Stephen Roy

Bill:

Interesting article. I had one question. You wrote that some of the Houma arms were taken to:

"the Lake Pontchartrain anti-Castro Cuban training camp owned by William McClaney, which was raided by the FBI in July, 1963. "

I was wondering about your source for that.

Interesting, but it sounds like it's just a higher quality dub of the original dictabelts. (I would not be surprised if some of the usual versions of the tape had been condensed in some way - like Lifton's, and therefore the transcripts might not match.) A higher quality version might be of some value for acoustical analysis, but there are still the nagging questions of where and how it was recorded, in other words, does it have the sounds of the shooting?

The questions related to Minneapolis and December 1963 are interesting.

I know there is that dictabelt recording from a cops radio, but there's been debate as to whether that was actually there, and I was wondering if there are any other sources of audio from the assassination to cross-reference with that and the films to pin down the exact timing of events?

This is all to the best of my knowledge:

1) There is some controversy as to whether or not the Dictabelt captured the sounds of the shooting.

2) No other audio of the assassination has surfaced.

3) While adherents on both/all sides feel that the films do establish an accurate timing, there is still not a consensus as to what that timing is. And, as you will note, there is a contingent among us who question the authenticity of some of the photographic evidence.

Hope this helps. Wecome to the fray!

At 1:55 into this video, Oswald is seen saying something to some sort of law-enforcement official. Any idea who it was and what Oswald said to him? Thanks.

Also, why was Billy Lovelady there sitting in a chair near Fritz's office at 1:05 into the video? Had he volunteered to give information, or had he been arrested, or "detained?"

(Sorry about my misspelling the word "speaking" in the subject line. I probably just subconsciously wanted to make some of our semi-illiterates feel comfortable and "at home," I re-con'. LOL

At 1:55, I see the ABC/WFAA footage of LHO being led down the corridor toward the camera, then quickly through a doorway, camera right. If that's the scene you mean, the audio is: I don't know what dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges.

_________________________________________________

Thank's for that, Stephen. You da man!

--Thomas

_________________________________________________

Bummer! Gary Mack just jent me a PM in which he says that you're misinformed regarding the clip I posted. Evidently we're talkin' about two different days here, Stephen.

Oh nuts. That's what I get for posting in a hurry, without carefully looking. I defer to Gary. Damn, I liked being "da man" for a while...

At 1:55 into this video, Oswald is seen saying something to some sort of law-enforcement official. Any idea who it was and what Oswald said to him? Thanks.

Also, why was Billy Lovelady there sitting in a chair near Fritz's office at 1:05 into the video? Had he volunteered to give information, or had he been arrested, or "detained?"

(Sorry about my misspelling the word "speaking" in the subject line. I probably just subconsciously wanted to make some of our semi-illiterates feel comfortable and "at home," I re-con'. LOL

At 1:55, I see the ABC/WFAA footage of LHO being led down the corridor toward the camera, then quickly through a doorway, camera right. If that's the scene you mean, the audio is: I don't know what dispatches you people have been given, but I emphatically deny these charges.

Gentlemen I read Thomas Graves question about traveling to Houston from new Orleans in a terrible thunderstorm.

( DAVID FERRIE,AL BEAUBOUEF AND MELVIN COFFEE )

Garrison thought it was so suspicious that we would leave in what he discribed as a terrible storm, however anybody who is familiar with living in a coastal area this is common to say the least. We probably ran out of the storm 3 or 4 miles down the road. Also this was not a hunting trip, it was an outing to a ice skating rink in Houston.

I am not sure that this is the real Al. There are a couple of things that ring true, but a few of the bio details seem to be wrong. Also, this person asked in the Bio section if I had ever contacted him; I have been in contact with the real Al many times, even staying at his home. I'll call Al today and check to see if it is him.

One political note: I believe I see, in your "Nazis...just moved to the USA," a not-untypical European anti-American prejudice. Like nearly all prejudices, it is untrue. There are a small group of extremist wackjobs here, in precisely the same proportion as in Europe or anywhere else. But I can't recall the last time I ran into a Nazi here in the US, which is surprising since you think we're overrun by them.

It is in fact a very untypical view of Europeans. I think Wim's statement is as daft as you do. It could be argued that your statement is an example of American anti-European prejudice.

If that is the case, I stand corrected and apologize.

But haven't you and I gone at it a bit about this very question in the past?

I'm basing it, to some extent, on my friend Lucie, a Brit transplanted to the US, and a member of the media both there and here. She has told me that it is a truism, that SOME Europeans have a stereotyped view of the US. Perhaps she is wrong, or seeing it only through her prejudice. I hope it isn't true, and I'd invite Europeans to come here and see for themselves. It's a big nation, and there are a few wackos here and there, but by and large it is just honest and sincere people who see things from both the responsible left and responsible right.

You can understand why I am perplexed when I read things from Europeans that suggest that America is some seething den of neanderthals, when my observations on the scene just don't support that.

Perhaps I do have a mirrored prejudice, based on what I think I (sometimes) see. I hope not. I have a huge respect fr Europeans. I think much of what I admire in Americans comes from European tradition, and I find European culture fascinating. All I look for is reciprocity. Perhaps I'm visiting the sins of a few on the many. I'm glad someone agrees that Wim can take it too far sometimes.

I have been to the United States several times. I agree entirely that the country is full of honest and sincere people. I have travelled all over the world and would argue that people in the US are probably the most friendly I have encountered. Nor have I ever seen an act of violence in the US (something that American films and TV shows suggest are common events).

At the sametime I have never met anyone in Europe who is anti-American. Just because we are critical of certain aspects of US foreign policy, does not mean we are anti-American. In fact, nothing will give me more pleasure than if Barack Obama turns out to be a wise president. He has already done a great deal to change the image that Europeans have of America.

I realize this is off-topic, so I'll end it here.

As for violence, alas, I live in an older, medium-sized eastern city which has developed a serious gang violence problem. It has happened near my home, I have personally seen a few instances of it, and it has profoundly affected people I know. Most officials are at a loss to know how to deal with it without diminishing liberty. This only seems to be a problem in cities. Firearms are an issue; I'd like to see less of them, but I seem to be in a minority on that.

I supported Sen. Obama, and I'm glad that he may be improving the image Bush screwed up. He's an unknown quantity, and we're all hoping for the best. Kinda Kennedy-like, in a way!

Thanks for the exchange. Now back to Gary Mack. I still say, get off his case.

One political note: I believe I see, in your "Nazis...just moved to the USA," a not-untypical European anti-American prejudice. Like nearly all prejudices, it is untrue. There are a small group of extremist wackjobs here, in precisely the same proportion as in Europe or anywhere else. But I can't recall the last time I ran into a Nazi here in the US, which is surprising since you think we're overrun by them.

It is in fact a very untypical view of Europeans. I think Wim's statement is as daft as you do. It could be argued that your statement is an example of American anti-European prejudice.

If that is the case, I stand corrected and apologize.

But haven't you and I gone at it a bit about this very question in the past?

I'm basing it, to some extent, on my friend Lucie, a Brit transplanted to the US, and a member of the media both there and here. She has told me that it is a truism, that SOME Europeans have a stereotyped view of the US. Perhaps she is wrong, or seeing it only through her prejudice. I hope it isn't true, and I'd invite Europeans to come here and see for themselves. It's a big nation, and there are a few wackos here and there, but by and large it is just honest and sincere people who see things from both the responsible left and responsible right.

You can understand why I am perplexed when I read things from Europeans that suggest that America is some seething den of neanderthals, when my observations on the scene just don't support that.

Perhaps I do have a mirrored prejudice, based on what I think I (sometimes) see. I hope not. I have a huge respect fr Europeans. I think much of what I admire in Americans comes from European tradition, and I find European culture fascinating. All I look for is reciprocity. Perhaps I'm visiting the sins of a few on the many. I'm glad someone agrees that Wim can take it too far sometimes.

I just disagree with you, and vehemently. I don't know how it is in Europe, but we here in the US prize the ability and right to state different opinions. I think it is extremely judgmental and intolerant of you to denounce others - who may not agree with you - as liars. And I think that goes to the syndrome I mentioned where a small group of CTs who are sincere and believe they are motivated by the common good, the pursuit of truth, abrogate respect for the opinions of others, and descend into a form of paranoia.

I think you are wrong accuse Specter and Mack of deliberate lies and suggest that Specter, at least "is not entitled to that opinion." It may surprise you to know that there are CTs who are not convinced that the SBT is impossible. Don't you dare suggest for a moment that I am lacking in factual knowledge or inrellectual capacity. "Some opinions should not be tolerated"? How will you feel when it is YOUR opinion that is not tolerated? And since you seem drawn to comparisons to Nazis, who was it that took over a country by squelching dissenting opinions?

Stephen,

In Europe it's the same.

Jim Marrs told me once: We defeated Germany, but not the Nazi's. They just moved to the USA.

Something to ponder.

Google for "Freedom to fascism"

I dare question anyone's factual knowledge, intellectual capacity, or sincerity, who says that Arlen Specter is entitled to his opinion about the SBT. Plus I brand everyone a xxxx who says that the SBT is possible. I have layed out my reasonings more than exhaustively. If you have an opinion, you should at least have the guts to defend it. Specter runs away. Ask Cyril Wecht! So far, Mack is hiding too.

You disagree, period? Then I disagree, period!

How would I feel if my opinion would not be tolerated? I would feel like Nelson Mandela felt for 25 years.

Wim

Good. We disagree, and it is clear where each of us stands. You think it's OK to denounce disagreement as lies, I don't.

One political note: I believe I see, in your "Nazis...just moved to the USA," a not-untypical European anti-American prejudice. Like nearly all prejudices, it is untrue. There are a small group of extremist wackjobs here, in precisely the same proportion as in Europe or anywhere else. But I can't recall the last time I ran into a Nazi here in the US, which is surprising since you think we're overrun by them.

It's paradoxical: You seem to admire much about America, sullied only by that imagined Nazi presence.

I was talking about casting aspersions on other people in this field. But since you bring it up, should I disregard anything Specter says because he devised the SBT? No. He is entitled to that opinion, and there is a case to be made for it.

I say he is NOT entitled to that opinion and there is NO case to be made for it, except to an unwitting audience with little or no knowledge of the accompanying facts. Arlen Specter and Gary Mack do not fall in that category. They are very cognizant about the facts that refute the SBT. To maintain that the SBT is possible (or to state that it is "not impossible") is a willfull lie. Anyone that does that AND is as knowledgeable as Mack, is an accessory to the cover-up It is the same thing as making a case for the theory that the earth is flat. That requires an audience of toddlers too. It's an insult to any person with an IQ above XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Which is exactly the reason that they refuse to discuss it with people outside those categories.

I can accept trajectory and timing, but I'm leery of the deformation issue (lack of). Is he part of a conspiracy to cover up? What if he genuinely believes what he avocates?

You can safely assume he does not genuinely believe what he advocates. He knows full well it was a lie to deceive the american public and conceal the true causes of the murder of their chosen president. He also knows that no bullet traversed through JFK's body and that the backwound and throatwound could not be connected. The fact that this man is now a senator instead of an inmate, illustrates EXACTLY the problem.

Some opinions should not be tolerated. Likewise I would opt that Hitler was not entitled to his opinion that Jews are inferior people comparable to rats. Yet that opinion was tolerated and even cheered by many.

Wim

Post edited by moderator due to offensive vocabulary.

I just disagree with you, and vehemently. I don't know how it is in Europe, but we here in the US prize the ability and right to state different opinions. I think it is extremely judgmental and intolerant of you to denounce others - who may not agree with you - as liars. And I think that goes to the syndrome I mentioned where a small group of CTs who are sincere and believe they are motivated by the common good, the pursuit of truth, abrogate respect for the opinions of others, and descend into a form of paranoia.

I think you are wrong accuse Specter and Mack of deliberate lies and suggest that Specter, at least "is not entitled to that opinion." It may surprise you to know that there are CTs who are not convinced that the SBT is impossible. Don't you dare suggest for a moment that I am lacking in factual knowledge or inrellectual capacity. "Some opinions should not be tolerated"? How will you feel when it is YOUR opinion that is not tolerated? And since you seem drawn to comparisons to Nazis, who was it that took over a country by squelching dissenting opinions?

Yes, I disagree with you. You are wrong. Period.

As for me, hyper-suspiciousness and implications that so-and-so is part of some coverup conspiracy are signals to just disregard anything that person says.

Well well, Stephen, So if I fill in "Arlen Specter" for "so-and-so" you would just disregard anything I say?

Let's see how that reads:

As for me, hyper-suspiciousness and implications that Arlen Specter is part of some coverup conspiracy are signals to just disregard anything that person says.

You agree to that statement, Stephen?

Remind me Stephen, or correct me if I'm wrong, was Arlen Specter not the inventor of the single bullet theory?

And do you underscore Gary Mack's statement that the single bullet theory is possible?

Since Arlen Specter is not a member of this forum, I presume I can safely say about the honorable senator: TO HELL WITH THAT xxxx! PUT HIM IN PRISON FOR HIGH TREASON!

Wim

PS: By the way, Stephen. Good to see that you're not posting anymore as David Blackburst. I always wonder why it's necessary to post under a fake name. But I am glad to see you kicked the habit.

I was talking about casting aspersions on other people in this field. But since you bring it up, should I disregard anything Specter says because he devised the SBT? No. He is entitled to that opinion, and there is a case to be made for it. I can accept trajectory and timing, but I'm leery of the deformation issue (lack of). Is he part of a conspiracy to cover up? What if he genuinely believes what he avocates?

I use my real name here due to forum rules. I still use blackburst in the newsgroups, as it's my email address.

It is unfortunate that the belief or conviction of a conspiracy in this case occasionally leads some to suspect and denounce others who don't pass the litmus test.

It's understandable: If one is deeply committed to a particular conspiracy belief, and they feel that certain pieces of evidence are patently undeniable, it is easy to feel that someone who doesn't share that deep belief "must be either uninformed, cognitively challenged or deliberately lying." And if it is the latter, one may suspect that the other person may be part of some kind of coverup.

The problem is that there is hardly anything approaching full agreement among the research community on many aspects of this case. Different people have different opinions, but having different opinions does not make one part of a coverup. There is something insidious about research into this case that makes a few people go too far into suspicion of others' motives. And this hyper-suspiciousness is one of the things that prevents the mainstream media from taking us seriously.

Gary Mack is in a unique position. On the one hand, he has his responsibilities to his constituency, the Directors of the Sixth Floor Museum. On the other, he is one of us, who has his own opinions on various apsects of the case, and he is entitled to those opinions. Some of us agree, and some of us don't. Wearing his 6FM hat, Mack was approached with the opportunity to test SOME of the beliefs about the headshot, and he took that opportunity. IF the GL shot had proven possible, wouldn't he have acknowledged this in the program? If the TSBD shot had not significantly resembled the other evidence in this case, wouldn't he have acknowledged that, too? Lighten up on Mack: I would have described the results of the Discovery Channel tests in a more categorical manner, but I respect that he assisted in the test on our behalf. Debate the tests, not Mack's motives.

As for me, hyper-suspiciousness and implications that so-and-so is part of some coverup conspiracy are signals to just disregard anything that person says.

The use of sarcasm is ....to be avoided.

'Where does Joan get this stuff?" was arguably an exercise in sarcasm by Stephen Roy, and grounds for a severe reprimand.

But when I read some of Joan Mellen's stuff about the JFK assassination I often ask myself the very same question, and I am not being sarcastic at all -- I am just genuinely bewildered.

Does that mean I am breaking a forum rule?

As I noted, my comment "Where does Joan get this stuff?" was made spontaneously and with gentle sarcasm, but the written words come across differently than I intended. I should not have said this. I apologze to Joan Mellen, Bill Kelly and all those who participate in the Forum.

While I disagree with some of her writings, I have great respect for Joan Mellen.

I feel a certain camraderie with Joan Mellen, because of the fact that she staunchly believes that Jim Garrison was essentially more like the Capra-esque character as portrayed by Kevin Costner, than the psuedo-sinister Jim Garrison who did not focus exclusively on the mob. To elaborate, unless you have perused through his actual files and seen some the leads he had, one cannot make an informed decision as to his character, but when did facts ever interfere with preconcieved ideas about what the reality of 1963 was?

Nevertheless, the above piece is valuable, if for no other reason than expounding on individuals such as Casasin, and the CIA's Soviet Counter-Intelligence operations & the revelation that Andy Anderson appears strongly to have been Eleanor Reed.

I believe that I've read every available Garrison file, and a slew of Garrison era documents from FBI, CIA, USSS and others. I have copies of just about everything that concern Ferrie. I've spoken with many of the principals. I interpret things a bit differently than Joan Mellen. With all due respect to her professional achievements as an author and researcher, she puts her pants on one leg at a time like me. We just disagree on some things.

For what its worth, I have found Joan to be a very careful researcher, checking her information with care, and vetting her sources (some of which she doesn't disclose at their request, to protect them, or to be able to return to them again, in the future). I'd caution the impulse of many to dismiss her so quickly. I think time will show her to be more often on the mark, than not. Her conclusion/summary is self-obvious - the coup continues, as does the cover-up and mis-direction [magician-style] from real events to the manufactured consent and phony news/events/facts [propaganda].

I hesitate to be judgmental of another researcher, but here's my take: Many writers on the Garrison/NO case are polarized to one side or the other. I get the impression that Joan sincerely believes that Garrison was right about most everything, and that she accepts or rejects evidence to support her preconception. And I find it troubling that she does not accept criticism well.

She tells you right there she got it from someone who telephoned her after reading her book.

I'm trying to get Joan to come back to the forum and discuss these things with us.

New information is always appearing and its not always reliable but we must weight what we learn and decide what to believe and what not to believe because of contrasting evidence.

If the Gurviches have Ferrie flight records, let's try to find them, not dismiss everything out of hand.

I'm sure you'd rather discuss this with Joan, and not me, but you're not going to encourage her to answer your question by paraphrasing it with "Where does she get this stuff?" when she tells you right in the same sentance.

BK

Well she does and doesn't. She doesn't indicate WHO the source was, and what his/her relationship was with Saturn.

At least as far as Ferrie and few other NO characters go, Joan and I have plowed the same fields. I think one should double-check before making an allegation. After all this time, and after Ferrie has been portrayed again and again as an evil central figure, some people who knew him (and a few who only barely knew him) have melodramatized their memories a bit. I run into this often with witnesses, and one does have to look for corobboration before going into print. I tried to reason with Joan on what I think were mistakes about Tommy Beckham and Jack Martin, but to no avail.

IF there are relevant flight records, and IF they were hidden by someone, and IF they are available, sure, let's see them.

"Where does she get this stuff" was an offhand reaction to both this unchecked allegation and similar errors (about Ferrie, in my opinion) in her books. It was not meant to be insulting, as I respect Joan for the things she has achieved. That said, I don't think one should make an allegation about Ferrie at Saturn in 1963 without checking to see if he was employed there in 1963. It's just a "professional disagreement."

I don't think David Ferrie is the Boogy Man the Mafia did it guys make him out to be. He was just another operator who was in the mix, a part of the same network, who knew and probably mentored Oswald at a critical time in his life. Ferrie wasn't capable of putting together the assassination.

Nor do I agree with everything Joan says, as I have told her, I don't think Oswald was CIA, but rather ONI, and while we might disagree on that point, we don't insult each other.

I'm not interested in the debate defination of forensics, but I am interested in the defination of forensics that concerns the evidence that can be presented in a court of law. The log books of Ferrie's flight records are missing for a reason, and they are forensic evidence that can be introduced into a court of law. If they exist anywhere, an attempt should be made to locate them.

As for Joan's talk, I agree with Jack White. There's a lot of good info there if it can be verified, but regardless, her portrait of Oswald is on target as far as him being a covert intelligence operative and not a lone commie nut case.

And you would think that fact would have national security implicaitons.

BK

I acknowledge here and elsewhere that Joan is a talented writer and researcher and has turned up a lot of new information. As you note, people in this field sometimes disagree, and I disagree with Joan on some of her interpretations of Ferrie and a couple of other NO cast members.

As for the flight records, without the name and background of the source, we can't even be sure that such records exist. What we have is an allegation that certain (1963) flight records exist(ed) and that they are missing. You add that they are missing for a reason. Without a source, we can't be sure any of this is even accurate. Crouch didn't mention any of this in his NODA interviews. And there is still the problem that Ferrie (according to the records) was not associated with Saturn until 1966.

She tells you right there she got it from someone who telephoned her after reading her book.

I'm trying to get Joan to come back to the forum and discuss these things with us.

New information is always appearing and its not always reliable but we must weight what we learn and decide what to believe and what not to believe because of contrasting evidence.

If the Gurviches have Ferrie flight records, let's try to find them, not dismiss everything out of hand.

I'm sure you'd rather discuss this with Joan, and not me, but you're not going to encourage her to answer your question by paraphrasing it with "Where does she get this stuff?" when she tells you right in the same sentance.

BK

Well she does and doesn't. She doesn't indicate WHO the source was, and what his/her relationship was with Saturn.

At least as far as Ferrie and few other NO characters go, Joan and I have plowed the same fields. I think one should double-check before making an allegation. After all this time, and after Ferrie has been portrayed again and again as an evil central figure, some people who knew him (and a few who only barely knew him) have melodramatized their memories a bit. I run into this often with witnesses, and one does have to look for corobboration before going into print. I tried to reason with Joan on what I think were mistakes about Tommy Beckham and Jack Martin, but to no avail.

IF there are relevant flight records, and IF they were hidden by someone, and IF they are available, sure, let's see them.

"Where does she get this stuff" was an offhand reaction to both this unchecked allegation and similar errors (about Ferrie, in my opinion) in her books. It was not meant to be insulting, as I respect Joan for the things she has achieved. That said, I don't think one should make an allegation about Ferrie at Saturn in 1963 without checking to see if he was employed there in 1963. It's just a "professional disagreement."

WHO WAS LEE HARVEY OSWALD?

THE WECHT INSTITUTE, DUQUESNE UNIVERSITY, PITTSBURGH, PA.

OCTOBER 5, 2008

By Joan Mellen

Yet it is also true that new information is always appearing: for example, I was telephoned after the publication of "A Farewell to Justice" by a witness who observed the Gurvich brothers in New Orleans at Saturn Aviation, a company run by one Al Crouch, and for whom David Ferrie flew. The Gurviches took away with them, never to be seen again, the flight record showing Ferrie's movements. These included a flight Ferrie made to Dallas the week of the assassination.

After the assassination, knowing how sensitive they were, Crouch had put Ferrie's log books in a floor safe, and they survived even a break-in.

?[/b]

Where does Joan get this stuff? Ferrie was NOT EMPLOYED by Saturn Aviation "the week of the assassination" or anytime near it. At that time, he was employed as a clerk at the law firm of Gill, Bernstein, Schreiber and Gill, and was in the process of setting up a psychological counseling firm. That firm failed, and within a few weeks, he was operating a gas station.

Ferrie was employed by Saturn Aviation from September 13, 1966 until November 20, 1966. A total of two months, three years after the assassination.

Hi Bill,

I don't know who to contact to see if they have been in contact with the ARRB. The person I spoke with is one of the chiefs in charge of records of the "Suojelupoliisi", the Finnish security police. He gave permission to the local newspaper here in Helsinki to obtain copies of these files/cards.

I doubt he'd even know what the ARRB is. I think chances for locating a contact between the Finnish authorities and ARRB would be to find a name or contact office within ARRB records.

The Finnish Security Police:

http://www.poliisi.fi/poliisi/supo/home.nsf/pages/indexeng

Stephen,

I suspect the Finnish authorities caught on to the alias Hidell in 1963 after Oswald's arrest, murder and after the time the WC was initiated. I'm quite sure the markings regarding the alias Hidell have been inscribed by the Finnish authorities whilst they have searched for any "Hidell" data within other such cards or any other records they might have come across.

I'm sure we'll get some more information on this once these documents are released in full. That is we have to sit and wait another 11 years. Had Oswald placed two different names onto his card, I'm sure the hotel staff would have asked him whether he is Oswald or Hidell, and perhaps asked him to prove his identity with a passport.

Antti

That's what I'm presuming, but one cannot be sure from the small portion of the card visible in the picture. It would make sense that the Finnish authorities added the name to the card after the assassination. However, as I noted, the Hidell handwriting looks very similar to some of the other handwriting on the same form. If they match, and if the whole card was filled out after the authorities spoke with US authorities, no problem. But if the rest of the card was filled out in 1959, one would not expect a later addition to match so closely. That's why I'd like to see a higher resolution image of the whole card, and know the story of when it was made.

It is not a huge deal if Oswald used the Hidell name in 1959. I think the evidence is pretty strong that he used the name at a later time.

I think I see the alias Hidell bit on the card on the lower right. Too bad the whole card can't be seen. Frankly, the handwriting of that phrase looks very much like the other visible writing on the card: The slant, and especially the H on Hidell (similar to Harvey). Maybe the whole card was filled out post-11/22/63. If it wasn't, it suggests that Oswald was using the Hidell name in 1959.

There used to be a site where you could virtually stand on the 'x' on Elm St - approximately Kennedy's location at z313, and look around in 360 degrees - anyone know where that site may be?

- lee

Is this it?

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&...8.0429812072233

An ad in the Time-Picayune that summer indicated that one could start-up a skating rink operation for $15,000.00.

Ferrie had received about $1600.00 from Eastern Air Lines in September, in settlement of a grievance he filed against them. As Jim Garrison noted, his records at Whitney Bank show that he deposited about $7000.00 in early November. He claimed that it was a bonus from his employer George Wray Gill Sr. for his work on the Marcello case in Guatemala. In an interview with Garrison's staff. Ferrie's business partner Al Beauboeuf said that he planned to invest about $2000.00 in savings in a business with Ferrie.

All this totals approximately $10,600.00. At the time of the assassination, Ferrie was on a salary of $250 per month from Gill.

So Ferrie was a little short of the required $15,000.00. He ultimatley bought a Gulf franchise in January for $10,000.

A few people like Angelton, Bagley and Dave Murphy immediately thought Nosenko's defection was a phony.

This is not actually true. Bagley's original CIA report said that he found Nosenko "totally convincing". It was James Angleton, who later convinced Bagley that Nosenko was a disinformation agent.

Yes, it is true. When Nosenko "walked-in" and became an AGENT IN PLACE in May 1962, Bagley thought he was genuine. A short time later, C/SB Jack Maury told Bagley to read up on Golitsyn and speak with Angleton. By mid-1963, he thought Nosenko was probably a phony. As I wrote, by January 1964, Bagley "immediately thought Nosenko's DEFECTION was a phony." (Emphasis added.) Bagley makes his thought process clear in "Spy Wars."

The Nosenko movie starring Tommy Lee Jones (he plays a character called Steve Daley who is actually Tennent "Pete" Bagley, Deputy Chief CIA's Soviet Division and Nosenko's handler) concludes with a statement that Fedora, the FBI's mole in the Soviet UN delegation was eventually exposed (after Hoover's death) as a double agent. Fedora had originally backed up some Nosenko's statements that were later exposed to be lies. Specifically, Nosenko claimed that he was a Lieutenant Colonel (he was actually a Captain) and he claimed that he had received a cable in Geneva ordering him to return to Moscow which was the reason he gave for having to defect immediately (there was no such cable). I have not been able to locate another reference that states that Fedora was a double agent. Does anyone have information about this? (the movie, available at Netflix, is otherwise quite accurate, if incomplete).

Speaking of Bagley. He appeared before the House Select Committee and gave a strong rebuttal to John Hart's testimony (reproduced above in Tim's post). Bagley's name is not listed; he's referred to as Deputy Chief, Soviet Bloc Division, or Mr. D.C. (Vol. 12, beginning on page 571).

Fedora was the codename for Viktor Metchislavovich Lessiovski, a KGB-agent that sabotaged American intelligence agencies by supplying false information. His cover was his work as a Soviet ambassador in the United Nations' headquarters in New York. The FBI regarded Fedora as one of their most important and most productive spies ever recruited, without knowing he was actually a KGB-colonel spreading disinformation. Fedora was originally under the control of William King Harvey and had the complete backing of J. Edgar Hoover. Fedora was among the most successful Soviet KGB-agents of the Cold War, his faulty intelligence being directly communicated to the White House. On one occasion, President Nixon and Henry Kissinger unconditionally believed Fedora's false information that a complete set of the so-called Pentagon Papers had ended up on the Soviet embassy in Washington. He also played an important role in guaranteeing the authenticity of other KGB-agents who claimed to be switching sides, notably Yuri Nosenko.

In 1981, when Fedora had already returned to the Soviet Union, the FBI admitted they had been misled for more than a decade by this Soviet agent, brilliantly fulfilling his task of supplying false information.

John:

I beg to differ. The ID of Fedora as Lessiovski has been shown to be wrong. He has been definitively identified by Pete Bagley, David Wise and others as Aleksey Isidorovich Kulak.

Accordingly, from April 1964 Nosenko was detained at a safe house in Maryland for nearly 18 months, on the authority of the US attorney-general, before being transferred to a cell-block specially constructed at the CIA's training facility at Camp Peary, in Virginia. He remained there, under continuous and hostile interrogation, until October 1967.

A year later a report sponsored by the CIA's Office of Security concluded that Nosenko was a genuine defector, and he was given an apology for his treatment, $137,062 in compensation and a contract as a consultant.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries...ri-Nosenko.html

I see the UK Telegraph wants readers to believe that the incarceration of Nosenko was approved by Robert Kennedy, in clear violation of the law. I would be interested to know whose word they are relying on, and whether that person waited until RFK WAS DEAD BEFORE ACCUSING HIM OF participating in the conspiracy to KIDNAP Nosenko.

In Bagley's book (p182), he states that Nosenko's incarceration (in some form) was approved by the then-AG, Nick Katzenbach on April 2, 1964