John Dolva

Please, I wonder if someone could comment on whether l,ll, and lll here corresponds to the conventional wisdon with regards to the sequence in which these photos were taken? The shadow as it rises up the post seems to be evenly spaced indicating a setting sun and a regular timing of the photos that seem to me to indicate this sequence.

By all accounts (of which there are few) Harry D. Holmes was an interesting figure. He described himself as a 'trained suspicioner' and spent most of the day of the assassination and the following days in his office or at the police station taking part in the interviews of Oswald. He provided crucial information on Oswalds Post Box and was the reason for the delay in Oswalds transfer that resulted in Ruby being in time to shoot Oswald. He commanded respect and authority within the FBI, DPD and the Warren Commission. I haven't been able to find out much about him, perhaps someone could supply further details? Suspicioner T7 Harry had his office on the fifth floor of the Terminal Annex building (also known as the Post Office) on the corner of Commerce and Houston streets, cattywampus to the grassy knoll, directly opposite the Texas School Book Depository in Dealey Plaza. He liked to describe the Annex as 'my building'. Through his windows he could see on the right 'Old Red', The Jail, the Records Building, Dal. Tex. and about 300 feet opposite, the sixth floor of the TSBD. Panning in an arc further left along Elm Street down to the Triple underpass then out across the western plains over towards Fort Worth. In the lore of the Wild West, as an agent in the spread of the tentacles of commerce throughout the European invasion, the Post Office is a central player. The oldest Law enforcement organisation in the US, the Postal Inspectors, has an almost legendary status. Indian territory, as Oklahoma was known, is nestled between the states of Texas and Kansas. This (thank's for the correction Tom) was confederate territory during the Civil War. And this is where Harry was born on the second of July, 1905. Little appears to be known about his early life, (in fact little is known about Harry, period) In Harrys mention of his father he describes him as a Goatherd. By age 12 he was attending school in Kansas City. He graduated from high school and spent two years at William Jewell College at Liberty, Mo. and part of a third year in Kansas City. During his schooling he worked in a toy factory, a bakery, lighting lamps, and as a clerk in the post office. He continued working in the post office while studying to become a CPA, and also while studying dentistry. Then on to the second world war. In 1942 he was still working with the USPO where he now became a Postal Inspector. On the day before his 43'rd birthday in 1948, Harry arrived in Dallas where he remained with the Postal Inspection Service until his retirement in 1966. At some point he became an FBI informant codenamed "T7". On November 22, 1963, he observed the assassination through binoculars from his office. Throughout the following days he was a significant figure in the investigation. He was with five or six other inspectors in his office. Through the morning he observed the preparations for the motorcade. He said, pointing out the TSBD, “Well, look at all those open windows. Wouldn’t that be a nice place to take a crack at the President?” During the assassination he was using a pair of 7.5x50 binoculars when "all of a sudden there was a CRACK… CRACK… CRACK!! All of us thought that somebody was throwing firecrackers. We just never dreamed that anybody would be shooting at him. Anyway, about the first or second crack, I wouldn’t know which, there was just a cone of blood and corruption that went up right in the back of his head and neck. I thought it was red paper on a firecracker. It looked like a firecracker lit up which looks like little bits of red paper as it goes up. But in reality it was his skull and brains and everything else that went up perhaps as much as six or eight feet. Just like that! Then just a minute later another crack, and everybody fell down like they were ducking firecrackers."

re. ring, this might help:

There were indeed reports of shots from the Left. Watching through binoculars from his fifth floor office in the Terminal Annex building (or Post Office Building) opposite the Texas School Book Depository, was Harry D. Holmes, FBI informant T7. "....Right after the assassination I called the boss in Fort Worth, who already had the chief on the phone line in Washington because everything was chaos. He told me, “Well, you’re in charge of the investigation over there for whatever they need in the way of postal inspectors’ help or cooperation. The entire manpower that we have over there is at your disposal and we’ll send more if you need them.” All the federal agencies would band together though they didn’t know what to do. Actually, for a while, they thought the shots came from my building, the Terminal Annex. So immediately we interviewed everybody on the floors on that side of the building to see what they knew or had seen because there was a possibility that it came from the post office. Of course, that was cleared up in a hurry. I had the radio on all the time but there wasn’t much that I could do. I had called Captain Fritz and told him, “If there is anything I can do, why, I’m available and I’ve got plenty of men available......” JohnD

thank's Lee, ditto. Another thing I take into account is an experiment to see how force is distributed through a sideways blow. I have in occasion broken say a flower pot or bottle, the fractures are remeniscent of the type of fractures apparent on the autopsy xray photographs (yes, I am aware of the existence of controversy here as well). I have only seen photographs of the xrays. I've attempted to post on the xray topic in the index but the topic stays put and no one gets to read it. Anyway here is an image of force distribution of a sideways blow. A shot from the left would in penetrating the skull encounter on the one side a wall of skull bone edge on and brain tissue on the other.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> This sort of bickering does nothing to encourage research. As far as I understand this forum is not intended as a market for the sale or promotion of publications. There is obviouosly a lot of such stuff going on outside this forum that I'm blissfully unaware of. So largely I try to take people as they come with no regard for the number or order of alphabeticals before or after their monikers. I find the information that Tom is providing helpful. It would also be good , I think, if those who comment on any topics on this forum do so in a spirit of furthering research. I find using it as opportunities to establish a kind of intellectual, academic snobbery replete with blatant sales pitches quite off putting. I think the people interested in the various subjects on this forum are capable of greater discernment than some appear to think. I don't agree with some of Tom's conclusions, that may be because what I am basing my own theory doesn't support it, or I am reading my basis wrongly, or I'm ignoring some aspects that slant's my attitudes, or whatever. I'm open to the idea that I'm wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else is wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else and I are wrong. I'm open to the idea that someone else and I are right in some things and wrong in others. I can only find this out by free and open exchange of information. I believe that genealogy research is a time consuming and difficult thing and that Tom takes the time to do so publicly in this forum is a good thing. Amongst what may turn out to be irrelevancies I think there are many research angles. I've certainly alredy gained background perspectives that flesh out the perception of time, place and people relevant to this investigation. Tom graciously implore people to make up their own mind. Others imagine that stating the certainty of their position without providing any thing except a sales pitch necessarily makes that position correct. Those who wish to peruse or pursue Tom's or anyone elses information will do so, those who don't, hopefully JUST don't. To generate an anti-research atmosphere is instructive insofar as it reveals the motives of those who do so. Perhaps a separate topic could be started so that those who desire to do that can post to it. Otherwise this sort of thing just clogs things up. JohnD ps. re the clavius site. Well, that is a surprise to me. If correct it would seem to explain some of the difficulties in having productive discourse on photo forensic issues in this forum. All I can do I suppose is appeal to members to disregard all attempts at diversion and stick to the tasks at hand.

I wonder if that may go some way to explaining the backyard photos for me. I find them puzzling, pointless even. I still don't get fully their significance. They have such a theatrical nature about them. (please note this is not a statement on their authenticity, but rather a comment on a possible explanation that may fit a picture of Oswald as an (or part of a group) of agent/s provocateur/s should they be found to be genuine.) Agent provocateur (quoted in entirity from wikipedia) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur "NOUN: a·gent pro·vo·ca·teur (-zhä prô-vôkä-tr) (plural: agents provocateurs) : A person employed to associate with suspected individuals or groups with the purpose of inciting them to commit acts that will make them liable to punishment." "An agent provocateur is a person assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group but covertly representing the interests of another. In general, agents provocateurs seek to secretly disrupt a group's activities from within the group. An agent provocateur is often a police officer whose duty is to make sure suspected individual(s) carry out a crime to guarantee their punishment; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion, so they may be convicted of the crime the provocateur suggested. The phrase comes from the French language, where it means, roughly, "inciting agent". The activities of agents provocateurs are typically called sting operations. Agents provocateurs are typically used to investigate consensual or "victimless" crimes; since each participant in such a crime is a willing participant, only a police spy posing as a fellow participant in criminal activity is likely to be able to uncover such a crime. Agents provocateurs are also used against political opponents. Here, it has been documented that provocateurs deliberately carry out or seek to incite counter-productive and/or ineffective acts, in order to foster public disdain for the group and provide a pretext for aggression; and to worsen the punishments its members are liable for. Within the United States the COINTELPRO program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had FBI agents posing as political radicals in order to disrupt the activities of political groups the U.S. government found unacceptably radical, such as the Black Panthers. However, since there is some evidence that the Black Panther organization was itself established as a provocation, aimed at disrupting and discrediting the integrationist program and coalition politics strategy of the Civil Rights Movement, this example drawn from FBI archives may be deliberately deceptive. The activities of agents provocateurs against dissidents in Imperial Russia was one of the grievances that led to the Russian Revolution. The activities of agents provocateurs pose a number of ethical and legal issues. Within common law jurisdictions, the law of entrapment seeks to discern whether the provocateur's target intended to commit the crime he participated in with the provocateur, or whether the suggestion to commit the crime began with the provocateur. It is also debatable whether the institutionalized deception that the use of agents provocateurs implies is in fact more harmful to the social order than the various consensual offenses typically investigated by provocateurs."

Hi Lee, I am aware there is a wide spectrum of ideas regarding the Zfilm. I can't say at this stage what the truth is. I think there was a man named Abraham Zapruder who stood on a raised platform and took a film. With regards to wound ballistics, as is shown at http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/ww...tcs/default.htm (warning: some of the images at this site and links may be disturbing) it is more than melons that show the distinctive pulsed response re material ejecta. It doesn't seem to matter if it's bananas, apples, buckets of water, dry skulls, filled skulls, goat skulls, cat skulls, stomachs, thighs, blocks of gelatine, frozen lemons, limes or melons. All exhibit the characteristic enlargement, fragmentation, pulsing, subsidence that contribute to the dispersal of wound matter.

Oklahoma, which was classified as "Indian Territory" sided with the Confederacy. Many of the Tribal Chief's at that time were not pureblood native american, and many had their own plantations similar to the south, in which slave labor farmed their fields and cotton. As punishment for this, after defeat by the Union, the slaves were freed and thereafter assigned as members of the tribe of which they had formerly been slaves. In this regard, the Oklahoma Indian roles carry a roll for "Freedmen". There are many black american who are on the various Cherokee, Choctaw, and Chickasaw Indian Tribal Rolls as a result of the Civil War. Tom <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Ok, Tom, thank's for that. I'm a bit surprised also that Kansas is, by the people who provided the coloured map, regarded as a union state. Parts of it seem to have been very confederate, and if my memory is correct was a major player in the resurgence of the KKK early last century. JohnD

Tom, the information you are providing is helping to build a picture of the conditions, mindsets etc. relevant to a world that existed half a century ago, certainly one that I'm unfamiliar with. As such in helping to get a feel for this case I find it most helpful and I hope you'll continue to post as per prior the diversions. Obviously I have my own ideas but as others have pointed out one can read and take as one wishes from a range of information on this forum.There is certainly room for your style as well. (I even find those who seek to control, and stifle flows of information interesting as well.) You're doing well. JohnD

I think that a correct description of Kennedy's head movements over zframes is "a gradual turning and tilting towards Jackie from sometime shortly after the sign. By zf312, JFK's shoulder is above his ear, possibly higher, this turning and tilting continues for about 2/3 of the time between zf312 and zf313. By this time the top of his head is facing roughly the south knoll. Then a bullet, possibly two, strikes his head on the top of his head above the hairline to the right of the midline. This massive initial force propels his head to the right where it encounters the structure of the shoulder bones and is deflected downward from where it rebounds to the main position captured in the 1/35-1/40 seconds of a series of impressions on zf313. As his body is kept rigid by a web of back bracing this force also transmits to the seat springs. Further, he is restrained by Jackies hand. As the seat springs rebound the Limousine also accelerates AND diverges from its path swinging to the right. The combination of these forces result in 'back and to the left'. Kennedy was shot from the left. The 'blowback' of grey matter and debris is a typical result of the pulse effect of a bullet going from one medium into a denser one. see http://history.amedd.army.mil/booksdocs/ww...tcs/default.htm for extensive information on wound ballistics. This composite image illustrates the head positions as I interpret it, also the 'blowback' is emphasised. On the right of the image, the position of the bar between the Connely's and Greer are shown to indicate that frame 313 314 the speed was minimum. EDIT::images moved down tom later post

to restate my statement that may seem like 'a disagreement'. Tim, I agree that defamation is deplorable. (please note, I don't participate in the discussion that precipitated this problem in this instance) I believe that in this forum, a gathering of peers if you will, it is possible to reach an answer to that question.I certainly sympathise with your distress in this matter. A number of members have not choosen to attack you personally but tried to maintain an atmosphere of information exchange, following their lead combined with reviewing forum rules is probably more constructive. JohnD

Tim, given the nature of this forum, with both speculative and historically precise data, plus the fact that ego's and emotions etc invariably get mixed up in the discussions, I think that that is the question that should have been pursued by yourself at the outset. I believe that in this forum, a gathering of peers if you will, it is possible to reach an answer to that question. As it is, one thing I do know is that you are risking establishing a precedent that may, should the time come for an individual to be named in the future for serious consideration, any consequent investigation may be stymied. This is closer to an international parliament than an american courtroom. I certainly sympathise with your distress in this matter. A number of members have not choosen to attack you personally but tried to maintain an atmosphere of information exchange, following their lead combined with reviewing forum rules is probably more constructive. I'd like to get back to discussing who killed JFK. JohnD

I find myself regularly wanting to know where these states are so I thought I'd stick a map here for reference. Confederate states are gray and Union states are blue; green are border states and were not formally part of either side.

""Mr. Joseph A. Ball. [Commission counsel]. Was there any breeze that day? Mr. B. J. Martin. Yes; there was. Mr. Ball. From what direction? Mr. Martin. It seemed like we were going to turn into the wind as we turned off of Houston onto Elm. (VI, p. 290.) The weather bureau recorded winds in Dallas on November 1963, as ranging only between 13 knots and 17 knots, which is roughly equal to 15 to 20 miles per hour. The weather bureau at Love Field data showed winds from the west-northwest gusting up to 20mph. A strong wind begins to blow into the plaza from the North. Patrolman M. L. Baker rounds the corner from Main onto Houston and the gust of wind almost unseats him from his two-wheeled motorcycle which is behind the last press car of the motorcade. Patrolman M.L. Baker is regaining control of his motorcycle after the strong gust of wind from the North when he hears the sound of gunfire. He is riding a two-wheeled motorcycle behind the last press car of the motorcade."" Thank you Adam. I'm working through the links you have provided. any others much appreciated as well. As the motorcade reaches the end of main street the flags on the presidential limousine are fluttering strongly in a wind from the east, as it rounds the corner onto houston the flags go limp. At this corner Mrs K. makes a grab for her hat. There appear contradictions here. I know from experience that going from a steady wind condition where I brace against a wind into a lull is quite unsettling. It seems though that broadly a 15 to 20 miles an hour wind was gusting from west north west over the city. Closer to the ground various structures like buildings and streets would create channels directing wind with eddies and dead spots here and there. As far as I understand west ward of the plaza here the land for some time is flat, plain type country. At Dallas downtown the land rises and the larger man made structures start.

Personally, I am quite suprised that no one has questioned exactly how it was that Marguerite Claverie Oswald, as well as LHO, obtained most of their employment. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thomas, I wonder if I might be catching your drift here? Oswald while portrayed as 'a lone nut' was in fact part of a wide network of families. Presumably then what he does, as with any family member in such a grouping, would be known through the 'grapevine' of families gossip et.c.. So any one within that family grouping or attached to it could be privy to intimate details. Whatever the inclinations of such individual/s could determine what happens in Oswalds life re employment, setup, collusion, information, whatever. JohnD ps does McClaskey figure in any of these family ties?

to my mind the proportions are very similar,. are there better copies of the fig in front of TSBD (ibelieve). I think I saw that one as a frame from one of the films?? at the time I seem to remember thinking it reminded me of lovelady.

from an earlier post :: "... Should the Law that has failed so dismally in the murder of JFK be allowed to dictate in a largely serious attempt to do what the Law should have done in the first place? Should people on this forum be afraid to speak their mind becuse of threats of litigation? ....... Surely there is some room for common sense? This abrogation of responsibility to a Law mentality that is flawed in the first place can't help. This, after all is a murder investigation. In the kitchen sometimes it gets hot. To blame the head chef for someone turning up the temperature may in a legalistic sense be correct. I will weigh into this in support of a position that says John Simkin is not responsible for what I write on this forum. .......... ....... Anything here that isn't intended to go towards the solution of the murder of JFK will die a natural death as the debates will naturally move on and people keep on track. For future researchers, it will certainly be an instructive social document. Please note I am not making any statement on the accusations thrown about, how could I, I don't know them. I'm not for Tim. I'm not against Tim. I'm not for Shanet. I'm not against Shanet. Whether I am or not is really irrelevant. Whether Kennedy was shot by a bullet that came from the left, right, front, or back IS relevant." and :: "I am not a lawyer. I do think that there is an implied environment in these discussions where some people will at times say things that perhaps they shouldn't. I don't think anyone but the person saying it is responsible for it though." further :: Eugene and Stephen has put this far more succinctly here in this topic.(I cut these bits of my posts out of the wallace topic,p2). I don't want to see this forum, censored, altered, inhibited, controlled etc. I'm not a lawyer, but the implied nature of the forum must stand for something, likewise in an educational atmosphere the right to quote other work is there. I think people are not quoting to make money but to further debate. If it did come to it I think I would happily sign any disclaimer etc. that would absolve the people running this forum from any litigation that might arise from anything I say, write , quote, post in this forum. In a way too this is a community of peers, albeit with onlookers. There are rules that such a community can adopt to deal with issues within the community. I think the 'rules' topic intro. is always worth referring to. JohnD

If Oswald was so obsessive about it, why didn't it show in anything else? I'm known for being a neat freak. I fold gum wrappers back into a perfect replica of what it was before I throw it away. My clothes are organized by color, my medicine cabinet & my bookshelves are organized in alphabetical order, & I can't leave the house in the morning before making my bed. I find it hard to believe that Oswald would perfectly fold newspapers back and then not show a single other side of a possible OCD, not in his boarding room, not in his writing, not in the memories of anyone else. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes, I'm in agreement. (to illustrate how I first noticed this here is a 3Dmap of the grayscale values of the papers rotated to show the uniformity of the paper surfaces. Its crinkled around where 'Oswald" was gripping them but otherwise as if straight off the press.) So, indicative of a staged photo set. What does it mean? It to my mind is still separate from an analysis of the photos being doctored, but may indicate a purpose that could be interpreted as it not being Oswald?

Communism: I realise that the term 'communism' has come to mean something different than origionally meant. USSR loosely means union of republics governed by socialist worker groupings. In Marxism, Socialism is a precursor to Communism. To my mind Communism is an ideal that struggling Socialist revolutions attempt to move towards. As yet none have successfully completed this process. In Russia this process started vigorously, the counter revolution also swung into motion at the start. The White army, the death of Lenin, the rise of Stalin, the purges and death of Trotsky and his followers who argued that for the revolution to succeed it must be pursued globally, while Stalin retreated to Socialism in one country all quite rapidly froze the move towards Communism, the Dictatorship by the Proletariat over the Bourgeoisie, became a Dictatorship over the Soviet Proletariat by Stalin. There never was a defeat of Communism, because there never was any Communism. There was a successful counterrevolution that was sustained by the need to continually respond to military and economic attacks from the West. By the collaps of the USSR it was probab ly so drained and punch drunk by not just this but also the see saw of detente-coldwar. God and Democracy: "..It is made worse by their attempts to bring in this idea that they are being motivated by their belief in God and Democracy (a mirror image of the British motivation in the 19th century)." that certainly is not a God that I and many Christians believe in. I think it is yet another example of the kind of opportunism that people resort to in order to gain votes. I think, and I know that many would disagree, that the type of democracy that Cuba attempts to maintain has a lot of features that make Castros statements that their democracy is superior to that of the USA very convincing. And no, I don't think Castro 'did it'.

with regards to the shadows, and an attempt at distortion correction: I thought it might be helpful to myself to see if I could correct the distortion in the three photographs in order to compare them. having done so to some extent I then superimposed them on each other. Then drawing a line from the tip of the stock of the rifle to the corresponding point on the shadow, from the knuckle on the hand to corresponding point, from the holster to corresponding point it appears to me that the photons travelling from the sun to the ground in all three photos are on a parallel path indicating photos taking around the same time. It occurs to me that the different angles of the shadows on the ground is because of the rising slope of the ground (which by the way would also explain some of the distortions as the lens is tilted by the person taking the photographs. Not using any tripod it seems to me.) bringing the shadow of the photo of 'Oswald' further away closer to the body.* How tall was Marina. Using a down looking camera by a person of a particular height may allow a "reverse engineering" that could be used to determine the height of the person taking the photo' with the one of the detective, if one knew the height of the one taking that photo, as a reference. (please refer to the preceding posts for images and discussion. Good points have been made regarding the significance of the photos. I feel more could be said on what it would mean IF the photos were genuine.) edit:: *this sentence perhaps clearer like this :: "It occurs to me that the different angles of the shadows on the ground is because of the rising slope of the ground (which by the way would also explain some of the distortions as the lens is tilted by the person taking the photographs. Not using any tripod it seems to me.) bringing the shadow closer to the body in the photo where 'Oswald' is further away from the camera, or closer to the fence." edit2:: I just noticed that the two news papers 'Oswald' is holding appear to be in 'mint' condition. Whenever I buy or pick up from a postbox a publication that I am interested in, if I catch the bus I will read them. To refold a read newspaper neatly has always been difficult for me. Seldom also two publications will arrive simultaneously if I check my mail regularly. So, it seems to me that either: 'Oswald', had no interest in the publications that overode a keeness to use them in this set of photos, or they were bought specifically for this pupose, again by someone without interest in them. (has it been established when these publications were supposed to have come into 'Oswalds' possession?) Did they come from his postbox? If so, there should be a record as the mail monitoring/opening operation in the post office was in place at this time. If they DID come through the post office, is this record available? If the record is NOT available, why not. The post office, CIA and FBI , (DPD?) should have it. If they are 'old' again it begs the questions : why are they apparently not read, by someone supposedly a communist? Maybe because it is not Oswald in the photos? If it is Oswald then apparent lack of interest would lead me to question how much of a communist he really was.

with regards to the shadows, and an attempt at distortion correction: I thought it might be helpful to myself to see if I could correct the distortion in the three photographs in order to compare them. having done so to some extent I then superimposed them on each other. Then drawing a line from the tip of the stock of the rifle to the corresponding point on the shadow, from the knuckle on the hand to corresponding point, from the holster to corresponding point it appears to me that the photons travelling from the sun to the ground in all three photos are largely on a parallel path. It occurs to me that the different angles of the shadows on the ground is because of the rising slope of the ground (which by the way would also explain some of the distortions as the lens is tilted by the person taking the photographs. Not using any tripod it seems to me.) bringing the shadow of the photo of 'Oswald' further away closer to the body. How tall was Marina. Using a down looking camera by a person of a particular height may allow a "reverse engineering" that could be used to determine the height of the person taking the photo' with the one of the detective if one knew the height of the one taking that photo as a reference. *please refer to the preceding posts for images and discussion. Good points have been made regarding the significance of the photos. I feel more could be said on what it wouyld mean IF the photos were genuine.

John Dalva wrote: "Tim, would it be correct to assume that it is necessary to have Kennedy as an implacable enemy of Castro in order to support a theory that Castro would respond "in kind" by killing Kennedy?" Tim wrote: "No, like many things what counts is not the reality but rather the perception of reality, in this case Fidel's perception of it." "John, you must remember that at the same time these peace talks were in progress the CIA was working with a member of Castro's cabinet to launch another murder plot against Castro. Many people think the Cuban, Rolando Cubela, may have been an agent provocateur for Castro. A high-ranking CIA officer even assured Cubela that he was the "personal emissary" of RFK and that RFK personally supported his plan to kill Castro. Castro had every reason to conclude that JFK was his implacable enemy. It is possible both JFK and RFK were witting of the Cubela operation, but it is also possible they were not. Some have even argued that the CIA was proceeding with Cubela to sabotage the peace talks. But the reality of Kennedys' intentions toward Castro matters not. What matters is Castro's perception of those intentions. Castro had reason to believe (rightly or not) that the Kennedys were still planning to murder him." "Tim, the reality of Kennedy's intentions appear to have been known by Castro right at the time of the assassination." "John, what is your basis for this conclusion?" "Tim, my conclusion that "Kennedy's intentions appear to.." are derived from reading the contents of National Security Archive website at :http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/" :: To John, "I have read that before I believe. But the question again is not whether Kennedy's intentions were "honorable" but what Castro thought about them. I suggest that the Kennedy-endorsed plot to kill Castro "trumped" all so-called peace talks. Now was it in fact "Kennedy-endorsed"? We need not answer that. What counts is that Castro thought the Kennedys had personally endorsed a plot to murder him." "Tim, Castro didn't think that Kennedy was interested in dialogue, he knew so. They were in the process of lining up meeting just before the assassination. " Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in [the prospect for negotiations]." Castro, too, appeared interested. " Up to three days before in fact. Kennedy had shown a willingness to deal effectively with 'rogue' elements in the governmental structure. Why would Castro want to risk all this? I'm not privvy to Castro's thoughts. But the declassified documents indicate that his thought the following: "In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations." " By the date of the assassination he certainly knew that Kennedy endorsed rappoachment."

Tim, my conclusion that "Kennedy's intentions appear to.." are derived from reading the contents of National Security Archive website at :http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB103/ :: U.S. UN Mission memorandum, Secret, Chronology of events leading up Castro invitation to receive a U.S. official for talks in Cuba, November 8, 22, 1963. This chronology was written by William Attwood and records the evolution of the initiative set in motion by Lisa Howard for a dialogue with Cuba. The document describes the party at Howard's Manhattan apartment on September 23, 1963, where Attwood met with Cuban UN Ambassador Carlos Lechuga to discuss the potential for formal talks to improve relations. In an addendum, Attwood adds information on communications, using the Howard home as a base, leading up to the day the President was shot in Dallas. White House memorandum, Secret, November 12, 1963. McGeorge Bundy reports to William Attwood on Kennedy's opinion of the viability of a secret meeting with Havana. The president prefers that the meeting take place in New York at the UN where it will be less likely to be leaked to the press. White House memorandum, Top Secret, "Approach to Castro," November 19, 1963. A memo from Gordon Chase to McGeorge Bundy updating him on the status of arrangements for a secret meeting with the Cubans. approach to castro:

Tim, the reality of Kennedy's intentions appear to have been known by Castro right at the time of the assassination. For Castro to kill kennedy would seem pretty stupid. Why risk apparently improving relations? It is well known I think that the CIA and Kennedy did not see eye to eye on some things, *I've even read of rumours that the CIA or elements of it may have been involved in Kennedys assassination. from above post:: "On the 40th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, and the eve of the broadcast of a new documentary film on Kennedy and Castro, the National Security Archive today posted an audio tape of the President and his national security advisor, McGeorge Bundy, discussing the possibility of a secret meeting in Havana with Castro. The tape, dated only seventeen days before Kennedy was shot in Dallas, records a briefing from Bundy on Castro's invitation to a U.S. official at the United Nations, William Attwood, to come to Havana for secret talks on improving relations with Washington. The tape captures President Kennedy's approval if official U.S. involvement could be plausibly denied. The possibility of a meeting in Havana evolved from a shift in the President's thinking on the possibility of what declassified White House records called "an accommodation with Castro" in the aftermath of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Proposals from Bundy's office in the spring of 1963 called for pursuing "the sweet approach…enticing Castro over to us," as a potentially more successful policy than CIA covert efforts to overthrow his regime. Top Secret White House memos record Kennedy's position that "we should start thinking along more flexible lines" and that "the president, himself, is very interested in [the prospect for negotiations]." Castro, too, appeared interested. In a May 1963 ABC News special on Cuba, Castro told correspondent Lisa Howard that he considered a rapprochement with Washington "possible if the United States government wishes it. In that case," he said, "we would be agreed to seek and find a basis" for improved relations." JohnD edit::hmm on second reading that snyde remark of mine is perhaps not so thoughtful, it just seems sometimes, Tim, that you make careless statements, however as that is something that I also do perhaps I could have said 'remember the CIA or elements of it may have been involved in Kennedys assassination.' One way of such an involvement could have been to work to undermine efforts at appeasement.