Robert Howard

Whoever claimed that "truth is always concrete" should revue the distinction between truth and fact. Truth is what we perceive! IE: The world is flat! All persons accept and state that the world is flat, and all known elements of fact indicate that the world is flat. Therefore, were one to stand on the witness stand and swear to tell the "truth" , then he would state as truth that the world is flat. Fact is what actually exists without any perceived ideas applied to it. The world is actually oval!-----Fact!---------That the state of the individual has not provided him with the knowledge to recognize this, neither negates the fact that the world is oval, nor does it negate that to the individual, the "truth" that the world is flat. No one stands up and swears to tell: "The facts and nothing but the facts". The person tells the "truth" as they perceive it to be, which may or may not be fact. US policy stands that we will not, under normal circumstances, become involved in the removal from power, of a foreign head of state unless it becomes necessary for economic and political world stability. Fidel Castro, & Cuba, offered no threat until such time as introduction of the Soviet Missiles occurred. After removal of the missiles, then the Government of Cuba, in whatever form, was of no threat to US economic interests or world stability. Were we, as a nation, to decide to remove each and every objectional world leader, then we would have our hands full right hear at home with many of our own democratically elected (or appointed)(Gerald Ford) Presidents. In fact, a considerable amount of time and taxpayer dollars which could have gone to better usage, were expended in getting rid of Richard Nixon, and an attempt to remove Bill Clinton. I wish the neo-con's in Washington could be addressed on the very points that are being eloquently addressed on this thread, in addition to the points raised concerning the UK by Derek McMillan. I have other deep reservations about the "Bush Doctrine" concerning the concept of "pre-emption." As Thomas Purvis mentioned, the US policy of removing a head of state "unless it becomes necessary for economic and political world stability" as we so distinctly observed prior to the current situation in "Messopotamia," (mis-spelling intentional) the term "necesssary" I believe, should have been discussed and decide on, in conjunction with our Allies, at a minimum, especially in light of the fact that Colin Powell is now on record as having given information on the floor of the UN, that could (and are) be(ing) said to have been erroneous (if given the benefit of the doubt) or outright lies (which is not exactly playing devils advocate). Having said that, pre-emption has, I submit, opened a potential for a nightmarish scenario for the future. Case in point; It is the year 2012, China has for some time has continued spending a great portion of its GNP on increasing military and nuclear technologies to the point where it effectively has the same level of nuclear capability and technology as that of the US and pre-emptively "invades" Taiwan over a manufactured incident remniscent of German intrigues before it invaded Poland in 1939. Although world opinion strongly condemns the action no government issues any demands for a withdrawal, and Taiwan is effectively swallowed into the Chinese sphere. The Chinese reaction to the condemnations of the international community over the invasion, are met by their response that "China has taken steps to neutralize a regime that posed a threat to it's sovereignty, the action we took is not uniquely different from what the United States did in 2003, with regards to Iraq." I submit that the proposed scenario, far from being preposterous, has been made even more of a potentiality by virtue of the application of the Bush Doctrine in Iraq (I had no problem with Afghanistan). There was a op/ed article in the NY Times about this very subject following the US led invasion in 2003, arguing that this same potentiality was paronoia. The reasoning that was used in drawing this conclusion was so ambiguous and fragmented that I felt like I was reading Orwell's "1984." I am not a Democrat or Republican, but an independent. I am old-school, which by my defintion is "I believe in the principles of government that are contained in the Constitution of the United States." To me the fact that the records of both 41 and 43 (Bush Sr., and Dubya) are on their way (with Bush Sr., they already are) to becoming "sealed" as in, not available to any government body or, FOIA, is so far removed from the principles of Constitutional Law (and the fact that the alleged "Congress" that sits in Washington doesent seem to have a problem with this) that as far as I am concerned the current government doesent "represent" anybody except Bush's "base," and on an individual basis when it is politically expedient to do so. When will anyone in Washington have the courage to state the obvious about the direction America has taken? I have been asking myself that question for several years now. It appears that no answers are immediately forthcoming. (With apologies to Bernard Sanders Cong. I-VT)

http://www.ajweberman.com/nodules/nodule3.htm http://cuban-exile.com/doc_001-025/doc0020.html James Wilcott Testimony to the HSCA EXECUTIVE SESSION ASSASSINATION OF PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY WEDNESDAY, MARCH 22, 1978 House of Representatives, John F. Kennedy Subcommittee of the Select Committee on Assassinations, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met at 10:20 a.m., pursuant to notice, in room 2344 of the Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Richard Preyer (Chairman of the subcommittee), presiding. Present: Representatives Preyer (presiding), Dodd and Sawyer. Also Present: Michael Goldsmith, Counsel, and Gary Cornwell, Counsel. Also Present: Elizabeth Berning, Chief Clerk, and Charles Berk, Betsy Wolf and James Wolf. Mr. Preyer. Thank you for being here today, and I will call the subcommittee to order at this time. I will ask if you will stand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you are about to give before this subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Wilcott. I do. Mr. Preyer. I would like before we begin to read a written statement concerning the subject of the investigation. We are operating under House Resolution 222, which man- dates the Committee to conduct a full and complete investi- gation and study of the circumstances surrounding the assas- sination and death of President John F. Kennedy, including determining whether the existing laws of the United States concerning the protection of the President and the investiga- tory jurisdiction and capability of agencies and departments are adequate in their provisions and enforcement; and whether there was full disclosure of evidence and information among agencies and department of the United States Government and whether any evidence or information not in the possession of an agency of department would have been of assistance in investigating the assassination and why such information was not provided or collected by that agency or department, and to make recommendations to the House if the Select Committee deems it appropriate for the amendment of existing legislation or the enactment of new legislation. That is what we are attempting to accomplish, which is quite a big order. We appreciate your being here today, Mr. Wilcott. (Whereupon, a recess was taken while the members of the Committee went to the floor of the House for a vote.) 3 Mr. Preyer. We will come to order. We will resume the session, and I will recognize Counsel to begin his questioning. TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. WILCOTT, A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY: Mr. Goldsmith. For the record, would you please state your name and address and occupation? Mr. Wilcott. My name is James B. Wilcott. My address is 2761 Atlantic Street, in Concord, and my occupation is electronic technician. Mr. Goldsmith. Where is Concord located? Mr. Wilcott. It is a little bit east of Oakland, California. Mr. Goldsmith. Have you received a copy of the Committee's rules? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. And a copy of the relevant House Resolutions? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. And, Mr. Wilcott, is it true that you are a former employee with the CIA and that you are here today testifying voluntarily without a subpoena? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. During what years did you work for the CIA? 4 Mr. Wilcott. I worked from the years, May, of 1957 to, April, of 1966. Mr. Goldsmith. And in what general capacity did you work with the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. All in the finance -- in accounting all of the time. Mr. Goldsmith. How did you become employed with the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. I was recruited from the school in Syracuse New York, where I was taking a course in accounting and busi- ness administration. Mr. Goldsmith. Very generally now, what were your responsibilities as a finance employee with the agency? Mr. Wilcott. Well, from May of 1957 to January of 1960 - Mr. Goldsmith -- excuse me, just answer the question very generally, without referring to anything right now, and please describe generally what your responsibilities were as a finance officer. Mr. Wilcott. My. responsibilities were primarily record keeping and disbursing of funds. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, are you here with Counsel today? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I am. Mr. Goldsmith. Would your Counsel identify himself for the recorder? Mr. Schaap. My name is William Schaap, S - c - h - a - 5 a - p (spelling), and I am an Attorney here in Washington. I will give my card to the Committee. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, did I ask you to prepare a list indicating the dates that you were employed with the CIA and where you were stationed? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, you did. Mr. Goldsmith. Did you prepare such a list? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have that list with you? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. I do. Mr. Goldsmith. Referring to that list, would you tell the Committee where you were stationed during your period with the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. Certainly, from May of 1957 to January of 1960, I was in the pre-fab building on the Potomac in finance. During the period, it was unvouchered funds, and my duties were general accounting, and my rate in status was GS-5. From about January of 1960 to about June of 1960, I was transferred to Finance Field Payroll, also, in this same building, on the Potomac. This was making payments and keeping pay records. From June of 1960 to June of 1964, I was stationed at XXXXXXX Station, and my primary duty was finance and cash disbursements. This was all cash payments and record keeping for the station. And during that period, I had been promoted 6 GS-7 and also gained a career status. From June of 1964 to about December of 1964, I was at Roseland. This was just prior to moving to Langley, in finance, and my duties there were policing accounts, and included auditing of special accounts. From January of 1965 to about March of 1965, I was at Langley in the same area, in finance, policing accounts and auditing of special accounts, and I was promoted up to GS-9. From April of 1965 to April of 1966, I was at Miami Station in finance, and I was handling the staff payroll. This was preparing and reconciling payrolls. In April of 1966, I resigned from the CIA. Mr. Goldsmith. I take it, from your testimony, that in November of 1963, you were stationed in XXXXXXXXXXXXX Station, is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. That is right. Mr. Goldsmith. Drawing your attention to the period immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, at that time, did you come across any information concerning Lee Harvey Oswald's relationship with the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did. Mr. Goldsynith. And will you tell the Committee what that relationship was? Mr. Wilcott. Well, it was my understanding that Lee Harvey Oswald was an employee of the agency and was an agent 7 of the agency. Mr. Goldsmith. What do you mean by the term "agent"? Mr. Wilcott. That he was a regular employee, receiving a full-time salary for agent work for doing CIA operational work. Mr. Goldsmith. How did this information concerning Oswald first come to your attention? Mr. Wilcott. The first time I heard about Oswald being connected in any way with CIA was the day after the Kennedy assassination. Mr. Goldsmith. And how did that come to your attention: Mr. Wilcott. Well, I was on day duty for the station. It was a guard-type function at the station, which I worked for overtime. There was a lot of excitement going on at the station after the Kennedy assassination. Towards the end of my tour of duty, I heard certain things about Oswald somehow being connected with the agency, and I didn't really believe this when I heard it, and I thought it was absurd. Then, as time Went on, I began to hear more things in that line. Mr. Goldsmith. I think we had better go over that one more time. When, exactly, was the very first time that you heard or came across information that Oswald was an agent? Mr. Wilcott. I heard references to it the day after 8 the assassination. Mr. Goldsmith. And who made these references to Oswald being an agent of the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. I can't remember the exact persons. There was talk about it going on at the station, and several months following at the station. Mr. Goldsmith. How many people made this reference to Oswald being an agent of the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. At least -- there was at least six or seven people, specifically, who said that they either knew or believed Oswald to be an agent of the CIA. Mr. Goldsmith. Was Jerry Fox one of the people that made. this allegation? Mr. Wilcott. To the best of my recollection, yes. Mr. Goldsmith. And who is Jerry Fox? Mr. Wilcott. Jerry Fox was a Case Officer for his branch the Soviet Russia Branch, XXXXXXXXXX Station, who purchased information from the Soviets. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, did I ask you to prepare a list of CIA Case Officers working at XXXXXXXXX Station in 1963? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, you did. Mr. Goldsmith. Did you prepare such a list? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did. Mr. Goldsmith. Is that list complete and does it have 9 every CIA Case Officer who worked XXXXXXXXXX in 1963? Mr. Wilcott. Oh, no. It doesn't have every one. It has every one that I can remember. Mr. Goldsmith. Did you bring that list with you today? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did. Mr. Goldsmith. Were any of these people on your list possible subjects who made references to Oswald being a CIA agent? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Would you read the list to the Committee? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Only of Case Officers. Ms. Berning. I think we ought to state that the record shows that Mr. Sawyer is a member of the Kennedy Subcommitte Preyer. We will. Mr. Goldsmith. Upon your memory and the list that your brought with you today, will you tell the Committee the names of the CIA Case Officers who you remember working XXXXXXXXXX in 1963? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. There was XXXXXXXXXXXX Branch, who had XXXXXXXXXXX cover. Jerry Fox, SR Branch, Soviet Russia Branch -- Mr. Goldsmith. Excuse me, please proceed very slowly. Mr. Wilcott. Jerry Fox, SR Branch, Reid Dennis, Chief of Soviet Satellite Branch; and XXXXXXXXXX, China Branch, 10 and he also had a cover. John P. Horton, XXXXXXXXX Section; XXXXXXXXXXXXX Branch; and Chester Ito, XXXXXXXXX Branch; and Kan Takai, XXXXX Branch; and Jim Delaney, China Branch; and Bob Rentner, SR Branch -- and there is some question about that, the branch he was with. Larry Watanabi, XXXXXX Branch, Senior Case Officer; and XXXXXXXXXXX, deep commercial cover agent. There was a person, Dave, who was a Deputy Chief. Dave -- I can't remember his last name, Deputy Chief of the China Branch; and then a person whose last name was XXXXXXXXX in the XXXXXXXXX Branch. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you remember which of these individuals if any, made the specific allegation or reference that Oswald was an agent? Mr. Wilcott. It has been 15 years, and I can't remember specifically who said what, but certainly I am sure that Jerry Fox, for instance, had at least made some mention of it. Mr. Goldsmith. At the time that this allegation first came to your attention, did you discuss it with anyone? Mr. Wilcott. Oh, yes. I discussed it with my friends and the people that I was associating with socially. Mr. Goldsmith. Who were your friends that you discussed this with? Mr. Wilcott. XXXXXXXXXXXX George Breen, Ed Luck, and 11 XXXXXXXXXXXXX. Mr. Goldsmith. Who was George Breen? Mr. Wilcott. George Breen was a person in Registry, who was my closest friend while I was in XXXXXXXXXXXXXX. Mr. Goldsmith. Was he a CIA employee? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, he was. Mr. Goldsmith. And would he corroborate your obser- vation that Oswald was an agent? Mr. Wilcott. I don't know. Mr. Goldsmith. At the time that this allegation first came to your attention, did you learn the name of Oswald's Case Offficer at the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. No. Mr. Goldsmith. Were there any other times during your stay with the CIA at XXXXXXXXXX Station that you came across information that Oswald had been a CIA agent? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. When was that? Mr. Wilcott. The specific incident was soon after the Kennedy assassination, where an agent, a Case Officer -- I am sure it was a Case Officer -- came up to my window to draw money, and he specifically said in the conversation that ensued, he specifically said, "Well, Jim, the money that I drew the last couple of weeks ago or so was money," either for the Oswald project or for Oswald. 12 Mr. Goldsmith. Do you remember the name of this Case Officer? Mr. Wilcott. No, I don't. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you remember when specifically this conversation took place? Mr. Wilcott. Not specifically, only generally. Mr. Goldsmith. How many months after the assassination was this? Mr. Wilcott. I think it must have been two or three omths (sic) after the assassination. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you remember where this conver- sation took place? Mr. Wilcott. It was right at my window, my disbursing cage window. Mr. Goldsmith. Did you discuss this information with anyone? Mr. Wilcott. Oh, yes. Mr. Goldsmith. With whom? Mr. Wilcott. Certainly with George Breen, XXXXXXXXXXX the circle of social friends that we had. Mr. Goldsmith. How do you spell XXXXXXXXXX last name? Mr. Wilcott. XXXXXXXXXXXXX (spelling). Mr. Schaap. For the record, I have made a list of all of these spellings of the names which have been mentioned, which I will give to the stenographer so that he will have 13 them correctly. Mr. Goldsmith. Did this Case Officer tell you what Oswald's cryptonym was? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, he mentioned the cryptonym specifically under which the money was drawn. Mr. Goldsmith. And what did he tell you the cryptonym was? Mr. Wilcott. I cannot remember. Mr. Goldsmith. What was your response to this revelatic as to what Oswald's cryptonym was? Did you write it down or do anything? Mr. Wilcott. No; I think that I looked through my advance book -- and I had a book where the advances on projects were run, and I leafed through them, and I must have at least leafed through them to see if what he said was true. Mr. Goldsmith. And are you saying then that you attempted to investigate this allegation? Mr. Wilcott. No, I am not saying that. It was more of a casual kind of thing, to my way of thinking. Mr. Goldsmith. Did you check your cash disbursement files? Mr. Wilcott. Not the files, no. Mr. Goldsmith. I am not sure I am following, then, what specifically you did check. Mr. Wilcott. It was a book that I had. At the end of 14 the day we would list all of the advances that were made in an advance book. It was just a three-ring binder, and we would list down the advances by cryptonym and the amounts and then reconcile that with the daily disbursements. Mr. Goldsmith. How long were these records maintained? Mr. Wilcott. They were maintained on a thirty-day basis, and then they were closed off at the end of the month. Mr. Goldsmith. So, does that mean you were able to check back only thirty days from the time that you were given this information? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. I realize this is testimony 15 years after the fact. However, if you received this information two or three months after the assassination, at a time that Oswald was already dead and had been dead for two or three months, what purpose would have been served by checking records that were only 30 days old? Do you follow the question? Mr. Wilcott. No. Mr. Goldsmith. Well, in other words, if you got the information three months after the assassination, Oswald had already been dead for three months, is that right? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Answer "yes" or "no" for the recorder. Mr. Wilcott. Yes. 15 Mr. Goldsmith. You testified that your records were only kept for thirty days, is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Then, by checking your records, which only went back thirty days, isn't it true that you wouldn't have gotten any information concerning Oswald anyway because Oswald had already been dead for one or two months? Mr. Wilcott. That is true. Mr. Goldsmith. So, then, really, no purpose would have been served by checking those records? Mr. Wilcott. That is right. Mr. Goldsmith. And did you check any other records? Mr. Wilcott. No. Mr. Preyer. I understand this might be a good place for us to break and go and vote, so that we will take another recess for about ten minutes. I am sorry. (Whereupon, a recess was taken while the members of I the Committee went to the floor of the House for a vote.) Mr. Preyer. The Committee will resume. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, you indicated that after receiving this information concerning Oswald's cryptonym, you went back to check some files, is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. Not really files; it was my book. Mr. Goldsmith. Your book. Mr. Wilcott. I flipped through it. 16 Mr. Goldsmith. What is the name of the book? Mr. Wilcott. It was my Request for Advance Book. Mr. Goldsmith. And for purposes of clarification, now, if Oswald was already dead at the time that you went to this book, why did you go back to examine the book? Mr. Wilcott. Well, I am sorry -- if Oswald was what? Mr. Goldsmith. At the time you went to look at the book, Oswald was already dead is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. That is right. Mr. Goldsmith. Why did you go back to look at the book? Mr. Wilcott. Well, the payments that were made especially to substations like Oswald's was operated -- it was a sub- station of the XXXXXXXX station, and they had one in XXXXXX and they had one in XXXXXXXXX-- and it may be six months or even a year after the intial allocation that the final accounting for those funds were submitted, and they would operate out of revolving funds or out of their own personal funds in many cases. Mr. Goldsmith. So, is your testimony then that even though. Oswald was already dead at that time, the book might have contained a reference to either Oswald or the Oswald project and that that reference would have been to a period six months or even a year earlier, is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. That is correct. 17 Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, how long were these advance books retained? Mr. Wilcott. They were retained for approximately one year by the finance office, approximately one to two years, and were destroyed at the time of audit. Mr. Goldsmith. So that they would be routinely destroyed at the time of auditing? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Did you check any of the earlier books? Mr. Wilcott. No, I didn't, as far as the Oswald crypto- nym was concerned; no, I didn't. Mr. Goldsmith. So basically, you checked only one of the advance books, is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. My current one that I had on my counter. Mr. Goldsmith. And when you testified earlier that you learned Oswald's cryptonym, by that do you mean that you learned both Oswald's personal cryptonym and his project cryptonym, or was it one of the two? Mr. Wilcott. Well, it was just a cryptonym, and it could refer to a person, or it could refer to something else and I would have no way of knowing what a cryptonym referred to. Mr. Goldsmith. So, when the officer told you -- strike that. So, when the Case Officer made reference to a cryptonym 18 you didn't know whether the cryptonym referred to Oswald specifically or to a project in which Oswald had been involved is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, sir. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott, assuming that Oswald had been employed as an agent by the CIA, would there have been a reference to that fact in the CIA's cash disbursement file? Mr. Wilcott. No. Mr. Goldsmith. Why not? Mr. Wilcott. Anything they had there would have -- sometimes they used as many as two or three different crypto- nyms and they would have -- it all depended on how far they wanted to isolate it from the original source, from the original source as to where the project was run. Mr. Goldsmith. But as a matter of routine, would the CIA cash disbursement files refer to the cryptonym of either the person or the project that is receiving funds? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I am sure somewhere. Mr. Goldsmith. As a matter of routine, there would be that reference? Do you believe that there was such a reference to Oswald? Yes, I do, and I believe there was such a reference. Mr. Goldsmith. Well, if I understand your correctly, then, you answer now was somewhat different from what you testified earlier. And I will ask the question again, okay 19 Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Assuming that Oswald was an agent for the CIA, would the agency's cash disbursement files have referred to either Oswald or to his cryptonym? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. And you have had access to the cash disbursement files at XXXXXXXXXXXXX Station? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, for a limited period. Mr. Goldsmith. Were you ever able to check those par- ticular files? Mr. Wilcott. I was able to but I never did. Mr. Goldsmith. So, you never checked the cash disburse- ment files to see if any reference was made there to Oswald's cryptonym, is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. That is right. It was only my personal files -- my internal files, prior to the end of the month. Mr. Goldsmith. I understand. How long were the XXXXXXXXX cash disbursement files or records retained? Mr. Wilcott. The details approximately two years. We had accountings, or we had audits about every two years, and then then files that I kept the requests for advances, the details of the accountings that were done usually on a monthly basis by the XXXXX Station Branches, would be destroyed and then they would be -- and, in fact, I helped destroy them. 20 Mr. Goldsmith. Are you saying, then, that the cash disbursement files as a matter of routine would be periodically destoryed? (sic) Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you know whether CIA Headquarters would have had either copies or originals of the cash disbursement files? Mr. Wilcott. They would have summaries of some sort. Mr. Goldsmith. Would those summaries be destroyed as a matter of routine, to your knowledge? Mr. Wilcott. I really don't know. Mr. Goldsmith. Were you ever able to find any indication in any of the XXXXXXX Station's records that Oswald was, in fact, a CIA agent? Mr. Wilcott. Well, I never really looked. Mr. Goldsmith. To your knowledge, would any records at CIA Headquarters document that Oswald was a CIA agent? Mr. Wilcott. I believe they would at one time. Whether they are there now or not is hard to say. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have any personal knowledge that any records at CIA Headquarters were ever destroyed? Mr. Wilcott. No. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have any knowledge of any record of the CIA at the XXXXXXXX Station ever being destroyed out of the ordinary course of business, not as a matter of routine? 21 Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. To your personal knowledge, CIA records XXXXXXXXXX were destroyed? Mr. Wilcott. Destroyed or changed. Mr. Goldsmith. Could you give an example of that? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Let us say, for instance, that there was a certain project going on, and the project was one that became known that this project was being carried out -- and we call it "flaps," -- and the Case Officer in charge might get word that somebody from headquarters was coming to review the files to investigate the flap. Well, they would go through the files and take out anything that they thought was, say, indicative of how this flap occurred and change the files. For instance, in accounting, when we had our audits, for instance, in most of the audits, he would call up some- body -- let's say in China Branch -- and say "I know you were having problems with this, would you like to look it over before the auditors come?", and they might look it over and retype the accounting for funds for their project and, you know, make changes that they might think were in their interest to do. Mr. Goldsmith. Did you ever actually Xerox records being destroyed or changed? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I did. 22 Mr. Goldsmith. And have you just described one of those instances to us? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. Mr. Wilcott after leaving the XXXXXXXXX Station, was there any other time when you came across any information that indicated that Oswald was a CIA agent? Mr. Wilcott. In conversation. Mr. Goldsmith. Is the answer to that "yes"? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. When did that occur? Mr. Wilcott. From the time I left I talked at various times, especially at parties and things like that, on social occasions, with people at headquarters and with people at my station, and we would converse about it and I used to say things like, "What do you think about Oswald being connected with the CIA?", and things like that. Mr. Goldsmith. What was their response? Mr. Wilcott. The response was, among quote a few people "Oh, well, I am sure he was." Mr. Goldsmith. What were these people's names? Mr. Wilcott. Well, George Breen, again, after we came back from XXXXXXXX, for instance, XXXXXXXX was a person that I knew before I had gone to XXXXXX Station, and I met with him, and I had dinner at his house with his wife and my wife. 23 Mr. Goldsmith. Just give us their names. Anyone e1se? Mr. Wilcott. Not that I can recall. Mr. Goldsmith. So, it is your testimony that, once you left the XXXXXXXX station, people, both at headquarters, in Langley, and at the Miami Station, made references to Oswald being an agent, is that correct? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, in a speculative manner. Mr. Goldsmith. How many people have you spoken to that said that Oswald was an agent of the CIA, to the best of your recollection? Mr. Schaap. Do you mean, how many people who were in the CIA or how many people in the general population? Mr. Goldsmith. How many people in the CIA? Mr. Wilcott. With any degree of certainty, other than just speculation, I would say, six or seven with some degree of certainty. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have a personal opinion as to how or for what purpose the CIA might have handled any projects that involved Lee Harvey Oswald? Mr. Wilcott. I am sorry? Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have an opinion as to how the CIA might handled any projects involving Oswald and for what purpose they might have used Oswald? Mr. Wilcott. Yes, I have opinions. Mr. Goldsmith. What is that opinion? 24 Mr. Wilcott. I believe that Oswald was a double agent, was sent over to the Soviet Union to do intelligence work, that the defection was phoney and it was set up and that I believe that Marina Oswald was an agent that had been recruited sometime before and was waiting their in Tokyo for Lee Harvey Oswald. Mr. Goldsmith. What is the basis for that opinion? Mr. Wilcott. The basis for that is discussions that I had with people at the XXXXX Station. Those are discussions with people who gave the indication that there was every cer- tainty that Oswald was an agent of CIA, runout of XXXXXXX Station, and that he was freed from Russia there in the final courses in Russia and was trained by CIA people at Atsugi. Mr. Goldsmith. However, your testimony is that you spoke to only six people as an estimate who indicated that Oswald was a CIA agent -- and when I say six people, I mean six CIA people, is that correct? There were more people than that that believed it, and six people with any degree of certainty that, you know, I felt from what they were saying that they either had some kind of substantial knowledge, or they had talked to somebody who had some knowledge. Mr. Goldsmith. How many people from the CIA did you speak to who speculated that Oswald was an agent? 25 Mr. Wilcott. Dozens, literally dozens. Mr. Goldsmith. Do you have any explanation for why none of these people have come forward with this story? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Goldsmith. What is that explanation? Mr. Wilcott. I have been trying to talk about this thing and other things for the last ten years. I found it very, very difficult to talk about these things that I think ought to be talked about, very difficult. I talked to reporters from various papers, and I talked to people in other forms of meetings, and to me it is not surprising at all. I think, or I am certain, in my own mind, that, if these people were approached that some of these people -- Mr. Goldsmith. Why has it been difficult? Mr. Wilcott. Well, it has been difficult because people don't want to get involved, and people were scared. I was scared until the Carter Administration. I was really scared to go to the Government and talk about any of these things. Mr. Goldsmith. Did you bring your allegation to the attention of the Warren Commission? Mr. Wilcott. No, I didn't. Mr. Goldsmith. And what is the reason for that? Mr. Wilcott. I really didn't think that the Warren Commission was out to really get at the facts, and I am not 26 saying that they purposely did anything, because I don't know, and maybe they did or maybe they didn't, but certainly, they didn't impress me as really trying to scrutinize the evidence that there was. And their security that there is in the Government didn't strike me as the kind of security that would keep me from getting attacked in some way, if someone wanted to do it. Mr. Goldsmith. How did you know, in 1963, what type of security precautions the Warren Commission had for con- ducting its investigation? Mr. Wilcott. I don't understand. Mr. Goldsmith. You have indicated that you were not inclined to go to the Warren Commission because you were con- cerned about their security? Mr. Wilcott. Yes. Mr. Go

To both John and Ron, thank you so much for helping my "Paint Shop Pro" skills are negligible at best. By the way does anyone know who shot this photo? Is this a Murray photo? Also I have mentioned this on the JFK Online Seminars section, previously (I think it is still the last post). But at the prospect of being redundant, I think anyone who is intrigued with Dealey Plaza's growing "cast of characters," (so far it appears we have Rip Robertson and John Adrian O'Hare) to take a VERY close look at the entire Robert Hughes film. (The on-line versions are edited or are of very poor quality) 1. In the beginning the motorcade passes the person who COULD BE "E. Howard Hunt," as it makes the turn onto Houston St. (at the corner behind the motorcade as it turns; 2. About 38 seconds into the film, Robert Hughes is standing to the right and behind the Rip Robertson/O'Hare individuals as the crowd walks toward the knoll, then they are seen again in the TSBD Parking lot, to the right of the picket fence, with the trains as a backdrop; there are three other men who seem suspicious as well, one of them walks to the right of the camera, coming towards it then the three of them walk in front of Hughes. I do not recognize them as Dallas Police detectives; they are wearing suits and I believe two, and maybe all three are wearing glasses. I really think it is a worthwhile endeavor. It would be nice if we could upload all of the films on the Groden CD's to the forum, if there are no legal issues involved. I have two of them and they are incredible. Joan Mellen in her radio interview asserts that both Bernardo de Torres and David Atlee Philips were both in Dealey Plaza on November 22. The list appears to be getting larger.

I will be the first to admit that providing this link may seem to be somewhat sensationalistic, but after listening to Joan Mellen's three hour interview, in which she asserts (among other things) that Bernardo de Torres and David Atlee Philips were both in Dealey Plaza on Nov.22, as well as James Richards research that to me clearly shows Rip Robertson, I think it is something worth looking at. http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush2.htm I noticed that the individual circled in red is, (I believe) standing next to the person who might be John Adrian O'Hare but the quality of the image is too fuzzy to be sure. If anyone could do any photo editing of this image to make it sharper may be illuminating. John Dolva?

Joan Mellen was interviewed on WBAI Radio - A PBS Affiliate for a lengthy interview concerning her about to be released book "Farewell to Justice." Those wishing to hear this interview can click on the click provided below, taken from joanmellen.net http://www.radio4houston.org/takingaim/hom...dio.html#051011 - From there the interview is at the top of the page. I have listened to this and it is unlike anything you could ever imagine.

Your "post" involves distorting what I said, which I, as anyone else take exception to. You are implying that my post stated that organized crime was a "false sponsor," which I did not state as a factual preposition. The two sentences you threw together in response to my post are so asinine that I do not feel compelled to respond to them. If you want to throw some more stones or make caustic comments please email me instead of wasting space on this thread, and wasting the rest of the forum members time.

Sometime's I percieve your sole purpose on this forum is to rattle peoples cages, I usually ignore you.

Either: A. Led down the merry path himself. B. Designated to lead others down the merry path to nowhere land. After having had some 26 years transpire since the HSCA finished its famous or infamous conculsions regarding the JFK and MLK assassination's, the only conclusion that I can reach regarding G. Robert Blakey and more so, his pointing the finger at organized crime as the likely culprit in the "probable conspiracy" that killed JFK, is that I have little respect for him. One must read Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation" to get a real idea as to what depths the Committee would eventually sink to. At the time of the HSCA's investigation into JFK's assassination, I was sympathetic towards Blakey due to the fact that there had already been turnover at the position he was named to; He was put into a situation that was far from the ideal job description, in other words. But even though the HSCA did do some very good work, beneath the surface there was a continual tug of war between certain organizations that were under suspicion and paradoxically being relied on to provide information essential to the HSCA producing results. No investigating committeee on a national level want's to be percieved as being a "waste of taxpayer money," in light of their finished results, certainly there was some degree of a a serious investigation, but many JFK researchers have the impression that between congressional cuts in the HSCA's budget thru its brief lifetime to CIA interference and conversations that have remained shall we say "off the record" that it was a given that nothing concrete was going to be resolved, as far as the bottom line goes. I think if you read the comments made by Robert Tannenbaum on the HSCA you get a good indication that it was doomed to failure before it got off the ground. When Richard Sprague headed the Committee and the investigation first started things appeared very good, Sprague wanted an investigation into JFK's death in the same vein as a murder investigation would be conducted concerning anyone else, i.e. an investigation with teeth, no grants of immunity in return for cooperation, indictments against any living persons no matter who that may have been, etc...From the beginning, the CIA "turned the screws against the HSCA" in a manner that outdid the injustices done towards Jim Garrison during the Clay Shaw trial, albeit in a much more subdued manner. The feud between Henry Gonzalez and Sprague appears to have been a CIA job, that ultimately took both of them out, and in the end G. Robert Blakey was the guy in charge of running an investigation that saw the number of investigators investigating dwindle to abysmal levels, I believe Fonzi and maybe one other investigator were all that was left at the end, an end that saw George deMohrenschildt die the very day that Gaeton Fonzi came to interview him. Several events that occurred with Blakey at the helm leave one's stomach turning if you thought there was a modicum of sincerity in the premise that a valid investigation was being conducted. One, when Bernardo de Torres came to be deposed the CIA instructed the Committee that there would be no questions asked of Torres that pertained to events prior to the assassination of JFK.* Two, when the persons responsible for perusing "relevant CIA documents pertaining to the assassination" complained to Blakey about CIA stonewalling, he contacted the agency informed them of the problem (as if they didn't know) and asked for assurances that this would not be an ongoing problem. The CIA promptly placed George Joannides as the "liason" between the HSCA and the CIA. Ironically at least some of the documents that the CIA had been recalcitrant to give the Committee pertained to the DRE/CIA connection responsible for the "Oswald/Castro did it" stories that had appeared in Miami in the aftermath of 11/22/63, Joannides, as we now know RAN the DRE on behalf of the CIA during the same time frame; Talk about hiring the fox to guard the hen house. One can give Blakey the benefit of the doubt that he was unaware of Joannides' background; but this took place on his watch, so to speak and ultimately responsible even if not facilitating the arrrangement. Three, if the Warren Commission's misadventures with the truth were the result of taking Nicholas Katzenbach's exhortation that John Q. Public must be convinced tht Oswald did it as being the First Commandment of the Decalogue given on Mt. Sinai, the HSCA's lack of credibility took critical mass when the "mob did it" stories began to be the new sacrificial lamb on the altar of the American conciousness; it was clear that the national obsession wasn't dying anytime soon. The "mob did it" belonged to G. Robert Blakey just as assuredly as the single bullet theory was the baby of the infamous Arlen Specter. My guess as to the sea that Blakey was swimming in during that so-called investigation was called "just following orders." Four, and maybe most important, Prof. Joan Mellen spent seven years, conducting 1,000 interviews and at this juncture, appears to have uncovered more critical information regarding the execution of John F. Kennedy, than either the Warren Commission or the House Select Committee on Assassinations, although this is my not so humble opinion, if I am right what does that say about the "work" produced by the aforementioned? As the ignominous David Belin once said "You Be the Jury." * Joan Mellen interview on WBAI - Taking Aim on Pacifica Radio Network 10/11/05

I have heard comments by Forum members speculating that the "database" for the Forum (I don't know if the database encompasses the entire forum, or just the JFK Debate section, online seminars et cetera) "may be lost." Is this true? If so, has this situation been remedied. What is the status? If it has not been lost and is not in danger of being lost. Are there plans to save it; in the event of further misfortunes. I may be mistaken, but I have heard that a portion of the JFK Lancer database was lost a few months ago. If that is true, I certainly wouldn't want that to happen here.

Hi Robin, Looks to me as if nobody's being arrested in this picture, actually. I think the man in the suit who's standing in front of the policeman is holding a rifle (or shotgun?) pointed up towards the sky. If so, maybe it's the MC or one of the several other firearms which were reportedly found right after the assassination.... FWIW, Thomas Hello again, Robin I decided to take another "look" at the photo you posted, and now I see what I think you're referring to. I think the flesh-colored area inside the red box is profile of a person's face who is looking to our left. My intuition tells me that it's a child.......... FWIW, Thomas I believe I can make a contribution here. "The Jim Murray photograph that shows the Rambler on Elm and a man strolling down the knoll toward the footpath was snapped 10 minutes after the shooting. I guess if we can lock in a time when the image in the parking lot was taken, then we might be able to determine if there is a chance that these cars are one in the same." The Robert Hughes Film which begins as the Motorcade turns onto Houston Street (and thus would begin at approximately 12:30), show some footage of the TSBD Parking Lot area. I do not know if the film is shot continuously, or if he turned off the camera after the motorcade passed by DP and then turned it back on when he shot the footage of the crowds proceeding towards the Plaza, my guess is the latter. But even so this info, might give you an appx. point of reference as far as when the Police officers are around the cars in the parking lot. (The Hughes Film UNEDITED Version from the Groden video is (I believe) exactly 1:30 seconds, the versions I have seen on the Internet have a few seconds of beginning and end footage cut out. Also the Adrian O'Hare, Rip Robertson individuals can be seen being filmed from behind in the Hughes Film after the motorcade sequence, unfortunately the TSBD Parking Lot footage is shot too far to the right to show the officers around the cars close to the fence, BUT IT DOES show the Rip Robertson/O'Hare individuals standing in the center of the parking lot.

For the record, Justin, I do not believe in a wide-spread conspiracy to kill Kennedy. I do believe that after the Warren Report was released there developed a vast conspiracy to shut up and shut down the critics, as they were making Americans think uncomfortable thoughts. I believe the mainstream media willingly participated in this. Look at the NBC White Paper or the CBS specials in the sixties. I also believe that both the FBI and CIA determined that the conspiracy community was anti-American and was quite possibly a communist plot, and that they used and perhaps still use their resources to discredit and attack the conspiracy community. I also believe that the agents who participate in this do so out of misguided patriotism, and not because they are trying to protect Kennedy's murderers. That is why Posner, McAdams and Jennings are so powerful--not because they're paid to lie--but because they have a built-in audience for their distortions of the truth. I'll go even further--while I don't believe Posner or McAdams are on the CIA payroll I wouldn't be surprised if it was suggested by someone in the government that they go out and push the lone-nut idea after Stone's JFK turned a few heads. I can almost see the full-court press when Bugliosi's book is released. I've already got my spot reserved at the neighborhood puke-atorium. Sept 3, 2005 Washington Post Story mentions George Joannides. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...etro/obituaries Story Headline "Vivian Psachos; Helped Catch Spy at CIA" If I am not mistaken this subject is also mentioned on page 205 of "The Wizards of Langley." If you have considered buying this book just to peruse the passage(s) that pertain to George Joannides. I understand that the only section of the book that mentions him is on page 205, in relation to the story above. This is just a FYI.

This is a fascinating topic, obviously. But I have a question, I thought that I read on one of the posts on the forum that Bernardo de Torres is currently living in Chile. Is that true, and if it is how long has be been outside the United States?

Here is one possible explanation for Murgado’s actions. It was discovered that Joan Mellen was about to publish a book on Jim Garrison that was going to point towards the people responsible for the assassination of JFK. The strategy was therefore to feed Joan with a new story that if it was included would take the headlines. Soon after the book is published, Murgado will come forward and admit he was lying. Joan Mellen will be discredited and the rest of the book will not be taken seriously. Anyway, Murgado deserves his own thread. Please post any information you have on Murgado here: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5136 John, that Joan was possibly "fed a bogus story" because she was on track to revealing the truth, is in my mind something that would be the most nightmarish scenario for those who are still seeking the truth after all these years. Just think of the media treatment "Joan Mellen's book discredited the day it hit's the shelves" I, myself and, I suspect many others would be willing to overlook a mistake in judgement if the book is as credible as I believe it will be; but the mainstream media, (as you seem to imply) would not, I suspect be quite so forgiving.

The above photo is also? in the Hughes film see the thread (Sharing some new pics and large old pics.)

Thanks for the help. Apparently the problem is that there is a codec missing "cvid" an old one I have downloaded a file that supposedly contains the codec, TWICE. But I am still getting the same stupid message. I am still working on it. I still don't know if this is the complete Hughes Film or the excerpt. If anyone has the complete Hughes Film feel free to post it.

For the last two days I have been viewing the Robert Hughes film there is some very intruiging material in here; before I go on, I am talking about the COMPLETE film not the segment that is usually shown in films which only shows the motorcade making the turn and proceeding onto Houston from Main St. The complete length of the film is approximately - one minute and thirty-four seconds. At about 35 seconds into the film it shows two of the three individuals speculated to be Rip Robertson and John Adrian O'Hare. It appears that Hughes is standing about four to five feet behind them to their right, the film shows them walking across Main Street then pans out to show the rest of the crowd, at approximately 1:02 through 1:07 of the film there is an incredible shot showing the parking lot of the TSBD at the far back you can see the railroad cars, then automobiles then the "Robertson and O'Hare" inidividuals they are standing within 5 feet of each other and appear to be simply observing what is going on in the parking lot very nonchalant. In the foreground however, is what is driving me crazy there is a man walking towards the camera actually to the right of the camera, he is walking towards two other individuals; the guy looks like Ted Shackley and it is definitely not Larry Florer, the quality of the video fair, a little fuzzy. The three individuals walk directly in front of Hughes, and the main character is talking to the others. The film then cuts to a shot of the Criminal Courts Bdlg. and the Records Bdlg, pans Dealey Plaza then shows the front of the TSBD, showing the crowd. Then there is one last shot of the parking lot showing the Robertson and O'Hare characters again with a few photographers beside them. The film ends at the front of the TSBD. We have to get this film on the forum. I searched on the web for a copy of the film, there is a 12.5 MB AVI Hughes film at http://www.jfk-online.com/1hughes.html But when I downloaded it it wouldn't play on my computer. I think it is because it is in Quicktime, which I have problems using on my computer. I don't know if this version is condensed or not. I had made a post earlier in the JFK Online seminars section, because that is where the thread is for "Familiar Faces in Dealey Plaza." Stephen Turner has graciously offered to help me on this. Even if I am wrong on this person being Ted Shackley, which actually very hard for me to believe it is, I think looking at the Hughes film in its entirety is a worthwhile idea.

No. What I am referring to takes place at appx. 1:02-1:07 in the 1:43 second Robert Hughes film. The camera goes from showing a shot of the west side of Main Street on the South side (directly in front of the Terminal Annex Bdlg.) then the footage picks up on the "area on the West side of the TSBD between the Depository and the parking lot" there is a fairly large number of individuals gathered in the parkng lot area, then and individual in a suit begins walking towards the camera; you can tell that he sees someone and is walking towards them. He almost disappears from sight for a moment, then starts walking in front of the camera with the two other individuals, they appear to be in a very intense conversation. The individual walking towards the camera at an angle is wearing glasses has on a suit as do the other two individuals; one's face is obstructed due to the angle but you can see the other clearly. I really need someone to see this. I have seen practiacally all of the Dealey Plaza photos that we are all familiar with these individuals are not to the best of my knowledge Dallas Police Detectives, they are obviously not officers, and I don't think they are journalists. Ah, with you now, give me a couple of days and I will see if I can oblige..Steve. Thanks, I hope this is worthwhile. I certainly think it is at this point. I have been looking at this clip for quite a while over the last two day's.

No. What I am referring to takes place at appx. 1:02-1:07 in the 1:43 second Robert Hughes film. The camera goes from showing a shot of the west side of Main Street on the South side (directly in front of the Terminal Annex Bdlg.) then the footage picks up on the "area on the West side of the TSBD between the Depository and the parking lot" there is a fairly large number of individuals gathered in the parkng lot area, then and individual in a suit begins walking towards the camera; you can tell that he sees someone and is walking towards them. He almost disappears from sight for a moment, then starts walking in front of the camera with the two other individuals, they appear to be in a very intense conversation. The individual walking towards the camera at an angle is wearing glasses has on a suit as do the other two individuals; one's face is obstructed due to the angle but you can see the other clearly. I really need someone to see this. I have seen practiacally all of the Dealey Plaza photos that we are all familiar with these individuals are not to the best of my knowledge Dallas Police Detectives, they are obviously not officers, and I don't think they are journalists.

Greg, The first I ever heard of this concept of muddying the waters came from Chauncey Holt, who described that many people associated with various nefarious activities were invited to witness some activity in the Plaza, which was not explained as a presidential assassination. Some, I believe, expected an apparent attempt on the president which, depending on one's affiliation, would have either pretextualized an invasion of Cuba or discredited the far right-wingers at a time when JFK's approval rating was plummeting as a result of his inability to forestall the civil rights movement until after the 1964 election. I think of it as the Agatha Christie-type, Murder On The Orient Express scenario. Think of the optionality created: if Oswald became the patsy it was a Castro-sponsored attempt (as long as the patsy was killed); if Braden became the patsy then Bobby's war on organized crime is justified to go full tilt boogie; if one of General Walkers' guys became the patsy then the far right extremists are discredited and the civil rights movement immediately gains significant approval. Any one of the above scenarios would have vaulted Kennedy to heroic, profile in courage status. His reelection would be guaranteed. The possibility of some such demonstration planned by the administration was expressed in writing to H.L. Hunt by his security chief, Paul Rothermel, on November 4, 1963. Tim I tried to post this where I felt it was the most appropriate. Does anyone have access to the Robert Hughes film, where they could view it in it's entirety, or the Groden produced "JFK Assassination Films" on DVD which also includes the Hughes film? I have the Groden video and have found something interesting on the Hughes film. The film is approximately 1:34 seconds in length; at appx. 1:02 seconds into the film for the next five seconds the film shows the area on the west side of the TSBD panning the individuals in the parking lot (with the trains in the distance) at this point there are three individuals. I have slo-motion and zoom features on my DVD player, and I would like someone (James Richards?) or anyone else to look at this. I may be totally mistaken but one of these individuals resembles Ted Shackley (it is definitely not Larry Florer) Can someone help me on this?

The New Orleans/Miami, Marcello/Trafficante circuit was crucial, especially when considering Oswald's ties to Banister and Ferrie. The Dallas connection to gunrunning in the Southeast going back to the days when U.S. interests were supplying Castro with weapons also brings the Dallas component into play, especially given Jack Ruby's specific involvement in those activities.Tim After reading the last few posts on this thread, I realize that I have forgotten about the whole element known as "copyright material" and/or "intellectual property." I certainly do not want to violate any laws in my posts as far as reproducing images and copyrighted material. At the risk of sounding like a clod, does anybody feel comfortable giving me the basic parameters regarding posts on this forum that involve images and writing that is copyrighted?

I wanted to interject and ask a question that is a little out of my area of expertise, do any of you have any theories or suppositions as to what was Richard Nixon's motivation in wanting to peruse the 1967 CIA Report. This is a foreign area to me overall, but my first suspicion is that he was either wanting to find out if there was anything in the report that would indirectly link either himself to 11-22-1963, or maybe more to the involvement of the plumbers (Hunt, Sturgis, etc..) but this is just an idle speculation by somebody who researches the JFK assassination and has only a cursory knowledge about Watergate related events. I would like to obtain an old book out of print by Peter Dale Scott (Crime and Cover-up, the CIA the Mafia and the Dallas-Watergate Connection), but that is neither here nor there. I noticed this thread hasn't been active for a while, but any help is appreciated.

This post is addressed to anyone who has a collection of JFK Photo's available to post on the forum; more specifically I am trying to obtain copies of the photo's which depict the "Cuban" next to the Umbrella Man that were taken at Love Field (he appears among the crowds near the limo, as it is departing the airport). I have seen the photo's myself, but it was at the old JFK Assassination Center in the West End here in Dallas. James Richards would that be you? Any responses greatly appreciated.

I looked through the book and it appeared to me that he was writing as little as possible about the CIA/Cuban backdrop to JFK's assassination without it being conspicuous, did anyone else get that impression?

Larry, I hope you jump in on this regarding the "film" Robert Tannenbaum saw before it allegedly disappeared from the HSCA after being found at Georgetown U. "Here is Tanenbaum's description of what the film contained, condensed from his novel based in part on his HSCA experiences, *Corruption of Blood.* The plot of the novel is fictionalized; the evidence discussed is not. ". . . The small square screen showed a shadowy landscape, some bushes and trees, then a road. The film was black-and-white and grainy, or perhaps the graininess was just an artifact of the ground-glass screen of the editing machine. In any case, the film seemed to have been shot in bad light, at dusk perhaps, or in moonlight. "The camera panned across dark woods that seemed vaguely tropical -- palmettos, Spanish moss, and hanging vines -- past an open field, and onto the road again. A line of two-and-a-half-ton military trucks appeared, moving slowly, their headlights cut to thin slits. The trucks stopped and soldiers leaped out and lined up on the road. They were dressed in fatigues and soft caps. Most carried rifles, but there were some with machine guns and mortar components, and . . . one with a folded bazooka. "The film now cut jerkily to maneuvers: the soldiers rushed across the field and flung themselves down, while others provided covering fire. The film was silent, but you could see the pinpoints of fire from the rifles and the shimmering gouts of muzzle blast from the machine guns. It cut to a mortar team firing, dropping the shells in odd silence down the tubes and shielding their ears from the blasts. . . . they seemed well drilled. ". . . Now the camera was obviously in a vehicle of some kind, an open vehicle because the camera could pan around 360 degrees. A jeep: the well-known square hood flashed by and then the backs of the heads of two men with military caps on. A white road sign loomed up and started to whip by. . . . The road sign had the shape of Louisiana and a number." This is by Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans. The jeep ride ended and the camera cut to a group of five men standing around a jeep, talking, as troops filed by in the background. There were two unidentified Cubans. There was a "stocky guy with the round face" -- Antonio Veciana of the CIA-backed anti-Castro squad, Alpha 66. There was a "tall, ugly guy" -- Guy Banister, head of the Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean, resident of 544 Camp Street, New Orleans. There was a figure wearing civilian clothes, "a tall man with dark hair, a prominent nose, and deeply impressed wrinkles under his eyes . . . turning away from the lens as the shot opened, as if more interested in some background object than in the conversation the men were having; that, or he had a predisposition to avoid being the subject of photography. Tanenbaum believes this man was CIA officer David Atlee Phillips. "In the treacly movements of slow motion, the camera's view moved to another group of men standing by a truck. One of the men in the group turned around and smiled at the camera. It was actually more of a smirk than a smile, the famous smirk. . . . Lee Harvey Oswald." There were several unidentified men. ". . . The screen brightened. It was full day. Some men were shooting pistols at a crude outdoor firing range, firing at man-shaped targets nailed to trees." Antonio Veciana appeared in civilian clothes now, "holding an .45 and smiling. The view moved unsteadily at each soundless explosion. Two men, grinning, held up a well-punctured target. A man in a black T-shirt and ball cap sat at a table loading bullets into pistol magazines. He looked up for an instant, frowned, spoke briefly, and lowered his head again so that the bill of the cap obscured his face. He resembled Oswald, but Tanenbaum thought it had "to be some time later than in the first scenes, because his sideburns grown longer. . . . More shooting, men posing with weapons, then a close-up of a round-faced man with a fright wig and patently phony, impossibly thick eyebrows. . . David Ferrie . . . nobody else looked like Ferrie." The film cut to a shot of the man who looked like Oswald in the ball cap and black T-shirt. "The shot was taken from the rear and showed him standing, aiming at a target twenty-five yards downrange and firing off seven shots rapidly. . . . The camera moved in for a close-up of the head of the target silhouette. It was shredded and flapping away from its fiberboard backing. There was more target practice, then another twenty seconds of paramilitary exercises. Then it ended." END Larry, I have read that at one time you were skeptical about the story of the film, to me Robert Tannenbaum is a very credible source. (Not that I am implying you feel differently). Over the last two or three years have you or anyone else heard anything more about it? To me this film would be extremely significant, if it still exists; I know I'm reaching but I thought it was worth a post. I recently read the Probe magazine interview with Bob Tannebaum for the first time. The following is a segment of that interview (David Atlee) "Phillips was saying that an individual went to Mexico City on or about October 1st and the CIA was claiming this was Lee Harvey Oswald, just as the Warren Commission claimed. However, the following occurred: "Oswald" goes to the Russian Embassy and identifies himself as Lee Henry Oswald. He wants to fake everybody out by changing his middle name. There were tapes of what he said because the CIA was bugging the Embassy the same as they were doing to the U.S. Embassy, according to Phillips. And the CIA was photographing people going in and out of the Embassy, the same as they were doing to the U.S. (We found out, from our own sources that the CIA had a contract employee named Lee Henry Oswald, in their files.) Phillips testimony was that there was no photograph of "Oswald" because the camera equipment had broken down that day and there was no audio tape of "Oswald's" voice because they recycled their tapes every six or seven days. The problem with his story was, we had obtained a document, it was from the desk of J. Edgar Hoover, it was dated November 23rd, 1963, the very next day after the assassination. This document was a memo to all FBI supervisorial staff stating, in substance, that FBI agents who have questioned Oswald for the past 17 hours approximately, have listened to the tape made on October 1st, by an individual identifying himself as Lee Henry Oswald inside the Russian Embassy, calling on the phone to someone inside the Cuban Embassy and the agents can state unequivocally that the voice on the tape is not the voice of Lee Harvey Oswald, who is in custody." Again, and correct me if I'm wrong, Tannebaum is saying "the CIA had a contract employee named Lee Henry Oswald." Although I may have read that there was a "Oswald, Lee Henry" CIA file (lumped in with several different Oswald files) I have never heard Tannenbaum's asertion that there was an actual agent named "Lee Henry Oswald." Can anyone provide more information on this?

Larry, I hope you jump in on this regarding the "film" Robert Tannenbaum saw before it allegedly disappeared from the HSCA after being found at Georgetown U. "Here is Tanenbaum's description of what the film contained, condensed from his novel based in part on his HSCA experiences, *Corruption of Blood.* The plot of the novel is fictionalized; the evidence discussed is not. ". . . The small square screen showed a shadowy landscape, some bushes and trees, then a road. The film was black-and-white and grainy, or perhaps the graininess was just an artifact of the ground-glass screen of the editing machine. In any case, the film seemed to have been shot in bad light, at dusk perhaps, or in moonlight. "The camera panned across dark woods that seemed vaguely tropical -- palmettos, Spanish moss, and hanging vines -- past an open field, and onto the road again. A line of two-and-a-half-ton military trucks appeared, moving slowly, their headlights cut to thin slits. The trucks stopped and soldiers leaped out and lined up on the road. They were dressed in fatigues and soft caps. Most carried rifles, but there were some with machine guns and mortar components, and . . . one with a folded bazooka. "The film now cut jerkily to maneuvers: the soldiers rushed across the field and flung themselves down, while others provided covering fire. The film was silent, but you could see the pinpoints of fire from the rifles and the shimmering gouts of muzzle blast from the machine guns. It cut to a mortar team firing, dropping the shells in odd silence down the tubes and shielding their ears from the blasts. . . . they seemed well drilled. ". . . Now the camera was obviously in a vehicle of some kind, an open vehicle because the camera could pan around 360 degrees. A jeep: the well-known square hood flashed by and then the backs of the heads of two men with military caps on. A white road sign loomed up and started to whip by. . . . The road sign had the shape of Louisiana and a number." This is by Lake Pontchartrain, near New Orleans. The jeep ride ended and the camera cut to a group of five men standing around a jeep, talking, as troops filed by in the background. There were two unidentified Cubans. There was a "stocky guy with the round face" -- Antonio Veciana of the CIA-backed anti-Castro squad, Alpha 66. There was a "tall, ugly guy" -- Guy Banister, head of the Anti-Communist League of the Caribbean, resident of 544 Camp Street, New Orleans. There was a figure wearing civilian clothes, "a tall man with dark hair, a prominent nose, and deeply impressed wrinkles under his eyes . . . turning away from the lens as the shot opened, as if more interested in some background object than in the conversation the men were having; that, or he had a predisposition to avoid being the subject of photography. Tanenbaum believes this man was CIA officer David Atlee Phillips. "In the treacly movements of slow motion, the camera's view moved to another group of men standing by a truck. One of the men in the group turned around and smiled at the camera. It was actually more of a smirk than a smile, the famous smirk. . . . Lee Harvey Oswald." There were several unidentified men. ". . . The screen brightened. It was full day. Some men were shooting pistols at a crude outdoor firing range, firing at man-shaped targets nailed to trees." Antonio Veciana appeared in civilian clothes now, "holding an .45 and smiling. The view moved unsteadily at each soundless explosion. Two men, grinning, held up a well-punctured target. A man in a black T-shirt and ball cap sat at a table loading bullets into pistol magazines. He looked up for an instant, frowned, spoke briefly, and lowered his head again so that the bill of the cap obscured his face. He resembled Oswald, but Tanenbaum thought it had "to be some time later than in the first scenes, because his sideburns grown longer. . . . More shooting, men posing with weapons, then a close-up of a round-faced man with a fright wig and patently phony, impossibly thick eyebrows. . . David Ferrie . . . nobody else looked like Ferrie." The film cut to a shot of the man who looked like Oswald in the ball cap and black T-shirt. "The shot was taken from the rear and showed him standing, aiming at a target twenty-five yards downrange and firing off seven shots rapidly. . . . The camera moved in for a close-up of the head of the target silhouette. It was shredded and flapping away from its fiberboard backing. There was more target practice, then another twenty seconds of paramilitary exercises. Then it ended." END Larry, I have read that at one time you were skeptical about the story of the film, to me Robert Tannenbaum is a very credible source. (Not that I am implying you feel differently). Over the last two or three years have you or anyone else heard anything more about it? To me this film would be extremely significant, if it still exists; I know I'm reaching but I thought it was worth a post.