David Josephs

19 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DJ-

The odious paragraph in Mailer's book, and re-excreted the NYT book review, regarding the death of a Marine in the Philippines, who was on the same base as LHO---the lone connection between the two men---is contemptible at best. 

 

 

 

 

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.

2 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

https://castbox.fm/episode/MWN-Episode-107-–-Douglas-Horne-on-the-Zapruder-Film-Alteration-Debate-id1824370-id118549103

See here - Doug Horne on podcast in 2019

 

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.

On 7/25/2023 at 4:04 AM, Benjamin Cole said:

I apologize to readers for this, a portion of the 1995 NYT Review. 

Of the never-quite-explained death of one of Oswald's fellow marines in the Philippines, who died of a gunshot wound entering beneath the arm and exiting through the neck, Mailer writes that it is "an undeclared possibility" that he was murdered by a man performing fellatio! And it is "not inconceivable" that that man was Oswald! For this there is no trace of a wisp of a shred of evidence. But if it were true, imagine what an effect it would have had on him! In Mailer this sort of extravagance is a sign of irrepressible high spirits.

Was Mailer mentally ill? And the NYT reviewer also? And the editors at the NYT? The full 1995 review of the book is hardly any better. 

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. 

7 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

I won't try to force a round peg in a square hole, but since I've not studied your research pls don't be offended if I reserve judgement.

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.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

DJ-

I am not an expert on authenticating documents. I know something about art fraud, and people can be extremely clever at frauds (and better artists than the originals, haha). I am not either and am well aware the frauds can be extremely convincing (The postal Money Order comes to mind)...  but there is usually a reason for the fraud to be created in the first place.  And we are back to my 1st point - conflicts in the content that are not ambiguous. 

 

1. Of course, the document itself must be made readily available for review by independent, objective authenticators. Without that, we are trafficking in deep into bogus-land.   You mean like at the Archives? where you can no longer physically touch any evidence but only look at photos.  And again, the authenticity of the physical aspects of the datebook will not allow us to know when/where the item was written.

2. After that, ascertaining the first date in which it is confirmed the document was seen by someone who is, beyond question, not a part of a possible fraud. For example, "in 2012, we know the document surfaced and has not been altered since." 

If the document has not been properly sequestered, it could be updated to reflect new information.  Very tricky. A few blank spaces on pages, left to allow addition of new material? Another impossible to prove potential statement about the contents of the datebook and who may have come in contact with it.

3. Then look for JFKA information added to the public record after 2012. If none of these additional bits of evidence show up in the datebook document, then that weighs in favor of fraud. I've look at these notes and once again, there'd be no way to ascertain when/if the datebook existed in a different form than we see now.  You make the assumption we can have some sort of baseline for the book.

Side note: One of the key tenets of spy-craft is not to keep written records. You can be sure there are no written plans of the JFKA at the CIA. Never were. 

The idea of a spy-merc keeping careful written records, that if found could prove his guilt or  endanger comrades, is...well, not what anyone would expect.   I doubt we can consider the notes in the book a "carefully written record" at all when in fact they are short strings of words/names/places on key dates.  It is my understanding Lafitte kept many of these datebooks/notebooks at least according to his widow.

E Howard Hunt was mercilessly ridiculed for leaving his address-phone book at the Howard Johnson room where he camped out, re the Watergate burglary. When found, it helped crack open the story--in fact it was such a stupid blunder some think Hunt left  book on purpose, as part of a CIA plot to depose Nixon. Red wig and all. 

You are a guy who know documentary details. You can probably determine if the datebook appears to be an artifact written with public info to date of 2012 or so.   I'd like to think I could... and so far nothing other than Oswald's meeting in MX on the 27th, is a conflict to information I am aware of...  but my awareness is not as great as many others.

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?

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I do think the PL notebook should be authenticated

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... 

..

5 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

I had the impression that our U.S. Vietnam ops from 1954 to 1964 were largely being run by the CIA.

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.

9 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

     But, David, didn't Allen Dulles deploy Ed Lansdale to Vietnam, to run Saigon Station, after Lansdale's remarkable success with the Magsaysay regime in the Philippines?

     Nominally, Lansdale was a USAF man, but he was running the CIA's Saigon Station, wasn't he?

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

9 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

And Prouty believed KNEW that there were people reporting to Dulles and secretly working for the CIA in a wide array of government agencies.  USAF General Ed Lansdale is a well known example.

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

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Thus, I do not preclude LHO firing a rifle that day, although I suspect only one shot. And I suspect he fired to miss, possibly the Tague shot.

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.

35 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

There was no bullet recovered from either the back or throat wounds.

Says you...  not O'Connor.  He was there - I don't remember seeing your name as attending that weekend

35 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Where did he say a bullet was recovered from the back or throat?

Google is your friend...  your approach to me here leaves me no interest in resolving your documentary ignorance

35 minutes ago, Cliff Varnell said:

I’ll leave the head wound(s) rabbit holes to others

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

4 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I was writing facetiously. 

No one could work the mechanism quickly enough. 

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

11 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Two soft tissue entrance wounds, no exits, no bullets recovered.

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

2 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:

No one else read anything, not even the trading cards I worked so hard on.

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

1 hour ago, W. Niederhut said:

David,

     I think Barbara Honnegger was an erstwhile 9/11 Truther and PNAC critic before she vanished from the national radar.

     As for my experience of the "smear campaign" against Prouty, I have written about the subject on a few older threads around here.  I first noticed the bizarre negative PR about Prouty on the internet several years ago-- after re-watching Donald Sutherland in Oliver Stone's film, JFK, then reading Prouty's book on JFK, the CIA, and Vietnam.

    The defamatory material on the internet -- by a guy named John McAdams--seemed to bear no resemblance to Mr. X, or to my perceptions of Prouty's character and work from reading his book(s) and listening to his commentaries.  (I read The Secret Team after the JFK book.)

     At the time, I didn't know anything about McAdams.edu, but the more I delved into the topic of the JFK assassination, the more I realized that this guy, McAdams, was some sort of government propagandist hell-bent on defaming and discrediting Prouty's revelations about Ed Lansdale, the CIA, Vietnam, and the JFK assassination.

    (Incidentally, how would you answer Prouty's old question to his colleague, General Victor Krulak-- "What was Lansdale doing in Dealey Plaza?")

    As for "layers of the onion" and false intelligence narratives, I'll take your advice and try to learn more about these military/intelligence complex ops you guys are describing.  But I still wonder why Prouty would have opened his mouth to Jim Garrison in the first place if he was, in fact, trying to conceal a mysterious, non-CIA military intelligence op.  Wouldn't it have made more sense for him to say nothing?

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

1 hour ago, Denis Morissette said:

Al Maddox had the uniform worn by the deputy sheriff working at the County Jail. 
 

The man smiling is not Ben Cash, but Eugene Boone.

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. 

9 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

The Dictator-Puppet-in-Chief, through his illegal but indisputable snuff job on the JFK Records Act, is helping to cover up a Nazified-CIA JFKA? Really? Why? 

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

38 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Huh, David?

I'm not sure where your erroneous concepts about my analytic abilities and knowledge of history are coming from.

I majored in American Studies at Brown, like young JFK, Jr., before going to medical school in Boston.

As for this forum, I'm a latecomer to the JFK research, but I have followed the discussions on this forum fairly closely during the past few years-- and also studied the archives here.

I have always respected your analyses, but, honestly, I don't think Fletcher Prouty had a nefarious bone in his body.  (And I'm a reasonably good judge of character-- a professional even.)

Would you, at least, agree that Prouty has been targeted by a CIA smear campaign since 1992?

And I respect what you are saying about the man, "you don't think..." obviously comes from your time studying the man and his work.  In this discussion we are focused on the activities you may or may not have been aware of prior to @Robert Montenegro post.

Help me out as you sound as if you are in the know - list some of the "smear campaign" components as you understand them... what they attacked and the negative outcomes heaped upon PROUTY.  If you cannot fathom a man in that position having more than one agenda, I'd have to say as a Dr you might be better off discussing the medical evidence and dig a bit more into the manner in which intelligence agencies create narratives, with supporting casts, to either support or "smear" information they either do not like, or have put in place themselves as part of a bigger situation.

It is comprehendible to you that intel agencies would create layers to cover their actual intentions and actions, yes?

And in this case some of those layers may have had to do with turning your attention to narratives about Cubans, Castro, Mexico, NSAMs or whatever else that had little to do with the actual plans and personnel involved.

Now as the CIA, you attack poor COL PROUTY.  What does that do to the credibility of his false, onion-layer narratives but only give them more value.. If the CIA is attacking, something must be up.. right?  He must have hit a nerve. 

He must be right.  And this process has been used time and time again with the vast resources of the CIA to plant stories, publish books, own businesses, ... to but it bluntly,: to influence the hearts and minds of people like you and I to believe what they want us to believe. 

An no, I'm not some paranoid sitting in a dark cellar spouting conspiracy junk... I'm a Conspiracy Realist who understands that human beings will do anything and everything to remain either wealthy and/or in Power.  

Then again, I am just one man with a POV from 20+ years of reading and digging much deeper than I see you are willing to go.  I have nothing whatsoever against PROUTY and don't think he was as involved as Robert makes him out to be because I don't have an agenda to push or a book to sell.

@Paul Brancato was right in one of the most eloquent posts ever.  If we can't be open to discussion to find common ground, what's the point?

“We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.” William Casey, CIA Director

I've researched this quote and 

This is pretty amazing. The #1 answer here used to be from Barbara Honnegger, who was part of the Reagan Administration and claimed to be in that meeting, confirming that Casey said it.

Now her answer is gone and the #1 answer is an overlong, rambling, extremely self-indulgent treatise from an “ex”-CIA guy that lukewarm endorses the concept being part of CIA perspective but does zero to confirm he said it.

This is followed by a bunch of bad takes, particularly people citing the quote to Mae Brussell, which I never heard before now.

This is clearly a disinformation campaign by intelligence, following their usual pattern of censorship followed by new misinformation.

I wonder what happened to Ms. Honnegger.

37 minutes ago, Keyvan Shahrdar said:

Hope this helps: WCD2312 search

There is a CE2312... the first file I clicked had 2 references to CE2312...

The Ryder Coffee house has no ref to any 2312 in the pdf...  not very reassuring

49 minutes ago, Leslie Sharp said:

it certainly morphed into a successful diversion for this community for decades. . .

@Robert Montenegro

Thomas Lamont’s rise in influence within the bank followed the chairmanship of World War I head of the American Red Cross, Henry Pomeroy Davison, (17) whose banking career had begun in the Astor Bank, and who reared his sons (F. Trubee Davison and H.P., Jr.) at Locust Valley, Long Island, New York, near the estate of Robert S. Lovett. Lamont's "left-leaning tendencies" caused concern among members of the more conservative faction, who detested the role Leffingwell and Lamont had played in advising FDR to take the dollar off the gold standard. In response to removal of the gold backing on the dollar, Roosevelt’s own budget director, Lewis W. Douglas (who was brother-in-law of Rockefellers' attorney John J. McCloy), predicted the end of Western Civilization, while Montagu Norman of the Bank of England (also a Brown Brothers partner) feared the entire world would plunge into bankruptcy. (18)

FWIW... massively detrimental effects from a POTUS action, expected...   

Dead horse beating over... returning to our  regularly scheduled programming