Tim Carroll

Some claim PSE (Psychological Stress Evaluation) to be an accessible form of lie detector in that it can be used on tape recordings of vocal statements. It's been almost thirty years, so I may not be completely accurate in this, but I remember a book from the Seventies entitled "The Assassination Tapes" in which a man named George O'Toole evaluated the truthfulness of various recorded interviews regarding the assassination using PSE. T.C.

In the context of the quote, plan equals conspiracy. It seems he often slipped up while backpedaling. Hunter Thompson on Nixon: "If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin." T.C.

I know this thread concerns Tony Summers' contribution to historical understanding, but I can't help but respond to the mention of Gary Webb. His death just before Christmas last year was incredibly troubling - two supposedly self-inflicted shots to the face. Gary Webb was a heroic, groundbreaking journalist who should not be forgotten: http://www.esquire.com/features/articles/2...mfe_webb_1.html T.C.

Let's not forget about the effects of Kennedy's LSD trips with Mary Meyer that last year of his life. I don't intend this comment in a trivial way. LSD is not an intoxicant so much as a life-changing perspective. Regardless of any distinction about LSD, President Kennedy was known to be a drug user to the degree that would permit self-honorable people to consider him incapable of embodying a necessarily credible nuclear deterrent. Shanet Clark's thesis of 25th Amendment-type incapacity would apply. JFK may truly have become unable to wage nuclear diplomacy, let alone war. T.C.

The Ferrell site is now working for me, but check out what's going on at Wim Dankbaar's site: http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/phpBB2/index.php I have never seen anything like that before: big bold-faced type taking credit for the hacking. T.C.

I have found the opposite argument to be most commonly made by those who focus on Vietnam: that Kennedy's sponsorship of the coup was deeply resented by the anti-communist hardliners like Lansdale (one of Diem's best friends) and Johnson (who called Diem the Churchill of the Far East). T.C.

Sequencing the hypothetical Badge Man's shot as being prior to the headshot(s) is a logical inconsistency (therefore impossible). If one believes in Badge Man at all, it is based upon the image some see in the Moorman photo (Zf-316), in which a shooter wearing a police uniform is supposedly seen at the moment of muzzle flash, a fraction of a second after the headshot(s). Tim

It does seem that the highest levels of the U.S. government went fairly berserk over the signed and videotaped confession of Buckley in Beirut. Iran has exerted a strong leverage over Western policy since that time, including the provision of TOW missiles in the 1980's and continuing to the present service in Iraq, including the removal of the secular leader and the promotion of democracy for a Shiite majority favorable to Iran, and far more disposed toward religious fundamentalism than political transparency. Tim

The Riechstag fire is increasingly the appropriate model for what has transpired as a result of 9-11. The roles of the respective governments in the events themselves will most likely remain unresolved, unfortunately. Tim

... or obfuscated by echoes! Here's an semi-educated (semi-literate?) guess based upon a curious question and an even more curious response: these are the three shots that came from the 6th floor southeast window. Lee Oswald was not the shooter .... I believe that a highly possible scenario is that the Carcano was fired from the SE window as a sight and sound decoy, as part of what some may have considered an Operation Northwoods action to stage a Castro assassination attempt. Tim

Sidelit is not backlit, especially with regard to midday sunlight. The perspective arrow in the previous post shows the sun to be at a lateral angle no greater than 90 degrees; backlit would be 180. We are talking about midday sunlight, no more than 90 degrees from straight on. Tim

While I don't subscribe to Jack White's degree of film alteration, I can't help but take exception to the argument that Zapruder was backlit. The sun was at its midday zenith to the south (camera left). That is anything but backlit. Tim

I have to disagree some here with John that Regan had little success in curbing the Sandanista hold in Nicaragua. He financed terrorists such as Alarcon and brought in his own military terror specialists to disrupt the Sandanista Operations and inflict terror on the citizens of that country. It eventually brought it down. Now they are starving under their free form of government. He did squeeze communisim out of the Soviet Union. And now they are starving. We as a country are bent on Americanizing the world, and only take it half way. We assist in ridding regimes and communists governments that are not to our liking or workable, and then leave them to drown without an economy. Sound like Afghanistan? Our two options would be to finish the job and pour in billions into these countries and extend ourselves even farther than we already are with foreign aid, or let them be and live a co-existance. With what we are paying in foreign aid today to Americanize the world, we could send all of our children to college, free of charge. Hum, what is more appropriate? Thomas Paine would have never said: Live Free Or Starve. The rehabilitation of Reagan's image rivals the Kennedy assassination as a historical attrocity. Interestingly, Nixon described Reagan's tactic of bankrupting the Soviets as a way of winning the Cold War; he said that the Soviets had lost but that given the magnitude of debt, the U.S. had not won. In other words, Reagan not only bankrupted governments not to his liking, he almost did it to the U.S. as well. His military-industrial complex wet dream of Star Wars has never been taken off the table. He may leave American children starving yet. Tim

I believe Tosh has previously said that there was also information that the hit might have been planned for in front of the Adolphus Hotel. It would be interesting to peruse photos of that location with the kind of care given Dealey Plaza. Also, as said before, the real reason for the Presidential trip to Texas, and how urgently it was pushed to JFK and by whom, are considerations worthy of attention. I misspoke when I was pondering the connection between Miami and Dallas; there's been so much talk about the Miami Airport security on the 18th that I confused that with the Palm Beach plot on the 17th. Tosh's post supports my sense that the Chicago and Tampa suspicions and/or plans were not of the same magnitude as Dallas. But to boil down my quandery, it is about the connection between a Texas plot by Texans and the Florida operations. Why would JM/WAVE be brought in, even as an abort capability, unless there was a strong Cuban connection. If the Harlendale/Beckley Cubans were involved in gunrunning and perhaps Armory thefts, how would that have connected to JM/WAVE and Roselli? I've begun to consider that an abort mission from Florida makes sense in the context of aborting a compromised Northwoods attempt, especially given Jackie's short-noticed presence. This would explain why a special MI unit, perhaps operating specially on behalf of one of Bobby's subgroups, would be used rather than the SS or FBI. T.C.

Texas used to be a "nation unto itself." Now it's taken over the whole shooting match (pun intended). It has always seemed odd to me that an abort team would be sent to try to stop the assassination, instead of the White House being informed that there was a plot and that the trip should therefore be aborted. The Chicago trip was aborted for this very reason. Why didn't they just keep JFK out of Dallas, or at least out of a motorcade (as they did on the Miami trip)? The way I understand it was the information was late in getting to the right people at the White House, namely the Secret Service. The information was at first very vague and had been received from parties in Miami after they had been picked up (detained) by the FBI attempting to fire a "Bazooka" on Air Force One at West Palm Beach airport (time frame about Nov 17 I think).... The abort team was put together very fast and was not very organized, as I have stated in the past. MI seemed to be the main contact as well as sections within the CIA that formed the team, TFW Sec-C, and dispatched the team to Dallas. I think after the assassination the government had a real problem if the information they had received before the hit had been made public at the time or released shortly after. Oswald was UC for MI (OMC section 235) and was an FBI informant and had infiltrated the Dallas Cubans and their network. His "cut-out" was the Dallas PD.... The question I have about Tosh's LBJ/Texas post is how the Dealey Plaza plan related to the Miami events just days earlier. If it was a well-thought-out Texas plot, intended to take place in Texas, how would knowledge of it be derived from the anti-Castro detainees in Palm Beach, and why would there be a JM/WAVE connection? Can anyone confirm whether there were any official arrests made relating to the Palm Beach Airport on November 17, 1963? Regarding Texas, one of the long-discussed issues has been JFK's purpose in making the trip. While the feuding within the Texas Democratic Party has always been considered a strong factor, some Kennedy loyalists have insisted that it was the opening salvo of the 1964 campaign, pure and simple. But it was that very intramural feud which had Kennedy working on the motorcade seating arrangements right up until the landing at Love Field. It's also strongly suggested by Manchester that the heated exchange between JFK and LBJ behind a closed door at the Hotel Texas was over this same issue. As Tip O'Neill said: "All politics is local." T.C.

Hunt had worked with the exiles back in the day but had cut-out before the BOP because he so disliked Manolo Ray. Would he then be brought back and consulted on a new plan, that included Ray (and perhaps others to the left of Ray)? Whether or not Ultimate Sacrifice's supposed coup leader was Che, it was definitely someone the right-wingers like Hunt would not have tolerated. Finding a way to install a moderate leader was the Kennedys' big problem in the Bay of Pigs preparations, and the same problem existed in 1963. I don't see why the authors necessarily consider the Mafia, as an entity, to be responsible when you have someone like former Cuban President Prio running around, with a zillion dollars to spend to reclaim his position. His contacts are generally the same usual suspects identified with the Mafiosos and right-wingers. The Bay of Pigs planning had also included manipulating the politics of the Cuban exiles in the aftermath of what was hoped to be a successful takeover. Even many of the Cuban exiles would have been shocked at how far some in the United States were willing to go in this regard. The President’s directive that the exile leadership include more people from the left-of-center orientation to counter charges that the exiles were nothing more than Batisteros in disguise caused some dissension in the CIA’s ranks. E. Howard Hunt’s resentment of the change led him to “resign” or be “fired” from his job as Political Action Officer for the invasion, depending on who’s version one believes. He thought these changes amounted to a policy of Fidelismo sin Fidel, Fidelism without Fidel. Hunt’s political orientation, which was distinctly right-wing, was far more amenable to Batistism sin Batista. One of the moderate Cuban leaders, stung by Hunt’s charge, stated: “I don’t know what it means to be a leftist. If it means to be in favor of all the people and for the welfare of the masses, then I am.” Hunt retorted: “Fidel Castro could not have phrased it better.” Hunt's ideology was reflected in a quote he was fond of citing: “The liberal’s arm cannot strike with firmness against communism... because the liberal dimly feels that in doing so he would be somehow wounding himself.” The rightwing Cubans and those in the CIA like Hunt who were most sympathetic to counter-revolutionary politics did make contingency plans for the exiles’ leadership after the landing. “Operation 40 called for assassinating the moderates after their return to the island following an invasion.” The U.S. supported the creation of a moderate provisional government during the planning, while its own agents were plotting to install a more right-wing one later. The moderates were intended to legitimize the efforts of the exile force while at the same time becoming targets themselves for some later murderous manipulation. The Batistianos had not let go of their ambitions, and were plentifully represented in Artime's operation. If, as the authors themselves note, the Kennedys' enthusiasm for the C-Day project was waning and they were perceived to be dragging their feet (perhaps because the backchannel negotiations were looking better from a cost/benefit view), it would have been the more militant of the anti-Castroites who had played along with the Kennedys that would have had the most to gain from twisting up the "Cuban Contingency Plan" part of the playbook, piggybacking the part involving assassinations of American leaders. T.C.

Happy Holidays! T.C.

Since Mr. Kelly knows Anthony Summers so well, he should know that Mr. Summers is not a Mick, even if he pretends to be one. I was surprised by the reference to Tony Summers as a "Mick." We Carrolls know our Micks. T.C.

It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever.Everything that I wrote is 'relevant to the response.' I meant no offense. I didn't refer to anything someone had written as irrelevant; I merely pointed out that the "quoted material" is often more voluminous than the segment to which a response is directed. T.C.

It would be great if posting members would reduce the quoted material to that which is relevant to the response. Regarding Augustinovich, I couldn't discern from Gerry's response whether he is denying that Augustinivoch was arrested with him on Sombrero Key and therefore misidentified in the photo, but not with him on No Name Key, or if he meant to say that he had no association with Augustinovich whatsoever. T.C.

At the trial (which seems to square better with Oswald's phraseology), of course. If anything, he would get a better sense of Power's character there than from T.V. spots. Now we are into the realm of defending Professor Mellen's claim that Oswald appeared at Powers' trial on the basis that sitting in the back of a courtroom would have provided "a better sense of Powers' character there than from T.V. spots." Let's get back to Professor Mellen's source, which, to reiterate, was not Weberman. Anyone taking up the mantle of dogmatically defending every aspect of the book should be able to demonstrate the source of such a bold historical claim without resorting to unattributed sources. Let Professor Mellen explain the bases for asserting that Banister was shot to death, Oswald attended Powers' trial and Harvey testified to specific White House approval of a Johnny Roselli assassination plot. T.C.

In 1980, with Blakey's Mafia-did-it The Plot To Kill The President coming fresh on the heels of the failed HSCA proceedings, Tony Summers' Conspiracy was a groundbreaking revelation for me. Summers' work has indeed withstood the test of time. It never ceases to amaze me how casually people, including a prominent member of this forum, resort to accusing researchers like Tony Summers and Mary Ferrell as being CIA. T.C.

If he had just seen him on T.V., it would seem more natural for Oswald to simply say so and leave out extraneous details like where Powers was when he saw him. A commonsensical explanation of Oswald's assertion of seeing Powers in Moscow would indeed be that he saw him on television. Where else would Oswald have seen enough to conclude that Powers "seemed to be a nice, bright, American-type fellow?" T.C.

Whether you have heard it rumored or not is pretty irrelevant, as Mellen cites her sources (who would be in a position to know). If you choose to disbelieve them that is your prerogative, but it has no bearing on Mellen's use of citations. I don't know how you can call this a "wild claim." Mellen cites and quotes from the appropriate source (which is not the one Gratz was claiming Mellen used). From Weberman's site: On February 15, 1962, OSWALD wrote this to Robert Edward Oswald: "I heard over the Voice of America that they released Francis Gary Powers the U-2 spy plane fellow. that's big news where you are, I suppose. He seemed to be a nice, bright, American-type fellow, when I saw him in Moscow." The CIA commented: "The only period during which it would have been reasonably possible for OSWALD to have seen Francis Gary Powers in Moscow in person was between August 17, 1960 and August 19, 1960, when Francis Gary Powers was in Moscow, undergoing trial. There are no other indications that OSWALD was in Moscow after January 1960, so OSWALD'S statements remain unclarified." Its not totally definitive, but its very far from being baseless. 1. I request clarification about the assertion that Banister was shot to death as Professor Mellen relates; 2. I would request that Professor Mellen post and/or quote verbatim the document that shows that Harvey testified that the White House approved a "specific Rosselli operation;" and 3. Despite Owen's admission that Oswald's attendance at the Powers show trial is "not totally definitive," Professor Mellen made the assertion without qualification or specific attribution (she definitely did not cite Weberman). Most of the speculation on this subject has involved Powers' own assertion that people would occasionally look into his cell through a slit and that perhaps Oswald could have been among them. T.C.

I have Gerald Patrick Hemming on tape to the tune of boxes and boxes of tapes from our conversations. Yes, he cited Helms as behind the assassination - on tape with me in Fayetteville, North Carolina. The footnoting/sourcing problem in Ms. Mellen's book is immediately apparent. As the reviewer quoted by Gerry observed, "about midway in the book, [the footnotes] do not correspond to the correct page...." As for my earlier questions about the evidence that General Walker was a visitor to Banister's office, there is no cited evidence whatsoever. I have never before even heard it rumored that Guy Banister was shot. According to the book, "Allen Campbell says a single round shot came in through the window, and that Delphine Roberts was present.... Mary Banister called her friend Ruth Lichtblau in terror. 'Guy's been shot!' she said.... Allen Campbell says he knows who shot Guy Banister." It's a wild claim to say that Harvey testified under oath that there was "White House approval and 'initiative' of the 'specific Rosselli operation' to murder Castro." I can't help but wonder why or how Prof. Mellen would assert that Oswald "would even appear at Francis Gary Powers' trial" in Moscow. (p. 165). The notes generally reference some other books about the U-2 incident with which I'm familiar, but I don't know of anything more than baseless speculation that Oswald was anywhere near Powers, let alone definitively appearing at his extremely public "show" trial. I can't help but wonder what changed, such that Gerry decided, after years of interviewing with Joan Mellen, to e-mail her the assertion that CIA agent Steve Czukas arranged the Odio visit. Also, a direct confirmation from Gerry that he personally witnessed personal contact between Oswald and RFK would be helpful in determining what to make of Mellen's tome. Joan Mellen's concept of fairness and accuracy is eluding me. Historical writing has no room for generating antecdotes the author doesn't establish as being at least minimally credible. Fairness does not decree that any particular side of a story be told, regardless of how bona fide or unsupported. And if the enabling qualifier is to include with the attributions such phrases as "he claims" or "he says," what is a reader to make of the degree of such qualifications applied to our own Gerry Hemming? Words like "Hemming spins," "Hemming imagines," "Hemming postulates" and "Hemming colors" do not engender the confidence of the reader. From pages 201-202: "Gerald Patrick Hemming tells a tale that might serve as a metaphor to explain Bobby's conundrum. Without corroboration, offering none, Hemming spins a story of Bobby choppering from Palm Beach to a training facility near Homestead Air Force base. There, Hemming imagines, Bobby met with Cubans, many of them Bay of Pigs veterans, who were part of his Special Group. According to Hemming, among the Cubans that day stood one Lee Harvey Oswald.... Hemming postulates that Bobby greeted these Cuban men who considered themselves patriots so that they would know that this time, unlike the Bay of Pigs, the highest authority was backing them....[shades of the Cubela request for a meeting with RFK] The scene may or may not have taken place as Hemming colors it." While I believe that Professor Mellen trashes Gerry Hemming's credibility, she still used his claims about Bobby Kennedy to develop an impression that isn't supported without the inclusion of those claims. If she thought his story not worthy of being taken "seriously," she should have just left it out. She shouldn't both use and abuse it. Otherwise, she needed to include James Files and Judyth Baker in the book. I assume you are refering to Hemming's tale for Oswald being in Florida. Again, this is not treated as true and is not supposed to be taken that way by the reader. If I'm wrong about the source, give me a citation.On the same page (201) that Professor Mellen says that Hemming "tells a tale ... spins a story ... imagines," etc., she does say: "According to Hemming, among the Cubans that day [in the presence of RFK] stood one Lee Harvey Oswald, even as independent corroboration does indeed place Oswald in Miami that summer of 1963." It's hard to tell if Professor Mellen does or does not believe the evidence to indicate if Oswald was actually in Florida in the summer of 1963.Regarding the Odio visit, the notes show Gerry being interviewed on the matter on April 19, 2002, yet not coming up with the assertion that "Czukas arranged for the Odio visit" until more than two years later, on May 31, 2004. How can anyone read this and come away with any confidence about what is believable and what is not? Describing Angelo Murgado, there is this sentence: "Material possessions hold no appeal, and service, neither to the CIA nor to Robert F. Kennedy, brought him no riches." Ouch! It is an absurd assertion that the criticism of Professor Mellen's book is standard CIA disinfo. One doesn't have to be a CIA agent to recognize a double negative. And this from a professor who teaches creative writing? The book appears not to have even been proofread. T.C.