David Josephs

https://www.amazon.com/IBM-Holocaust-Strategic-Alliance-Corporation/dp/0914153277 Not sure how many of you are aware of this: IBM and the Holocaust is the award-winning, New York Times bestselling shocker--a million copies in print--detailing IBM's conscious co-planning and co-organizing of the Holocaust for the Nazis, all micromanaged by its president Thomas J Watson from New York and Paris. ..... Edwin Black's monumental research exposes how IBM and its subsidiaries helped create enabling technologies for the Nazis, step-by-step, from the identification and cataloging programs of the 1930s to the selections of the 1940s. "it's not personal, it's only business" https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ibm-and-quot-death-s-calculator-quot-2

Which is it Greg? Forgery or a Fraud. One suggests it was written by someone other than Lafitte for the purpose - I believe you called it out - of making some sort of profit, or compensation for such an amazing artifact. Considering the artifact is not in the ownership possession of the people who wrote the book, the only one potentially making a profit from someone actually paying for it - would be his wife Renee who has had the book for decades. Hank's book or not, that artifact would have been considerably more valuable in 1964, 1978, 1992 or 1997. You seem to think it may have been written post 2012.. when I was under the impression the physical characteristics do indeed support a contemporaneous 1963 writing throughout the year. Even so, your evidentiary arguments for a post 2012 creation are tautological. Skorzeny's papers are not an indictment of the validity of Lafitte simply because Ganis' book does not mention him from his examination of a slice of Skorzeny's document history. The ongoing lack of Joannides' mention is a prime example. You think we'll find reference to Joannides in JJA's papers? Dulles? Barnes? Phillips? Doesn't mean they did not interact, plot, implement, discuss... whatever. Documents, like the space telescope, only show us a tiny sliver of the observable "Universe". What is not seen over here, may very. well be where we've never looked. It doesn't appear to me that "money" for the artifact was the motivation for its release. I've seen nothing to suggest the datebook is for sale. The other reason for a modern day forgery in our case might be pure dis-information - "The Hitler Diary" comes to mind. Fair? This document is: 179-40006-10049 and is a copy from the Blunt collection which basically proves WC lawyer Slawson - who went to Mexico but was snowed by the same people who perpetrated the fraud - seems more concerned the CIA might not like what they write about the "Oswald/Duran calls" than what really happened. Would you consider this decent evidence there was something very wrong with the calls/transcripts from the 27th-1st? "we must go FURTHER towards 'fudging' the contents of these calls". Go FURTHER?? Eliminate "Odessa" from the first set of calls on the 27th (and the fact the call was in Spanish and not Russia, which Oswald did not speak) which leaves us only the most incriminating and specific identification of Oswald. "should be eliminated" - and these are the lawyers ffs. The other - fraud - suggests Lafitte wrote it but not when you claim and based on information he knew or made up to connect people and events which are not actually connected culminating in the 11/22 assassination. It being contemporaneous has no bearing on the potential for Lafitte's fraud. Fair? I say, can the narrative it suggests be proven by other means, by other evidence - or lack there of? I am not past seeing this as a fraud Greg, your post simply makes little sense and offers speculation as conclusion It sure would be nice if you started your Speculative "FACTS" with: "I have not seen any evidence...., or I cannot make the connection between...." for as I show above... evidence you've not seen is without a doubt much more voluminous than that which you have. Same for me Greg and I've probably seen scores more documents re: JFK than you have and in places you've never bothered to look. Finally - stay with one or other subject... are we talking about Lafitte on your Lafitte notebook thread, or the books Hank previously published - There are other sources for documents than "online" - and even those which are online are not necessarily complete... as I once again showed in the document above

How exactly does discovery of documents 50-60-80 years later create a pre-post date for the information found in either man's possession? Consider Skorzeny's papers do not make reference to Lafitte for good reason - Skorzeny, being the great intelligence officer he was, is not the same as Lafitte or White in his note taking and steers clear of implicating key players in his circle. Let's supposed the Lafitte datebook is never found. The activities of Lafitte and others named may never be known since as you say, he is not mentioned in Ganis' book and therefore was probably not in the papers Ganis purchased at auction. @Greg Doudna are you of a mind that Ganis had secured every document the man every generated? That it was not remotely possible papers that sensitive and related to Lafitte were destroyed or are sequestered elsewhere and never seen. One man's public body of work needn't address what you want, simply because you want it. How does that have any bearing on notes written in 1963 and not discovered until the mid-2010's which now do include a connection between the two men at the very least. If both sets of papers are authentic, there is no conflict related to when Skorzeny is "introduced" into the JFK web... Lafitte was recounting the activities contemporaneously. You are aware that the archives has released documents, NEW documents which had not been seen in 60+ years. You are aware there are private collections of documents copied from NARA which do not appear anywhere online? You are aware that Oswald's diary was examined and determined to have been written in only a few sittings, so even in 1963 they were able to tell this was not contemporaneously written, one would think they'd be better at it 60 years later. How can you conclude Skorzeny references were added circa 2010 simply because you and I were not aware of Skorzeny and his role? or that Skorzeny maintains Lafitte's anonymity ? or that Lafitte name Skorzeny among all the other players contemporaneously? Nothing you've offered precludes mention by Lafitte of Skorzeny in 1963 in a notebook which appears to loosely illustrate some of the activities which took place leading up to 11/22. You are aware you can read reams of official JFK documents not mentioning Joannides involvement in the JFK assassination and cannot read one outlining his direct involvement - yet somehow we know based on who, where and when he was that there is a strong indication his fingerprints are all over portions of the assassination and/or the cover-up at the very least. But because the docs had not yet surfaced we have to conclude any NEW docs with Joannides mentioned are frauds? . I must not fully understand your argument then Greg. That's simply not true Greg, so why do you keep repeating it? In 1984 Mae Brussel wrote: you CAN read between the lines, right? In 1952 Otto Skorzeny, who had been released from American custody in 1947, moved to Madrid. He created what is known as the International Fascista. The CIA and the Gehlen BND dispatched him to "trouble spots." On his payroll were former SS agents, French OAS terrorists and secret police from Portugal's PDID. PDID are the same initials as the Los Angeles police intelligence unit, Public Disorder Intelligence Division. The California PDID was exposed on May 24, 1983 as spying on law abiding citizens at an expense of $100,000, utilizing a computerized dossier system bought by the late Representative Larry McDonald's "Western Goals." (McDonald was a national leader of the John Birch Society, which was exceedingly active in Dallas preceding the Kennedy assassination. Western Goals has offices in Germany run by Eugene Wigner that feed data to the Gehlen BND.) On the board of Western Goals are such Cold Warriors as Edward Teller, Admiral Thomas Moorer and Dr. Hans Senholt, once a Luftwaffe pilot. SS Colonel Skorzeny's CIA agents participated in terror campaigns waged by Operation 40 in Guatemala, Brazil and Argentina. Skorzeny was also in charge of the Paladin mercenaries, whose cover, M.C. Inc., was a Madrid export-import firm. Dr. Gerhard Hartmut von Schubert, [formerly] of Joseph Goebbels' propaganda ministry, was M.C. operating manager. The nerve center for Skorzeny's operations was in Albufera, Spain. It was lodged in the same building as the Spanish intelligence agency SCOE under Colonel Eduardo Blanco and was also an office of the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. The Albufera building was the kind of intelligence nest that was duplicated in New Orleans in 1963. That summer Lee Harvey Oswald handed out pro-Castro literature stamped with the address 544 Camp Street, a commercial building. This was a blunder, because Oswald actually was under the control of an anti-Castro operation headquartered there. His controller, W. Guy Banister, was connected with military intelligence, the CIA and a section of the World Anti-Communist League that had been set up by Willoughby and his Far Pacific intelligence unit in Taiwan. In The Great Heroin Coup, Henrik Kruger disclosed that the International Fascist was "not only the first step toward fulfilling the dream of Skorzeny, but also of his close friends in Madrid, exile Jose Lopez Rega, Juan Peron's grey eminence, and prince Justo Valerio Borghese, the Italian fascist money man who had been rescued from execution at the hands of the World War II Italian resistance by future CIA counterintelligence whiz James J. Angleton." A subcommittee on international operations of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee prepared a report "Latin America: Murder, Inc." that is still classified. The title repeated Lyndon Johnson's remark, three months before he died, "We were running a Murder, Inc. in the Caribbean." The report concluded: "The United States had joint operations between Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay. The joint operations were known as Operation Condor. These are special teams used to carry out 'sanctions,' the killing of enemies." Jack Anderson gave a few details in his column "Operation Condor, An Unholy Alliance" August 3, 1979: "Assassination teams are centered in Chile. This international consortium is located in Colonia Dignidad, Chile. Founded by nazis from Hitler's SS, headed by Franz Pfeiffer Richter, Adolf Hitler's 1000-year Reich may not have perished. Children are cut up in front of their parents, suspects are asphyxiated in piles of excrement or rotated to death over barbecue pits." Not that anyone has ever seen... You are aware there are still thousands of unseen documents.. pretty sweeping statement for someone with such a narrow focus. Generalized blanket statements do little for credibility Greg. So what? We have a photo of a mystery man and STILL have no idea who he really is... Why does one spy-asset mentioning Skorzeny, in context, automatically require Skorzeny to expose Lafitte if all he was doing for the assassination was coordination and Skorzeny was not in the habit of writing or mentioning these deep cover assets? Two different men Greg. Universal rules needn't apply, and your speculations should not be presented as "Prima facia" anything: "based on the first impression; accepted as correct until proved otherwise". I've shown here the process of "proving otherwise" to you as others here have, yet you appear to only turn a deaf ear and power forward. Aint gonna learn what you dont wanna know

@Benjamin Cole I'd highly recommend this book for a glimpse into what helped shape events over the past 100 years... It is written by friendlies so we do not see an indictment of their actions but a celebration... they are not placed in the worst of light but the best... FWIW https://www.amazon.com/Wise-Men-Friends-World-They/dp/1476728828 The Wise Men shares the stories of Averell Harriman, the freewheeling diplomat and Roosevelt’s special envoy to Churchill and Stalin; Dean Acheson, the secretary of state who was more responsible for the Truman Doctrine than Truman and for the Marshall Plan than General Marshall; George Kennan, self-cast outsider and intellectual darling of the Washington elite; Robert Lovett, assistant secretary of war, undersecretary of state, and secretary of defense throughout the formative years of the Cold War; John McCloy, one of the nation’s most influential private citizens; and Charles Bohlen, adroit diplomat and ambassador to the Soviet Union. PAX Americana Ben - Nazi's: the enemy of my enemy is my friend. And these were the most brutal and organized "Commie-fighters" on the planet.

As we discuss the horrific assassination of the 35th POTUS your sense of morality is bothered by reference to Oswald as homosexual with the possibility there was much more to this story than Zack Stout replayed to John A. These men were homosexual. These men were seen together at New Orleans bath houses doing what Mailer claims in the first part of his accusation. What, one wonders, would cause this man to drop his rifle butt first to the ground...? Not really the point here Ben... I don't think Mailer is trying to disparage the dead soldier - and one would have thought if this was so egregious to the Schrand family something would have been done about the terrible libel on either the Schrand or the Oswald family... A lot of this was going on - and many lives ruined over such a thing. I'd need to do more research on Schrand... but the context rings true based on what is reported and witnessed later on in Dallas and New Orleans.

What are you getting at here Micah? We see the same kind of obscuring black mark as we see in many, many frames. Below is 323. Notice the darkness of that spot versus the "shadows" or Jackie's hair also in the shade.

Just some context... don't shoot the messenger Uh, not so far fetched. (See reports below) It was well known that Shaw, Ferrie, Ruby, Senator, Russo,... and others in their circle were homosexual as well as involved with young hispanic men. The other Hoover supposedly said, is written within 3 hours of Ruby killing Oswald. 3rd paragraph, 4th sentence. Don't know about the act involved at the time of death... From H&L: On the night of January 5, 1958 Martin E. Schrand (a member of the 6-man squad who was with Lee Oswald at radar school, El Toro, and on the ship to Japan), was guarding two of rows of 80 trucks near the waters edge at Subic Bay. About 8:00 pm the riot gun (Winchester Model 12 shotgun) issued to Schrand for his watch discharged into the left side of his rib cage, underneath his armpit. A guard, patrolling in a boat near the waters edge heard the blast, but saw no activity in the vicinity of the waterfront. LCDR Clark B. Walbridge was the Security Officer on duty that night and ar­rived at the scene within minutes. He immediately called in three vehicle patrols and 10 Marines to seal off the general area and then began a search for an assailant. The search continued throughout the night and ended the following day at dawn with nega­tive results. A subsequent investigation revealed powder burns on the inside of Schrand's left arm and his left rib cage, which indicated the shotgun had discharged when aligned vertically with his body, while the butt of the gun was on or near the ground. Drop tests were conducted on similar shotguns to determine the likelihood of the weapon discharg­ing when the butt of the gun impacted on the ground. The tests revealed that in 9 out of 30 drop tests the weapon would have discharged had it been loaded. Schrand's death, therefore, was ruled "accidental" and thought to have been the result of his loading a live round into the chamber of the weapon and then impacting the butt of the gun on the ground, which caused the weapon to discharge into his left rib cage. Zack Stout was due to relieve Schrand at midnight but was called in early, af­ter the accident occurred. He remembered seeing a piece of candy laying on the ground in the middle of Schrand's coagulated blood, and never forgot his long night on guard duty. A Marine acquaintance of Oswald's, Donald Camarata, told the FBI that he heard "rumors" Oswald had in some way been involved or was responsible for Schrand's death. Stout, who was with Lee Oswald when Schrand was shot told me, "Anyone who claimed Oswald was in some way responsible was crazy.....Oswald and I were far away from Schrand when he was shot." 1 (Author's interview with Jack Stout)

@Peter Sattler @Paul Brancato Yes these are directly out of the book... So you may be one of those discussing the meanings of the notes? Or are you focused only on the relationships? And yes, welcome to the Forum.

The real possibility exists that between Sept 27th and Oct 3rd - when we have no information regarding his whereabouts other than his being in Dallas the evening of the 26th and in Dallas Oct 3rd/4th - the man Ruby killed was in Mexico, by some means other than bus or commercial transportation, and back in Dallas by the 3rd. I am confident about Oswald not having been in Mexico in contact with the Cuban or Russian embassy, or interacting with anyone based on these reports and the fact the FBI hides these reports in plain sight within their index of documents. (see below) The office of Mexican Interior, the Gobernacion where the FBI has the highest placed asset, Hernandez OCHOA also chimes in on Nov 8th with a "No Info"... when we all know finding evidence of Oswald in Mexico would be of huge advantage after 11/22 in cementing his legacy. But that did not happen, and there remains more evidence it was not Oswald at the consulates than there is evidence of him being there. But as you wrote about the datebook evidence, this does not prove little Oswald did not fly in and out to meet with Tom Davis as I'd have to doubt the FBI would be let in on such a meeting. The note says 10:30... am or pm on the 27th ? The real problem about the 27th is that the morning calls were in Spanish and should have been given to Mrs. Tarasoff, not Boris for translation as he was only Russian. In a memo focusing on the transcripts of the 28th and Oct 1st - the CIA gives us this... Only the Russian consulate/embassy was recorded with once again the question of "where does this person get the # for the Soviet Military Attache?" which is used in a subsequent call when "Oswald" first uses it then is asked to call back at the correct #. The report below is not talking about Oswald. And Duran tells us after the morning photo shoot and application, Oswald did not come back. It is the after 4pm transcripts which begin to create the needed associations and are the beginning of a series of faked calls, phony stories and wild accusations. Yet none of this makes his meeting Tom Davis impossible on the 27th. Nor does it conflict with his not being seen in Mexico City by scores of informants and assets as if I have the hotel correctly, it is about 20 miles south of the Cuban Consulate and the Hotel del Comercio. Bottom line - there is no conflict if he is quietly in and out... my concern is the sources are Tom's wife, and June Cobb... now while I can appreciate her dealing with Hank in a "credible" way, all that I know about June Cobb is not reassuring... She remained one of the most staunch supporters of the bogus "rave party" story when there was already bad blood between de PAZ's and the Duran's. A 1965 interview with Sra. de PAZ (RIF 104-10013-10087 provided by Malcolm Blunt and probably not available online) : She believes that the date of the party was about September 2 or 3 , 1963. It was a few days before the visit of the Soviet astronaut, Gagarin. She believes it was a Monday or Tuesday because It was an odd night to have a party. The report goes on to say she names everyone at this party - quite a list - yet only COBB and Tom's wife have said for sure he was in Mexico. That would be my only problem at this point... Hank believing June Cobb, and the very short list of corroborating witnesses to the Davis meet and/or seeing Oswald. But as I say, nothing which makes either set of facts conflicting.

Ben - The very fact we have W. Harvey's handwritten notes on ZR/RIFLE should be enough to counter the idea Spies didn't write incriminating and potentially illegal activities and plans down. And I'm pretty sure we've never encountered anyone like Lafitte or his teams before. Usually a "fraud" like this is designed to lead people away from conspirators, not name more, unless the idea is to bury them in BS so they don't find the real culprits - yet in this case we have more names to investigate while at the same time we see, if this is correct, the entirety of the events from that day forward to the WCR is simply dripping with nothing but diversion and fraud - which we knew - but now we can know who the possible players and activities leading up to the event, being covered up, were. The medical/physical evidence cover-up, perpetrated by the Military/SS/FBI, is the other piece of the puzzle making it forever impossible to ever know what exactly happened. I think it remains in our best interest to assume it is authentic and proceed from there with verification of content... if not authentic we need a reason to feel that way, and so far, I see no reason other than the conflict it creates with others whose work depends on this being determined a fraud. I ask you - what if the events are all real but the book is determined a fraud... how does that change this new batch of leads and conclusions?

Let's ask this Ben... what attributes of the datebook would convince you it was inauthentic given that the physical attributes have been proven to be of the time period? Not trying to prove a negative... just that authentication of the time period, utensils, etc, does not authenticate the "when" of the writing if done not long after 1963... yet as I begin my journey, there is little reason to suspect it being an act of counter-intelligence... One doesn't redirect an investigation by providing more clues, names and dates than has ever come before due to the chances of finding conflicts... so to my point here... Off the top of my head: Statements on dates which create a conflict with known fact - for example, the datebook places Oswald in Mexico meeting a man on the 27th... but that's all. I have proven Oswald was not at the 2 compounds or the hotel but did not exclude the possibility he is flown in and out of Mexico after meeting with ODIO in Dallas. There is an explanation which accounts for both sets of understood facts - and for why we know nothing about Oswald between Sept 28 and Oct 3. Worse yet, the first FBI report which identifies where Oswald went is from KAACK dated Oct 31st. - as if they were completely unaware of the Paines and Irving from the 4th thru the entire month... As if they were not aware of where he gets a job and what he was doing in Dallas when the FBI - due to the CIA BS - puts him in Mexico all week Including newly introduced names just to add credibility - but see #1 - Werbel, McWillie, Walker, Oswald, JJA, Souetre, Willoughby, Davis, Ella R, Tracy Barnes, Joannides, Skorzeny, Martello, Quigley, OSARN, Silverthorne, Jack Ruby, Oswald "caretaker", George DeM, Ilya Skorzeny, Bowen/Osborne, Hudson, Jack C, Filiol (assassin), Tippit, ... Yet many if not most of these are names which are at best, at the fringes of the narrative most of us have been working with for years... yet are all names we know and which make sense in the narrative of the assassination and the shadows of the conspiracy. Another authentication thought remains in the fact LaFitte and White both kept datebooks and notes on other projects.. What concerns me is whether that is in fact true and how do these other pages compare to the year 1963 notes. If LaFitte has a number of these books from over the years, I'd be more inclined to accept the authenticity more readily. From the reading Hank appears to be making that point - only a portion of his "notes" were allowed to be seen from a much larger collection. @Leslie Sharp it is hard enough to get members here to internalize the facts about the rifle for example. The items of evidence are all props and easily proven to be inauthentic yet arguments persist about the details. I doubt many of us have handled any of the evidence we so freely write about... some have. I cannot see how this item of evidence can be 100% authenticated. Yet as raised above Ben, if this is some elaborate hoax designed to steer us away from the JFK conspiracy realities, it begs for item by item verification - if anything it makes us look harder at areas the CIA/FBI/et al have kept under lock and key over 60 years. Joannides is a prime example. Most of us never heard of LaFitte or Liliol. So how about we take some time and address this with logic and the collective knowledge of the members, rather than dismiss it due to our own historical prejudices against the disproving of one's work and/or ideas about the case?

@Steve Thomas I believe you're talk about Mrs. HOLAN...

..

I am in no way in position to provide an answer to this. Again, @Larry Hancock is a much better source. "Nexus: The CIA and Political Assassination" ... and the works/essays of @Bill Simpich - both members here and both exceeding generous with their time and resources. We'd simply not know anywhere near what we do without the great work from these two must read author/researchers. @Peter Dale Scott would be another who helped us understand context on the global stage. I just wish I could read 10x faster than I do.

If you say so... I have read things to that effect - his success there was so overwhelming. Doesn't change where the loyalties lay.. or how the money/supplies were acquired.. or how completely without oversight it was. But I believe there are very good reasons the CIA is filled with the Military/ex-military. We are also aware that the FBI "SIS" initiated Legat system, ONI, MID and all the other intelligence acronyms didn't stop what they were doing... I guess my point is we don't see a lot of CIA "civilians" on loan to the Military.. Dulles was the first Director not actively in the Military at the time, but, please... if he did not come to that position with the apparatus he created while in the military/OSS, what would have been his value to the Military higher ups who placed Military men as the first Directors? I hope we begin to see how the CIA was only a piece of the Military Establishment which took steps for their own independence from them thru the accumulation/redistribution of wealth

EDIT: My emphasis of WN's post The reality was the Military assigned/loaned its officers to the CIA. Edward Geary Lansdale (February 6, 1908 – February 23, 1987)[1] was a United States Air Force officer until retiring in 1963 as a major general before continuing his work with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). We really must remember that in the 50's and 60's young men served. Period. Intelligence young men became officers. I don't know of too many key players of that time who did not spend time in and be the property of the US Military. I'm sure there are exceptions... I've been of the mind for many years now that people at the top of this were all Military with some very interesting revelations being shared here recently

Ok - last post on this in the PROUTY thread... please look up threads that deal with this, there are many of them. So help me Ben, How do Brennan and Euins miss this person: And then below how do these witnesses miss such an obvious part of this rifle? Euins' statements initially included the fact he saw a black man at the window Q: Would you tell us what happened. A (Richard CARR): At the time the parade came down towards -- going to the School Book Depository, Dealey Plaza would have been to my left where I was standing, and at the Fifth Floor of the School Book Depository I noticed a man at the third window, this man was dressed -- he had on a light hat, and I saw this man later going down Houston Street, to the corner of Commerce, and then turned toward town on Commerce, and at that time before this happened I heard a single shot which sounded like a small arms, maybe a pistol, and I immediately, immediately there was a slight pause and immediately after that I heard three rifle shots in succession, they seemed to be fired from an automatic rifle and they came -- BY MR. GARRISON: Q: You can say what you said. A: I thought he was a Secret Agent man or an FBI man. Q: What did the man in the window look like? A: He had on a hat, a felt hat, a light hat, he had on heavy-rimmed glasses, dark, the glasses were heavy-rimmed, and heavy ear pieces on his glasses. Q: Go ahead. A: He had on a tie, he had on a light shirt, a tan sport coat. Mac Wallace: Euins is not very sure what he saw as no rifle was protruding from the window by a foot or more... Mr. SPECTER. How far was it sticking out of the window would you say then, Amos? Mr. EUINS. I would say it was about something like that. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating about 3 feet? (DJ: I get this is an estimate - but enough to have seen a scope) Mr. EUINS. You know--the trigger housing and stock and receiver group out the window. Mr. SPECTER. I can't understand you, Amos. Mr. EUINS. It was enough to get the stock and receiving house and the trigger housing to stick out the window. Mr. SPECTER. The stock and receiving house? Mr. EUINS. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. Now, what direction was the rifle pointing? Mr. EUINS. Down--what did you says Elm? Mr. SPECTER. Elm Street? Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir; down Elm. Mr. SPECTER. Was it pointing in the direction of the President? Mr. EUINS. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Now, could you see anything else on the gun? Mr. EUINS. No, sir; I could not. Mr. SPECTER. For example, could you see whether or not there was a telescopic lens on the gun? Mr. EUINS. No, sir. Brennan is so obviously a plant it's absurd.... Did not see the shots Did not see a scope Impossible to create a Height/Weight description from his angle yet describes Robert Webster to a "T".

From a PROUTY 1989 interview: "People don't understand...." https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/chp2_p2.html#pgfId=7598 So when I say that this team was quite effective, it was very effective, very strong, handled a lot of money, worked all over the world, thousands of people were involved. Once when I was speaking to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (at that time General Lemnitzer) he said, "You know, I've known of two or three units in the Army that were supporting CIA. But you're talking about quite a few. How many were there?" At that time, there were 605. General Lemnitzer had no idea. It's amazing -- here's the top man in the military and he had no idea that we were supporting that many CIA units. Not true military units -- they were phony military units. They were operating with military people but they were controlled entirely and financed by the CIA. Six hundred and five of them. I'm sure that from my day it increased. I know it didn't decrease. People don't understand the size and the nature of this concealed activity that is designed for clandestine operations all over the world. It goes back again to things we've spoken of earlier, that each activity must be under somebody's control. There is no law for the control of covert operations other than at the National Security Council level. If the National Security Council does not sign the directives -- issue the directives -- for covert operations, then nobody does. And that's when it becomes a shambles as we saw in the Contra affair and in other things. But when the National Security Council steps in and directs it and maintains that control, then things are run properly. During the last decade we've seen quite a few aberrations where they were talking about Iran or Latin America or even part of the Vietnam War itself. In fact, it was in the Vietnam War when the situation really began to come apart -- it just outgrew itself and the leadership role disintegrated. We see the results of the worst of it in the Iran-Contra affair.

Says you... not O'Connor. He was there - I don't remember seeing your name as attending that weekend Google is your friend... your approach to me here leaves me no interest in resolving your documentary ignorance Yes we know Cliff... you are the dictionary definition of a 1-trick pony. And again, your lack of familiarity with the Autopsy-related evidence is staggering. Thing is, the BS back to front, rising wound from an elevated spot, only to become a downward traveling bullet thru JC destroys the SBT and the bogus WCR case, which we all have know was BS for decades. Thing is, some of us here enjoy diving deeper - the rabbit hole stuff you stay away from with good reason. We'd like to see more of the tapestry that makes up this terrible historical event... and enjoy a good discussion with peers with intellectual integrity. You find a way to be obtuse with my posts virtually every single time... I finally get it - your lack of familiarity with the documents and your need to have someone else do the work. You've NEVER read O'Connor? Ever hear of Knudsen? Spencer? Fox? edit: btw - this thread has nothing to do with your 1 clear understanding of the event... there are 100's of medical threads for you to re-explain the back wound to all who want to listen

Didn't have to, that rifle was not used that day.

Where do you get this conclusion when there is evidence of multiple bullets recovered and "disappeared". Your of the opinion O'Connor is fabricating? That there was no bullet behind the ear as relayed to the FBI by someone inside the room a round 9pm? I'm at a loss how you can know there was a conspiracy yet can accept these men's word on no additional bullets... we can't realize that is only so much of the same junk as all the other cover-up machinations? You think they put the 3-bullet scenario on hold? And until June 1964 (started in April) when WEST changes the survey at the FBI's instruction (CE585) the scenario was 3 shots 3 hits JFK-JC-JFK.... with a shot down by the steps... that disappears Just like the bullets

I feel ya Paul... Hard being an unrecognized translator of history

Thanks for the civil response W. I don't mind it being pointed out where I'm wrong, but I need a bit more than "cause we say so"... For those who stop short of the next step, McAdams sounds reasonable and logical, doesn't he? I'm glad you took the next step... now whether this too was part of "keeping the narrative going so they don't see the men behind the curtain"... I can only guess. Like the repeated discussions about Oswald's shooting capability. Since he was never in the window all that is, is a smoke screen to keep you busy ala, Salandria's famous quote. Problem is when the minutia becomes a mountain. (Incidentally...), Krulak and especially PROUTY saying it was Lansdale, doesn't make it Lansdale. If it was Lansdale though, does that not give the events a very different and sinister slant, especially to be allowed to walk past uniformed police with rifles? - do you see the tall tramp smiling as he walks by? On the flip side, the top SS men begged off (Every read about FLYOD BORING: Palamara's "Boring is Interesting"?), Kellerman was a replacement (if I remember correctly) who would up being the man taking JFK's body from Parkland over the objections of the FBI and Dr. Rose. And what he did at Bethesda and lied about was criminal. So while PROUTY and his downline are many threads of the tapestry, there are many, many others - on purpose - to make understanding terribly difficult. === I am far from an expert, more like a novice when it comes to how and what the CIA did to cover itself and its assets and programs... I am aware of the broad stroke concepts and have read about some of the implementations. There are outright experts right here, like @Larry Hancock whose works are must reads if you want any kind of clearer understanding of he CIA and it's methods. And I'm sure he can recommend some others To accept Oswald did it - one just needs to agree with the government To learn he didn't requires dedicating one's life and accepting the evil that men do... most don't have the stomach for it

Sorry Denis, my bad... look at how this is listed... just search for BOONE when the page loads... https://jfkinvestigators.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/jfk-investigators-identification-project/ It says CASH is all the way to the right... thanks for catching that.

Cause he/they and everyone has no real idea what's in them - or some form of significant leverage is being asserted by those who do know what may be in those files. In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way. Franklin D. Roosevelt