Mark Stapleton

Soon after the assassination of JFK the Dallas police arrested a man called Chet Helms. It is not known why the police did this. Did they think he was related to Richard Helms? Was it his long hair and beard (unusual in Dallas in 1963)? Anyway, he was released without charge. Helms was not involved in the assassination. However, he was a subversive. He went on to form and manage Janis Joplin and the Holding Company. He also arranged free concerts. This introduced the world to Grateful Dead, Country Joe and the Fish and Jefferson Airplane. Chet Helms, one of America’s hippy activists, died on Saturday.

The memorial to Chet Helms will be held this Sunday in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco. It is planned as a huge free concert with an awesome line-up of performers.

Some of the greats are as subversive in death as in life. I was reminded of this last August when I traveled to Colorado for Hunter S. Thompson's memorial, before which I had a brief encounter with John Kerry, alone, by the side of a country road, outside the Woody Creek Store.

Here's Thompson's take on the Kennedy assassination:

JOHN F. KENNEDY, who seized the White House from Richard Nixon in a frenzied campaign that turned a whole generation of young Americans into political junkies, got shot in the head for his efforts, murdered in Dallas by some hapless geek named Oswald who worked for either Castro, the mob, Jimmy Hoffa, the CIA, his dominatrix landlady or the odious, degenerate FBI chief J. Edgar Hoover. The list is long and crazy - maybe Marilyn Monroe's first husband fired those shots from the Grassy Knoll. Who knows? A whole generation of American journalists is still embarrassed by their failure to answer that question.

JFK's ghost will haunt the corridors of power in America for as long as the grass is green and the rivers run to the sea.... Take my word for it, Bubba. I have heard his footsteps for [40] years and I still feel guilty about not being able to explain the biggest news story of my lifetime to my son.

AT ONE POINT, not long ago, I went to the desperate length of confessing to the murder myself. We were finishing breakfast in a patio restaurant on a bright Sunday morning in Boulder. It was a stylish place near the campus, where decent people could meet after pretending they had just come from church and get fashionably drunk on mimosas and white wine. The tables were separated by ferns and potted palms....

"Son," I said, "I'm sorry to ruin your breakfast, but I think the time has finally come to tell you the truth about who killed John Kennedy."

He nodded but said nothing. I tried to keep my voice low, but emotion made it difficult.

"It was me," I said. "I am the one who shot Jack Kennedy."

"What?" he said, glancing over his shoulder to see if others were listening. Which they were. The mention of Kennedy's name will always turn a few heads, anywhere in the world - and god only knows what a tenured Professor of American Political History might feel upon hearing some grizzled thug in a fern bar confess to his own son that he was the one who murdered John F. Kennedy. It is one of those line that will not fall on deaf ears.

My son leaned forward and stared into my eyes as I explained the raw details and my reasons for killing the President in cold blood, many years ago. I spoke about ballistics and treachery and my "secret work for the government" in Brazil, when he thought I was in the Peace Corps in the sixties.

"I gave up killing about the time you were born," I said. "But I could never tell you about it, until now."

He nodded solemnly for a moment, then laughed at me and called for some tea. "Don't worry, Dad," he said.

"Good boy," I said. "Now we can finally be honest with each other. I feel naked and clean for the first time in [40] years."

"Not me," he said. "Now I'll have to turn you in."

"What?" I shouted. "You treacherous little bastard!" Many heads had turned to stare at us. It was a weird moment for them. The man who killed Kennedy had just confessed publicly to his son, and now they were cursing each other. Ye gods, what next?

What indeed? How warped can it be for a child born into the sixties to finally be told that his father was the hired shootist who killed Kennedy? Do you call 911? Call a priest? Or act like a cockroach and say nothing?

Thompson, Hunter S., Better Than Sex: Confessions Of A Political Junkie, New York: Random House, pgs 3-5.

Tim

Tim,

Good post. Is the cigarette smoker in the Doonesbery cartoon supposed to be Hunter S. or "brains"? (from the Thunderbirds)

Stephen,

That is not what Nixon said, according to a transcript of the news conference. He did not use and stumble over the word "conspiracy," though what he did say seemed to imply one. Here is the actual quote:

"But if he had had 10 more and, as a result of wiretaps, had been able to discover the Oswald plan, it would have been worth it."

The obvious question (which no one asked) is, who was Oswald making plans with on the phone to assassinate JFK?

The partial transcript can be found here:

http://www.bannerofliberty.com/OS8-98MQC/8-20-1998.1.html

Ron

In the context of the quote, plan equals conspiracy. It seems he often slipped up while backpedaling.

Does anybody on this forum blame RFK for the assassination of his own brother?

I love what RFK stood for at the end of his life and consider his assassination as significantly damaging to the nation's spirit as that of the President. I would certainly not apply the word "blame" to RFK's possible inadvertant contribution to the wrong elements. Nevertheless, I believe the following is worthy of consideration.

The day after his brother's murder, Bobby Kennedy sought answers from Harry Ruiz-Williams, a CIA agent staying at a CIA-operated safe house used by Cuban exiles. Afterward, speaking with journalist Haynes Johnson, Bobby said that he "suspected CIA-backed anti-Castro forces of having been involved in his brother's death." He was later quoted as telling one of the investigators from his Senate committee days: "Those Cuban cunts are all working for the mob. They blame us for the Bay of Pigs, and they're trying to make this look like a Castro-Communist hit. I don't buy it. And I don't trust those guys at the CIA. They're worse than the Mafia."[1]

Of course, Bobby knew better than anyone what had transpired beneath the surface of the administration's use of the exiles. More personally, he knew the dark side of his own role in the unleashing of elements he now considered responsible for his brother's death. Many of those close to Bobby who saw in him a classic case of survivor's guilt were unaware that a much deeper level of responsibility may have informed his anguish.

Bobby had personally entertained Cuban exiles at his house, Hickory Hill, and kept in touch with them at their apartments at the Ebbitt Hotel in downtown Washington, where they were housed by the CIA. Even Desmond FitzGerald, Bobby's replacement for Wild Bill Harvey, was concerned about the directness of Bobby's involvement with the Cuban exiles. The Attorney General's freelancing with the the Cuban exile community was a formula for disaster. Peter Collier and David Horowitz have written poignantly about Bobby's anguish over what may have been an unintended consequence of his own actions:

"It was Bobby who had led the administration into dangerous places, daring the gods of the underworld and seizing the fire that finally erupted into anti-Kennedy hatred. He had done it in the service of his brother's presidency, yet he had gone past duty or necessity, using his special status as the brother within to justify what had become at times an almost perverse exploration of self. While Jack was alive, everything was justified; now that he was dead, it was all called into question. Had his acts created an environment for assassination? Had his zeal helped create the concatenation of forces that wanted Jack dead?"[2]

Four years after the assassination of the President, the CIA Inspector General conducted an internal investigation which was forwarded to Lyndon Johnson, who told newsman Howard K. Smith: "I'll tell you something that will rock you; Kennedy was trying to get Castro, but Castro got to him first."[3] In March 1967, columnist Drew Pearson wrote, "President Johnson is sitting on a political H-bomb-an unconfirmed report that Senator Robert Kennedy (Dem. N.Y.) may have approved an assassination plot which then possibly backfired against his brother."

The source for the Pearson article was the original mafioso hired by the CIA to kill Castro, Johnny Roselli. The spin being placed on this new round of stories was, like the Oswald promotion, aimed at leading the public to believe that Castro was behind the conspiracy in Dallas. Roselli had revealed to Pearson, through his attorney, Edward Morgan, that "One of our assassination teams was captured and tortured until they told all they knew about our operation which they said was ordered by the White House." Roselli asserted that "the team was turned around, you know, brainwashed, and sent back into our country to kill Kennedy."

All good lies contain a good measure of truth, and such may be the case with Roselli's attempt at history-making. Although this colorful rendition is compelling, given the source, it should be recognized that contained in this version is the admission that it was an anti-Castro hit team that had killed Kennedy. But this secret "team" would hardly have required anything so exotic as brainwashing to retarget its skills against the President. By November of 1963, Kennedy was clearly a foe to the extreme anti-Castro elements; they believed he had cancelled the airstrikes and betrayed the Bay of Pigs operation, then compounded the betrayal by giving the no-invasion pledge, and finally sealed the antipathy by shutting down the exile camps and beginning negotiations directed toward the normalization of relations with Cuba.

When Roselli's well-connected lawyer asked him how he had contained such explosive information, Roselli noted that "all phases of this operation were approved by Allen Dulles and President Eisenhower." He questioned why neither Dulles, who was a member of the Warren Commission investigating the Kennedy assassination, nor Eisenhower, who had full knowledge of the plots, ever came forward. "So what was I supposed to think?" He inferred that the President "wanted to keep the lid on." Roselli speculated that perhaps Johnson "thought it'd be bad for the country to know about this operation-you know, the government of the United States involved with the so-called Mafia to kill the leader of a foreign country and then it boomerangs."[4]

A possibility that may never be resolved is Johnson's notion that some action taken by Bobby Kennedy "backfired against his brother." There is ample evidence of Bobby's continued encouragement of anti-Castro efforts during a period of time when his brother, the President of the United States, was pursuing a very contrary policy.

Because of the closeness of the brothers it is generally assumed that Bobby was fulfilling one aspect of a multi-track approach on the part of the Administration. While it is understandable that some token support for the exiles might be considered prudent as a way of co-opting more radical elements, the extent to which one approach represented the direct undermining of the other presents a historical conundrum regarding the brothers' coordination of authority. The possibility must be considered that Bobby crossed the line of plausible deniability into a realm in which he was acting in his own highly unofficial capacity apart from any directed intention on the part of the President, and that something that occurred in Dallas required Bobby's acquiescence to the cover-up.

1. David C. Heymann, RFK. New York: Penguin Putnam Inc., 1998), 10.

2. Peter Collier and David Horowitz, The Kennedys, (New York: Summit Books, 1984), 317.

3. New York Times, June 25, 1976.

4. Ovid Demaris, The Last Mafioso. New York: Bantam Books, 1981), 235-241.

Tim,

The idea that JFK was murdered due to the overzealous activities of his brother has been raised on the Forum before. While there may be evidence indicating Bobby sometimes acted beyond the scope of his vested authority, the argument that Bobby's activities caused his brother's death is heavily outweighed by the evidence supporting the more obvious argument that it was Jack Kennedy's actions which caused his own assassination, IMO.

The nuclear test ban treaty, rapprochement with Cuba, plans to circumvent the Federal Reserve, plans to scrap the oil depletion allowance, his planned timetable for the removal of personnel from Vietnam, his unfavorable disposition towards the CIA post BOP and lastly, the extremely unlucky position he occupied* are far more persuasive reasons for his assassination than Bobby's alleged dealings with the underworld and anti-Castro Cubans.

The underworld generally doesn't kill those from the "other" world if it can help it, IMO. Too much trouble--publicity, investigations etc. It's bad for business. Of course, once a public official has been bribed he becomes an inhabitant of their world and the rules may then change in respect to that individual. If the US mafia was really as trigger happy as some suggest why didn't they murder Mayor LaGuardia and Tom Dewey back in the thirties? A Mayor and a DA would be easier targets than a President, IMO.

* I don't mean the unlucky position of being President, I mean the unlucky position of being the only person between LBJ and the Presidency.

Lynn:

I don't know who you are. Your bio is not at all revealing. Have you bothered to read anything Garrison ever wrote such as " A Heritage of Stone", or better yet "On the Trial os the Assassins".? You clearly have not read the latter book or you would have realized that Stone's film is in many parts verbatim of this work. (Stone read this book and was just blown away and decided to turn this work into a film).

Your own bias against and lack of knowledge about the man you are condemning here speaks volumes.

Very easy to just parrot some "trash Garrison" article.

Noone here thinks RFK killed JFK, nor did Garrison think this.

Dawn

Hi Dawn. If I had read those 2 books alone, I too would agree with you. It is Jim Garrison who publicly blamed RFK for the assassination.

I think most of the KA critics ultimately reached the conclusion that Garrison was just a 'circus act'. There is no doubt that he knew a great deal about the Kennedy assassination because he studied all the work of the critics, but why did he simultaneously levy absurd charges?

Of course Garrison did not think that RFK was involved, and that's what makes his charges so transparent. He wasn't trying to expose the truth, he was trying to be the circus ringleader, and he did an excellent job.

Read the 'Garrison Report' at the beginning of this thread again, I think it is very factual.

If 'On the Trail of the Assassins' was conclusive, we wouldn't be debating here.

Lynne,

Surely you jest.

Mark, can you identify specific factual allegations in the article that you assert are "rubbish"?

I think the article is very factual. I am surprised Oliver Stone was duped as much as he was.

Lynne,

This piece is a clumsy hatchet job on Garrison. Who wrote it anyway?

Quoting:

"The only genuine motivation Garrison ever betrayed was the absolute obsession to cover up the truth". (????? then why did he bother to open an investigation)

"The intimidating power and influence that Garrison commanded exceeded legal limits. In 1966, he interceded directly with the Louisiana Governor and won a pardon for Linda Brigette, a stripper, who in effect was granted a license to perform the sort of lewd dancing the law forbade" (Surely proof that Garrison sat with the devil. Who else would intercede and allow the countryside to be ravaged by one so evil as....................a stripper!!!)

There are other examples of ridiculous rhetoric from the author but its so bent and skewed, I couldn't be bothered. Trust Tim Gratz to defend it.

I haven't heard anything about Jim Garrison which would lead me to think that he ever, genuinely tried to solve the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

As far as I can see, he only demanded control, the truth never mattered. Isn't this the real truth about Jim Garrison?

Come on Lynne, that article's rubbish.

In my opinion Thomas G. Buchanan was the ghost writer of "Farewell America." He fits the profile given to me by Herve Lamarre, the French intelligence agent who fronted the Farewell project. Buchanan was far from a Communist. He was a World War II veteran, an Ivy Leaguer and a correspondent for L'Express, for whom he covered the Jack Ruby trial.

According to Kenneth Rahn, Buchanan was sacked by Washington Evening Star in 1948 after it was discovered that he was a member of the American Communist Party.

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/JFK.html

Buchanan was blacklisted and was forced to leave the United States. In 1951 Buchanan settled in France and eventually became head of the Programming Department of the General Organisation Company in Paris.

Is it possible that Jean Daniel was the author of Farewell America? I suspect that Buchanan got a lot of his information from Daniel, who agreed to carry out negotiations with Castro for JFK. Daniel had a meeting with JFK a few days before he was assassinated. Daniel was with Castro when news arrived of JFK's death.

In March, 1964, Buchanan began publishing articles about the assassination of JFK in L’ Express. At the time Daniel was foreign editor of L'Express. What is clear from these articles and his book, Who Killed Kennedy?, is that he had an important contact from within the Warren Commission. Interestingly, Buchanan appears to have been the first writer to suggest that Lyndon B. Johnson and "Texas oil interests" were responsible for Kennedy's death.

Do you know if Buchanan and Daniel are still alive?

John,

Buchanan actually dismisses LBJ as a suspect (I think he was wrong on this). Quoting Buchanan (p.188):

"That Lyndon Johnson is, in any way, involved in Mr. X's plot would be, of course, fantastic. No such implication is intended."

He goes on to suggest an unnamed Texas oil millionaire (Mr. X) as the architect of the assassination.

Matthew,

Welcome to the Forum. I haven't read your book yet either, but I would be very interested to know the answer to the question Pat has posed concerning TMWKK.

Pat, did Tatro say who those former aides were, and if so, can you disclose their names?

Or, to clarify Mr. Stapleton's question, at what particular point does an income tax become "confiscatory"??

60%? 50%? 40%? 39.362537839%? To this point in the discussion, the term "confiscatory" has yet to be defined.

Or is this another of those "I can't tell you what it is, but I know it when I see it" terms?

Mark, I suspect that this term means the immposition of a progressive rate of tax. Something that the rich, and their supporters will fight tooth and nail against. I would settle for a rich man paying the same rate of tax, in real terms, as the rest of us have to endure. But this, of course is anathama to the prevailing political ideology.

Hi Steve,

Here here to that. If the rich paid their fair share, Governments might have sufficient funds to pay for schools and hospitals. Of course, this is a utopian ideal because the rich pay political parties direct--instead of through the tax system--ensuring Governments will never succumb to rational thought.

I've read Madeleine's book. The sex scenes with Lyndon are hilarious. ("As I lay there naked and exposed, he reached up with both hands and in one savage jerk ripped his shirt open. The popped buttons of his garment made sharp staccato counterpoints as they struck the wall and rained down upon the bed.") But nothing in the book can match the back cover, where the publisher (Harrison Edward Livingstone) calls it "some of the greatest historical writing in American literature."

I still look at the book now and then for comic relief.

Ron,

I've tried that but I've never been able to get the staccato sound off the wall quite right. I've gotta get that book.

Tim,

I don't want to interrupt, but what's a "confiscatory" income tax system, just out of interest?

Concerning Ruby, didn't he change his story about being at the Morning News? And were there other sightings of Ruby in DP? He was seemingly everywhere that day.

On the question of Ruby's alibi, if its true, it wouldn't necessarily disprove Mercer's testimony as that concerned the earlier sighting of Ruby in the Ford pickup delivering the gun case.

Forgive the rambling....

There were multiple sightings of a man that would resemble Ruby that day. This leads me to speculate as to whether or not this was deliberate. I think most would agree that LHO was impersonated - 'doubled' by lookalikes that may or may not have been identical [the whole Lee & Harvey theory aside].

Marguerite Oswald was presented a photo of Saul, not Ruby - isn't that correct? Saul resembled Ruby. MacDonald, who allegedly interviewed Saul, had him on the top floor of the DalTex - not on the ground at the Plaza.

Along with Mercer, there are the descriptions provided by Bowers and Hoffman of the man behind the fence -middle aged and heavy set. That's the man I have been trying to figure out - the one I think may have been dressed as a Railroad Detective - dark suit, dark pants, black hat - that fired from the infamous GKS position behind the fence in the parking area. Not Ruby - but very possibly the man seen running by Jean Hill. Maybe even the man seen in the ghost images in the last frames of the z-film. Maybe this is the same man seen by Tom Tilson and his daughter [FWIW, I don't think that GKS was James Files, Charles Rogers, Jack Lawrence, Roscoe White, Emilio Santana, etc.].

In addition to this man, who may resemble Ruby in build, there is another man that may resemble him in stature, hairstyle, etc, who we see at the front of the TSBD in one of the Willis photos and one of the Murray photos. This man resembles Remigio G. 'CuCu' Arce - who may or may not be related to Danny Arce. And Ruby seems to have glasses in his pocket when he is gunning down Oswald at the DPD the next day [still like to know why Ruby's hat changes color between the various film frames vs the Warren Report exhibit]. Not relevant.

As for the connections between Lee Harvey Oswald and Jack Ruby - they seem to be fairly thin. And the invididuals making these connections [someone educate me if I am off here] don't seem to be highly credible. The National Enquirer is one. The reference to 4 DPD officers having seen articles collected from an apartment formerly occupied by a Cuban, and handed over to the FBI only to disappear. Among these articles, the Enquirer alleged, was an FPCC card with Jack Ruby as a member [number 54 if memory serves]. It is interesting that he knew the name well enough to correct Wade during the Press Conference. Also that he wasn't looking to whack Oswald when he was there in his 'disguise' and that no one thought it odd that he was there correcting the DA.

Another is the woman that claims to have been Babushka Lady, and I don't buy that bridge. I could buy one of Lee Oswald's imposters being gay, and having been running in the same circles as Ruby, who may have been bi-sexual or running with a 'beard' - but if I was running an extensive operation to kill the Commander in Chief, I wouldn't want to rely on someone as flaky as Jack Ruby? But at the same time, I also don't see his having been 'pre-selected' as Oswald's assassin. Still seems to me that Oswald wasn't supposed to be caught at the Theatre.

I think it's more likely that Ruby was indeed where he said he was - at the Dallas Morning news. However, if he indeed liked Kennedy, as we've all heard - then why would he stay there and miss the motorcade unless he was looking to establish an alibi as to his whereabouts? Maybe he was sifting through some information, and started to realize what was about to happen.

Gary Wean has Ruby being supplied with fake alibi's to distance him from complicity so as to cover any connection to Mickey Cohen, Meyer Lansky and the 'Mishpucka' Maffia - I find this interesting.

Speaking of Wean, may as well post the alleged conversation had between Tower, Wean, Decker and Murphy.

John smiled at Frank who’s head was wagging, he said, “I know exactly what you are thinking Frank and it gets worse. At first Hunt did not tell Oswald what his exact mission was, except it was one of the highest National Security priority. He was instructed to give his wife absolutely no hint whatsoever of his secret government connections. Hunt did not trust her, in fact, he was paranoid about Marina being a Russian spy. It was only two months before the Fake Assassination when Hunt gave Oswald the rifle,[11] explaining his part in the scheme. Oswald was to fire three shots from his rifle in the air, then abandon it and the empty cartridges at the scene. He was to quickly leave the building for a rendezvous with agents who would transport him to a secret destination where he’d remain in hiding until after Cuba was invaded by the United States. A fake trail to Mexico City ending at the Cuban Embassy would lead investigators to think he had fled to Cuba.[12] The belief that Castro planned the investigation of President Kennedy and the assassin was being harbored under his protection in Cuba would stir the Americans to a feverish pitch of anger, like, ‘Remember the Maine,’ the battleship blown up in Havana harbor in 1898. It started the Spanish American War. Oswald was shocked and not a little frightened, however Hunt convinced him that he could be saving the United States from destruction by nuclear rockets being planted in Cuba by Russia. He confided to Oswald that JFK had not been made aware of their plan, that was for the sake of authenticity of his reactions. But it was approved and sanctioned by high ranking members of the cabinet. Hunt assured him, after U.S. forces overran Cuba and exposed the Russian nuclear missiles, President Kennedy would forgive them for their precipitant actions.[13] He would perceive them as American heroes. Oswald could come in out of the cold and live as an ordinary citizen with his family, which desire he’d indicated a number of times. On first blush Oswald was extremely leery of the feasibility of Hunt’s plan. But commencing to see and feel the power and confidence of people behind the mission he joined eagerly. His orders were to leave a trail that could be easily followed, yet not so overly obvious as to bring down suspicion. And specifically the most critical part was the moment of firing the rifle. It must be instantly clear to the crowd and security people in the street as to the location and source of the shots.[14] Success of the operation depended entirely upon police quickly finding the rifle and the clues. The hysteria and excited press and TV announcers picking up the scent would trumpet a bloodhound hue and cry following the trail right to Fidel Castro’s doorstep.”

Audie mused, “Sounds exactly like a Hollywood script.”

“Yes, but by standards it was a basic plan. Of course all covert operations have inherent danger and are subject to break downs, but my God, this was no break down or neglect of performance, or even bad luck. What has happened is incomprehensible. It cannot be that the Mafia or Cuban exiles have done it, there is no motive, they had already been given inside tips that an operation was underway that would return them to Cuba. It would’ve been totally stupid for them to interfere. Anyway, even Oswald wasn’t told the route to take for his rendezvous until the last minute, so how could they possibly know where he was? Only a few of Hunt’s most trusted men knew all his plans down to the last detail. It is impossible to believe any of them is a traitor. Still it is clear, who ever killed the President had to know all the minute details to pull it off the way they did. Something very frightening, horribly sinister had interposed Hunt’s mission. He and his men are petrified, they conceive this as not just murder, they’ve been drawn into treason. The mysterious assassins then intercepted Oswald before he reached his rendezvous. Certainly they were about to kill him when the police officer happened upon the scene, they did not dare be caught with Oswald so they shot the officer. During the shooting Oswald ran and hid in a theatre, he was captured minutes later. It had to happen that way, I know, Oswald would never have shot an officer under any circumstances, I’m positive.”[15]

On the Ruby fireworks informant - I've said this before - I have a difficult time when one individual makes a claim that can't be supported by anyone else - like Seth Kantor. It's only Seth that says Ruby was at Parkland. Why should we doubt him, since it seemed to throw a wrench into the case being built by the Warren Commission? Because Ruby denied it. What would he stand to gain or lose by doing that? I've seen the photo, in Penn Jones stuff, which can be seen at Baylor. Not much to go on.

Or, there's also the possibility that Ruby overheard something. Ruby was doing his utmost to stay tapped in at the DPD. Ian Griggs interview with Shari Angel has Harry Olsen as being run over by Jack Ruby in a skating accident - which is why Olsen was guarding the Estate that day. Olsen probably knows a lot. I still wonder who the hell Johnny was, and why Olsen, Kathy Kay and Ruby would have headed over to talk to him until the wee hours - a garage mechanic? Does that make sense to anyone? Sort of a bizarre coincidence that Harry Olsen has a broken leg from an ice skating accident just prior - but then, there are so many such coincidences here.

http://www.acorn.net/jfkplace/03/JA/DR/.dr06.html

The Warren Commission tells us that Jack Ruby was not in Dealey Plaza

during the assassination. But on that day "Jack Ruby had telephoned a

friend and asked if he would 'like to watch the fireworks.' Unknown to

Ruby, his friend was an informant for the criminal intelligence division

of the Internal Revenue Service. He and Ruby were standing at the corner

of the Postal Annex Building [in Dealey Plaza] at the time of the

shooting," according to the informant (91). There are other unconfirmed

reports of Jack Ruby in Dealey Plaza that day, though neither John

Armstrong nor this author endorse all of them (92).

I'd like to know more about who the informant was, and whether or not his line was tapped [as it should have been], and if this conversation with Ruby was recorded. As with Ferrie's alibi's [Marcello who was Maffia, Wray who worked for Marcello and said his secretary had seen Ferrie in his office at 12:30pm - Central Time, Regis Kennedy - who is obviously dirty, since he was credited with authoring the FBI report that Marcello was an honest tomato salesman, etc.], I'm not sure I am going to trust solely in the words of one Government snitch employee - especially without knowing more.

Aside - Vince Drain remarked upon an 'incident' that occurred at Parkland - after the shooting. I had heard about it before. The Torbitt document has this being DeBrueys, Regis Kennedy's pal, who has to be forcibly restrained and removed from the hospital by the SS - but we think that Ruby may have been the one to place a fake bullet on a stretcher? And that Ruby was in Parkland because one witness saw him there, depite the fact that he was well known in many Dallas circles?

From the Drain interview:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/history/the_d...need/Drain.html

Apparently a problem developed at the hospital when a fellow arrived without knowing exactly where he was. He was in a restricted area and had gone through the swinging doors when he was confronted by the Secret Service. They then grabbed him and removed him from the building. I didn't know what was going on at the time because I was already in the trauma room where the President was.

From Torbitt:

DeBrueys' chief assignment in the summer and fall of 1963 was to maintain a close vigil over Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans and Dallas. This he did, and after Oswald's death, DeBrueys gathered all of Oswald's personal belongings and carried them to J. Edgar Hoover in Washington, D.C.94

On November 22, before it was known that Kennedy was dead, Warren Debrueys walked into Parkland Hospital and tried to force his way into the room where President Kennedy was being attended.

Two Secret Service agents had a terrible fight with DeBrueys, before he was subdued in the room just outside of Kennedy's. He was held down by Secret Service agents until help arrived.95

If this is true....what the hell was he doing?

From everything I have read thus far [and I really should read a few Ruby books], Jack Ruby was a wannabe [and a meglomaniac]. A wannabe reporter. A wannabe undercover agent. A wannabe cop/gangster/etc. It's been said he corrected Wade about the Fair Play for Cuba to steer him away from another organization that was indeed involved - more speculation [and I forget the reference]. However, the Warren Report has him running about the morning after the assassination and taking photos of the Impeach Earl Warren signs, looking for Weissman, etc. IMO - has all the earmarks of someone who is putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with 5 - not only 5, but his religion is being implicated, through the name 'Weissman.' He was getting material, and seemed to be looking to build a case - and said it to the Warren Commission when he told them about the Birchers. Was Harry Olsen a Bircher? Tippit? How many Birchers would Ruby have been associated with through his connections at the Carousel? Seems logical to me that Ruby was putting together some facts - collecting material, and was becoming cognizant of the fact that the rightwing people he had associated with were seeking to blacken the identity of his people? And at the urging of some folks to be a 'hero' and to do something to redeem his faith [plus feed his ego], some newsmen enable his to gain access by allowing them to assit in carting some of their cameras into the basement for the transfer, which largely occurs as it does and when it does through media related pressure.

Dallas Morning News sports columnist Bud Shrake was watching TV in Modell’s office a couple hours before kickoff when he saw an acquaintance of his, nightclub owner Jack Ruby, murder accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald in the basement of Dallas Police Headquarters.

When Shrake saw fellow News reporter and roommate Gary Cartwright in the Municipal Stadium parking lot a few minutes later, he sprinted toward him and shouted: “Someone just shot Oswald, and you’ll never guess who it is!”

Without hesitation, Cartwright blurted out the name “Jack Ruby.” Shrake was stunned.

“I still don’t know why I said it,” said Cartwright, a widely published author and novelist who now writes for Texas Monthly. “It was just an immediate reaction that I had.”

Won't be able to find the reference at the moment - the name of one of the newsmen that may have assisted Ruby in gaining entrance to the DPD Basement - speculation of course...

Some Mae Brusell:

"And then there was the testimony of Bernard Weissman. He was only one of twelve military intelligence people that were brought from Germany to Dallas for the assassination. He testified that Lamar Hunt and twenty members of the Birch Society used his name on that inflammatory 'Wanted for Treason' ad in the Dallas Times Herald about Kennedy because he was Jewish and they wanted a Jewish name on it. Somehow, on November 24, 1963, the Nazi link, the oil Nazis, the American military from Munich and the two Jew patsies, Rubinstein and Weissman, were all right there in Dallas. As I collected every possible document, the world picture began to get clearer to me, and my interest in the Kennedy assassination became more involved with the Nazi links than with the anti-Castro Cuban links. My disagreement with researchers at large is that they want to stop with the Bay of Pigs operation, and I think it's bigger."

But why the Nazis? Racism, for one thing, says Mae. The Bormann Society, still dedicated to the establishment of the Fourth Reich, did not appreciate Kennedy's drive to educate Southern blacks and register them to vote. Nor did they care for the fact that he was Catholic and stood in opposition to the neo-Nazi oil interests."

Mafia leaders: Sam Giancana, Jimmy Hoffa, John Roselli—"It was just a fluke that he bounced up; his legs were cut off and his torso put in an oil drum. Carlo Gambino—given a shot of swine flu inoculation when he had a heart disease. Sheffield Edwards was killed and William Harvey was killed—the CIA contacts with the Mafia people—and the CIA agent Guy Bannister was killed. He worked with Robert Maheu and with Lee Harvey Oswald, and he flew out a window. The same people who were behind it are alive today, and they're sweeping away the bodies. It's at the highest levels that these conspiracies are planned, not just with a few Cuban exiles."

- lee

More ramblings,

Trying to nail down Ruby's movements after the assassination is quite a task. Posner devotes a large slab of his book describing Ruby's movements and it seems like he is trying to portray Ruby as crazy--regularly bursting into tears and fits of rage by turns. He probably was crazy but I think somewhere along the line he got his orders to shoot LHO from a contact (maybe Breck Wall?). I might go through it all again on the weekend, but there's so much heresay involved it's probably not worth the time.

The weight of evidence puts him in Dealey Plaza, IMO. There's the fireworks comment, the Malcolm Couch/Wes Wise heresay and Jean Hill's runner versus the WC's DMN employee Don Campbell--who can only vouch for Ruby's presence up to 12.20 anyway. Did I leave anyone out? This lends weight to Julieanne Mercer's testimony about Ruby delivering the gun case. Mercer was very specific about her descriptions. Further, she informed the DPD that she could identify the two men again. Garrison also interviewed her and found her highly credible. Her description of the younger man was "white male, late 20's or early 30's, grey jacket, brown pants, plaid shirt". Is it possible this was the jacket found two blocks from the scene of the Tippit murder--the latter being described as "light grey"? Did Ruby's offsider kill Tippit? Were Ruby and his offsider tasked with maintaining contact with and murdering LHO, the plan unravelling through the intervention of Tippit? The evidence points to Ruby knowing LHO and he did, IMO. An earlier stuff up by Ruby could be used as an argument to persuade him to fix up his mess and murder LHO. Maybe Ruby's incredibly erratic behavior after JFK's death was due to him knowing he had bungled his role, whatever that may have been. Wildly speculating here, of course.

Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" suggests there may have been a plan to fake an assassination attempt on JFK, a plan hijacked by the real conspirators.

Pat Speer once started a thread suggesting just such a scenario. His thread was titled: "Thinking Dark Thoughts".

A few months later I started a similar thread.

Perhaps this post belongs in one or both of those threads.

In any event, unfortunately I cannot cite the specifics but I read to this effect in Larry Hancock's book earlier today:

1) The morning of the assassination, Jack Ruby was reported to have remarked to someone: "Are you going to [be in Dealey Plaza] to watch the fireworks today?"

2) After the assassination Ruby was reportedly visibly shaken (by several people).

#2 suggests, of course, that Ruby had no foreknowledge of the assassination. Of course, if he was a conspirator he could have been acting. He could, for instance, already have been given his assignment to kill Oswald so his feigned shock was part of his planned defense. But . . .

What about #1? It does not make sense that Ruby would reveal his foreknowledge of the assassination. But perhaps what he was privy to was that there was to be a staged assassination attempt. So he expected there would be "fireworks" but no actual injuries.

Am I reading to much in to the above facts? It would seem that if both 1 and 2 are true, and if Ruby's shock was genuine, perhaps he had been informed of a staged assassination attempt and was in shock when he realized that someone had hijacked the staged event and made it horribly real.

How Ruby's knowledge of a faked assassination attempt would fit into the entire conspiracy, however, I do not suggest even a scenario.

Just some thoughts and speculation on this:

An interesting line of thought Tim. Given Ruby's statement and post assassination demeanor, I see three possibilities:

1. Ruby had no idea that anything related to an assassination or a phony, staged "attempt" was going to take place. Maybe by "fireworks" he simply meant the motorcade, the crowds of people, etc. Maybe by "fireworks", he just meant the general hoopla surrounding JFK's motorcade. If this was the case, then I would speculate that his reaction to the assassination (visibly shaken) was probably genuine.

The big problem I see with this one is his specific reference to Dealey Plaza (although the way it's bracketed in the quotation makes it difficult to know just how specific that reference to DP was). If by "fireworks" Ruby simply meant all of the hoopla surrounding the motorcade, the reference to DP seems too specific, as the motorcade traveled through downtown Dallas prior to arriving in DP. One could have viewed the "fireworks" anywhere along that route if Ruby's "fireworks" reference was really that general. I think here is where knowing some context, along the actual words that came out of Jack Ruby's mouth would be helpful. Is that info available? To whom was he speaking? Who is the original source of this info? I do have a copy of Larry's book, could you direct me to the appropriate page?

2. Ruby knew that JKF was going to be assassinated in Dealey Plaza. His remark about seeing the "fireworks" suggests this. Again context; do we know who he said this to and what his exact words were? His immediate reaction to the murder could still have been genuine when he saw that it had actually happened and happened in such graphic fashion. Or his reaction was feigned in order to help conceal the fact that he had foreknowledge of what had just happened.

It seems unlikely to me that the plotters would have provided such information to Jack Ruby unless he was actually part of the plot to kill JFK. Having said that, I suppose that given Ruby's mob ties and their potential involvement (at an operational/support level, not a strategic one, IMO), he could have been assigned to perform in a support role. Julianne Mercer's testimony supports this, as does the allegation that Ruby visited HL Hunt’s office the day before the assassination (Hunt being some who allegedly had foreknowledge of the events in DP and an untampered with copy of the Z film on the evening of 11/22. I know the Z film allegation comes from various Hunt household employees, but I cannot recall who claims to have seen Ruby at Hunt’s office on 11/21.). The claim that Ruby was in the offices of the Dallas Morning News at the time of the assassination seem to shoot holes (no pun intended) in Mercer’s account. In Seth Kantor’s book on Ruby, he’s specific and names two or three people that had interaction with Ruby and verify that he was there. So, is Julianne Mercer mistaken? Does a timeline work where Mercer could have seen him In DP before he heads over to the DMN? IMO, if Ruby knew, then he was probably involved. Any thoughts on Ruby’s movements/whereabouts/timeline on 11/23?

3. Ruby knew of a phony, staged "attempt" on Kennedy's life that would take place in Dealey Plaza and this is reflected in the "fireworks" remark. His being "visibly shaken" after the shooting coming as the result of the realization that something had gone horribly wrong.

This is certainly an intriguing idea. Are we suggesting/speculating that there could have been an actual fake attempt on JFK’s like in order to convince him that he needed to take his security more seriously? In order to gain public support for efforts against Castro? And that such a plan was somehow infiltrated by the real perps and “turned?” I don’t know if I buy that. Who in an official capacity would actually OK a staged assassination attempt against their President? That would have sounded pretty crazy at the time. And awful risky. What if the DPD or the SS actually shot someone during such a caper? This scenario is just a little too far out for me. Not saying it’s impossible, but who would have been stupid enough to authorize this? Or are we speculating that the fake assassination attempt was a story cooked up by the real plotters, perhaps purporting to be (or perhaps actually being for that matter) U.S. Government officials/agents in order to enlist the services of certain individuals (like Ruby?) who may have thought that they were doing a service to their country (until the real bullets started flying, that is)? I don’t know. It’s very intriguing, but when I try to piece it all together, I just don’t see the plotters needing to do it. They could hire professional killers/teams, there were plenty of powerful people/groups that wanted Kennedy dead and would have cooperated willingly (Cubans, Agency, Mafia, Suite 8F types, JBS, Hunt, Murchison, all the usual suspects), and it’s pretty obvious that there could be sufficient leverage applied to low level support personnel like a Jack Ruby that no fake assassination story would have been necessary.

I guess I’m more inclined to believe scenario #1 or #2. In choosing between those two, I’d like to know more about Ruby’s “fireworks” statement (To whom was it said? Exact words? Etc.). How credible is the story about Ruby being at HL Hunt’s office on 11/21? Can Mercer’s account and the account of Ruby being at the DMN at the time of the shooting both be correct?

Just rambling and speculating here. Interested in your thoughts or any corrections to the above.

Greg,

Interesting thoughts. You're right, there would need to be an adequate explanation for planning a faked assassination. I can't think of anything except maybe to blame it on Castro and get JFK to invade Cuba. That's a longshot.

Concerning Ruby, didn't he change his story about being at the Morning News? And were there other sightings of Ruby in DP? He was seemingly everywhere that day.

On the question of Ruby's alibi, if its true, it wouldn't necessarily disprove Mercer's testimony as that concerned the earlier sighting of Ruby in the Ford pickup delivering the gun case.

Lee,

Thanks for that. That threads a while back so I'm glad you pointed it out. Very interesting research. Do you still like the scenario?

Hi Mark.

I don't know to be honest. Can't figure out whether this was:

1. A scam, created after-the-fact, to implicate EH Hunt.

2. An ingenious scheme created by someone to create a clean method to 'lure' certain folks to Dealey Plaza, where they would be made complicit, and the provision of a 'backdoor' - if things got too hot.

3. A scenario that was only provided as a ruse only to certain individuals - like LHO.

4. Total crap.

It's all speculation, but perhaps there was something by way of JCS / DOD and providing something to PSYOPS, as with Lansdale and Operation Northwoods - the concept of a simulated assassination, which was twisted early on. RFK's reaction, as well as MacNamara and others - following the assassination - quite peculiar.

As for me personally, I like what Thornley said about a 'Maximum Complicity' crime. Invite everyone to the dance so as to camoflauge the orchestra. I was also very interested to read what I saw some others considering, which was that perhaps there was a second operational plan of some sort for the Trade Mart. So perhaps the Corsican Connection [soutre], and the host of operational types that were found mixing in Dallas on 11/22/63 [Vaganov, DPD arrest records, etc.], were part of something else?

If Culligan is to be credited, then his information could have come from one or two sources. He said his 'helpers' included a Texas State Police Officer, and a plumber from Corpus Cristi [Wouldn't it be great to have those IDs]. Anyway, part of what I find interesting about his 'story' is that the operation had the use of 2 DPD squad cars. There is a reference in the Warren Report to 2 retired squad cars. There is no official record of a DPD car being in the area of Oswald's boarding house. Then on a Tippit thread, Dixie made mention of a witness that claimed to have seen a DPD squad car in the driveway at the house where Tippit was shot.

There are other references to the DPD. The extra uniform in Tippit's car. The Mike Robinson account. The remark made by Altgens to Lifton concerning having seen Policemen on the knoll. Arnold's account. etc. etc.

I never managed to figure out a lot of what I thought was seeing in the photos and films [eg Military hats] - but it strikes me that you wouldn't want a 'simulated assassination' to include the DPD?

I guess there's no real way of knowing - save for getting ahold of the document [allegedly] given to Audie Murphy by John Tower, or if we could get real, original, unaltered imagery taken in Dealey Plaza of what actually transpired. Or if a document comes to light which looks a lot like Operation Northwoods, and maybe spells out what RFK had planned?

- lee

Lee,

Thanks for your thoughts. It's a headscratcher. Agree the DPD were unlikely to have known of any mock assassination. Possibly they thought it might be some kind of practical joke.

Ruby's the fly in the ointment for me. If Julieanne Mercer's testimony is credible--and her descriptions "heavyset, middle aged" and "late 20s, plaid shirt" are a close match with Lee Bowers description of the two guys standing near the fence, then he at least delivered the gun case and was possibly in DP (despite his alibi about the DMN). If so, he knows he's helping in something. I don't see him calmly "slouched" over the wheel (and blocking traffic) in the knowledge that he's assisting in the assassination of the President. I could be wrong of course.

I never knew Audie Murphy was the most decorated soldier in US history. How about that.

Gerry Hemming has made a lengthy post on another thread. It demonstrates what "Minesport" was.

Here is what he wrote:

The term "Minesport" [which is similar sounding, but incorrect for that era] referred to a backup football which was ordered sent by the Looking Glass CT commander at approx. 1627 hours G.M.T.

See his Post (#20) on the thread Oliver Stone's "JFK".

Thank you, Tim. I just read Gerry's post. However, does it explain the dispatcher's message to George Lumpkin at 1.44pm (or 1344 hours)? Why the time discrepancy? And why is it mentioned over the DPD radio? Forgive my ignorance on this, but its a bit confusing.

------------------------------

Mark:

You misread my post. There is NO time discrepancy !! NOTICE the G.M.T. after the 1627 hours -- all aviation, Intell, and "snuffy" entities operate on "GREENWICH MEAN TIME" [Ya know, that Prime Meridian that Simkin's folks established during the "Great Depression" [of A.D. 1678].

This is what gave the lie to the bum-wipe excuse that: "...The USS Essex (CVA) aircraft carrier fighters didn't arrive in time to support the BOP B-26s due to the FACT??!! that one party was on "local" time, and the "OTHER" party was on a different time..."!! What a bunch of bullxxxx, both Playa Giron and "Happy Valley" [JM/TIDE] at Puerto Cabezas, Nicaragua even today are on MIAMI TIME, and ALL aircraft involved in JM/ATE operations, which began during mid-1960, always were on the routine G.M.T. !!

Moreover, ALL "Operation Puma" Bomber & Paratroop aircraft were on GMT, as were the folks in the "Hunter-Killer Carrier Task Force", and moreover, as is common in both military and civil aviation -- ALL aircraft altimeters were set at "QNH" [29.92 inches of Mercury].

One late night, back during the 1970s, I was on a "Red-Eye" flight out of Atlanta and enroute to Miami. I recognized the A/C skippers voice as he gave his name -- "...Good Evening...this is Capt. Ferrer..." -- so I took a napkin and wrote "B.A. 2506". gave it to the "stew", and within a minute Eddy Ferrer was sitting alongside me. We updated recent histories, and mentioned mutual friends and their latest shnenanigans.

Capt. Eduardo Ferrer took on a bitter look when I "re-hashed" the phony BOP time story; but that didn't keep him from spending the entire flight chatting -- that is, until the nice lady told him that the nice "2nd Officer" would love to have him up front for the Miami landing [around 4 AM MIA time].

Dallas was then on CST [Central Standard Time]. Miami is on EST. I was hoping that somebody might notice the very interesting "speculation" that the NSA Looking Glass CT Commander issued that order fully ONE HOUR before the motorcade reached D.P. ??!!

Cheers,

Gerry

__________________________________________

Gerry,

Thanks for that. The old time zone trick, eh?

Lee,

Thanks for that. That threads a while back so I'm glad you pointed it out. Very interesting research. Do you still like the scenario?

I think this hook needs fresh bait.

Surely if one wants to fake an assassination attempt then

all that is required is for someone

to loose off a few shots into the air.

No intricate convoluted planning

is needed.

In a fake assassination attempt no one has to be shot.

What other instances of fake presidential assassination

attempts are there on record?

EBC

Eugene,

If you consider the fake assassination attempt hypothesis, it's not really a fake. There never was a fake--it was just an artifice used by the conspirators to entice others to assist them in some of the preparations, while not being aware of the full consequences of their participation. It's just speculation of course, but it's not impossible. (So presumably even Sherlock Holmes wouldn't dismiss it.)

Brennan is very important to the Warren commision, Posner accounts simply because he is the only eyewitness to place LHO in the sixth floor window at the time of the assassination, and as such Posner goes to extraordinary lengths to protect his evidence. Of course to do this with any credibillity, other witness testimony must be ignored, downplayed or rubbished, I refer to Carolyn Arnold, Ruby Henderson, Arnold Rowland, and others, Who see two, or more men on the sixth floor, one of whom is dark complected. This, for me, destroy's Brennan's testimony. Add the fact that he failed to pick Oswald out at a police line up, later giving the excuse that he feared for his life if the Communists wre behind the assassination, and you are left with a testimony you could drive a bus through.

I agree. He was the WC's star witness in DP.

Gerry Hemming has made a lengthy post on another thread. It demonstrates what "Minesport" was.

Here is what he wrote:

The term "Minesport" [which is similar sounding, but incorrect for that era] referred to a backup football which was ordered sent by the Looking Glass CT commander at approx. 1627 hours G.M.T.

See his Post (#20) on the thread Oliver Stone's "JFK".

Thank you, Tim. I just read Gerry's post. However, does it explain the dispatcher's message to George Lumpkin at 1.44pm (or 1344 hours)? Why the time discrepancy? And why is it mentioned over the DPD radio? Forgive my ignorance on this, but its a bit confusing.

Two hours is a lot to cover one magic bullet. Why doesn't it cover all three? There's the magic bullet that hit JFK and Connally, the magic bullet fired a few feet in front of RFK that doubled back and hit him point blank behind the ear, and the magic bullet that did a sharp right turn around a car door to hit Ronald Reagan. (Am I leaving one out?)

No, that's them.

Oliver Stone's movie "JFK" suggests there may have been a plan to fake an assassination attempt on JFK, a plan hijacked by the real conspirators.

Pat Speer once started a thread suggesting just such a scenario. His thread was titled: "Thinking Dark Thoughts".

A few months later I started a similar thread.

Perhaps this post belongs in one or both of those threads.

In any event, unfortunately I cannot cite the specifics but I read to this effect in Larry Hancock's book earlier today:

1) The morning of the assassination, Jack Ruby was reported to have remarked to someone: "Are you going to [be in Dealey Plaza] to watch the fireworks today?"

2) After the assassination Ruby was reportedly visibly shaken (by several people).

#2 suggests, of course, that Ruby had no foreknowledge of the assassination. Of course, if he was a conspirator he could have been acting. He could, for instance, already have been given his assignment to kill Oswald so his feigned shock was part of his planned defense. But . . .

What about #1? It does not make sense that Ruby would reveal his foreknowledge of the assassination. But perhaps what he was privy to was that there was to be a staged assassination attempt. So he expected there would be "fireworks" but no actual injuries.

Am I reading to much in to the above facts? It would seem that if both 1 and 2 are true, and if Ruby's shock was genuine, perhaps he had been informed of a staged assassination attempt and was in shock when he realized that someone had hijacked the staged event and made it horribly real.

How Ruby's knowledge of a faked assassination attempt would fit into the entire conspiracy, however, I do not suggest even a scenario.

I lean a little towards a staged attempt, too. It seems like a neat way of getting those lower down the line to assist in some of the pre-planning without burdening them with the actual consequences of their actions.

Ruby knew something--the testimony of Julieanne Mercer points to that, along with Ruby's alleged comment about watching the fireworks. But would the conspirators entrust full knowledge of the plan to such an irresponsible talker as Jack Ruby?

It makes me think that there might have been two plans that day, the assassination's true sponsors retaining control over both while limiting knowledge of its extent to just a few. The "outer" group of conspirators are not likely to rush to the authorities and confess their ignorance of the plan's full extent. (the authorities wouldn't let them anyway).

Worth mulling over I think.

So, Dawn, make my day: Cite one book you have read that disagrees with YOUR agenda!

Who says Dawn has an agenda?

John,

I'm unable to provide the link but the tapes and transcript can be accessed via the McAdams site.

1.44 pm on channel 2. Dispatcher advises 5 (Deputy Chief George Lumpkin) that a Johnson aide named minesport will arrive at 2.05 and would he inform the Secret Service.

That's the only reference on the tape.

Ok, Thank you Mark. While waiting, I checked online anagram generator as I often do for such things for inspiration. One among many anagrams (and prob means nothing) is SNIPER TOM.

ps another thought is that as its a writing of a verbal message perhaps noted by a southern accented person of a northern speaker maybe the actual word/names something diff from minesport?

Sniper Tom, eh?. I like it. Any more?

There might be a logical explanation for this obscure character but the problem is this,--why is it so difficult to establish who he was? Who didn't want us to know?

John,

I'm unable to provide the link but the tapes and transcript can be accessed via the McAdams site.

1.44 pm on channel 2. Dispatcher advises 5 (Deputy Chief George Lumpkin) that a Johnson aide named minesport will arrive at 2.05 and would he inform the Secret Service.

That's the only reference on the tape.