David Josephs

Not really sure why Jim H did not go with the image that is found in one of John's notebooks of the original Ft Worth paper..

And also thanks to John Wood who years back sent me the image with what looks like the emulsion over the face is removed...

Nothing nefarious, just a better version of the paper's image - but I would suggest it side-by-side, not superimposed.

panties can be unbunched now Greg...

Until there is some proof there is nothing Paul.

Basing all his actions on an unproven supposition and then your ability to tell us what was in his mind at any moment puts you in a class all by yourself.

Ultimately, however, Hoover and the CIA cooperated nicely in the Warren Commission Report. They finally made up and shook hands.

and this has to be one of the most uniformed comments I've ever seen here.

time to Put up or shut already Paul.... post what you KNOW, not what you believe.

K?

The most pertinent question asked on this thread so far is this. Of all the coincidences, sightings, discrepancies, and 'confusing' documents...are there ANY that can be innocently explained? Or does EVERY single example fit into the Harvey Lee paradigm?

Here's a non confrontational way of asking John Armstrong's supporters to lay out any doubts they may have with this or that portion of his story. Don has already said he can't see how it could possibly fit into what we now know about Oswald's means of escape. That's an honest admission Don. Maybe others have similar niggling doubts about one or two of the witnesses/documents etc... Or are we saying that not one single iota can be construed in any other way than that laid out by Armstrong

Of course there are Bernie (I guess Greg needed more ROKC help so he called in the big guns)

Why not go into the book yourself and post the best 100 of these "instances" that you think are innocent coincidences and we'll see.

There is no possible way that H&L can be correct on each and every point. Yet as I search the PDF I find words like "theory -ize" "speculate -ative" "possible -ly" in hundreds of instances.

Could tonsils grow back... of course

Can a man go from 5'9" 135 to 5'11" 150 in the Marines from age 17 to 20? of course

can he then shrink back to 5'9" 135 for his autopsy?

Could there be examples of other C20-T750 orders that show Kleins shipping a 40" rifle to everyone - yes, but the microfilm is gone and no other information was even looked at.

Could Palmer and the others at Pfisterer's be wrong about the timing... sure. Yet if H&L is real then they could also be right about the timing... especially since there are records of an Oswald in Japan at the time.

Again, do people SHRINK by as much as they say here?

p170-171

NOTE: In July, 2003 JFK researcher Bill Kelley interviewed Richard A. Bullock, who 170 knew Lee Oswald in Japan. Bullock knew him as "Ozzie," and said he was 30-40 pounds heavier and 3-4 inches taller than the man accused of killing President Kennedy.Bullock said the Oswald he knew in Japan was not man accused of killing the President.

p171

Peter Francis Connor was another Marine who lived in the same barracks as

Lee Oswald, but not in the same cubicle. Connor told the FBI, "He did not know

anyone who was close friends with Oswald and knew little about him."7° Connor never

heard anyone say that Oswald had anti-American or pro-Communist sentiments, but did recall

that Oswald was a troublemaker and engaged in fights. He said that Oswald was a pretty

good worker, but remembered that he was very sloppy. Connor remembered that Oswald

wore an expert rifleman's medal and that his nickname was "Oz" (the same nickname

remembered by Dan Powers, Richard Cyr, Zack Stout, and Richard Bullock). On occasion,

some of the Marines would call Oswald by the name "Harv," which upset him.71

Connor was not interviewed by the Commission.

Were Azcue and Druan lying when they said the man Ruby killed was not in their embassy? (Neither H or L)

I guess what I and the other H&L supporters would like to understand is whether or not 1% 5% 10% of the info offered is believed to be inconsistent with the conclusion - does this completely obliterate that conclusion? I will ask the same question back to you Bernie

Can JA and H&L be 100% wrong in every instance ? Can all these documents and testimonials be part of some scheme to promote a theory which took a man 10 years and hundred of thousands of his own dollars to compile - for what purpose?

He was a wealthy, happy man well before getting the itch from the Palmer interview. Sometimes the evidence itself leads the charge as it does with the Mexico City trip I worked on.

What the real truth is will remain unknown since the Evidence IS the Conspiracy...

So I ask you - can you offer a single argument AGAINST H&L that does not require us to have faith in the symptoms of Asperger's. Sorry, but Asperger's does not explain the obvious differences with these two men

We don't know how much of H&L's early history is real or created but we do know that more FBI time and effort is concentrated on Oswald's childhood than any other accused man in history... that Kudlaty claims the FBI showed us less than 8 hours after Oswald is accused of the JFK murder and Pfisterer's is visited less than a few days after the assassination.

What could possibly be learned at Stripling and Pfisterer's from the mid 50's that would help the investigation which was a sham to begin with? CYA for the FBI and "friends" is just as plausible given the era as any other explanation and actually carries with it more proof than any other options.

You can argue the points away - but you can't argue ALL of them away and be convincing.

We found that 99% of the info offered in the WCR and HSCA is pure junk.

If H&L is 85% accurate with 15% misguided speculation - does that mean H&L is no longer possible?

Even 50/50... what about 25%?

The EVIDENCE and follow up interviews tell a compelling story that corroborates each other repeatedly. But Aspergers and some tonsil regrowth does not explain away the mountain of conflict left behind and it is insulting to all of us for that to be the cornerstone of an intelligent and documented rebuttal - when it is simply one man's undocumented guess.

Don Jeffries, on 14 May 2015 - 1:56 PM, said:

The notion that there is a "simple" explanation for anything related to Oswald flies in the face of 50 years of research by independent citizens. It does, however, echo the views of "professional" journalists and historians. Everything about Lee Harvey Oswald is confusing and open to question. To state otherwise is to ignore much of the information available to us, not to mention all that's been destroyed, lost or remains classified.

The notion that there must be a convoluted, complex explanation for anything related to Oswald flies in the face of reason, common sense and some of the evidence.

H&L is neither convoluted or complex – there are hundreds of documents which reveal conflicts with who and where Oswald was during most of his life – they are laid out chronologically with extensive footnotes and sources.

Only those who do not wish to do the work – like you – are so overwhelmed by the work. The WCR is a convoluted and complex attempt at hiding fact within mountains of crap with footnotes that lead in circles and sources which do not say what they are intended to and yet it can be analyzed and be seen for what it is. H&L is a monument to the lies the FBI and WC created to incriminate a man. Along the way another story, another secret appears to have surfaced.

We’re still so sorry it remains out of your reach – but I’m sure you’ll keep trying, talking about your own work does not seem to be as fruitful or garner the attention you se crave

Asperger’s cannot have him be in two places at once. Asperger’s does not explain the avoidance of the WC to stay away from those who knew a different LEE than others… Gorsky, Felde, Donovan, the list goes on and on.

If there were merely a few anomalies about Oswald's height or something, that would probably be easy to explain.

No anomalies there. The evidence tells us that the only times his height was recorded as more than 5' 9" were the times he self-reported it. When he was actually measured, he was shown to be 2" shorter. Reason and common sense dictate that he peaked at 5' 9".

So you will now claim that when the marines discharge someone and give him an ending physical, they don’t measure his height? Does 71" equate to 5'11" down under or do they have a different measuring system?

But Oswald was a supposed minimum-wage loser that attracted the much older, upper-crust, intelligence-connected George DeMohrenschildt as a best friend.

Indeed. So that means the CIA had a doppelganger program?

No Greg, it means that something is not right. And when the backstory emerges of who George was and who Ruth was and how unlikely their association was… we take a closer look.

He can be connected to pro-Castro and anti-Castro activists and to American intelligence. He was called "Private Oswaldovicth" according to the similarly intriguing Kerry Thornley, but all the rest of his Marine colleagues remembered him differently. It was recalled, for instance, that he was proud to have been named after the great Robert E. Lee. How does an affinity for Robert E. Lee jibe with a die hard leftist so enamored of the communist ideology that he defected to the Soviet Union?

Indeed. So that means the CIA had a doppelganger program? See above

Excusing all the unconnected instances of someone seemingly impersonating Oswald in the period just before the assassination is something that the authorities and "professional" journalists would do. If Oswald was being set up to be the patsy, whether through Armstrong's theory or otherwise, those incidents represent some of the strongest evidence we have of conspiratorial behavior. None of these encounters has been demonstrated to be less than credible, no matter how many Oswalts and alleged mental issues can be injected into the discussion. Again, that is the sort of thing that mainstream reporters would do, or government authorities "investigating" the case would have done, and did in fact do.

Can you name an incident of an alleged second Oswald sighting that Armstrong rejects as part of his theory? If not, why not? It's not a matter of "excusing" anything. Each needs to be examined on its own merits - and most fall apart when you examine the documentation. Excusing THAT by saying all FBI reports are false is just lame. The larger problem is that most simply take what is written in books as gospel. Encouraging disbelief in government reports covers all gaps in logic. In short, it is similar to how cults keep the flock in check. Demonize all else bar the Word according to [fill in the blank].

There are hundreds and hundreds of examples in the thousands of notebooks at Baylor which did not make it to the book. Since you never actually READ the book or looked at a handful of notebooks – how would you know?

Most do NOT fall apart with the documentation. Only your arguments fall apart with the sources you provide. Case in point we discussed the 53-54 school years and you throw a dozen witnesses and sources at me and ALL were for 54-55 with nary a question about the years discussed. That is your MO Greg… The thousands of items evidence in H&L come from a variety of sources…. Does every word in H&L represent full authenticated evidence? Of course not – yet well more of his evidence is authentic than any of your rebuttals have every offered.

There are huge discrepancies regarding Oswald's height,

No there isn't.

Yes Greg, there is. Huge may be an overstatement but the two men identified as H&L in photos look similar yet are different sizes, shapes and heights.

the schools he attended, etc.

No there isn't. The issue is that those pushing this theory simply don't know how to read the school reports. If you want to run with Robert Oswald and Frank Kudlaty and claim that Oswald attended Stripling you have the right to believe whomever and whatever you want. But Robert's memory was shoddy in other areas, and Kudlaty is compromised as a witness by his undeclared longstanding friendship with a key figure in the development of this story-line.

All you have is attacking the relationships that Kudlaty had with the author to impeach the testimony and story he tells? You don’t bother with the related facts of those seeing Oswald at 2220 Thomas, of playing with him at Stripling. You don’t have to believe Kudlaty… that’s up to you. Your inability to understand the fraud in the school records is just you covering your ears and chanting “no, nope no, nope…” When you can show how there are 125+ school days between March 23 and May 30 1953 and the child only missed 15 days while being at Youth House during April and May – we’re all ears.

That you don’t like a witness or their relationship to the situation does not make them wrong – you need to PROVE the evidence which supports their story is not authentic – and you NEVER do that.

Yelling that this isn't so doesn't contradict the data, or cause reasonable people to turn off their skepticism. Jack White's ground-breaking work on the photographic record regarding Oswald remains important, no matter how many times posters on a forum say otherwise.

So skepticism is fine... except when directed at this theory?

But okay... here is data for you.

In the 1940s tonsils were only partially removed. For kids who had this operation prior to the full development of their tonsils (at age 8), there was a risk of regrowth. To deny Oswald's tonsils could not have been a problem in the Marines is therefore an anti-science, faith-based belief.

We don’t deny it – you simply refuse to accept that you MAY be wrong about the regrowth – but since H&L is not possible in your world, the tonsils MUST grow back. Even though you cannot prove either. What we do have is a tonsillectomy in 1945 and tonsillitis in 1957 while the child with the regrown tonsils did not have a single reported incidence of problems with his tonsils or throat until he joins the Marines.

Who discovered the identities of the alleged father and uncle of "Harvey"? Not Armstrong. It was me. And guess what? They were not related by blood nor marriage, nor do either look even remotely like Oswald.

You did? How could you have found anyone if there is no connection? These the men from Hungary as written about in the FBI report from Mrs Jack Tippit of CT? It is not possible of course that immigrant children were not cared for by men who could be called “father” or “uncle” and have no direct relationship other than to care for and prepare the child for whatever was needed…

There is data which places Oswald in Fort Worth at exactly the time the official record says he was there - Sept, 1956. But adherents to this theory prefer memory to hard evidence. Why is that, Don? Did the government mass hypnotize the entire planet into believing that Fort Worth had forced integration in 1956 and not 1958. Were followers of Armstrong the only ones impervious to this brainwashing?

The “high school riots” argument again? Yes, In Sept of 1956 Oswald was at Arlington HS yet in late 1955 or early 1956 he and MO moved to San Diego for 6 months where Harvey works as a delivery boy. Take it for what it is… disprove it if you can.

Laura Kittrell, who worked for the Texas Employment Commission (TEC) interviewed

Harvey Oswald in October 1963, and he told her about his move to California.

He said, "It was before I went into the Marines. It was when I was just sixteen (he

turned 16 on October 18, 1955). I had this messenger-boy job in California. It was a

motor-scooter messenger-boy job, but I worked in the office too, filing and taking care

of the mail. It was for an investment company, and I worked there six months. The name

of it was the ETI Realty Company."

Two witnesses stated that Oswald Oswald's tooth went through his lip (and was not knocked out). This is supported by the autopsy report noting a small scar on the lip where this happened.

Documents show that Edwin Ekdhal was at least 3 inches shorter than Armstrong claimed, Yet another example of falling on your face relying on someone's memory rather than the actual documentary record.

Curious Greg… how do you know this was not just some stated height like the ones you claim for Oswald’s 5’11” height? Who measured Ekdahl to arrive at this 3” shorter figure? You saying it does not make it so Greg… show the evidence and make a real case.

And on and on it goes... each item used to prop up this mess crumbles under the light.

I am aware of the problems with Armstrong's theory.

Really? Can you list them?

Yes, I can Greg but you have no interest in big picture discussion, you want to see how many threads you can find and keep pulling until one does what you what it to…

I don't agree with it all, particularly in his reliance upon what I think is dubious evidence of Oswald's post-assassination movements.

Okay. That's a start. What else?

The Post assassination movements are a mix of evidence and speculation – JA has freely admitted this… Since no one knows exactly what happened, when or how we use the available evidence – which you still have not bothered to read or review in full but only cherry-pick when a thread turns up bare – and piece a scenario together.

Does it not dawn on you that the book was written 15 years ago and new things have been learned to either improve upon or refute the things in the book. Whether he decides to revise and release an updated version is up to him. That’s what he is using the website for at this point. All you seem to be doing is trying to sell your book and argue.

But I value his effort, and the fact that he added a new element to the database, much as David Lifton did (and again, I can recognize Lifton's importance without buying the entire body alteration theory).

Throw in your other favorite, Alex Jones, and you have the trifecta!

Whatever…

"Harvey and Lee" is just a theory. It makes no sense to be as devoted to condemning it as John Armstrong is to promulgating it. Regardless of the theory, no one can deny that Armstrong did a great deal of work and unearthed a lot of valuable information. That information certainly doesn't bolster the official fairy tale, with or without the theory. The theory doesn't detract from "serious" research or researchers, and in fact adds to our understanding of the case.

That's as bad as saying it makes no sense going after Lifton, JVB, Fetzer, the WC, the Bug, Jones or "the-Driver- did-it" brigade.

As you notice Greg, your name is nowhere to be seen. No one seems to care enough about what you are doing to even bother discussing it.

Putting Lifton and Bugliosi in the same category just proves how convoluted your thinking has become. If the great and powerful Parker disagrees it must be kook time – and then you spend weeks making hollow arguments that are easily dismissed.

Post your own work here Greg. Let us pull the threads of YOUR work for a few months… the assumptions you jump to, the speculation you present as facts… the dots you connect that are not even on the same page…

“According to Oliver Lee, Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Hawaii”

I sent the man a note – be interesting to get his take on you and the use of his work. From which “thesis” does Lee’s work that you use come from – you know, a footnote or document reference so we can see if you are true to your source… like the thousands of footnotes and docs offered by JA.

Present and Defend YOUR work for a while – or is that simply too much exposure for you to risk – might hurt book sales or something? Or is it the simple fact that no one really cares about the work you’re doing while H&L remains at the forefront of conversation and research… and remains the only way people are interested in what you post…

How are the eBook sales coming? Maybe if the sample chapter was actually about Oswald (his name is mentioned only once yet is in the title of the book) instead of everything else you could find to throw in you might get some interest… ??

Yes, David, I think you're wrong about that. In my view of US Government, civilians rule -- not the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Earth to Paul, Earth to Paul... come in Paul....

I've heard of deniers and those with their heads in the sand but please don't insult our intelligence with what you HOPE is the way things are run rather than how they are actually run.

Civilians have virtually NEVER ruled this or any country... now I understand the fog you are looking thru trying to make sense of an event that occurs outside your potential universe.

Your civics lesson notwithstanding - you really need to read None Dare Call It Conspiracy as a simple start.

Unless you want to lump the MICC into "civilians"... I see we are not even talking the same language.

How we doing with Wrone?

No final word yet from Professor Wrone. As for your political standpoint, David, I find it too cynical for my taste.

I'm not naïve about politics, about Watergate, about the CIA, about Jim Crow, about Neo-cons who want perpetual war, and so forth.

Yet I'm not overboard with cynicism, either. I can still criticize the FBI and CIA while realizing that, in this solitary case of the JFK murder, they were taken by surprise.

I'm holding my breath for Professor Wrone, however. I'll keep hoping even if others have already given up.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

What you call cynical I call reality... Not sure what you mean by this:

"in this solitary case of the JFK murder, they were taken by surprise."

Hoover knew the CIA was messing with him and the FBI during most the summer of 63 and definitely when Lee HENRY comes across their desk in mid October... he was looking tyring to find info on Oswald from 10/22 until 11/23 with nothing but negative results - all the while the CIA and State Dept are telling him a completely different story...

As for solitary case... even Hoover disagrees with that assessment...

"Only to mention TWO of their instances of double dealing"

Simple question Paul - Have you read None Dare? Read any of the Swearingen books (not great JFK stuff but wonderful inside the crooked FBI stuff).

How exactly do you think runs things in this world anyway? Elected Civilians?

Yes, David, I think you're wrong about that. In my view of US Government, civilians rule -- not the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Earth to Paul, Earth to Paul... come in Paul....

I've heard of deniers and those with their heads in the sand but please don't insult our intelligence with what you HOPE is the way things are run rather than how they are actually run.

Civilians have virtually NEVER ruled this or any country... now I understand the fog you are looking thru trying to make sense of an event that occurs outside your potential universe.

Your civics lesson notwithstanding - you really need to read None Dare Call It Conspiracy as a simple start.

Unless you want to lump the MICC into "civilians"... I see we are not even talking the same language.

How we doing with Wrone?

Your shameless self-promotion on virtually every post and every forum to try and sell volumes of your work betrays your agenda...

Since no one seems very interested in your work on its own versus those who follow the work of Armstrong, attacking him and H&L at least garners you some attention so you can pitch your view of history and sell a few books...

your version of the American dream I suppose.

Maybe spend a little time here focusing on what YOU have to offer and what YOU'VE discovered rather than continue to post hollow promises of amazing revelations related to Oswald & the "real" History while urging people to just buy my book -

Sure sounds alot like JVB's approach to the "facts" while requiring "faith" in the author - just buy my book.

Your two major contributions against H&L are the tonsils grew back and Asperger's syndrome... fatal blows to the credibility of the research GP - I don't know how it is that H&L survives such an effective onslaught

Again... we're so sorry that you cannot find the time or have the ability to delve honestly into the evidence behind H&L for yourself..

So rather than list yet another batch of conflicts within the records, we can just leave it lay.

You have books to sell and people to convince that H&L is not possible... so have at it.

oh, and good luck with your sales! Maybe you'll sell as many as Posner !!

Excuse me. I'm still waiting for an apology from YOU for telling untruths about past posts of mine.

Oh great and powerful Parker... please accept my apology for ever telling any untruths about anything you've ever posted. Yours are the truest of true words and the wisest of wise thoughts.

Get over yourself already

and my dear friend Tommy... yes indeed... the people that read what he writes who agree, do find him effective. These are the same type who follow a Ms. Baker.

Faith Tommy... ya gotta have FAITH and you too can get a few followers, guaranteed.

Still have yet to hear a convincing argument to explain the timeline conflicts of CE1961 and CE1962.

Care to give it a shot or maybe defer to the rabbi?

What surprises me the most about this line of dialog is you have to believe

that Hoover was somehow in a position of such strength as to be able to override the hand of

the NSC, JCS, NSA, CFR and any number of higher level committees of men "running things" intertwining Military, Industry and Congress.

I'm sorry Paul, a single memo does not rearrange the food chain in DC or the USA at the time.

Hoover was TOLD what to do by those who knew he had no choice. He and the FBI were Muscle, a Mechanic hoping to be Facilitator - to play at the big table.

He was thrown out of external intelligence in '45 and fought to keep everything he had built in the Western Hemisphere.

The idea that Hoover could unilaterally decide that the event was not a conspiracy - domestic OR international - is not one that jives with how we understand the world works or worked at that time..

am I wrong ?

"but" - the nice way of saying "forget what I've said to this point"

A person's earnings is their own for life...

You get all huffy-puffy and then rather than man up and apologize for basically SCREAMING thru your post at Jim AND being wrong...

you defer to Horne,

who was, if I remember correctly, not focused on the complete lack of consideration of the rest of Oswald's earnings prior to 1962 both in the Marines and as a civilian in the figuring of Marina's benefit amount.

If I'm wrong about Horne... I'm sorry Doug... GP can post the relevant info or link... I'll look it up later.

It seems each and every one of your rebuttals remains, just a little off or just a little wrong or just a little unsupported by the facts.

yet you keep railing on as if you've accomplished something... exposed some POV which upsets the H&L myth just enough for the true non-believers to see and hang their hat on...

that's real good Greg. yet you always seem to come up just a little short... and then proceed on as if it was your right to be wrong, just to be heard, to grace these pages with your "almost" rebuttals..

Helluva way to back a position on something buddy. Keep on Truckin'

A 6.5mm round leaves a quater inch hole as it passes thru a body - perfectly, no off-center movement.

It is physcially impossible for a bullet of that size to pass thru the area described without hitting a number of boney structures and leaving a visible hole a probe could easily be pushed thru.

Humes declared upon initial examination that he could feel the end of the wound and that it was slanted severly downward, 45-60 degrees is how he put it.

The examination also determined that the bullet ROSE IN THE BODY by 11 degrees if the back and front wound are connected.

The following proves that JFK was simply not in a position similar to tying one's shoes to have that bullet rise in the body from front to back... and is the reason Ford moves the wound downward enough so that it could even be discussed without laughing. Furthermore, as Bob is going to show, there is no place from front to back for a 6.5mm bullet to "sneak" thru without disturbing things...

Common sense tells us that a shot from 70 feet in the air, downward, entering someone's back, could not and would not RISE in the body unless it either hit something serious on the way thru, or the person was leaning over enough to create the angle.

Which story are you going with Dave?

Paul... how much Mexico City research have you actually done ?

Have you written anything about Mexico City after having done the research? please point the way

I have spent the last year finding and organizing these documents with the help of some very good researchers.

Suffice to say there are few if any public docs that I have not dug up... yet I am sure trhere are many filed away which are not publically known.

Finally... sorry to say, Wrone is wrong. And you are wrong in relation to what Hoover did and knew about Mexico.

I have found that the CIA and State Dept hid vital information from the FBI while sharing among themselves.

The FBI only becomes aware of this thru a CC to I&NS Jeff Woosley who in turn speaks with Hosty who writes a report on the 18th of Oct. All this is in my articles.

It is Win Scott in his Oct 16th memo, who turns Oswald talking to Kostikov from a theory into an accepted fact -

An FBI report from 10/31 states that they think he went to Irving with his wife and Ruth... He had already been working at the TSBD for a week by then...

==============

Wrone says that Hoover decided on the “Lone Nut” all by himself, and that he got the message to LBJ, and LBJ liked it, and it became a sort of Executive Order at that point. You, David, haven’t told us WHO told Hoover, in your scenario

Again. Wrone is mistaken here. And if I were to SPECULATE I would say that Hoover hears it from LBJ who has spoken to Bundy from AF-1. These are Hoover's call logs from 11/22 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=123193#relPageId=292&tab=page

At 1:43 (12:43 Dallas) Hoover calls Schlesinger. at 2:10 he calls AS at the White House again.

The Situation room is at the White House

Bundy is in the Situation Room and at the White House.

Hoover MAY have been informed by Arthur after hearing from Bundy.

But we can only speculate on the point... all the FBI evidence suggests that the FBI proceeded to initiate a real investigation of the "little commie" who killed JFK... and it was shut down.

From what I've read, the Bundy-LBJ discussions along with the LBJ RFK discussions on AF-1 were excised from the tapes and record logs. LBJ supposedly also spoke with Hoover while he was on AF-1(? - I'm asking here)

I will continue searching docs.... yet as Larry tells us... it is really not until the next day that the word goes out from Hoover that they have their man... The Hosty note on that 11/22 doc could have been from any time after the fact...

Hope we get to the bottom of Wrone's claims

DJ

The FBI memo's Larry refers to:

https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/062/62251/images/img_62251_5_300.png

https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/062/62251/images/img_62251_8_300.png

Find this Hidell guy and question him about a plot to kill JFK

https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/062/62251/images/img_62251_9_300.png

From after 10pm 11/22 as they start focusing on Oswald

https://www.maryferrell.org/archive/docs/057/57690/images/img_57690_188_300.png

And check out Hosty's note on the 22nd. "Not necessary to cover as true subject located - JMH"

Basically, David, I agree with everything you've said here.

As for Professor Wrone's claim, it will stand or fall with the FBI document that he is able to produce.

I agree that even though Hoover uses the word "Nut" in the memo you provided from 5:15PM (which is 2.5 hours after OSWALD was arrested) we cannot find the full moniker of "Lone Nut".

In fact, even in this very memo, Hoover speaks of OSWALD has possibly having Accomplices. Probably those would be the "extreme pro-Castro crowd" of Accomplices. Yet even in this memo, Hoover wasn't so partisan that he discounted the chance of extreme Right-wing plot, since Hoover also cited in his opening paragraph, "Segregationist Madmen."

So -- this can't be the memo that Professor Wrone had in mind. The tone still suggests the problem of possible Accomplices for Lee Harvey OSWALD.

OK. You make other valid points, David, but you also raised some questions:

(1) You say, David, that you "posted doc after doc showing that Hoover was manipulated into saying the Oswald was alone in this."

(1.1) Please clarify which docs you mean. The CIA docs actually said the OPPOSITE, viz., that OSWALD had Communist Accomplices.

Yes Paul. The CIA/State stories all point to a Castro backed/connected conspiracy to kill JFK. Yet that finding is not included in a single FBI report – it’s not even suggested. In fact in every case where there is evidence of Oswald’s connections to others involved (Bannister, Ferrie, Shaw, Odio’s Cubans, Cuba, Russia, etc…) the FBI bends over backward to disavow these relationships. The SS even chimes in claiming that they looked too and there was no connection between 544 Camp and Oswald.

(1.2) You admit that "it was the FBI's job to ignore all that info and CREATE the evidence for a Lone Nut." So, who came up with the LONE NUT idea in the first place? You're not clarifying your opinion on that, IMHO.

What we KNOW is that there is strong evidence that something was said to the people on AF-1 from Bundy in the Situation Room that Oswald was the killer and there was no conspiracy. Whether “Lone Nut” the words were used, who cares. Before much of any investigation had occurred, the conclusion was already offered.

Who told Bundy to tell AF-1? Don’t know. All I do know is that DC calls TX and tells them to knock off the conspiracy stuff in the afternoon of 11/22. If the AF-1 scenario did not happen then one has to wonder why Bethesda goes thru so much to make it appear as if it was only shots from behind and only 3.

(2) I agree with you that if Wrone turns out to be the sole source -- i.e. he misunderstood an FBI memo -- then I have nothing further to stand on to defend J. Edgar Hoover in this regard, and I'll need to go back to the drawing board.

(3) As for getting the message to Bundy in Dallas, of course Hoover in DC could not have met him, but could only have called an FBI officer in Dallas to meet Bundy. That is also speculation -- but if Hoover turns out to be the originator of the "Lone Nut" idea (as Wrone says) then it is more than speculation -- it becomes a near-certainty.

?? I thought the idea was that Bundy was in DC in the Situation room talking to LBJ on AF-1 ?? Whether the call was real and what was said is only relayed by those who supposedly saw and read transcripts. But Bundy was most definitely in DC where Hoover was. It was you that claimed it was Hoover who told Bundy who in turn spoke to AF-1... I don't see anything to support that.

(4) You raise a very interesting question, David, namely, if Hoover decided to push the "Lone Nut" idea as early as 3PM CST 11/22/1963 (as Wrone says), then why do his memos to others after that time period, for several days, continue to entertain the idea of Accomplices?

(5) Thanks for citing the FBI report you had in mind from 9 December 1963. HERE IS THE STABLE ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE "LONE NUT" theory to the world.

That report is WCD #1 and is the basis for the WCR – right down to the table of contents. The FBI was definitely going to find that Oswald was alone. Hoover challenges this idea and does so again in January when he comments about the charade the CIA pulls in Mexico as an example of their “double dealing”

(5.1) At the same time, this same memo ends with an ambiguity, as Hoover says: "the second aspect as to whether he was the only man gives me great concern."

No Paul. That’s a different memo. The final FBI REPORT 12/9 says he was alone. The Hoover memo to his staff from 12/12 offers these “great concerns”

(5.2) Of course, that "great concern," was about the fact that any other players would shatter the "Lone Nut" theory.

Sorry Paul… I don’t think that’s what it meant. The “great concern” was the CIA evidence of Oswald in Mexico City getting paid to kill JFK. If you keep reading that paragraph you’ll see he is specifically talking about Oswald’s Cuban connections.

(5.3) Hoover seems to be rehashing arguments made and insisted by FBI and CIA officers in Mexico City, claiming that OSWALD must have been part of a Communist plot.

CIA officers yes… not FBI. If you have any FBI document that speculates on Oswald being part of a plot, please post or link to it. The FBI is trying to track down a fictitious trip on planes, trains or buses since a car would mean a partner in crime. Only the CIA and STATE department champion a Castro conspiracy and only then for a short time.

(5.4) Hoover concludes by regarding the "Communist plot" evidence as "Speculative."

He even goes as far as to state that “someone similar to Oswald MAY have been in Mexico City” as reported by the CIA. He distances himself and the FBI from these “speculations” by stating them as such yet proceeding to accumulate evidence as if he never said a word.

(5.5) Nevertheless, Hoover ends with an ambiguity, saying: "I urged strongly that we NOT reach conclusion Oswald was the only man."

There is ambiguity throughout that Hoover memo. Hoover opens by stating firmly that OSWALD was the "Only man". Yet he ends by stating firmly that we "NOT" reach that same conclusion. It is a confused memo.

In one and the same memo, J. Edgar Hoover presents two opposite doctrines -- and it is confusing to anybody who reads it. Hoover himself seems confused.

No sure which memo you speak of. There is the one I posted from 11/22, the FBI report which I post the ending of and his memo to his staff from 12/12 which I only post a small part. Here is the whole thing:

11:35 a.m. December 12, 1963

MEMORANDUM FOR: MR. TOLSON

MR. BELMONT

MR. MOHR

MR. CONRAD

MR. DELOACH

MR. EVANS

MR. ROSEN

MR. SULLIVAN

Mr. Lee Rankin called from New York to check in with me on the matter of the Commission. He wanted to work out an arrangement with me which he thought might be satisfactory. He said he understood Mr. Belmont handled the investigation.

I told Mr. Rankin that Mr. Belmont, Mr. Rosen and I handled the preparation of the report and will handle additional leads as they come in.

Mr. Rankin asked how he should handle anything that comes up, things the Commission will want developed further, in regard to the FBI - whether they should be handled directly with me or somebody I would designate.

I replied that I will designate someone. I explained that I sent Mr. Malley down to Dallas to handle all of our angles down there; that he was on the ground there; and that I think he probably would be the man who would be more familiar with things Mr. Rankin should further explore. I stated Mr. Malley is in Dallas at the present time but will be ordered back tomorrow; that he will be available; and that we will be glad to run out any additional men as he may want.

Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took 

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 2

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

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.

As to Rubenstein, I said I did not want a statement about Rubenstein and Oswald; that we have no proof they were ever together. I stated Rubenstein is a shady character from the hoodlum element of Chicago, has a poor background, runs a nightclub in Dallas, and is what would be called a police buff; that the police officers in the precinct have been able to get food and liquor from him at any time they drop in; that while I think there was no connection between him and Oswald, I did not want the report to be 100% sure on that.

Fourth, I stated I did not believe any conclusions concerning Rubenstein should be reached at this time because he has not been tried; that was why I suggested to the Attorney General of Texas - and understand the Chief Justice did too- that his court of special inquiry be held in abeyance until after the Commission makes its findings. I said I thought they would go ahead with the Rubenstein trial in February; that was why I felt our report should name merely the facts we have established.

I further stated there may be some aspects Mr. Rankin will want to have run out farther; that there may be letters written to members of the Commission; that we have letters from people who claim to have seen Oswald; that up to the time we submitted the report we had cleared up all these angles except the Cuban thing which I discussed generally and explained that the informer recanted and blew that angle out of the window; that sort of thing may be popping up all the time. I advised Mr. Rankin if he wanted any leads followed out or any implementation of what we have already done we will give him 100% cooperation.

Mr. Rankin stated he knew we would; that he just wanted to

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 3

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

establishing it as a matter I should know. I told him not to hesitate to call me; that I will designate Mr. Malley and he will advise me at once of anything. Mr. Rankin then said he would get in touch with me if he thinks there is anything which should be taken up on that level.

I mentioned to him the actions of the Soviet Embassy, the Communist Party in New York, and John Abt is making available to us their information on Oswald.

I also discussed the operations of the Dallas Police Department in the case which led to the murder of Oswald.

I told Mr. Rankin the Department held the report about five days and then began to leak items from the Department on it, items such as the shooting of General Walker, things not known in Dallas; that I kept pressing them to get the report to the Commission; that a debate was going on between the Department and me; that I did not want any conclusion drawn but I thought a conclusion had been made in the letter of transmission to the Commission; that there would have been no purpose in appointing a Presidential Commission except to evaluate the facts; that it was the duty of the FBI to get the facts and let the Commission reach a conclusion.

I told Mr. Rankin we would want to do anything we can here to make his job easier. He said he has always had complete confidence in that and in me.

Mr. Rankin inquired if anything had been done about seeing that the films would be preserved and available for the Commission. I answered that we have them ourselves; that we have films taken by private individuals; that the President was not being covered by a car with television people as they do here in Washington; that there was not a professional photographer where this took place; that the Secret Service car immediately in back had already passed the building, which was at an angle, with the result they couldn't tell where the shots were coming from. I mentioned the comment by former Chief of Secret Service Baughman that he could not understand why the Secret Service men did not open fire with machine guns at the window. I said the Secret Service men did not see where the shots came from and would have killed a lot of innocent people if they had done so.

In connection with stories indicating that Oswald could not have done this alone, I stated he was a marksman and it wasn't anything he

Memorandum for Messrs. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr December 12, 1963

page 4

Conrad, DeLoach, Evans Rosenm Sullivan

could not do; that we have tested it on our rifle range and were able to get shots off even faster than he did; that there is no question in my mind about it; that we also found the fingerprints and the bullets so conclusively fired from the gun; that we have all this and we have all the photographs.

Mr. Rankin inquired if we also have the television film run off of the shooting of Oswald, and I told him we have this.

Mr. Rankin said Mr. Malone delivered to him a copy of the report and also offered to help in any way possible; this was very kind of Malone; but he will not deal with Malone in anything unless it is some

emergency and he has to handle it locally. I told Mr. Rankin this was all right and, if he should need to call upon Malone, Malone would be available.

I also told Mr. Rankin there is a direct wire between the New York Office and here; that he can always place any calls to here over our wire; and that I will arrange for this.

I told Mr. Rankin to let us know if there is anything we can do.

Very truly yours,

J.E.H.

John Edgar Hoover

Director

Yet -- if (and only if) Professor Wrone is correct, then we must conclude that Hoover is deliberately trying to trick his readers into believing that he struggled hard to find out the real truth -- and carefully weighed all the possibilities and all the evidence -- when actually Hoover's mind was made up from the start (as of 3pm CST 11/22/1963) that OSWALD was the "Lone Nut."

So -- my theory about J. Edgar Hoover will stand or fall based on the answer I receive from Professor Wrone.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

3pm 11/22 is pretty specific Paul. I too look forward to anything you can offer to support your original feelings. I can dig deeper myself – as can you – but I think I’ve shown enough to support that Hoover was TOLD he did not DECIDE much of anything.

DJ

Me too.

And no one in the CIA had nothing to do with the setting up of Oswald to be the patsy, you know, before the assassination...

OK.

--Tommy

I don't agree with that at all. What I agreed with was Cliff's statement that they went with the LN scenario only because Oswald got caught. Otherwise there would have been an invasion of Cuba to get Bin Laden. I mean Castro.

Hey there Ron...

Afraid I have to disagree with that one... there is no benefit to anyone if Cuba is attacked. none. You have Russia waiting in the wings for any excuse to show off what they've been building the last 10 years.

They turned the ships around because the US did not attack Cuba and promised to remove missles in Turkey.. Cuba was a pawn in a much larger chess game... In 1965 it still remained a communist foothold not 90 miles for the USA...

Seems to me the collective reactions was... So what?

Bundy is doing the Lone Nut thing for AF-1 within hours. You don't attack Cuba over a Lone Nut with no conspiratorial associations - regardless if he is dead or not - he was going to be a Lone Nut since, haven't you heard, conspiracies do not kill politicians in the grand ole US of A.

I happen to believe that dead or not, Oswald had served his purpose and JFK would be dead. Cuba, in my opinion, was never of any significant consequence until Russia gets there. and then magically, literally that week, the focus shifts to VietNam. Without JFK in the way what/who stops the invasion of Cuba and the flexing of US muscle?

the Joint Chiefs? McNamara? Harriman? LBJ?

Or did they simply see a more advantageous outlet for a show of military might?

On 24 November 1963, Johnson said, "the battle against communism… must be joined… with strength and determination."[174]

[174] Karnow 1997, p. 339.

Before a small group, including Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., the new president also said, "We should stop playing cops and robbers [a reference to Diệm's failed leadership] and get back to… winning the war… tell the generals in Saigon that Lyndon Johnson intends to stand by our word…[to] win the contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy."

Thanks Mark...

I haven't proven anything... Obviously you don't pay very much attention to what you read or you don't bother to read what I've posted over the last 15 years.

Exposing yourself as the Lone Nutter you obviously are puts things into perspective.

We are all so sorry that H&L is simply too difficult for you to follow. That you give up instead of trying is also indicative of the caliber of person you are. Why not just say you don't understand it rather than take the grade school approach of attacking that which you are hopelessly confused about...

We are done Mark. Your tactics are transparent and you simply don't have the chops to keep up. This has nothing to do with the Tea Party - which I am confident you locked in goose-step with as well as your hoping, with the help of the Kochs, they continue to destroy what little is left of democracy in this country.

Your replies show me and all how truly lost you are. "we are not at war" with those who would have us all believe that Oswald alone killed JFK. We are not at war with those who would continue to strip our rights to know the truth about these historical disasters while continuing to hide and destroy the record to the contrary.

C'mon GM/Dunkel... we see you lurking about... write me one of those secret emails where you get to say what you really think instead of regurgitating the company line.

Explain to the herds that the WCR itself was the product of selective editing - that which they wanted to hide was either hidden or discovered in the process of being hidden.

It doesn't matter anyway... honey boo-boo is coming on and the herds can't miss an episode.

To follow along, bold is my original post, black for Mark's reply and Red now for mine.

DJ: Yes indeed Mark... we should have a museum erected to the lies created and perpetrated by the US government which shows the lies for what they were... not presented as historical truth but as a historical conspiracy.

MV: For a guy involved in marketing, you don't seem to understand how institutions work. This is worrying to me. Despite the suspicions of a majority of Americans, there will *never* be an institution dedicated to fringe beliefs. It runs counter to human nature. There are Ripleys' Believe it or Not Museums, there are small, no-budget roadside shacks that promote crazy stuff. And the circus sideshow will always have the Bearded Lady.

I believe there is a fundamental piece missing in your world view. It's like how crazy Tea Partiers have been trying unsuccessfully to up-end Obama's presidency for years now without even a hint of success.

Wanna know why they fail so painfully?

LOL. Mark, you telling me about missing pieces in my world view is very amusing. You fail to see how ironic a Museum erected to promote and defend the “in-your-face” lies of the US Government in the guise of telling the truth about one of the worst disasters this country has ever known really is. It’s just as bad as what was done related to 911’s “Ground Zero”. Perpetrate the lie in the most public way possible while burning at the stake anyone who offers alternatives.

As a Marketing Guy I know exactly how these institutions work. That you have been successfully marketed to related to that Museum and its purpose just shows how little you understand the effectiveness or the use of Marketing every day and in every aspect of our lives.

I live it Mark. We can Market that which benefits people or that which buries them in manure...

Because what they believe isn't true.

Isn't that sad? Their entire worldview is based on lie after lie. And they can't understand WHY nobody will do what they want. And they will keep on creating their toxic fiction, and they will keep on failing. Because their worldview has atrophied into a beady-eyed conspiracy orgy.

Same with some JFK CTs. The stuff they believe is SO bizarre, so wacky, so obviously untrue that they have turned themselves into modern-day Court Jesters.

And they can't figure out why a Museum wouldn't want to house their theories.

I don’t want that Museum to attempt to tell the truth, they have no experience doing so. What you fail to understand is how wrong the entire thing is from the ground up. Not only did “they” pull the wool over the eyes of every thinking person on the planet, let’s also erect a Museum to remind everyone how well “we” did it. And then let’s get people like MV to defend it for us.

It's like the people who still think Lincoln was killed by a Lone Nut and Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin and 911 weren't created historical events designed to serve a purpose that had nothing to do with the "historical fiction" taught to school children.

History is written by the winners. Always has been, always will be. Which historical event went down the way you read about it in school? Name one.

History WHICH IS TAUGHT is written by the winners and backed by the status quo. Again Mark, if you understand this to be true, why would you defend an institution dedicated to reinforcing the lies?

I take issue with a Museum like that for just that reason.. it teaches children and bewildered adults that Oswald killed JFK and it was not the result of a massive Military, Industrial, Congressional cover-up.

Prove it. You haven't yet, or else you would have won a Pulitzer. You *think* you know what happened, and this fuels your anger toward government institutions, newspapers, media conglomerates, etc. etc.

But you don't really know what happened. You're guessing, and you change your guess all the time.

This argument is old and tired Mark. We have proved it. Maybe you don’t actually realize that there is a war going on. That information like this is kept from the mainstream for a reason… it gets people thinking and we can’t have any of that. So let’s have them come to the Museum and get the “real” story – cause it’s a museum, it must be true, right?

I know, we know exactly what happened Mark. That you still don’t is your problem, not ours.

That the evidence which could not and would not be allowed a moment of time in a court of law is allowed to be used to sway the opinions of everyday people since they are presented as if they are facts which have been corroborated and authenticated...

Do you really believe that a Museum's purpose is to sway opinions? That's weird.

That you don’t understand Marketing or propaganda is evident. You prove it with every post. You think the Museum’s purpose is what? To set the record straight? To offer as fact that which has been proven false – and forget to mention it to anyone?

MARKETING: The management process through which goods and services move from concept to the customer.

The "management process" in that Museum is the picking and choosing of what to show visitors which best represents the desired information to convey.

The “goods and services” comprises the information they are selling

The “concept” is that JFK was killed by Lee Oswald from that glassed in 6^th floor SE corner when we both know that was not possible. We both know it has been proven not possible and the evidence which attempts to prove this is altered, created, fabricated, destroyed and focused on one and only one thing, incriminating Lee Oswald.

The “customer” remains the bewildered herds wandering thru grumbling about how that little Commie could kill such a great man alongside those who know better and can’t get the kind of support and coverage the lies do.

That’s why none of the Conspiracy Realists have won a Pulitzer Mark. It’s not the content, it’s the orchestrated and ongoing need to keep certain things about the US government’s history a secret.

What do YOU think the Museum is there for Mark?

All we need now is the James Earl Ray did it Mesuem along side the Sirhan Sirhan shot him behind the ear from 5 feet away Museum... y'know, just so we can teach the kids the REAL history.

The JFK Museum memorializes an event that took place recently enough so that public interest is still high. More than anything, it captures the sadness and shock of the event itself.

Have you even visited it?

Yes Mark I have. And I’ve been to 911’s Ground Zero.

The Museum memorializes nothing but the lies of a government which killed its leader. It makes a mockery of the sadness of that event by perpetrating these lies in the face of them proven as lies repeatedly.

Why do you suppose that is so. Who is so powerful that this Museum can continue to lie to its visitors daily about such a tragic event and fail to even address some of the most glaring and obvious problems in the case….

You think they’ll ever put these images up in the Museum - just as a little reality check counter-point to the Marketing propaganda served each and every day?

Or better yet... the floating, black, square, sharpie mark covering the back of JFK's head where we would see a blowout described by all these people

I told Mr. Schlei that the police have Oswald in custody and we are interrogating him at the present time. I stated he would be in the category of a Nut and the extremist pro-Castro crowd.

Yes Paul, there is a bit more yet there is nothing that chnges the tome or shows support for you and Wrone's claim that Hoover pushed the Lone Nut angle within an hour of the shots.

So far I have posted doc after doc showing that Hoover was manipulated into saying the Oswald was alone in this... that the CIA & State did what they could to show he was NOT alone and was involved in a conspiracy with pro-Castro Cubans to kill JFK... it was the FBI's job to ignore all that info and CREATE the evidence for a Lone Nut... which they did.

You, on the other hand, have posted nothing but your speculation. Appreciated and interesting for sure, but purely speculation whereas the following shows your conclusion not to be the case.

If you could post even a single item that suggests what you are saying is true - surely Wrone isn't the sole source for such an important statemetn and declaration from the Director of the FBI within an hour of the assassiantion. Who did he tell Paul? When did he meet with Bundy prior to his call to AF-1?

Where's the beef? lol

--------------

"the extremist pro-Castro crowd"

I have a hard time believing that Hoover would be pushing pro-Castro connections 2.5 hours after he is suppose3dly coming up with the Lone Nut scenario...

and then to be consistent and repeat these words after the FBI report is delivered. In that report the word "Lone" does not appear - only "loner", "lonely", "alone"

From Dec 9, 1963

Investigation has (1) developed detailed background information concerning

Oswald from his birth to his death; (2) strengthened the evidence that

Oswald was the assassin of the President although no clear-cut motive has

been established; and (3) despite numerous allegations which have been

investigated, developed no sound evidence indicating that he received any

financial assistance or that any other person, group, or foreign government

inspired or directed the assassination or was cognizant of his plan to

assassinate President Kennedy. On the contrary, the data developed strongly

indicates that he acted on his own initiative or impulse with little

advance planning. Also, investigation has disclosed no evidence that

Oswald, while residing in Russia, was recruited by the Soviet intelligence

services or received any assignment or training from the intelligence

services. Further, investigation has developed no proof of any prior

contact or association between Oswald and his murderer, Jack Leon Ruby.

Memorandum for Messers. Tolson, Belmont, Mohr, December 12, 1963

page 2

Conrad, Deloach, Evans, Rosen, Sullivan

Mr. Rankin of the difficulty about the Department's desire to issue certain conclusions; that they wanted to issue a statement before the report went to the Commission with the conclusion Oswald was the assassin, no foreign or subversive elements involved, and Rubenstein and Oswald had no connection; that I flatly disagreed; they took it up with the White House and the President agreed with me that we should reach no conclusion; nevertheless the report does reach two conclusions in substance.

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.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62251#relPageId=2&tab=page

non-profit, fully-accredited historical institution.

Just like those Tobacco industry backed research studies telling us how harmless smoking, tar and nicotine are...

fully-accredited AND historical... nothing but the truth served here... c'mon now, they're just as trustworthy as the Warren Commissioners and the report they signed

What is it exactly that you take issue with? Fully accredited? It is. Historical presentations? They do those.

How is it that a museum garners such wrath? Are you suggesting that they should present the kinds of dopey theories that rise from the various online forums?

Nobody online can even agree on the simplest of issues. It's utter chaos. Museums aren't that. Museums - especially this one - presents the historical record as presented by accounts given at the time. The museum cannot take a political stance on these kinds of things.

Online forums are the place to present and discuss all the stupid and outrageous theories we choose. It's where the truth will emerge. And when it does - finally - the Museum will be obliged to present that truth. Because it is an historical institution.

Really, this kind of bashing is tiresome. It's like third graders angry at the school cafeteria because they won't serve pizza five days a week.

Yes indeed Mark... we should have a museum erected to the lies created and perpetrated by the US government which shows the lies for what they were... not presented as historical truth but as a historical conspiracy.

It's like the people who still think Lincoln was killed by a Lone Nut and Pearl Harbor, the Gulf of Tonkin and 911 weren't created historical events designed to serve a purpose that had nothing to do with the "historical fiction" taught to school children.

I take issue with a Museum like that for just that reason.. it teaches children and bewildered adults that Oswald killed JFK and it was not the result of a massive Military, Industrial, Congressional cover-up.

That the evidence which could not and would not be allowed a moment of time in a court of law is allowed to be used to sway the opinions of every day people since they are presented as if they are facts which have been corroborated and authenticated...

and they are not. not even close.

All we need now is the James Earl Ray did it Mesuem along side the Sirhan Sirhan shot him behind the ear from 5 feet away Museum... y'know, just so we can teach the kids the REAL history...

I look forward to it Paul...

With regards to the rest of your post...

Have you considered that Oswald was placed as a NOLA FPCC rep to uncover others sympathetic to the cause?

A PO Box as a location for a meeting helps no one so having him change the handbills from 4907 Magazine or 544 Camp to a POBox suggests to me that the FPCC in NOLA was not all that serious in finding anyone. I also believe that the PO Box was only printed on the AJ Hidell flyers while the LH Oswald flyers have an actual address.

As for the FBI/Hoover stating a conclusion being out of the norm... I was not me but the Warren Commissioners who say this... that the FBI NEVER provides a conclusion, especially one so early in an investigation which negates the whole point of the investigation in the first place... I can find the references - I think they are in the early exec session... Dulles mentions it here: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1323&relPageId=14&search=conclusion

As to your Mexico comments... I'll need to let them go since I believe you are about as far off from the reality of the event as a person can be. Until you can actually prove Hoover as the author of the Lone Nut theory, using it as a portion of an argument holds no water.

Prove it first THEN use it to support a theory... and we don't want Wrone's opinion... we need something to corroborate the statement and conflicts with the 11/22 memo I just posted as awell as the Dec 12th memo which both state the opposite of what you and Wrone are contending... that Oswald was leftist and pro-Castro and was not alone.

If Hoover was doing anything to CYA, it had to do with the FBI being the reason he was doing FPCC work and was with Banister et al to begin with...

DJ

I have to somewhat disagree with Pat on some of thes FBI accusations.

The FBI rpoerted what they were told by the CIA and Secret Service. DURING the autopsy Sr Staff at FBI is told that the SS has one bullet and another is lodged behind JFK's ear.

There was no THROAT SHOT in the original autopsy or the autopsy that the WC reviewed... this is from the January 22, 1964 Exec Session. Whatever autopsy THEY were looking at was not the autopsy report in the archives since that one does talk about an exit from the throat of the shot, not a fragment.

There is no real discussion about the SBT until the Zframes and Tague enter the equation in March/April.

I'm sorry - I don't see the FBI blundering, only reporting what they were given - except for the Sibert/O'Neil report which makes all the difference. As much as we'd like to believe the FBI was included at Bethesda... they weren't. And the more I study the more I see the CIA/STATE/Military giving the FBI and I&NS the run-around. The FBI's report would be the basis for the WCR... the FBI report is based on the info given it and the supressing of the reports they themselves initiated and found to be puching the investigation into the "wrong" direction.

Mr. Rankin:

Then there‘s a great range of material in regards to the wound and the autopsy and this point of exit or entrance of the bullet in the front of the neck, and that all has to be developed much more than we have at the present time.

We have an explanation there in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet, according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through.

So that how it could turn, and --

Rep. Boggs. I thought I read that bullet just went in a finger's length.

Mr. Rankin. That is what they first said

On Dec 2,3 & 4th SA Gauthier creates WCD298 showing three shots, three hits, no bullets coming out the front and a shot hitting JFK 40 feet past Z313. This was presented to the WCs in early January. Only one exhibit comes from this model which - explains the event so well that in lieu of going to DP, these models will tell the investigator everything they need to know.... and the exhibit drops the strings showing the shots and the position the cars during the shots... in essence the entire model was scrapped since it did not support the conspiracy.

4/27/64 - Redlich to Rankin

Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin

I should add that the facts which we now have in our possession, submitted to us in separate reports from the FBI and Secret Service, are totally incorrect and, if left uncorrected, will present a completely misleading picture.

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10699#relPageId=6&tab=page

I've always found Greg's presentations to be fact filled and right on point.

non-profit, fully-accredited historical institution.

Just like those Tobacco industry backed research studies telling us how harmless smoking, tar and nicotine are...

fully-accredited AND historical... nothing but the truth served here... c'mon now, they're just as trustworthy as the Warren Commissioners and the report they signed

OK, good news this morning.

Professor David R. Wrone, now 82 years old, was kind enough to respond to my question about his source for his radical statement that J. Edgar Hoover invented the Lone Nut theory of Lee Harvey OSWALD about one hour after the arrest of OSWALD on the day JFK was murdered.

Dr. Wrone is currently ill, so let's wish him a speedy recovery. Yet he assures me that he got this historical information from an FBI memo dated 11/22/1963. He will peruse his private files to locate the exact document, and will tell me as soon as possible when he finds it.

So, hold on to your hats, people, and get ready to modify your CT's. Truth is on the way.

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Looking forward to it Paul... All I could find was this letter from Hoover to his Senior Staff from 5:15pm on the 22nd.

Seems to me he is saying the man is a leftist nut with extremeist, pro-Castro leanings (most likely from the FPCC assisgnment the FBI gave him in the first place)

Be interesting to see a document that states Hoover's conclusion before an investigation even begins and then conveying that conclusion to Bundy somehow - when the FBI was known for NEVER offering a conclusion in their investigations... only info for analysis and consideration.

FPCC and he worked in the building - so he must be a Lone Nut killer with no Castro connections - nice try Paul, but until you have something which refutes the documents I keep posting, I does seem that Hoover was very much taken in b y the Ozzie in Mexico info that rears it's head again just when it needs to...

Please post that info when you get it and Good Wishes to Wrone for a speedy recovery

DJ

First off his name is John Armstrong...

Your "Hoover said it first" idea backed by the video is fine... Do you have which of the 18 episodes on youtube this is said? Do you have a transcript of this announcement? Who did he announce it to, when and where? We need more detail than just Wrone says so... I tried to find evidence of this announcement online with no luck so far... any corroboration for this occurring would be appreciated

DJ

Yes, John Armstrong, not Anderson. That was my speed-typing typo, David -- I actually got his name right a couple times before.

Anyway, I'm glad you liked my source -- Professor Wrone -- for the pre-3PM 11/22/1963 announcement by J. Edgar Hoover that Lee Harvey OSWALD was the "Lone Nut" killer of JFK. As I said, it's in the 2003 video, "The Murder of JFK: A Revisionist History." And you're right -- it's on YouTube today. Specifically, it's in volume 11, exactly 50 seconds from the start.

I also told Larry Hancock earlier this year that Wrone was my source -- and Larry also said he wanted more confirmation. Well, I know I'm not the only one who can pick up a telephone and call Dr. Wrone and ask him for his sources (which tend to be impressive). Besides, I have a day job and I keep my nose pretty close to the grindstone.

So, I'm content to stick with Dr. Wrone's verdict until I hear proof otherwise -- but after a year of proclaiming Wrone on this Forum, nobody has yet proved Wrone wrong.

Still, I'd be gratified if one of you JFK Researchers would please contact Professor Wrone and ask him.

(PS. Also on YouTube, in volume 10 of that same series, near the end, around 7:33, Dr. Wrone also gives us some history of the time -- that the people he knew immediately thought the John Birch Society was behind the JFK murder.)

Regards,

--Paul Trejo

Ok Paul... thanks...

I just checked it out and there is no 3pm announcement mentioned... only what they THINK he MIGHT have said or done.

There is nothing to offer a connection between Hoover and Bundy inferring that Bundy would take what Hoover said to the Sit room and inform AF-1. If anything I can see that happeneing in reverse with Bundy telling Hoover/LBJ the direction the government was going to go.

If anything Hoover would have been delighted to uncover a communist plot... his entire existence was denying the Mafia and fighting communism, activism and the freedom to question the government.

He was kept from doing this... You forget maybe that all month of Nov he was looking for a connection between Oswald and Mexico using his own sources - all negative - including one from the Dept of Gobernacion (very likely Ochoa telling him there was no record of Oswald on Nov 8th and then turning around to help Hoover after the fact to create the evidence)

Your assumption that he would lie to his Sr. Staff when there was evidence offered that something happened in Mexico, that Ozzie was FPCC, that Florida and Cubans were involved...

Hoover was shut down from doing an investigation... and he was bitter about it. The CIA/Military would trump the FBI every time. And the State Dept was in on it with the CIA.

I have no doubts that once the ball was rolling Hoover helped solidify the Lone Nut myth and legend...

simply put Paul, I think you jump to too many conclusions based on the thinnest of evidence... when there are mountains of real evidence from which to speculate.

Your 250 pages of evidence that OSWALD was never in Mexico City, David, are in harmony with John Anderson's book, "Harvey and Lee" (1999), but Anderson lacked the benefit of the research done by Bill Simpich.

First off his name is John Armstrong... and of course it starts in harmony since John did as much if not more work than most on that trip believing that it was Lee who made the trip. I believe I've convinced him that was not the case - that Lee was elsewhere and that no Oswald took this trip.

btw - Ochoa's name does not appear in JA's book. As the FBI's top asset in Mexico and the man responsible for virtually all the fraudulent evidence he wouldn't be looked at much if one was focused on what occurred at these embassies as opposed to authenticating the travel and stay evidence.

Bill's work has to do with why Oswald was impersonated on the 9/28 and 10/1 calls and why Mystery Man was even added to the mix. That MM's photos were from the 2nd 4th and 15th and had nothing at all to do with the Oct 1st call evidence offered by the CIA. I respect Bill's work immensely yet it has nothing to do with what the FBI, CIA, State and I&NS did to "uncover" or "hide" the travel details. I also think his work confirms that it definitley was not Oswald in MExico.

Your "Hoover said it first" idea backed by the video is fine... Do you have which of the 18 episodes on youtube this is said? Do you have a transcript of this announcement? Who did he announce it to, when and where? We need more detail than just Wrone says so... I tried to find evidence of this announcement online with no luck so far... any corroboration for this occurring would be appreciated

DJ

My source for the 3PM 11/22/1963 announcement by J. Edgar Hoover that Lee Harvey OSWALD was the Lone Shooter ("Lone Nut") who killed JFK is History Professor David R. Wrone from Wisconsin University. He reveals this in the 2003 video, "The Murder of JFK: A Revisionist History."