Shanet Clark

John -

Demopedia is down - here is the cached text on MORALES

David Sanchez Morales

From Demopedia

Categories: Spook | John F. Kennedy assassination

David Sanchez Morales was born on 26th August, 1925. He spent his early life in Phoenix, Arizona. A Mexican-American, Morales was later to be nicknamed El Indio because of his dark skin and Indian features. As a boy his best friend was Ruben Carbajal. After his mother divorced his father he was virtually adopted by Carbajal's parents.

Table of contents

1 CIA

2 David Morales at the Texas School Book Depository

3 John Simkin speculation

4 See also

5 External links

[edit]

CIA

(...) In 1951 became a employee of the Central Intelligence Agency while retaining his army cover. The following year he joined the Directorate of Plans, an organization instructed to conduct covert anti-Communist operations around the world. (...) Morales became involved in CIA's Black Operations. This involved a policy that was later to become known as Executive Action (a plan to remove unfriendly foreign leaders from power). This including a coup d'état that overthrew the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 after he introduced land reforms and nationalized the United Fruit Company. After the removal of Arbenz he joined the staff of the US embassy in Caracas (1955-58). During this time he became known as the CIA's top assassin in Latin America.

Morales moved to Cuba in 1958 and helped to support the government of Fulgencio Batista. Later Morales worked behind the scenes with people like David Atlee Phillips, Tracy Barnes, William Pawley, Johnny Roselli and John Martino in an attempt to overthrow Fidel Castro.

In November, 1961, William Harvey arranged for Morales to be posted to JM/WAVE, the CIA station in Miami. Morales was operations chief for the CIA's covert operation to train and infiltrate teams into Cuba to destabilize the Castro government. Morales reported directly to veteran Agency covert operator Ted Shackley, who was the Agency’s Miami bureau chief. In May, 1962, Morales was seconded to ZR/RIFLE, the plot to assassinate Castro. According to fellow CIA agent, Robert Wall: "He (Morales) was a rough-neck. He was a bully, a hard-drinker and big enough to get away with a lot of stuff other people couldn't get away with.”

Some researchers such as (...) John Simkin believe that Morales was involved in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. (See #John Simkin speculation )

(...)

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmorales.htm

[edit]

David Morales at the Texas School Book Depository

(...) Cuban State security officials speculate that Morales was the "dark complexed man" as seen by several witnesses in the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository. Just after telling friends he was afraid of his "own people", and just before he was scheduled to testify for the House Select Committee of Assassinations, Morales died in 1977 a sudden heart attack under mysterious circumstances.

Under influence of alcohol, he had hinted to close friends that he had been involved in the Kennedy assassination (We took care of that bastard, didn't we?"). Morales was a big muscular man of very dark complexion, nicknamed "el Indio". Several witnesses on Dealey Plaza, most of whom were not called to testify before the Warren Commission, described a man fitting Morales. These witnesses saw such a man in the windows of the sixth floor of the Texas School Book depository shortly before Kennedy's motorcade passed by, as well as minutes after the shooting, fleeing from the back of the building with two other men in a station wagon.

http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush2.htm

[edit]

John Simkin speculation

John Simkin

Vote and speculate on who killed JFK

(pure speculation and can never be proved)

(...) Morales was put in charge of the assassination. He employed people he had been working with in Miami to undermine the government of Cuba. This included figures in the ant-Castro Cuban community. It also involved American military advisers to groups like Alpha 66. The Cubans believed that the reason for this plot was that after the assassination of JFK, LBJ would order the invasion of Cuba. In fact, this was never the objective. It was part of the overall conspiracy to keep Castro in power. The presence of a communist state so close to the United States helped to reinforce the communist threat and the need for massive arms spending.

The Cubans would obviously feel betrayed when they realised Castro would not be toppled. Those Cubans who knew anything about the assassination had to be got rid of. Soon after the assassination most of this group were sent on a mission to kill Castro and create a reason for the United States to invade Cuba. This group was betrayed to the Cuban Secret Service. As a result they were executed in Cuba. A few Cubans remained. Some of these were the victims of hit men (who had no idea why they were killing them).

(...)

In Reply to Wim Dankbaar

(...)

It is definitely true that the CIA worked closely with the Mafia in the various Executive Action programmes (something that JFK tried to stop). The CIA also definitely funded anti-Castro organizations and the FBI worked closely with extreme right-wing political groups. However, I do not believe these organizations were linked together in planning the assassinations. David Morales planned the assassination. He was a CIA agent but this was not a CIA operation. Morales in turn recruited men who had worked for the Mafia (Herminio Diaz Garcia, John Martino) but it was not a Mafia operation. He also employed members of the anti-Castro Cuban community (Antonio Veciana, Eladio del Valle) but it was not a Alpha 66 operation. Although we can speculate, we will never know the name of the organization behind the assassination. Morales was the cut-out. Once he died in 1978 this became impossible to know.

(...)

My information is that James Files might well have been involved in the cover up of the assassination of JFK. We also know that the conspirators successfully implicated his close friend, Charlie Nicoletti, in the assassination. However, I am told that Files was not recruited by David Morales to take part in the actual assassination. That involved Herminio Diaz Garcia (and others I am not allowed to mention). When it come down to it, you will believe your informants, and I will believe mine. However, my informants are not attempting to seek fame and money from their exploits. Nor are they in prison. These are some of the many reasons why I find their information more believable than of others so keen to confess their role in the assassination of JFK.

(...)

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1037

[edit]

See also

* Executive Action

* Fidel Castro

* JFK Assassination

* William Harvey

* Operation 40

* Operation PBSUCCESS

* ZR/RIFLE

[edit]

External links

* http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKmorales.htm

* http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush2.htm

* http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/truthout.htm

* http://www.theconspiracy.us/cati2/0069.html

Retrieved from "http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/index.php/David_Sanchez_Morales"

This page has been accessed 568 times. This page was last modified 20:08, 7 Jul 2005.

Edit this page | Discuss this page | Page history | What links here | Related changes

Main Page | About Demopedia | Recent changes |

This page has been accessed 568 times. This page was last modified 20:08, 7 Jul 2005.

Ive always thought Mexico city Oswald was under 6ft and stocky, not approx 6'6" or 6'7" over 250 pounds...

Agreed.

Ron's little photo shows a good match for the man "Hemmings" .......

Both the photos above look more like Hemmings than they do the Orr image ........

Flooding the board with uninstructive and

off topic volume content is not effective.

Attacking the straw man, making false comparisons

and unnecessarily technical obfuscations are all

easily seen through by those of us who have

critical analytical thinking skills ........

"Miller" misses the point again!

I am not talking about FILM DUPING.

I am suggesting that a NEW CAMERA ORIGINAL

WAS CREATED in a B&H camera using standard

copystand techniques. That is how I think it may

have been done. Using the single frame feature

of the camera and KODACHROME DAYLIGHT FILM

WITH FILTERED LIGHT SOURCE converting tungsten

to daylight temperature. I have shot thousands of

slides this way. The results are superior, and my

slides are IN-CAMERA ORIGINALS. As was suggested

FILTERING THE LIGHT SOURCE IS VERY HOT, but

not a problem, really, with heat resistant glass.

My filters were even available to amateurs back then.

They came with some movie lights called SUN GUNS.

Without filter, the lights were used with indoor film;

with filter over the light, outdoor film could be used.

I liked the results, because the blue tint to the

resulting light made for RICHER COLORS than

artificial light or sunlight.

Remember, the Healy/Costella/White position is that

the FILM IS AN ANIMATION based on another film...

not some kind of duplication. If you don't know this,

you have not read TGZFH and are wasting our time.

A B&H camera is capable of producing an in-camera

original ANIMATION Kodachrome.

unquote: JACK WHITE

Flooding the board with uninstructive and

off topic volume content is not effective.

Attacking the straw man, making false comparisons

and unnecessarily technical obfuscations are all

easily seen through by those of us who have

critical analytical thinking skills ........

Cheers, Bravo ..........

We all have been educated by Blair Dobson -

thank you so much.

Blair -

Three questions

1. What is the deal with the stock numbers that appear and reappear on the left hand side of Zap-Film?

2. What is the deal with the "Half Tree" image?

3. What about the argument that Z frames do not correlate with what would actually appear if

Zapruder had turned his camera on and off as the limo passed in front of TBSD?

Apparently if he had turned the camera on and off, the relevant frames would appear different than Z ???

REFERENCE COSTELLA FRAME 133 and 132 for jump -- is this natural??

http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/

Thanks Robin

With this higher resolution photo, we see the two small lines beyond the wall.

One is nineteen bricks high, about elbow height, and the upper (slanting) one is

twenty five bricks high, about shoulder level.

There is no "roofline" as the shed angles back away from the sidewalk behind the building,

although we can see a small fence, with a crossbar, which is visible in the

photo of the tarp shed................

The perspective lowers the suspected "shed roof" to about four feet high..........

(still wondering why the super high contrast version is so widespread)

good look at the glasses (or shadow of glasses) on the "Lansdale" character.

The hateful crowd is attacking a straw version of our very simple case.

Of course a 35 mm version of 70 mm loses detail - relative to the original 70 -

but not relative to other 35 mm's, it looks like a normal 35mm because of the strength of the 70 master.

The eight mm Z film carries less detail than the thirty five,

but not less than a typical eight home movie.

So much of this is distorted by the angry crowd,

we never even said much of what is "refuted....."

The hateful, abusive language doesn't help their case either.

Interesting stuff about the best way to do it, Dobson ...

In consideration of f.stop, exposure, light intensity and focal distance during film animation....

quote:

"""Actually Craig, Shanet is correct that this process COULD have been used, I am not saying it was done.

In the old days of rotoscoping, which goes back into the days of Disney cartoons, this process was widely used to incorporate live action with animation in what is called multi plane optical printing.

That way, Dick Van Douche can dance with the animated Penguins..

Ray Harryhausen and willis o'brien used a very similar process to animate dinosaurs.

Apples to oranges in some sense, but not in principle.

In fact, if i were to humour the "alteration of the zfilm" theory, thats exactly how it would, could and should be pulled off in that era, as the technology was there 20 years before JFK got whacked.

I'll give you an abstract:

all of the background plates for 'star wars' were shot on 70mm film so that when they were bipacked back down to 35mm for theatres and release, there was no generation loss.

because the original 70 mm is oversaturated with grain, the 35mm would interpolate it into its own lesser grain, making it appear that the 35mm was in fact "an original".

the same could very well be said for the zap film being blown up, manipulated and re-photographed.

again, i don't know if they did that or not and my feelings on the film being faked are still in the "thinking about it stage."

but i will say this:

in regards to your attacking Shanet's post , from a technical standpoint, there is nothing erroneous about the post . it would be entirely possible to do that. """

unquote

((((((((((( "igornance!" ))))))))))))

quote name='Craig Lamson'

silly and uninformed ... fool ...

wallow in igonrance

Read aloud for maximum comic effect .......

[

quote name='Craig Lamson'

silly and uninformed ... fool ...

wallow in igonrance

quote name='Craig Lamson'

silly and uninformed ... fool ...

wallow in igonrance

I am with you Jack.

Say the assassination was filmed with large 35 mm film.

Then these frames were enlarged to 4" x 6" stills.

The stills were carefully airbrushed,

changing the location of the wound from the back of the head to the temple.

Frames were removed to "speed up" the halting limousine, hide facial features of ambush team, etc.

If these color stills were then re-filmed individually by an 8 mm camera, the grain would be "lifelike" 8 mm.

Of course the public has never seen the first generation developed film, or looked at the grain.

So the Zapruder film as publicly available could easily be a re-filming of a higher resolution product.

No one would be able to tell the difference, since the 8 mm film would be a condensed "lifelike" fake.

No evidence contrary to this simple outline has ever been submitted.

BIG FILM > BIG COLOR STILLS > TINY FILM = Zapruder "home movie"

LCPL Chad Codwell, from Baltimore, Maryland,

with Charlie Company 1st Battalion 5th Marines,

carries an experimental urban combat skateboard

which is being used for maneuvering inside buildings

in order to detect tripwires and sniper fire.

This mission is in direct support of Urban Warrior '99.

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_you_can_run.html

May 17, 2006

U.S. Opens Assault on Wiretap Suit

By Bob Egelko

San Francisco Chronicle

The Bush administration has launched a multi-pronged attack on a lawsuit that accuses AT&T of collaborating with the U.S. government in illegal electronic surveillance, arguing that customers can't prove their phones were tapped or that the company or the government broke the law -- and that, in any event, the entire case endangers national security.

Those assertions in a move for dismissal were based on arguments and evidence that the government submitted to a federal judge under seal, keeping them secret from the public and from the privacy-rights group that filed the suit on behalf of AT&T customers.

The sealed documents and a heavily edited public version were submitted in federal court in San Francisco early Saturday along with declarations from John Negroponte, the director of national intelligence, and Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander, director of the National Security Agency. Both officials attest to the need for secrecy as a reason to keep the lawsuit, filed by the Electronic Frontier Foundation, from going forward.

"Any attempt to proceed in this case will substantially risk disclosure of ... privileged information and will cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security of the United States," Alexander said in a public filing accompanying his sealed statement.

The foundation filed suit in January accusing AT&T of illegally giving the NSA access to its voice and data network and its customer databases to help the agency's surveillance program.

The suit was accompanied by documents obtained by a former AT&T technician describing equipment installed in the company's San Francisco office that allegedly would enable the federal agency to sweep up huge amounts of data that it could screen for targeted information. AT&T plans to ask a federal judge Wednesday, May 17, 2006 to declare the documents, which have been sealed, to be trade secrets and order them returned.

The former employee, Mark Klein, handled problems on Internet fiber optic circuits and said in a statement that the equipment was being attached to the circuits in San Francisco and other AT&T offices. The equipment allowed the National Security Agency to conduct "vacuum-cleaner surveillance of all the data crossing the Internet," he said.

His lawyers said in a court filing that the government had never classified as a secret anything that Klein saw.

In Saturday's filing, government lawyers wrote that "the lawfulness of the alleged activities cannot be determined without a full factual record, and that record cannot be made without seriously compromising U.S. national security interests."

Without evidence of how the program operated and whom it targeted -- evidence that the Justice Department argued can't be made public -- the plaintiffs have no chance of proving the essential elements of their case, the government said.

Those elements are:

-- That President Bush exceeded his legal authority by authorizing wiretaps and e-mail interception without a warrant;

-- That innocent Americans not in contact with al Qaeda or affiliated groups had their calls or messages intercepted;

-- That AT&T participated in the program;

-- And that any participation by AT&T lacked authorization from the government. The Justice Department endorsed AT&T's argument that the plaintiffs must prove that the company failed to obtain written approval from top federal officials.

The administration asked Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to hear its dismissal motion June 21, the day Walker is scheduled to consider the Electronic Frontier Foundation's request for an injunction that would prohibit AT&T from any further cooperation in the surveillance program. Bush acknowledged in December that he had authorized the National Security Agency to intercept phone calls and e-mails between U.S. residents and terror suspects abroad without the court approval required by a 1978 federal law.

The alleged role of telecommunications companies gained new prominence last week when USA Today reported that the National Security Agency had paid AT&T, Verizon and Bell South for the telephone records of tens of millions of Americans. The government's goal reportedly was to find calling patterns that could indicate communications with terrorists. (BellSouth later said a "thorough review" had found no indication that it had given such records to the NSA.)

The government's dismissal motion in the San Francisco case against AT&T relies on the "state secrets" privilege that the Supreme Court recognized in a 1953 ruling allowing the government to keep military secrets out of court. Lower courts, including the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, have ruled that a lawsuit must be dismissed if it can't be litigated without the risk of exposing military secrets.

A court's consideration of the Electronic Frontier Foundation suit "would require confirmation or denial of the existence, scope and potential targets of alleged intelligence activities, as well as AT&T's alleged involvement," information that cannot be revealed "without causing exceptionally grave danger to the national security," government lawyers said.

Their brief repeatedly referred to arguments that were filed under seal, along with the sealed declarations of Negroponte and Alexander.

Kevin Bankston, a lawyer with the foundation, said Monday that it would be difficult for its attorneys to contest government arguments they hadn't been allowed to see. But he said the factual claims in the lawsuit have already been widely reported in the press, and to some extent conceded by the government, without harming national security.

"We're seeking to protect national security by protecting millions of Americans from a government that is colluding with telecommunications companies in spying on their phone and Internet communications," Bankston said.

He also said the plaintiffs were not arguing that the government had monitored particular calls or messages, only that their phone and Internet records had been turned over to the government illegally, without a warrant or suspicion of wrongdoing. That should be enough to allow them to sue, Bankston said, unless AT&T produces evidence of valid authorization by the government.

The plaintiffs are four AT&T customers. The Electronic Frontier Foundation is proposing that the case become a class action on behalf of all affected customers.

Ann Beeson, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, said she anticipates a similar government dismissal motion Friday in the ACLU's suit on behalf of private citizens who say they have reason to believe their calls and messages have been or will be monitored. That suit, filed in a Michigan federal court, seeks to halt the federal surveillance program.

"There are no secrets here," Beeson said. "All the facts that are needed to decide the case are known and conceded: that the government wiretapped without a warrant and that it did so on U.S. soil."

Distributed by Scripps Howard News Service, http://www.shns.com.

Hello everyone,

I'm looking for a bit of help from members living in or around the Washington area. I'm going to Washington this summer and I am in the process of looking for some moderately priced accommodation that will allow me relatively easy access to capitol hill (near metro or bus line).

My qustion is, do any members know of any good letting agencies or have any ties to universitys which may have available accommodation or do you know anybody who is letting a house in D.C., Virginia or Maryland near enough to D.C.?

If you can be of any assisstance I would be most grateful as I am finding it quite hard to get adequate accommodation that is not too far away from the city centre.

You can email me at wereallgointaheavenlads@hotmail.com or leave a message on this thread.

Also, if anybody from Washington wishes to meet up I would love to have a cup of coffee or a spot of lunch.

Thanks for your time,

All the best,

John Geraghty

John

Try George Washington, American University and Georgetown.

Tell them you are a student doing research and they may let you stay in the dorms,

especially during summer/off season ........ also check the Episcopal National cathedral

these institutions often let people stay for much less than motel rates .......

COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL BIG BROTHER / NSA NEWS:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/cat_you_can_run.html

From the 1964 recreation.

David...I am glad you mentioned the WIDE TURN. It reminded of this.

Maybe "Miller" can explain what Zapruder frame the FBI used for

their "reconstruction" CE 886. It was the first in a series of exhibits

MATCHING ZAPRUDER FRAMES.

Jack

Jack and DGH:

If the films omit the wide turn, what does that suggest?

In other words, what is the significance of the missing film and / or wide turn?

Very persuasive post.

The truck, the toolshed, the bunker "windows" and the

witnesses immediate physical responses all add up to a new "grassy knoll"

This is a bit of a breakthru my friend

>>> >>> >>>

(ps - my PC doesn't take .art files)

Anybody see this program concerning the CIA codenamed coup plan AMWORLD ??

It aired May 11, 2006 on the Discovery Channel.

related site:

http://ultimatesacrificethebook.com/documentation

John,

Since before the days of seminal German historian Von Ranke, historians have been conservative in their approach. They are overly dependent on state archives. "Safe, safer, safest" is the name of the game. The way Ph.D. journals are structured, peer review by other conservative historians means that common sense and strong suspicion fall far behind any approved corporate or governmental records. When one is immersed in the institution for years, reined in by timid colleagues and dependent on the good will of government archivists and tenured establishment figures, the history as recieved is incomplete and often misleading. Mark Knight had an excellent point, that journalists interview PEOPLE but historians mainly interrogate documents. If these documents are censored, classified or incomplete, then the written history must be incomplete, timid and misleading. The historians also have tunnel vision and are over specialized, while journalists have wide ranging real world experiences.

The IVORY TOWER is a place where reality is filtered only through state supplied documents and despite the liberal or even radical political beliefs of the historians, their product only reflects the State's version, the documents which survive and are replicated under force of law - and they are usually damn dull - I know, I go to their conventions and shake things up with comments about Richard Russell and Lyndon Johnson, Allen Dulles and Reinhard Gehlen and refer to witnesses that do not rise to the level of "History" with a capital H. Luckily, this is now changing with the Internet and efforts like this Education Forum .....

What gives with this antagonism?

You're the one who was shouting, I was just shouting back.

My reply to Trent (Post #25) is the last I have to say on the matter.

The shed appears temporary, it angles away from the sidewalk and it is

not seen in the Tramp photo.

......the last I have to say on the matter as well.

The tiny line at shoulder height can only be the outer fence - not the shed.

The shed is not visible in the tramps' photo because

the shed/screen angles back away from the street.

Both of these two facts are obvious elements of the two photos

...... your PERSPECTIVE is way off and you can't be expected to be

taken seriously on more substantive viewings ...........

Well, Shanet ... ask Gary Mack .... you just keep living in your world of delusion.... I cannot make you smart enough ... nonsense ... border line lunacy IMO.

Bill

FOUL !

The tiny line at shoulder height can only be the outer fence - not the shed.

The shed is not visible in the tramps' photo because

the shed/screen angles back away from the street.

Both of these two facts are obvious elements of the two photos

...... your PERSPECTIVE is way off and you can't be expected to be

taken seriously on more substantive viewings ...........

Great stuff, Lee.

I'm assuming Osborne has not gone on to name his informant in the intervening 12 years since his testimony, but his comment about "intelligence techniques" which are not known to the general public is significant, IMO. If there was a communications group (unknowingly)videotaping the assassination, there must be a chance that the tape(s) will show up one day. Sorting out shooters/spotters/bystanders/light reflections etc, from the available film and photographic record is barely possible. There's more I think.

FWIW, I speculate the triangulation was from the Daltex building, the peristyle bordering Elm and the stockade fence behing the knoll, with the shot from the 6th floor of the TSBD as a diversion or signal.

I hope you get some followup from your post.

Good Stuff, Lee.

I tend to theorize a true triangulation.

A team in the Dal-Tex, a team at the knoll's fence and a team on the south Pergola.

The recording and lenses are seen on the fire escape of the Dal Tex and in the TSBD.

Other observers were at the corner of Elm and Main and on the Triple Overpass.

So if the shed slants off at an angle from the building, that explains why it's not visible in the tramp photo. Then what was the point of starting this thread about a "mystery"?

The shed is visible in the tramp photo if one knows what to look for.

Bill Miller

Lets look again.

There is a shoulder high fence that extends straight back from the building,

this is visible in both photos.

The temporary screen angles back away from the low fence and is not visible in the Tramp Photo...

and it appears to be strung on temporary rods .........