Gene Kelly

Jim/Paul: The timeline that is laid out in early 1963 looks like the following: Feb 13: Oswalds attend dinner party at the DeMorenschildt house Feb. 22: Oswalds attend dinner party at the home of Everett Glover (and meet the Paines) March 2: Oswalds move to 214 W. Neely St. March 9-10: Someone takes photos of Walker house March 11: Militant letter allegedly written by Lee (L. H.) March 12: Ruth visits Marina at the Neely apartment; Lee allegedly orders rifle from Kleins (Marina is taken away from Apartment) March 20: Ruth makes her second trip to Neely St. - same day rifle and revolver are shipped -and Marina is taken away from the apartment March 25: Lee picks up the weapons March 31: Someone takes the Backyard photos April 2: Oswalds attend dinner party at the Paines home April 10: somebody takes a shot at Edwin Walker April 12: Lee files for unemployment April 24: Ruth drives Lee to bus station (on way to New Orleans) I became interested in the research and facts surrounding the Neely Street duplex four years ago, based on "Neely Street Mysteries" (2003, C. Wernerhoff) and previous Education Forum threads with Greg Parker and Ed leDoux (April 2011) entitled: "Neely St Questions". What I concluded then was that Oswald's brief and questionable residency at 214 W. Neely Street (imprecisely recorded as somewhere between March-May) coincides with much of the evidence created to establish his legend as a radical, capable of violence. This is the pivotal period when he allegedly acquired a rifle and a pistol, posed with the weapons for the backyard photos, attempted to kill Walker, and even hinted at an attempt on the life of Nixon (shades of Arthur Bremer and George Wallace). Everything about the Neely duplex smells "fishy" and most of the "evidence" that Lee Oswald lived there comes from his wife (Marina), Ruth and Michael Paine, and George and Jeanne DeMohrenschildt. Oswald later told his interrogators in custody not once but twice that he had never lived there. In the words of Carl Wernerhoff: "... when it was pointed out that certain friends of his had told police that they had visited him there, he assured the police that they were mistaken. The tendency to disassociate himself from Neely St. - at the cost of contradicting the statements of others - is a central mystery of the case". A summary of Greg's work includes the following facts and points: The owner of the Neely apartments was not called to give testimony, despite the importance of Oswald's stay at Neely St.. He is listed with three names: "M.W. George", "Waldo George" and "Jim George". He allegedly worked for an insurance company no longer in business. The mysterious owner - for reasons not given - claims to have padlocked the apartment after it was vacated in May. He also claimed some unknown party had been gaining access for unknown reasons in the months leading up to the assassination. One of the pieces of evidence placing Oswald at Neely Street was a pay stub found at the same time as the bus transfer, which belonged to a former resident. No rental records were obtained by any of the investigating authorities, and the electric and gas were inconsistent with true occupancy. The landlady, Mrs. Tobias, from the previous Elsbeth apartment was adamant that they moved themselves out (on March 3rd) using a stroller to transport their belongings... as opposed to the lady with the white station wagon who moved the couple into Neely. The Oswalds move from Elsbeth with a stroller's worth of belongings and disappear into the ether ... except they must be close by because Mrs. Tobias spots Marina and even chats with her. Around this same time the Oswald's move from Elsbeth, another young couple are being moved into 214 Neely by a lady in a white station wagon. They both speak English, he is employed the whole time, they have two small kids and fight a lot. It appears that impostors stay at the apartment occasionally, as deemed necessary, and on May 1st they fake moving out. George Mohrenschildt's son in law (Gary Taylor) had photography experience; his former wife Alexandra confirmed “he was working on and off with a photographer”. It's recorded that he was visiting Neely for a "friendly visit" and told Marina about his impending divorce (from Alexandra). Oswald used Gary Taylor’s address to take out the post office box where the infamous Mannlicher mail order weapon was allegedly sent ... that fact alone connects quite a number of 'dots'. After this infamous residency, no one else apparently rents or lives at Neely Street until after the assassination. And when Lee returned from his fictitious visit to Mexico and shenanigans in New Orleans, why didn't he just resume living at Neely Street (with Marina)? This is the only recorded time where Lee shows a militant and violent side ... he acquired a rifle and a pistol, posed with the weapons for the backyard photos, attempted to kill Walker, threatened to shoot Nixon. He is portrayed as essentially a pacifist before and after Neely. Marina Prusakova is historically portrayed as an innocent in all of this. But suspicions abound that she spoke much better English than she let on (e.g. with Robert Webster in Leningrad). And John Armstrong has pointed out, Marina's cooperation with the government and her ability to supply evidence at the most opportune times is noticeable and quite obvious. This would throw another variable into the Neely Street equation. At the end, Oswald himself (in custody) vigorously denied ever living there - despite such residency having little bearing on the authenticity of the backyard photos Ultimately, all we have to go upon is the word of the Paines and the de Mohrenschildt’s, and some second-hand interviews of the mysterious M. Waldo George. ... but no objective and solid records. If the Oswalds really didn't live there, then where were they living? My conclusion then (and now) is that Neely Street was an arranged safe house, where all of the damning evidence was put into play. The game strategy was to keep Lee and Marina separate from each other, to better set the intricate web being created. A few cameo appearances at Neely, and some impostors to complete the picture. Such a manufactured legend would be entirely consistent with all of the other bogus bread crumbs being laid onto the trail at this pivotal period ... the evidence and witnesses being carefully managed on the ground. And the Paines were complicit in these schemes. Gene

Paul The Neely St. coincidence is pieced together from Jeff Carter's 2015 article in Kennedys and King entitled "A New Look at the Enigma of the Backyard Photos" Gene

Talbot's "The Devil's Chessboard" and other authors make it clear that Allen Dulles used religious groups (like the Quakers) to further his schemes. In George Michael Evica's book “A Certain Arrogance: The Sacrificing of Lee Harvey Oswald and the Cold War Manipulation of Religious Groups by US Intelligence”, he reveals how Paine's circle of Quakers was among the Protestant groups that served as covert breeding grounds for intelligence operations, effectively disguised because Quakers are known for advocating peace. The Paine's are historically characterized as an average middle-class religious couple who just happened to associate with a Marxist assassin and his Russian wife ... but in reality, they were the patsy's "handlers" (Mike assigned to Lee; Ruth to Marina) to establish Oswald's legend, and ultimately incriminate him. I would speculate that they were used, but had to be witting. I once posted about the many "coincidences" surrounding the Paines: The Paines moved from Pennsylvania to Irving TX (where Marguerite lived) the same September 1959 week that Oswald left his mother and defected. When Oswald returned to Dallas in 1962, the Paines were still there ... as though waiting for him. Lee and Marina randomly meet the Paines at the Glover White Russian party. When the enigmatic George de Morenschildt left for Haiti, Ruth and Michael stepped-in as his "benefactors" ... almost as a hand-off to the Paines. The Oswalds move in with them for nothing more than Russian language tutoring. Michael and Ruth conveniently separate (ostensibly for cruel treatment) but remain amicable; Mike watching over Lee while Ruth watches over Marina. Two babysitters whose marriage ends in 1971. Ruth persistently offered Marina the opportunity to separate from Lee. It strains belief that Ruth would send a letter to Marina asking her to come live with the Paines, after only a 3-week acquaintance, begun at the Magnolia Oil party in February 1963, when Ruth first met Marina. Both the Paines and the Oswalds maintain separate residences from their respective spouses ... serving to obfuscate any future examination of links or associations. Ruth appears on the scene to whisk Marina away whenever Oswald has somewhere important to go (e.g. New Orleans, Mexico City). Ruth's visits to the Neely Street apartment coincide with the same days the rifle and revolver are ordered/shipped. Ruth is instrumental in obtaining the critical/timely job for Oswald at the TSBD via a random conversation with a neighbor. Marina was cut off from Ruth Paine within days of the assassination, and advised by the Secret Service to stay away from Ruth because she was "sympathizing with CIA.” Marina abruptly dropped her benefactor immediately after the assassination, but Ruth continued to write (like a spurned lover) incessantly, with letters that took an almost desperate tone, but received no response except for a Christmas card. They met briefly in 1964, but afterwards they would never see each other again. Damming evidence against Oswald flowed exclusively from the Ruth Paine's garage (e.g. backyard photographs, Kleins order, radical magazines, Mexican bus ticket). Their incredulous lack of knowledge of a rifle (early on) followed by their certain knowledge of its storage/discovery in their garage. Ruth's home continued to cough up evidence against Oswald for months, even after it had been thoroughly searched by DPD and FBI agents many times. The picture portrayed of Oswald changed from a regular guy who didn't drink and liked watching football on TV, playing with his kids (prior to November 22nd) … to a dangerous, unhappy, drunken wife-beating communist assassin (after November 22nd). In contrast to Quaker-Unitarian ideals, the Paines performed a skillful/scripted character assassination of the alleged assassin. The dichotomy of a virtuous Quaker-Unitarian couple who belonged to the ACLU (ideologically liberal) ... but did nothing to help Oswald with legal assistance. The Paines own the most quoted testimony in the Warren Commission record (over 6,000 questions) ... no one is even a close second. Michael Paine (in contrast to Ruth) was treated as the 'court jester' by the Warren Commission. His testimony rambles and exhibits an astonishing lack of recall on many subjects of a personal nature. He jumps back and forth over the Oswald is guilty/not guilty fence, and he left a very muddled trail relating to his knowledge of the Oswald weapons. Marguerite Oswald expressed to FBI agents her belief that Lee was framed by none other than Michael Paine (i.e. the spotlight has been mistakenly shined on the wrong Paine). Ruth attended a Unitarian college (Antioch) and only later became a Quaker. It appears that someone decided to portray Ruth as a Quaker ... encouraged her to posture as a liberal Quaker, but then act as a surveillance agent (as surmised by other intelligence agencies). Ruth’s reaction to Oswald’s murder - the pious Quaker interviewed by Redbook magazine in the summer of 1964. Ruth told the Redbook journalist that she was glad Oswald was dead because it spared Marina the trauma of a trial; an obvious parallel to Ruby’s alleged motive about sparing Jackie Kennedy (i.e. the same scriptwriter at play). Ruth's statements show little empathy for Lee's widow and two little girls - whom Ruth was supposedly attached to - and notably, Ruth did not attend the funeral. For the following 30 years, Michael and Ruth remain untouched (i.e. HSCA, AARB), untainted (albeit with income tax returns classified) and under-investigated Gene

Paul and Kirk: I've always admired Vincent Salandria for his courage, insight ... and the fact that he's a fellow Philadelphian. Vince originally taught at John Bartram High School (near where I grew up) for eight years before his conspiracy theories made him an outlier among fellow teachers. Even his wife didn't believe him. He finished the last 30 years of his career as a school-system and ACLU lawyer. He was troubled by how Arlen Spector (another Philly guy) seemingly sold out, and he called him on it many times. At the end - and only six years ago - they met and attempted to make peace. It seemed Arlen was willing to say he made mistakes, but wanted Vince to retract his earlier criticisms: “Instead of calling me corrupt,” he said, “can you change it to incompetent?” Vince refused, and as the interview relates, whatever personal redemption Specter may have been seeking, he left without it. But he didn’t leave empty-handed; on the way out of the Oyster House, (a favorite center city restaurant of mine), Vince handed Specter a copy of James Douglass’s book "JFK and the Unspeakable". What's telling about this exchange is that Vince was of the opinion that his life was saved by Arlen Specter’s work on the Warren Commission (and the ineffectiveness of his own efforts) ... that had it been him (instead of Arlen) who was asked to be on the Warren Commission, his strong opposing views would have caused him his life. The government would've had him killed ... and in some fashion, Vince believed that the Paines lived with that threat too. But Vince was right in labeling the Paines as "clear beacons to the assassins". Gene

Great interview with Vincent Salandria in 2016: The Role of The Paines In History - Transcript of statement by Vincent Salandria read on April 8, 2016 during his interview as background for the Documentary, The Assassination & Mrs. Paine. In this, he lays out how they were used ... and that they knew it, and should admit such: Let us briefly summarize some, but certainly not all, of the vital work carried out by the Paines without which no successful Dallas conspiracy to kill Kennedy could possibly have occurred. The work of the Paines regarding Oswald was essential for the successful closing of the circle of events that were required to kill Kennedy and to frame Oswald as the patsy. It was Ruth Paine who had arranged to drive Lee Harvey Oswald’s family from New Orleans to the Dallas area. It was Ruth Paine who had timely managed Oswald to get a job in the Texas Book Depository Building which turned out to be situated on the Presidential motorcade route of November 22, 1963. It was Ruth Paine who failed to advise Oswald that a better paying job was available to him than the one to which she had arranged to get for him at the Texas Book Depository Building. It was in Ruth Paine’s garage where the rifle was supposedly stored that allegedly belonged to Oswald and was asserted to have been used by Oswald to kill Kennedy. It was in Ruth Paine’s garage in which other incriminating evidence against Oswald was reported to have been stored. It was the role of Ruth Paine and Michael Paine, both of whom purported to be committed to civil liberties, to join the authorities in designating Oswald as the assassin without his having had been offered even a suggestion of due process before he was conveniently killed while in police custody. Probability theory, a branch of mathematics, dictates that the invaluable work of the Paines, which served to incriminate Oswald as the assassin, and to frame him, could not have been left by the conspirators to happenstance. One cannot rationally attribute to happenstance the cause of the series of actions of the Paines, which served to impute guilt to Oswald. Such a conclusion defies the axioms and logic of probability theory. So, the Paines were a necessary part of the conspiracy to kill Kennedy and to frame Oswald. Probability theory precludes that the Paines had not been selected to play their roles but had randomly and by happenstance performed them. It also necessarily follows that since the Paines had been assigned their roles by the assassins, the Paines could serve as beacons showing the way to identify the conspirators who had selected them. It was to confirm the identity of the forces behind Kennedy’s assassination that I was eager to get to know the Paines. As we have set forth, there is no rational way that the Paines can hope to explicate their roles in the Kennedy assassination as the innocent results of an accidental occurrence of a series of inexplicable and weird coincidences. The mathematics of probability theory forecloses that a series of coincidences serve as fig leaves to conceal effectively their guilt by enabling the conspirators to assassinate President Kennedy. The truth is plain. With great care, they were chosen by Allen Dulles to do their work that made possible Kennedy’s assassination in Dallas. Intelligence agencies require that their operatives, in carrying out their covert functions, know only what they need to know. Therefore, it is quite clear that the Paines had no reason or need to know, and therefore had received no forewarning, of the planned assassination of Kennedy. They had no reason to believe that they were being selected by Allen Dulles to serve critical roles in falsely implicating Oswald in an assassination in which he was to be the patsy. The information to which they were made privy about the nature of their assignments, which information was greatly constricted, was based on need-to-know limitations. The information which they had prior to the assassination was unquestionably sketchy and uninformative. They were in a very real sense victimized by being unknowingly and critically positioned so that they have been recorded in history as having played key roles in effectuating the conspiracy which killed President Kennedy. They were victimized by their employers, the national security state, in its falsification of the historical questions in order to obscure how and why it assassinated Kennedy. I respectfully direct my concluding remarks to Ruth and Michael Paine. I address them as a fellow human being who understands and empathizes with them for the evil roles they were unknowingly designated to serve on behalf of the criminality of our national security state. They were victimized by being placed in positions which resulted in enormous harm to our republic and to global peace. As a consequence of the Kennedy assassination, the national security state which killed Kennedy, is now in substantial control of both our military budget and our foreign policy. On May 1, 1962 Kennedy posed a question to some Quakers who visited him at the White House. He asked: “You believe in redemption, don’t you?” I hope that the Paines believe in redemption and will, through telling the truth about their assassination roles, turn away from the militarists and towards a more peaceful world which Kennedy was seeking when he was martyred.

Ron I second Denny's comments. I am a huge Stones fan, and glad to see them doing their thing during these unusual times. They always remind me of the chaotic late 60's as I was graduating from HS and entering college. Sympathy for the Devil was inspired by the French poet Charles Baudelaire (and Bob Dylan), and the classic line about the killing the Kennedys has an interesting backstory. In a 1995 interview with Rolling Stone, Jagger said, "I think that was taken from an old idea of Baudelaire's, I think, but I could be wrong. Sometimes when I look at my Baudelaire books, I can't see it in there. But it was an idea I got from French writing. And I just took a couple of lines and expanded on it. I wrote it as sort of like a Bob Dylan song. it's a very long historical figure — the figures of evil and figures of good — so it is a tremendously long trail he's made as personified in this piece." The lyrics focus on atrocities in the history of mankind from Satan's point of view including the death of Jesus ("Pilate washed his hands to seal his fate"), wars of religion ("I watched with glee while your kings and queens fought for ten decades for the gods they made"), the violence of the Russian revolution of 1917 and the 1918, and WW II. The song was originally written with the line "I shouted out 'Who killed Kennedy" (singular) but after RFK's murder on June 6th, the line was changed to "Who killed the Kennedys?" And the answer is "when after all it was you and me", which is a way of saying that the devil is not the 'other one', but eventually each one of us. Some belive that he is taunting all of us for ignoring the larger plot and the real perpetrators. The recording of "Sympathy for the Devil" began on June 4th, 1968 and continued into the next day; overdubs were done on June 8-10 (Bobby Kennedy was murdered on June 6th). We were treated to Nicky Hopkins on the keyboards and Charlie Watts influenced the song's jazz Latin feel (i.e. a samba groove). Brian Jones plays congas on the original track. In later years, Mick stopped using the "who killed the Kennedy's" verse allegedly out of respect for (or perhaps a request from) the Kennedy family. He dropped the lyric in live shows around 2002 starting with the Bigger Bang tour. Billy Joel has a lesser known tribute to the JFK murder ("JFK blown away, what else do I have to say?"). When he first heard of Kennedy's death, Joel told the Associated Press, he first tried to console a fellow eighth grade classmate who was crying. Then he took a long walk, feeling "a deep bitterness and a despair I had never before experienced in my life." Years later, after hearing too many stories about the good old days, Joel wrote this song to prove the good old days weren't always good, pairing the good and bad events that shaped his youth, including, as he angrily put it: "JFK blown away, what else do I have to say?" Gene

You guys hooked me, so here goes. Isn't It Shocking was the ABC movie of the week on October 2,1973 (I was in grad school in Teaneck NJ at the time). The New England town of Mount Angel (ironic title) had a serial killer using a defibrillator to shock his victims ... all of whom were senior citizens of the same age, and from the same high school (the Class of 1928). A young and charming Louise Lasser (married to Woody Allen, and soon to be Mary Hartman) was making her mark. Alan Alda had just started the very popular MASH series. Character actors Will Geer and Ruth Gordon played familiar supporting roles. The Director - John Badham - went on to famously make Saturday Night Fever and War Games. Its no coincidence that the 90-minute show's theme was similar to "They Only Kill Their Masters" (1972) which starred James Garner; both scripts were created by the same TV writer (Lane Slate) ... this was one of four scripts that he wrote about small town murders and likeable town sheriffs, including two movies in 1977 starring Andy Griffith (Deadly Game, The Girl in the Empty Grave). This particular show reminds me of the Angela Lansbury series Murder She Wrote which was very enjoyable. Its more fun remembering these entertaining short films than contemplating the powerful forces that John Kennedy faced. But when you step back from all the intriguing aspects that draw us into the Dealey Plaza story - Oswald/Ruby, Tippit, DPD, shooter locations, the autopsy, the motorcade route, Secret Service protection, Umbrella Man/DCM, Tramps, Zapruder's film (the subplots are just endless) - the bigger picture becomes much clearer when one considers Gibson's work. JFK (and his policies) took on very powerful forces. This revelation renders a lot of the subplots meaningless ... other than the roads they lead us down, and the sponsors they unveil.

These excerpts from Gibson's book sum it all up: By the early 1960s the Council on Foreign Relations, Morgan and Rockefeller interests, and the intelligence community were so extensively inbred as to be virtually a single entity. The Morgan and Rockefeller groups had always been dominant forces within the CFR, Morgan people being more prominent until the early 1950s, when the Rockefeller interests filled the positions of leadership. The CFR was also from the beginning tightly interconnected with leaders of the British establishment. The global interests of the Morgan and Rockefeller groups led to a natural involvement in the formation and development of the Central Intelligence Agency. A full account of these relationships would require a separate book. The relationships were extensive and covered the entire history of the CIA and of its forerunner, the Office of Strategic Services (OSS). For example, William Donovan, who is usually credited with organizing the OSS during World War II, began his intelligence career working as a private operator for J.P. Morgan, Jr. Allen Dulles, who was in 1963 the most senior member (since 1927) of the board of directors of the Council on Foreign Relations, was director of the CIA from 1953 until his dismissal by Kennedy. Dulles was associated with both the Rockefeller and Morgan groups. Kennedy faced external opposition in the media attacks on his policies, and be was saddled with an intelligence community that had more enduring connections to his opponents than to him. Handling most of this work for Cravath was John J. McCloy. A partner in that law firm, Russell Leffingwell, became chairman of J.P. Morgan in 1948, Leffingwell also served as chairman of the Morgan-Rockefeller-led Council on Foreign Relations from 1946 to 1953 (he was succeeded by McCloy). McCloy was chairman of the Chase Manhattan Bank, of the CFR, and of the Ford Foundation; president of the World Bank; High Commissioner in Germany after World War II; and a representative of the major oil companies. McCloy played a significant role in the creation of the Office of Strategic Services, forerunner of the CIA, and later helped to work out a relationship between the Ford Foundation and the CIA that allowed the foundation to fund CIA activities. Also, in the 1950s McCloy helped to initiate a practice whereby private banks cooperated directly with the International Monetary Fund in establishing conditions for loans to other nations, an arrangement circumvented by Kennedy policies. McCloy's close friends ranged from the Rockefeller family to Texas oilman Clint Murchison and included the top men at institutions as varied as the Washington Post and the CIA. According to McCloy's biographer (Bird, pp. 496, 542), McCloy never thought much of Kennedy and was sensitive to the fact that Kennedy had never sought ties to Establishment institutions or with people at the CFR. It is this network for which Time-Life-Fortune spoke, as did the Wall Street Journal. Henry Luce had started Time magazine in the early 1920s with help from the families of two partners in J.P. Morgan & Co., a relative of a Rockefeller partner, and a number of individuals who had been, with Luce, members of Yale University's elitist Skull and Bones society. Luce's notion of the U.S. role globally and his conception of "free enterprise" are, along with his aristocratic leanings, reflected in Time, Inc.'s often vitriolic attacks on President Kennedy's policies. In June of 1961, Fortune simultaneously criticized Kennedy for being insufficiently activist in foreign policy (i.e., not fully backing the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba) and all too activist in domestic policy. Luce's magazine then accused the president of having "little understanding of the American political economic system," of pursuing policies that threatened to "undermine a strong and free economy," and of attempting to implement controls which would "erode away basic American liberties" and lead to "resentment and anger" at his policies.* Life accused Kennedy of interfering with the free flow of international investments with his proposal to increase taxes on purchases by Americans of foreign securities ... the November 22 issue of Life indicated its concern that President Kennedy was disengaging from Vietnam, asserting that, "It is not a time to relax or schedule U.S. manpower withdrawals in time for our 1964 elections." (This comment by Life certainly supports the view that, shortly before his death, Kennedy had indeed decided to reduce or eliminate our military involvement in Vietnam, certainly that the Establishment feared such a move.) There was a clear split within the Kennedy administration over economic policy. The Kennedy group, which included Walter Heller and FDR, Jr., opposed the Dillon-Federal Reserve group, which spoke for the major banks. Dillon was a close associate of David Rockefeller's and a director of the Chase Manhattan Bank. The Federal Reserve, particularly the New York regional bank, has always been tightly interconnected with Morgan and Rockefeller banking. William McChesney Martin, the Fed's chairman, would become a supervisor of the Rockefeller family's trust fund. In these conflicts, as well as those discussed earlier, Kennedy was coming up against those people variously referred to as the East Coast Establishment, Wall Street, finance capital, the higher circles, etc. The label is not important. In the end they all refer to Morgan interests, the Rockefellers, and the many other wealthy and influential families allied with them (including Harriman, Cabot, Lodge, Dillon, Bundy).

Fascinating stuff Ed and Bart ... Amy Gladys Johnson and Earleen Roberts (never knew the distinctions between those two individuals). One resided in and managed the rooming house, versus the other who owned and operated it. Interesting that she says "FBI agents were all over the place" ... and when she stated no one lived here by that name, they said that they "knew better". And he never had any family with him while staying there for 6 weeks ... so strange. A little room, all to himself (close to work?). First that I had heard of the map he drew. As the say, the devil's in the details.

Ed FWIW, I think you've laid out a compelling set of facts that show the N. Beckley legend is just that ... invented for purposes of obfuscation. Whenever I see squabbles about fact versus opinion, it creates a red flag. Further, I wouldn't much trust anything written on the part of the DPD (or FBI) ... in fact, for the gravity of what had happened, the DPD paper trail is extraordinary for it's poorly-documented interrogation of Oswald and initial investigation. More prominent for what's left out than what's included. And labored over by a multitude of earnest serious researchers for 50 years. Then, there is this odd pattern of LHO going on trips, coming back to stay at YMCA's (with a wife and child), and then renting rooming houses. And you've pointed out something that wasn't obvious to me ... that Mary Bledsoe's house was hardly a "rooming house". Your description of Oswald's initial movements is priceless: They take away Oswald's movie alibi and insert a ridiculous dash to buses, cabs, rooming houses, yet moments of time suspended while Mr Lee waits at an inbound bus stop, then a dash through Oak Cliff to again, slowly stroll the wrong way whilst being stopped by a policeman, a shooting, more dashing through alleys or was it down Jefferson. Anyways, the suspect dashes all the way down a major thoroughfare only to duck into a alcove, where the store manager gets suspicious and dashes after this man, who ducks into a theater unseen by the ticket seller or ticket taker. Calls to police about the malicious movie goer make cops dash into the theater and go straight up to the balcony, all the while the shoe store manager is hiding behind the curtains watching the cops in the balcony... nothing is said by the shoe store manager - as one suspect is being questioned up on the balcony steps - he stays hidden and quiet . When cops enter the stage door the shoe store manager still doesn't say who is the man ... the cops start frisking everyone. Only when Oswald gets his crotch grabbed by a policeman and knocks his hat off does a melee ensue. Later the policemen says a different man in the front row, and not the overpaid shoe salesman as whom pointed out Oswald as the man they wanted. Cheers, Gene

Pretty cool cover ... a sprayman for the Pan Am Exterminating Co. I wonder if he painted houses too? Regarding allegiances, its easy (with the hindsight of 50 years) to point towards the factions who are most anti-Communist. Soviets (and their sympathizers) were the ISIS of the 60's. Id think that the individuals in question had an allegiance to whomever was staunchly against Communist influence. That included an awful lot of military brass, politicians and CIA 'officers'. As far as CIA versus the military, the former are (imho) more like project managers and the latter are foot soldiers and field operatives. Strategists versus dirty work ... one and the same.

Paul I know that Steve likes his colonels, but it’s difficult to ignore the Generals ... LeMay, Lansdale, Cabell (an enthusiastic promoter of the U-2 along with the Dulles Brothers) and Lemnitzer. Those were seriously powerful people, who had an animus and contempt for John Kennedy. And they certainly had the means, motive and opportunity at their disposal. JFK stood in their way for dealing with Cuba, but he was also an obstacle for world-wide policy in Indonesia, Central America, Vietnam, Congo, the Middle East and elsewhere. Castro seems like small potatoes, in comparison, and his subsequent 60-year existence underscores this point. To answer your earlier question, I don't like the notion of a plot within a plot - one which was only "attempted" and intended to point to Cuba - that was highjacked and turned into a real assassination. Its speculative, with no solid evidence, and does not fit Occam’s Razor. Nor do I think that we can easily separate the military players from the CIA officers/operatives … because I think they were (and continue to be) interchangeable. In the 1960's, CIA was primarily a paramilitary organization that carried on covert wars which couldn't otherwise be officially sanctioned. Using military covers provided CIA with capable foot soldiers as well as a conveniently plausible deniability. Allen Dulles (the “Old Man”) and Curt LeMay (a vocal member of the Joint Chiefs) were on a friendly first name basis and exchanged gifts, going back to 1954; all of the suspect operatives (whether in CIA or DOD) took their orders from these senior officials. By 1961-1962, all of them were on their way out of the ordained power structure; but, they still commanded a loyal and capable following. Alpha 66 and DRE, Oswald and Castro, the Mafia Dons and/or the Radical Right, seem rather insignificant scapegoats in comparison. Gene

Thanks for the reply Mark

Mark and David This is fascinating. Not being a photoanalyst (although I am a physicist), can you summarize for me what this all means? Eddy posits that there has been a removal of around 9 frames from Zapruder after Z312 - which may have masked a deceleration (to a near stop) and then a rapid acceleration - explaining JFK's rapid head lurch, and suggesting a missing rear head blowout. Is your work in essence proof of Z film alteration? Proof of the limousine slowing to a stop? Proof of more than 3 shots? Were these missing frames strategically important because of what happened early in the motorcade? It seems the Towner film and the Zapruder film were fundamentally different. Thanks, Gene

And what I forgot to add is, with all due respect to John Newman's work about the Army, Veciana and Alpha 66 ... I'm not ready to give Phillips and CIA a "bye" on culpability just yet

Mike That's is an excellent presentation. As a communications expert, you recognize and provide insights about the public opinion manipulation that went on after the assassination. Its as interesting (if not more so) than the mechanics of the plot itself such as shooters, players, sponsors etc. Plus, it helps point towards who those true culprits were ("clean beacons to the killers" as Vincent Salandria would say). I'm curious as to who the CIA DRE case officer was before Joannides, who was suspicious of the official story. Fascinating that the NOLA leaflet legend was not distributed to the media from WDSU TV in New Orleans (plausible and more innocent) but rather personally delivered by an anti-communist propagandist aligned with CIA (do you know who that was?). Notable that the Warren Report was dubbed too 'complex' for the public to understand, and the obvious campaign to discredit Stone's movie. I'm unfamiliar with the 2005 open letter to CIA from Bugliosi, Mailer and Posner in the NY Times Book Review ... any added information you have about that would be appreciated. I am familiar with an open letter to NYT dated June 17, 2007 signed by Jefferson Morley, Norman Mailer, Anthony Summers and David Talbot - which mentions an earlier March 15th letter penned by those same authors, plus Robert Blakey, Gerald Posner and other writers - criticizing Times writer Bryan Burrough (who had praised Vincent Bugliosi's book) as "superficial and gratuitously insulting": And now your reviewer, Burrough, seems to lump together all those who question the official story as marginal fools. Burrough’s close-minded stance should be unacceptable to every historian and journalist worthy of the name — especially at a time when a federal agency is striving vigorously to suppress very relevant information Also, there's some interesting dots to connect here: Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil (DRE) secretly funded by CIA for propaganda purposes in Latin America, started by David Phillips in Cuba then later reformed in the US FBI and CIA campaign to discredit FPCC (part of COINTELPRO) and the staged Oswald machinations in New Orleans ... anti-FPCC campaign led by CIA’s David Phillips Helms appoints new DRE case officer Joannides, who reports directly to him In ‘63, and later becomes chief of Psychological Warfare at JM/WAVE station in Miami Somebody wanted Castro out of Cuba, and somebody wanted to foment a war. It would appear that there were a number of parallel interests competing for those objectives ... the rabbit holes that you caution to avoid. On the communications aspect, I'd also recommend taking a look at a recent Ohio University doctoral dissertation “Lost in the Master’s Mansion: How the Mainstream Media Have Marginalized Alternative Theories of the JFK Assassination" by Jim DeBrosse published in August 2014. Its an interesting read. The following is from the abstract: This dissertation examines the patchwork of misleading, suspect and narrowly selected evidence that supports the Warren Report’s theory and then documents via content and textual analyses and in-depth telephone interviews how the mainstream media have marginalized and at times ridiculed critics of the lone gunman theory in book reviews, newspaper columns, magazine articles, TV news broadcasts, and the selection of books for publication. Gene

I belive that Veciana was duplicitous, and I wouldn't put much stock in what he states. That said, its not too difficult to connect the dots between Lobo, United Fruit, Dulles and Phillips. One of the largest companies with sugar holdings in Cuba during 1957-1959 was the United Fruit Company ... important at the time to Secretary of State John Foster Dulles and his brother, Allen Dulles ... both on the United Fruit payroll for nearly four decades (that's a long time). Cromwell and Sullivan had seats on the board of directors of United Fruit. And in 1958, Julio Lobo, the “Cuban Sugar King”, employed Veciana as comptroller in his finance company, Banco Financiero. It's difficult to ignore those associations. In August 1973, Veciana was indicted for cocaine possession, convicted of drug trafficking in July 1974, and served 27 months. The CIA helped put him away. I'd be interested in why he was railroaded in this fashion ... someone was clearing the playing field, and sending a message. The purported attempts on Veciana's life seem overly dramatic and perhaps staged. Upon his release in February 1976, he starting conveniently "singing" to Fonzi and Schweiker's Committee. His story about meeting "Bishop" with Oswald has always seemed too pat, and good to be true (imho). Then there are the HSCA revelations about one Colonel Samuel G. Kail ... purportedly an Army military attaché in Havana. Kail was a West Point graduate, and military intelligence, but assumed to be a "functionary" of the CIA (whatever that is). Lieutenant Kail was awarded a Silver Star for his exploits in Korea. He told the HSCA "I assume that CIA pays our bills" but he also received a CIA legion of Merit Award. That is why I belive the distinction between CIA and military is not clear and a moot point. According to Bill Kelly, colonels are the highest ranking officers on the battlefield – what the snipers call a High Priority Target – guys who take their insignia off before going out in the open. They are the - Go To guys the Generals personally give instructions and orders and they’re the ones responsible for seeing those orders are carried out. On the chess board, the Colonels are Bishops, Rooks and Knights and capable of maneuvering and striking from different directions and distances. I belive that Kail was also referred to as Col. William Bishop.

This is quite the sophisticated discussion thread, amongst the true experts in this case. At the risk of rushing in where angels dare not tread, I would add that: (a) putting stock in what Antonio Veciana states or admits to is a big leap of faith; and (b) there is not a clear distinction between military/DOD and CIA (in my experience, they are one and the same). Therefore, to debate whether Alpha 66 was run by Army Intelligence vs. CIA is (imho) a distinction without a difference (i.e. a logical fallacy). Also, with all due respect to Douglas, I would not characterize Lisa Pease as "the protégé of Jim DiEugenio who always echoes what he promulgates". That is not appropriately respectful of two excellent researchers and authors, who have done more to push the truth forward in these complex stories than anyone on the planet. Life and reality is much more complex than just (as Larry states) attributing decisions/actions to the Mafia, White Supremacists, the Radical Right, CIA, Military, Fascists, etc. Happy New Year! Gene

O.V. Campbell quoted Truly - who accompanied the carpenter team that removed the window on Byrd's instructions - that the westernmost window on the sixth floor was removed, not the one in the southeast corner. Perhaps Byrd knew/wanted the real sniper's nest. Since I'm convinced that the successful shots which hit the President came from other locations (the fatal one originating front /left of the limousine, from the South Knoll), the Southwest window frame was used to put incriminating MC brass into the limousine ... quite the trophy for a "big game" hunter.

Congratulations Jim ... and very well-deserved. I love the title, as it says so much. ... as Albert Rossi's 2013 review of your book once described it: The deliberate theft of what should have been ... both in terms of US foreign policy and in bringing the perpetrators to justice ... the unravelling of five decades has "betrayed" (i.e. revealed) the character of John Kennedy" Finally a series that will be informative (for a change). Given the contemporary more favorable press coverage (e.g. Salon, Washington Post), do you think we will see the distortion campaign and ad hominem attacks on Oliver Stone that he received in his earlier film? The truth seems less of a threat to everyone these days, as much of the opposition seems "old" and faded. Has any thought been given to a strategy to counter that possibily? Gene

Just an observation, but the AMIPA film shows quite a bit of activity on the Knoll in/around the Pergola prior to the motorcade passage. You can see Zapruder on the pedestal (there exist very few good photos of him) and what appears to be a male standing on top of the Pergola. Has anyone studied that film in detail?

Interesting ... memo to Mr. Belmont (with a copy to W. Sullivan). We know what happened to those two in 1977, prior to talking with HSCA. Donald Gibson had this to say about Belmont: The review of the facts that follows shows that Alan Belmont, the number three man in the formal hierarchy of the FBI, was the primary official in charge of FBI activities following the assassination. It is Belmont, not Hoover, who ran the FBI cover-up. Reports written by Sullivan and Angleton became the basis for the Warren Commission ... at the time of his death Sullivan was working on a book with journalist Bill Brown about his FBI experiences published posthumously in 1979. The book was highly critical of both Hoover and LBJ

Gladio points to the plotters and perpetrators ... some implications: Italian politics, fascism, Angleton and Harvey, Allen Dulles ... Clay Shaw The precursor assassination attempt (1961 Generals' Putsch) on Charles DeGaulle who later kicked NATO out of France in 1966 Extensive use of false flag events Middle East foreign policy and Israel NATO secret armies created by Dulles and Angleton in 1952, and controlled by the CIA JFK's approval of "l'apertura" and financial support to Italian socialists (and Aldo Moro's fate) William Harvey's posting as CIA Rome Station Chief The Italian press (Paese Sera) reporting of Permindex and CMC (expelled from Italy in 1962) as a "creature of the CIA" Permindex financial backing from J. Henry Schroder Corp. (Allen Dulles became their General counsel) closely associated with Sullivan and Cromwell Lyman Lemnitzer becomes NATO's Supreme Allied Commander of Europe (SACEUR) from 1963-1969 Basing the NATO Mediterranean command in Naples, moving the Defense College from Paris to Rome, and the US Sixth Fleet from Villefranche to Gaeta in 1967 JFK's foreign policy in Vietnam, Cuba, Congo and Indonesia Later use of CIA/FBI domestic infiltration of antiwar activists (same game plan)

Lyndon Johnson had many political pressures imposed upon him, as well as personal reasons (i.e. Bobby Baker) to deflect Congressional inquiries with a Commission. LBJ initially rejected the idea of a Commission after consulting his de facto counsel, Abe Fortas, who cautioned against getting the White House involved in any way with an investigation into the murder, believing that such a commission would set a bad precedent by engaging the federal government into what was a state matter. The President then got a call from journalist Joseph Alsop, who encouraged him to discuss the matter with Dean Acheson, the elder statesman and former Secretary of State. Alsop "argues, cajoles, and invokes the name of Acheson" in his persistent attempts to get Johnson to change his mind and conduct a Commission. The edited transcript of this conversation is in Michael Beschloss' "Taking Charge" where Alsop persuaded Johnson of the need for the results of the criminal investigation to be sanctified by a number of august figures, mentioning several influential people including Nicholas Katzenbach, Dean Acheson and Fred Friendly, the president of CBS: “I’m not suggesting that you appoint an additional investigating commission … I’m just suggesting that if you want to carry absolute convictions, this very small addition to the admirable machinery they’ve already have … will help you and I believe that it will counter the imagination of the country and be a very useful, happy thing … ask Dean Acheson, he’s the man to ask. What I’m really honestly giving you is public relation advice and not legal advice … I am suggesting simply a device for summing up the result of the FBI inquiry in a way that will be completely coherent, detailed, and will carry unchallengeable convictions and this carrying conviction is just as important as carrying on the investigation - in the right way - and I worry about this Post editorial … I’d like you to get ahead of them. From the public relations standpoint and from the standpoint of carrying conviction, there is that missing key which is easy to supply without infringing upon Texas feelings or sovereignty.” On November 25, Johnson was against the idea, but by the 28th he is lobbying support for it ... his change of mind somehow transformed in the space of four days from an opponent to the creator of the Warren Commission. Soon, a Washington Post editorial highlighting the need for a national solution to the crisis appeared on the 26th. By this time, the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Internal Security, chaired by James Eastland, had announced its intention to hold hearings, plus there were also signs that the House Un-American Activities Committee was making noise on the grounds that Oswald had been affiliated with left-wing groups as the FPCC. Rostow argued that LBJ needed a commission because “world opinion and American opinion is just now so shaken by the behavior of the Dallas Police that they do not believe anything.” The same politicians, who had been calling for an investigation into the Baker case, were now calling for an assassination investigation. In a phone call to John McCormack (speaker of the House) on November 29th, LBJ emphasized that he didn't want someone testifying in public that “Khrushchev planned the whole thing and he got our President assassinated... you can see what that’ll lead us to, right quick. You take care of the House of Representatives for me”. Johnson was lobbying to ensure the joint Senate-House Investigation suggested by Goodell would not take place. That same day, LBJ spoke to Charles Halleck, House Minority Leader, using the same tactic stating "It's got some foreign complications - CIA and other things - and I'm going to try to get the Chief Justice to go on it." Alsop lived in Washington where he associated with a group of journalists, politicians and government officials known as the ‘Georgetown Set’. This included Dean Acheson, Richard Bissell, Philip Graham, Clark Clifford, Walt Rostow, Eugene Rostow, Cord Meyer, James Angleton, William Averill Harriman, John McCloy, and Allen W. Dulles (it's clear who JFK's enemies and advesaries were). In 1960, when JFK secured the Democratic Party nomination. Alsop helped persuade Kennedy to make Lyndon Johnson (instead of Stuart Symington) his running-mate, commenting: "We've come to talk to you about the vice-presidency. Something may happen to you, and Symington is far too shallow a puddle for the United States to dive into. Furthermore, what are you going to do about Lyndon Johnson? He's much too big a man to leave up in the Senate." Phillip Graham then added that not having Johnson on the ticket would certainly be trouble”. Within LBJ’s hawkish administration was “shadowy clique” for examining covert operations, including a secret political agreement in 1966 by which Israel and the United States had vowed to destroy Egypt’s Nasser, with military name Operation Cyanide. Johnson's closest advisors (Eugene and Walter Rostow, Special Assistant for National Security Affairs) supported military and economic assistance to Israel and concerns about Israel's nuclear program were tabled during the build-up to the Six Day War and its aftermath. John Kennedy’s death eased the pressure on Israel, and Johnson chose to turn a blind eye on the nuclear activities at Dimona ... CIA Director John McCone resigned in 1965, complaining of Johnson’s lack of interest in the subject.

Admiral Zumwalt spoke at my college graduation ceremony in 1972. It was also the night of the first Watergate break-in (and the height of the Vietnam War).