Jump to content
The Education Forum

Tim Gratz

Members
  • Posts

    6,572
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tim Gratz

  1. First, I apologize that I offended you. I think, however, the record is clear that you first went personally negative by calling me evasive, etc, when I had told you in private e-mail that I needed time to research and formulate a reply to a few of your questions. But let's "bury the hatchet" and be good debating buddies, huh?. I've said several times I appreciate your intelligence and contributions here; and it is by debate that the truth often emerges. Now, with respect to your remark above, let me quote the exact language from your post that initiated my question to you: "Clare Booth Luce was directly funding at least some of the No Name Key participants, to supplement Kennedy's termination in the post-Missile Crisis." Now, if it is simply your point that the funding was going to invidual members of the Interpen group rather than to the group as such, I simply repeat my question to you: what information do you have that there was ever government funding of any of the Interpen members; and what information do you have that Clare Booth Luce ever funded any of the Interpen group members? The only reason why I raised the question is because I do not recall ever reading any information to that effect and from what Gordon Winslow tells me that is not how Interpen worked (and he has conversed with many Interpen members). I don't really think this question is of such importance for either of us to get all worked up about, and I apologize for appearing a pedant by that one remark.
  2. Aren't these Mexico City tapes with Kostikov the same ones that supposedly had the "Mexico City Oswald" on them and were subsequently destroyed? There is no question that the Cubela (AM/LASH) affair was provocative, much like the attack against the Russian freighter that year, against all of Kennedy's intentions and concerns. There was clearly an effort underway to undermine the movement toward peaceful relations and normalization of relations with Cuba. How would that reveal a Soviet interest in the assassination of the President? Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim: 1) Yes (presumably) it was the same CIA tape recording system that recorded the "Oswald" calls where, the CIA stated, the tapes were normally re-used after a period of time. That does not necessarily mean, however, that there are no paper records of the calls (transcripts or memos). My point is someone must have been the source for the Trento and Thomas statements, and it is frustrating that more info is not given. Was Cubela telling Kostikov of his contacts with the CIA? Or just telling him about the fancy Paris cafe where he had lunch? 2) Again, I'd encourage you (and everyone else) to read Trento's book (only a few chapters deal with the assassination and the rest of the book has some pretty interesting info re CIA operations). But as I understand the book, it was a "hard-line" KGB faction that did not like the "warming" relationship between Kennedy and Khruschev. Here's another quote: "Each week Kennedy and Khruschevv moved closer to the first significant agreements since the advent of the Cold War [including establishing the "hotline"]. Khruschev had concluded that the Cold War was bankrupting the Soviet Union and that the country could not survive without an end to the arms race." (Page 255.) Events of history, of course, proved Khruschev right. The book goes on to state that Brezhnev and others thought that Khruschev's reforms threatened the very existence of the Soviet Union. That is why, according to the book, this faction schemed to remove both Kennedy and Khruschev from power.
  3. In a previous post, I raised a bit of controversy be mentioning the proposition advanced by Joseph Trento in his book The Secret History of the CIA that a faction of the KGB, loyal to Leonid Brezhnev, “sponsored” the assassination of JFK by Cuban intelligence. I did not have access to the book (I’d lent it to someone) but now I do. (Trento says the same KGB faction behind the Kennedy assassination orchestrated, in 1964, the ouster of Nikita Khruschev.) I’d like to start a discussion of some of the things that Trento says. I only have time for one item now. At the outset, I want to point out that Mr. Hancock references Trento’s book more than once in the 2004 supplement to Someone Would Have Talked, so Mr. Hancock must have some confidence in Trento’s investigative skills. In any event, one thing that Trento says is that “CIA and Army [intelligence] phone intercepts were recording the fact that Pavel Yotskov and Valery Kostikov, KGB officers in Mexico City were also in contact with Cubela (in the fall of 1963 while Cubela was meeting with the CIA in Paris).” Presumably, Trento did not manufacture this out of whole cloth. What was the substance of the conversations? Are there any released CIA documents on these phone calls? What about Trento’s mention of Army intelligence recordation of Mexico City phone calls? Does anyone know what Mr. Yotskov did for the KGB? Trento is not the only author who mentions the Cubela/Kostikov contacts, by the way. In The Very Best Men, veteran Newsweek Editor Evan Thomas also states that Cubela was in contact with Kostikov. A Cubela/KGB contact is not dispositive of anything, of course (unless the tape contains a “smoking gun”) but the contact is certainly troubling.
  4. Tim Gratz: I don't give Josiah the benefit of the doubt that he "presumably knows whereof he speaks" because he "was there, working for Life." On the basis of employment by Henry Luce?? You have really got to be kidding with that. On that basis, I should presume that Billings did nothing to derail Garrison. I agree that Six Seconds In Dallas was an excellent "early" criticism of the WC, and strongly influenced me then. But since the Sixties, his interest has popped in and out like the weather. His accounting of the highly leading Sitzman interview to me earlier this year was: "I wish I could help you but I recall very little about all this." [e-mail dated January 26, 2004] First, you ask what information I "have that the No Name group was getting any government funding at any time," when an accurate reading of this thread clearly shows that I said the opposite: I noted "Kennedy's termination of funding in the post-Missile Crisis period," including to "some of the No Name Key participants." Did you really miss that Tim? Second, since you invoke the Josiah Thompson standard, I believe you know enough about Clare Boothe Luce's funding that your question is more intended to draw out my sources than to acquire knowledge. Why don't you go first, Tim, and share what you know about Clare Boothe Luce's funding of the exiles, including her late night phone call on November 22, 1963? Are you denying an awareness of such funding? Are you intending to imply that there was none? My remark was, "Clare Boothe Luce was directly funding at least some of the No Name Key participants." For now I will name Gerry Hemming and Eddie Bayo, particularly. Is there a misquoted word or lack of specificity there? Why would I provide a source in the context you present? Lastly, I will note that we had extensive e-mail contact until I finally terminated it by asking you why this was being done in private rather than on the forum. I suggest that you try answering at least a few of the many questions I asked you, before making a show of demanding answers or sources from me. I have been quite specific, which you have not. I do have a source for naming Gerry Hemming and Eddie Bayo, but what's the point in providing it to you? You've routinely ducked my questions. Would you like to at least acknowledge that I had to force the issue of your evasiveness? Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I hope that makes things more clear for you. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, in response to your Posts 11 and 15 on this thread:. First, you question Josiah Thompson’s statement that Life was trying to solve the JFK assassination because it was owned by Henry Luce, who you seem to think was a knee jerk right wing ideologist. I respectfully submit the facts do not support this interpretation of Luce. First, Life was the first major media publication to question the Warren Commission report, and that issue received more readership than the books of the early WC critics. That fact speaks for itself. You posted a response to Nathaniel Weyl’s online seminar. Did you read Mr. Weyl's comments? In the seminar, Weyl states that he discovered in early 1960 that Castro was a committed Communist and wrote an article to that effect. He tried unsuccessfully to get a major media organ to publish it. Several refused, including the majority of the editorial board of Life magazine, who saw Weyl’s article as “too right wing”. Life (and Time, for that matter) were never right wing: magazines. You have cited Halberstam’s masterful The Powers That Be as a reference. But have you read the book? If so, you would know that Henry Luce was not the knee-jerk right winger you seem to think he was. Datum: According to Halberstam, Luce supported the nomination of Gen Eisenhower over Senator Taft in 1952. The 1952 Republican nomination for President was hotly contested. Taft was the favorite of the conservative wing of the GOP. Eisenhower was supported by the liberal East Wing establishment of the party, primarily Tom Dewey. Almost all deological conservatives (“right-wingers” to you) supported Taft. Luce’s support of Eisenhower over Taft demonstrates where Luce fell in on the ideological spectrum. (These ideological divisions remained through 1964 when the “Eisenhower wing” of the GOP vigorously fought the nomination of Sen. Barry Goldwater.) Halberstam also details Luce’s long-standing relationship Joe Kennedy. “[Luce] was an old friend of Joe Kennedy’s…” (page 54); “Old Joe Kennedy knew the strengths and weaknesses of the press unusually well; he had cultivated men like Harry Luce and Arthur Krock when he was in Washington in the Roosevelt days (and made a point of having dinner with the potentially dangerous Luce the night his son accepted the Democratic nomination for the presidency).” (page 317.) Although Life endorsed Nixon in the 1960 election, its endorsement (according to Halberstam, was “tepid” and at the Kennedy inauguration Mr. and Mrs. Henry Luce sat in the imperial box with Mr. And Mrs. Joe Kennedy. (Page 351). John Kennedy once remarked that nothing had helped him obtain early national recognition as much as a favorable cover story on Time magazine. (Page 353.) Halberstam makes this interesting, and salient, observation: “There were a number of reasons besides Kennedy’s astute courting why the Luce publications were giving him a fairer shake than liberal Democrats normally got. . . [Luce], like many of his readers and correspondents, was fascinated and charned by Kennedy himself and the Kennedys in general---. . .all that money, all that glamour. despite ideological reservations about the young senator he came to prefer Kennedy to Nixon.” (Page 355.) With respection to your allegation that Billings was attempting to sabotage the Garrison investigation, what is your proof of that? The facts seem to suggest otherwise. As you are probably aware, while Billings was working with Garrison, he kept a Journal. Have you read it? Here is one paragraph from his journal. “We are independently now checking the strange story of Lorezo Hall, Lawrennce Howard and William Seymour, who were arrested Oct 1963 in Dallas on a drug charge, and who have received some interest from Weisberg. Now, we are pursuing this a little more energetically now because Acoca has come up with a report from Miami that Seymour had been known to use the name Leon Oswald and we are obtaining from Tom Dunkin pictures of these three men, and we have an interesting tape from Weisberg from an unidentifired source that further links their activities with a possible right wing conspiracy.” (Billings’ Garrison journal, May 22-23, 1967.) The Dunkin letter to Billings (dated June 4, 1967) that started this “thread” was obviously in response to the late May request from Billings for photographs and info re Hall, Howard and Seymour. It is clear from Billings’ journal that he was actively interested in the Garrison investigation, not trying to undermine it. The powers that be at Life decided that Garrison was barking up the wrong tree, They were not alone in that conclusion. (Harold Weisberg: “Garrrison could not find a pubic hair in a whorsehouse at rush hour.” Anthony Summers: “[Garrison’s] probe has long been recognized by virtually everyone, including serious scholars who believe there was a conspiracy—as a grotesque, misdirected shambles.” * * * * So you see, sometimes things are not quite as black and white, right and left, as they may appear. * * * * Tomorrow, I will post a response to your criticisms of my questions to you re the funding of the Interpen group. I do believe you are wrong about government funding of Inter- Pen and Clare Booth Luce funding of Interpen (although she did finance some anti- Castro activities),
  5. Tim Gratz: Please don't take my assertion as an "attack," as I have nothing more to base my contesting of your assertion about your Bob Bennett having to be 20 years old or less on anything other than simple math. Perhaps E. Howard Hunt was employed by an almost teenaged ad-man, fronting for the CIA at Mullen, and possibly providing Woodward and Bernstein with the inside scoop under the psuedonym Deep Throat. It reminds me of the cruciality of your disputation of the date of Hunt's recommendation for the assassination of Castro, despite it not having been stated in the first place. When these discussions are sidetracked with ridiculous issues that involve outrageously "fuzzy math," it reminds me of how the American people could have been so misled as to have their Social Security trust fund destroyed in four short years by tax cuts to the wealthy. Forgive me for thinking that you're smarter than your petty distractions indicate. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, I'm not sure if it makes any difference to the subject of this Forum (the assassination of JFK) who Bob Bennett was. But I do believe that Shanet and Chris are correct that the current Sen Bennett was the Bennett of Mullen Company. I just looked at Sen. Bennett's biography on his web-site and he is the son of former U.S. Senator Wallace Bennett. Whether or not Sen Bennett was "Deep Throat" I have no clue, other than it does fit with the conspiratorialist theory that the CIA was trying to undermine the presidency of Richard Nixon. A link to the story of the Liddy court victory of Liddy over former Dem secretary Maxie Wells: http://www.liddyletter.com/letter/victory.htm
  6. Shanet, Bob Bennett, with his CIA front office in DC, the Mullen Agency, including its specific employment of Hunt at the same time that Hunt had a White House office, leads me to still have the Senator from Utah at the top of my list for Deep Throat candidates. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just now getting around to this: Quite sure Robert Bennett of Mullen Company was the son of the Senator. He also shared offices at one time with Douglas Caddy (Bennett the son, that is). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My guestimate of the time frame is that you are incorrect that the Robert Bennett of Mullen Co. who employed Hunt in 1972 was the son of current Utah Senator Bennett. Watergate being 32 years ago, even if Sen. Bennett is now 70, that makes him 38 at the time of Watergate, making the Robert Bennett of the Mullen Co. 20 years old, tops. Very unlikely. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Good point, I'll check further, but a Watergate article vintage 1972 named Bennett of Mullen Company as son of Sen Bennett. I'll recheck though!
  7. Not that I want to in any way defend Files credibility, but Files and Plumlee are not mutually exclusive with regard to Roselli's arrival in Dallas. Plumlee says Roselli departed the plane at 6:30 a.m. and Files claims to have picked Roselli up at the Cabana Motel sometime around 7 a.m. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> This is from Mr. Plumlee's seminar: We arrived in Garland near daybreak. There had been so many threats against the President's life that we didn't have a great sense of urgency about this particular one. While waiting out the bad weather in Garland, and about thirty minutes after landing three of the passengers were picked up by car, including Roselli. (There are three documented corroborations of my presence at Garland airport that morning). After the weather had cleared sufficiently for the plane to continue via VFR flight rules to Redbird Airport in Dallas, we left Garland for the ten minute flight to Red Bird. We landed at Redbird around 9:30 or 10:30 a.m., perhaps as late as 11 a.m. where everybody got off and went their own way. This implies to me that Rosselli was on the flight from Garland to Red Bird and he exited mid-morning from Red Bird (with everyone else).
  8. Shanet, Bob Bennett, with his CIA front office in DC, the Mullen Agency, including its specific employment of Hunt at the same time that Hunt had a White House office, leads me to still have the Senator from Utah at the top of my list for Deep Throat candidates. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Just now getting around to this: Quite sure Robert Bennett of Mullen Company was the son of the Senator. He also shared offices at one time with Douglas Caddy (Bennett the son, that is).
  9. Wim, So if you believe that Files is telling you the truth, who does he claim was the pilot of the plane he took Nicoletti to the airport to take Nicoletti out to L.A. to kill Monroe? As you can see on the Tosh Plumlee thread, Tosh himself says, "I was not the pilot on the MM matter." In other words, Wim, are the Files and Plumlee stories mutually exclusive? Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Their stories are exclusive re how Rosselli got into Dallas on 11/22/63, if I recall correctly.
  10. Tim Gratz: First you acknowledge that one of the things that "'Watergate' was about [was] the Segretti dirty tricks operation;" then you say that the "Colody" and "Hougan" books "probably do not directly relate to the topic at hand," but finally argue that you will not provide your interesting Segretti story on the basis that "it is totally unrelated to the 'conspiracy theories' underlying Hogan's Secret Agenda and Colody's Silent Coup, and so is really beyond the scope of this seminar." That is circularly absurd. On this, my seminar, you admit that Segretti is relevant to Watergate and the Colody and Hougan books are not, then dismiss the relevance of Segretti to the aforementioned irrelevant books as a basis to claim the Segretti story as being "really beyond the scope of this [my] seminar." This double-talking evasion is reminiscent of your continued failure to respond to my numerous questions to you on the "Hall Threatens JFK" thread. Tim Carroll <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, I'm not sure what you do not understand here. "Watergate" as it is commonly understood and as it was investigated by the Erwin Committee involved started with the Watergate burglary but evolved into an investigation of a lot of Nixon misdeeds, e.g., the Plumbers, Segretti, etc. But the premises of the books Secret Agenda and Silent Coup that CIA operatives Hunt and McCord may have deliberately sabotaged the Watergate burglary either to: 1) protect a CIA surveillance of the Democrat HQ (perhaps even directed at the call-girl ring) or 2) to bring down the Nixon presidency (Nixon and Helms were not exactly fond of each other) relate only to the Watergate burglary itself. If there was a CIA "conspiracy" to topple the Nixon presidency through this political intrigue that seems scant evidence that the CIA used assassination to topple the Kennedy presidency. Perhaps one could argue that if the CIA was willing to take these steps to try to remove Nixon from office it could be willing to even use murder to depose a different president. But it does seem a bit of a leap to me. I think there are more direct JFK matters to investigate than whether the CIA plotted to overthrow Nixon. But my point is that, for instance, the Segretti dirty tricks operation (which was being run by Dwight Chapin (a Haldeman guy) out of the White House was totally unrelated to a CIA plot involving the Watergate burglary. The Segretti operation had nothing to do with the Watergate burglary. I'm not trying to be "evasive" and I don't, frankly, understand why you have started to attack me personally. My minor involvement in Watergate is an interesting story (I think) but it is beyond the scope of this forum. If you want to read about it, read the Senate Watergate Committee Report or read "The President's Private Eye" by Anthony Ulasewicz. To try to summarize it in one sentence, I was apparently one of a very few people recruited by Segretti for his dirty tricks to refuse to get involved in his operation and I tried to stop him. (If other people rejected Segretti's recruitment they did nothing to try to stop him). I am in the process of replying to your questions on the "Hall thread." There is no reason to be antagonistic merely because we disagree on political philosophy. (If you really want to hear my Segretti story, just call me and I'll be glad to share it with you--I just don't want to clutter this Forum with irrelevant, extraneous stuff.) * * * * * * * * * There is a matter relevant to this thread, however, and I pointed you (through private e-mail) in the right direction so you could add it to your seminar (I did so so you would get the "credit" for it. Since you did not follow through, I will add it now. Obviously, the revelations of the Church Committee damaged the CIA. Ignoring the legalities of it (since when did legalities stop the CIA anyway) Helms should have taken Nixon's advise, because the Watergate investigation did lead, ultimately, to the revelations of the CIA/Mafia plots. I do not recall how it all evolved, but through the Watergate investigation something was disclosed that led the Watergate counsel to interview Rosselli. The results of the Rosseli interview (never disclosed to the public, of course) led to the investigation by the Church Committee of the CIA/Mafia plots. And that in turn led to the disclsures of the other CIA abuses. So, if one wants to accept the "conspiracy" view of Watergate (that the CIA deliberately engineered the discovery of the Watergate burglars to topple Nixon) the CIA's tactic not only led to the fall of Nixon it also led to the exposure of the CIA misdeeds. So if the CIA "did Watergate" it became poetic justice.
  11. The FBI showed Odio the photos of Hall, Howard and Seymour in 1964, shortly after the publication of the WC report. I may not recall the details accurately, but I believe Weberman's web-site states that the photo of Seymour came from the Monroe County Sheriff's mug shot of Seymour when he was arrested at No Name Key in Dec of 1962. (No Name Key is, of course, a very small island in Monroe County, Florida. Ironically, it is within ten miles of the island used by Warner Brotthers to film PT109 in the summer of 1962.) But apparenltly there was a mistake and the first photo she was shown was of Ponce de Leon not Seymour. I think they did ultimately get it right. But Fonzi definitely showed Odio a whole series of Cuban exile photos while he was workinbg for the HSCA. I think those photos might prove helpful for research purposes if they could be located.
  12. A great post by Ron indeed. This once again leads one to suspect everything that ever came out of Marina. I just think it goes way beyond coercion. There's something else there. I received an email the other day from someone who had spoken to Marina a few years ago and had asked her about the backyard photos. She apparently said the photos weren't the same as the ones she took. So in that mini-interview, she took photos, but the ones released weren't the ones she took. Her odd response led the interviewer to suspect she knew she took photos of Lee Oswald, but it wasn't HER HUSBAND Lee Oswald(the "Harvey and Lee" thing?). Since I don't buy the 2 LHO theory, IMO the answer lies elsewhere. Whatever the case, Marina needs to come clean under oath, and submit to a polygraph. She's been all over the map. It's about time she stopped going in circles and told the truth. About Lee, about the rifle, Walker, the photos, the whole nine yards. Always seemed odd to me she won't. RJS <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very interesting observation. Marina Porter may be one of the few living witnesses who could contribute significantly to the resolution of the "crime of the century" by telling "the whole truth". Query whether a grand jury investigation could force such disclosures from her? A district attorney from whatever county Dallas is in could restart the entire investigation. All the research community has to do is find the sharpest possible attorney and get him elected!
  13. I have tried a couple of time to persuade Robert Groden to join this forum. I will try again today. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> John, I put Groden at the level of Harold Weisberg on a scale of dedicated and respected researchers. To me, it is the highest level one can reach. To bring Robert Groden here would be fantastic to further forum discussion and research. Al <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was honored to have dinner with Bob a few weeks ago, when we discussed Brian Wilson's great tour and John Lennon's death at the Dakota. He has shown, over all these years, incredible grace under pressure, the Kennedy standard of class. Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Grace under pressure" was a Hemingway quotation but I have no doubt JFK may have adopted it. There is no question JFK must have been under consideable pressure (not only from his presidential duties but from his personal life). One would have never suspected it from the humour and wit of his press conferences and other public appearances.
  14. Just picked a conviently small post to add this query. My recollection is when Gaeton Fonzi was interviewing Silvia Odio he showed her a whole series of photographs of Cuban exiles (both pro and anti Castro) and she could not identify any as being one of the three men who visited her. Where are these photos now? Did Fonzi prepare a file memo listing the names of all the Cubans he had shown to Mrs. Odio? Are the photos themselves in the National Archives? Just a thought re possible photo identification.
  15. What an astute observation! Except that the analysis of the facts (which presumably involves opinions) can be important. Nevertheless, a great observation. The first priority ought to be to discover all of the relevant facts, then try to put them together. Sometimes we do this backwards!
  16. Tim Gratz: Do you have any good Segretti stories to share that we may not have heard previously? Tim Carroll * * * * * * * * * * * I do have an interesting Segretti story but it is totally unrelated to the "conspiracy theories" underlying Hogan's Secret Agenda and Colody's Silent Coup, and so is really beyond the scope of this seminar. Parenthetical question (that does link Watergate to, at least, the events surrounding the assassination of JFK): What Washington lawyer represented the notorious CIA's Dr. Sydney Gottlieb (I believe when he testified to the Church Committee or to the HSCA) and what was that lawyer's involvement in the Watergate matter?
  17. Did any of Castro's "approriations" of Anericans' real or personal property personally affect any members of the Kennedy family?
  18. He did not look like James Bond. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The word most used to describe Harvey that I have heard from historians is "corpulant." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> "Corpulent": obese. If you (addressed to anyone) have not read Harlot's Ghost by Norman Mailer, I highly recommend it. Mailer has dialogue between Rosselli and Harvey in two scenes that is hilarious. For instance, in one scene (Harvey's farewell dinner with Roselli) Harvey is telling Roselli he could have been a crook and proposes a caper in which he uses three planeloads of Cuban exiles from Nicaraura to take over the entire city of Las Vegas. (He recruits the Cubans by telling them that Castro has taken over the mob, and adds, "Give a Cuban a bazooka and he will do anythng". ) Harvey suggests the "take-over" of Las Vegas would be accomplished "as easily as the company stages a coup in some small Central American country". He goes into the Cubela plot, etc (but he does not attempt to "solve" the assassination). Obvious Mailer has done his research. For instance, he makes a brief, oblique reference to the 1958 Mafia killing of Mr. and Mrs. Gus Greenbaum. In any event, for anyone interested in the histoty of the early sixties, Harlot's Ghost is, I think, a fascinating (and enjoyable) read.
  19. Jack, I accept that it is better to ensure spellings and other such mistakes are removed prior to posting. Because Zapruder is unable to capture the break lights going on does not mean they did not go on? Now one thing I do know about you is that you have spent a large portion of your life studying the photographic evidence of the JFK assassination. You are very familiar with the Muchmore film. You know that M 49 shows the car lights are on. Rather than being side on, as Zapruder is to the car, Muchmore is filming from the rear. So this time we can discount sunlight as an explanation. Therefore how do you explain Muchmore showing the break lights being on at that the same point that John Costella points out John Connally is being thrown forward? What explanation do you have for that. I am sorry you believe that a large portion of my initial posting was a "hodgepodge of personal attacks." That was certainly not my intent nor do I believe I did that. Yes I believe John Costella was in error in much that he writes in that presentation, but in pointing that out, I do not believe I have NOR DO I INTEND to insult the man. May I end on this point. Like me you were in a very privilaged position by being privy to the discussions and thoughts on how TGZFH was put together. Would it not be a more positive contribution to argue where and why you believe I am wrong and thereby show members how you and your group came to the opinions that you did when together you wrote TGZFH. James. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Gentlemen: Vehicles brake, and have brake lights. When vehicles break, you take them to a garage to fix! Perhaps a minor spelling error but given the seriousness of this research we ought to be careful of spelling errors. (Shanet has it correct in his post.) Thanks!
  20. Jim, I own the same model MC Rifle as the Oswald rifle and it does not have an under barrel rod storage. You are exactly right about the additional round left in the chamber. How convenient for future NAA testing. Al <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very interesting thread. Al, do you have any comments on the paraffin test made on Oswald's face and hands? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Tim, Parrafin tests are unreliable as there are many, many items that one can handle that will result in a false positive. That is why most agencies do not even conduct these tests anymore. The courts have not challenged them due to false negatives, as this has not been the case. With Oswald, his duties at the TSBD was to fill book orders. He handled order forms that contained carbon paper, which would give a false positive testing to the paraffin tests. As you know, his hands tested positive and his face tested negative. There is no way to fire a rifle such as the MC and not test positive on the face. The arguement to this has been that he simply washed his face after the shooting of JFK and not his hands after Tippitt. If this is the case, when did he do it? He didn't have time in the TSBD. Roberts did not advise of it at the rooming house. If he did it at the DPD after his arrest, did he use his feet to wash his face? I have always looked at this by trying to build a prosecution against LHO. Everything presented as a prosecution case would be open for challenge by the defense. This is simply one of many that would be successfully challenged and make LHO a free man. Al <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very instructive comments. Just a few follow-up questions. 1) Is it easy to wash off paraffin? 2) How clear is it it that firing a rifle will ALWAYS leave paraffin on the face that will show up on a test? Is this beyond debate? Or at least very clear. Since by Mrs. Roberts' testimony (and even the timing) it seems clear that LHO did not take time in his rooming house to wash up, in your opinion is the negative paraffin test on LHO's face a very convincing proof that LHO did not fire a rifle on Nov 22, 1963? 3) How often are there "false positive" paraffin tests? Does the positive paraffin test on LHO's hands indicate (for instance by the civil standard of the "greater weight of the evidence" even if not by the criminal standard) that LHO fired a pistol? If this is the case, it would tend to support a scenario that LHO was a patsy but did shoot Tippit in attempting to get away. I could see an innocent man knowing he was the object of a sophisticated frame being willing to shoot a police officer to escape. In other words, even if LHO did shoot Tippit, he could still be innocent of killing Kennedy (and by the paraffin test, was). Do you believe that paraffin tests are SO inconclusive that the poisitive paraffin test on LHO's hands should be totally discounted? Thanks again for your help! It seems the negative paraffin test on LHO's face is at a minimum very strong evidence that he did not fire a rifle on that fateful Friday.
  21. Raises the question what, legally, happened to these people. Do you know? Is it possible Ruby's murder of LHO was to prevent LHO's testimony against Ruby's mechanic? (Of course, had LHO been convicted of the assassination, his credibility as a prosecution witness would not be very great!)
  22. Jim, I own the same model MC Rifle as the Oswald rifle and it does not have an under barrel rod storage. You are exactly right about the additional round left in the chamber. How convenient for future NAA testing. Al <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Very interesting thread. Al, do you have any comments on the paraffin test made on Oswald's face and hands?
  23. I trust the judgment of Mr. Carroll and Mr. Richards re the document. Does anyone have any idea why anyone would go to so much trouble (and who for that matter)?
  24. There is a movie scheduled for production to start in 2005, called "The Good Sheperd" about the history of the CIA, loosely based on the career of James Jesus Angleton. The screenplay is by the man who wrote Forrest Gump. Robert DeNiro is to direct the movie. Matt Damon stars as the young Angleton and DeNiro will play the older Angleton. I think I previously refered to the Tommy Lee Jones movie re Nosenko. It is pro-Nosenko, anti-Angleton (if memory serves me). The Rat Pack (an HBO movie) is quite good. Its portrayal of Joe Kennedy is very good. It explores, in quite accurate historical detail, the relationship between JFK and Sinatra (nothing about the assassination). It is available on DVD. Sugartime, another TV movie, I believe, has an interesting portrayal of the relationship between Giancana and Phyllis McGuire. It illustrates the odd juxtaposition between the "sweet McGuire sisters" and the evil of Giancana by interposing a scene of Giancana watching the Mcguire sisters perform while one of his associates is savagely beating someone to death with a baseball bat. It is based on a book by the FBI agent who was dogging Giancana.
  25. He did not look like James Bond. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It was a clever CIA disguise. Seriously, I think the statement attributed to JFK including the comment that he said it in disbelief was because Harvey did not look like James Bond. I read somewhere that Ted Shackley was very close to Harvey. Given Harvey's shape, he was sometimes refered to as "Pear" so some in the CIA started to refer to Shackley as "son of Pear".
×
×
  • Create New...