of course successfully carry out the assassination, much to the astonishment and delight of G2. Incredibly, the CIA actually knew all along Oswald was a G2 asset but failed to warn the secreat service agents in charge of the motorcade because they didn't belive Oswald to be a potential danger. One of the reasons why they were more than willing to go along with Johnson's cover up. Denis.

The key to understanding Oswald’s 201 file is the date it was established. He defected in October 1959, yet the file was created in December 1960.

Here's a link to a very interesting interview between Jefferson Morley and Jane Roman. http://www.history-matters.com/essays/fram...RomanSaid_2.htm

Jane Roman was a high ranking CIA officer also working in the C.I. office. During the interview, unlike her colleague Ann Egerter , Roman makes it plain that there was in fact a file on Oswald in 59. A quote from the interview: "She did this by checking to see if the agency had ever opened a so-called 201 file on anyone named Lee Oswald. (A 201 file, sometimes known as a personality file, is opened on anybody of interest to the agency.) Because of his defection to the Soviet Union in 1959, Oswald already had a 201 file at CIA headquarters."

Denis

Once again the main point is, "What was the pressing need that generated the creation of a 201 File in December of 1960 when there was already some sort of file by November 1959?"

Pressing the matter further, "Why did the people who had access to the Oswald files in 1959 become so involved in the Warren Commissions investigation of the assassination in 1964?"

Newman's book, Oswald and the CIA, suggests that Oswald's association with the U-2 program was of great interest to those were monitoring Oswald shortly after his defection to Russia. It seems that there is a great deal of information that suggests, based on interviews done by Newman as well as released documents, that Oswald had access to a great deal of information on the U-2. Newman also suggests that Snyders report generated a great deal of activitiy within the agency when Oswald suggested that he was willing to share information with the Soviets.

For myself the downing of Powers on May 1 and the failure of the Paris Summit on May 15, 1960 may well be connected. If true it is not hard to imagine that Oswald played a role in the first event that then led to the second, perhaps without his knowledge.

There are at least two reasons why the above rings true based upon action by Oswald himself:

1. His fear of being proscecuted when he returned to the United States.

2. His speech at Spring Hill College where he himself tied the two events together.

Continuing thoughts that bug the heck out of me.

Jim Root

Hi Jim, I dont really know enough about the Gary Powers episode to get over involved with this one. But FWIW, here's a quote I spotted recently: " That's the biggest pile of bull," laughs Dino Brugioni, the CIA's chief U-2 photoanalyst of that period. "The Soviets already knew how to track the U-2s, so what the hell could he [Oswald] tell them? All he could give them was the fact that there were U-2s at Atsugi, and they already knew that. The actual photo targets were a tightly held secret, and there is no way a radar operator had that information." [unquote] Mind you, the guy is CIA of course. Denis.

Now this is unbelievable.

In "Conversations with Kennedy" JFK's friend Benjamin Bradlee dates the assassination as November 23rd.

Surely he knew the actual date and surely whoever proof-read the galleys must have known the date as well.

It astounds me that this error was allowed in "Conversations with Kennedy."

________________________________

Tim,

Maybe the assassination really did happen on November the 23rd, and then everything was just, well, altered....

--Thomas

________________________________

Thomas, PLEASE dont put ideas like that into peoples heads, there's more than a few here who may just take you literally. Denis.