Gene Kelly

Paul: I think using phrases like "To make his weak theory work..." and personal comments like "... tortured quasi-logic" are outside the lines of Forum protocol. We're no longer in a collegial discussion of the assassination. These posts are more a critique of "Destiny Betrayed" which belong in a separate thread) as opposed to staying on the point of this thread. Any/all critique of the Paines seems too close to the “flame” that burns for your theories on the Walker shooting. You would basically have us believe that: the Paines were saints who never met George DeMohrenschildt; that Lee was simply a rude house-guest; that both Lee and Marina lied a lot (but never Ruth or Michael; and that the CIA never used AID for cover. Your posts have the psychological effect of the grade school exercise where the admonished student stays after school and writes 100 times on the board "Ruth is not a CIA agent". Gene

Chris: It certainly begins to tie some loose ends closer together. Couple this to the attempt on DeGaulle and CIA's alleged involvement, and it connects more dots. William Harvey had been 'banished' to COS Rome at this point, but Mertz is clearly an asset in his executive action arsenal. The interview with Souetre is 36 years after the assassination, and he relates Mertz as a 'gangster' profile involved in pro-Communist resistance (i.e. killing right wing folks who would otherwise oppose a communist regime). It's odd that Mertz' associations are diametrically opposite of what the suspect CIA rank and file are idealistically aligned towards. But then, he is in reality a stone cold murderer. More misdirection (like the Walker head-fake), perhaps? That Mertz is whisked out of the country quickly, through Canada no less (Winnipeg Airport?) and back to France rings alarm bells as well. Smacks of the hand of one Lucien Conein, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and covert intelligence (OSS/CIA) agent whose career ranged from landing by aircraft in Nazi-occupied France during World War II to participation in the coup d'etat that brought down Diem in 1963. Conein's career ranged from landing by aircraft in Nazi-occupied France during World War II to participation in the coup d’état that brought down Diem in 1963. His biography states that he orchestrated the infiltration of spies and saboteurs into Eastern Europe after World War II. Born in Paris, raised in Missouri, he retained his French citizenship, and initially joined the French Army. After the fall of France to Germany in 1940, he made his way back to the United States, joined the U.S. Army and, because of his fluency in French, was assigned to the OSS. Henry Cabot Lodge, Kennedy's ambassador to South Vietnam, called him "the indispensable man" and a vital liaison between the U.S. Embassy and the South Vietnamese generals who killed Diem in 1963. During his OSS service in wartime France, he lived and worked with the Corsican Brotherhood, which also was part of the Resistance. In the late 1950's Vietnam, Conein served in a special action group under General Edward Lansdale. He also had cover in DEA (under Nixon) and was rumored to be considered for Watergate by Hunt. He was highly decorated by CIA, died in 1998, and was buried at Arlington. His background and friends were all poison as far as JFK's health was concerned. And his OSS and french/Corsican ties would be ideal to handle Mertz. Talk about the right (or wrong) connections... he was surely one of Dulles' loyal acolytes. The connections almost seem too obvious... retrospectively almost too logical to be true. Gene

Chris/Jim: Your parallels to Hungary are instructive. A good treatment of the frustration and failure of that CIA 'operation' is contained in "Harlots Ghost" by Norman Mailer (I believe this is what drove Frank Wisner to extremes). I think Castro was the end of Dulles' CIA world influence era. He and his dangerous minions were desperate to place blame for their monumental failures in Cuba somewhere... and JFK became a convenient scapegoat. You are right-on with the analogy to the bitter abandoned Cuban revolutionaries. That sentiment was intentionally stirred up throughout 1963. Kennedy is unfortunately stuck within the last pathetic paramilitary attempts to invade/eliminate the Communist boogeyman in Vietnam, Central America and of course the island 90 miles off of our coast. All of them (in retrospect) are strategic failures and wastes of human life. DeGaulle and France is another key data point ... the dots become better connected. Gene

Paul: Your posts are suffocating, and center upon attacking others' opinions and work, rather than building a case. I side with the reason and logic of Chris and James (and others). I don't believe that Ruth is an innocent bystander, and her behavior, associations, proximity to key events/people, and her conflicting testimony are all very suspicious. Perhaps (as Paul and Jon state) she was being used. But she and Michael are strange bed-fellows that bear further scrutiny. That you persistently deflect and steer opinions away from the Paines does nothing to further progress in understanding the strange case of JFK's murder. Ironically, your tone and approach do more to convince me that the truth resides in places other than your defense of the Paines as a gentle innocent Quaker couple. While I don't agree with your conclusions about Edwin (Ted) Walker, I do appreciate your work on him, as it has helped me to understand the currents and feelings of many extremists during that era. As with the Paines, I sense that there's something fundamentally "phony" about Walker's actions and statements, including the alleged assassination attempt on April 10th. If your intent is the kill this thread, you may have succeeded, as the more balanced and informed posters have left the the discussion. Gene

That the Paines were used to set up Oswald is "intuitively obvious to the casual observer" Beyond George DeMohrenschildt, the larger question is who was behind their efforts ... and their affiliations therefore become important The Charitable Quaker couple legend is a veneer and doesn't pass a red faced test

More coincidence ... "It appears that someone knew where Oswald would be the night before the assassination, and that he would be accused the next day of the murder. But beyond that, these person(s) also knew that a paper bag would become a key piece of evidence against the suspect, who was accused of acting alone". - Sylvia M. "But what on earth would postage due from for George Bouhe be doing at Ruth Paine's? And who would attach it to the form due for Oswald's mystery package? Bouhe is the man whose name is placed in Marina Oswald’s testimony to Garrison's grand jury in an odd way. Marina mentioned him as one of her English tutors in Dallas. Garrison asked if she knew that Bouhe lived a door down from Jack Ruby; that they knew each other, and shared a common swimming pool. Marina said she did know that; because right after the assassination, Bouhe came to visit her. He told her that it was all just a coincidence that he happened to live next to her husband's killer." - Jim D.

Ruth and Michael Paine share far too many coincidences and connections to be dismissed as innocent bystanders. As some researchers have asserted - given their associations with Oswald - they should have been arrested and interrogated after the murder ... but instead they become the most quoted and interviewed of all WC testimonies. They are suspicious beyond belief ... the innocent Quaker handlers of the alleged assassin. The Paines were most accommodating to the Oswalds before November 22nd; but highly incriminating afterwards. According to Walt Brown, the Paines were the most oft-questioned witnesses to appear before the Commission. With friends like the Paines, who would need enemies? Ruth being simply a devoted Quaker and charity worker is analogous to believing that Carlos Marcello was just a tomato salesman. Yet we are led to believe that the alleged assassin’s family being taken care of by the generosity of the Good Samaritan Ruth Paine was a coincidental accident of history. Ruth Paine is surrounded by a family of intelligence professionals. Her father (William Avery Hyde) was described before the Warren Commission as an insurance underwriter. He was affiliated with the Agency for International Development and became their regional adviser for all of Latin America.... an agency riddled with CIA overtones. John Hoke, (Ruth’s sister Sylvia's husband) also worked for AID. And her sister Sylvia worked directly for the CIA itself. Michael Paine is another long interesting (similar) story in himself. The Paines show up at a convenient juncture in the Oswald story... and quickly go away after the fact. They have a convenient separation and living arrangement, with a cover story of learning to speak Russian. The incriminating evidence conveniently springs out of their magical garage, including the Walker note (after the fact). Almost everything that would convict Oswald in the public mind came out of the Paine's garage. Their initial meeting at a social party ... just too many coincidences for the rational mind.

"Dulles is working in concert with Helms, Angleton, Stuart Alsop, Cord Meyer ... to counter any kind of criticism against the Agency aggressively." That entry speaks volumes. And if that Mockingbird don't sing....

Amazing that almost 20 years after he gave up the CIA family jewels - and was sacked by Ford/Rockefeller - he is taken out. Either he was up to something (unspecified) more currently threatening to the operators, or they carried a longstanding grudge. More amazing is that CIA officials didn't apparently give a hoot about the death of a former Director and executive sponsor of Phoenix atrocities. I've always felt that Colby's death was more than suspicious. Sadly, no one seemed to care in 1996 ... and you'd think that his wife (a considerable presence in her own right) would make some waves. The article is a good piece of investigative journalism, and an example of persistence where the tides run against the truth. I wonder what connecting all of the dots (associated with his role at CIA and later murder) really means? Colby's death reminds one of the murder of CIA "analyst" John Paisley who went missing from his boat on the 23rd of September 1978. His badly decomposed body was found in an inlet on Chesapeake Bay. The Chief Medical Examiner in Maryland, Dr. Russell Fisher, asserted that Paisley had shot himself in the back of the head on his left side... even though Paisley was right handed. No gun was found on the boat but there were strangulation marks around Paisley’s neck, weighed down with two diving belts. According to Samuel V. Wilson, William Colby's Deputy Director, Paisley became very close to the new head of the CIA. It is therefore surprising that Paisley officially retired from the CIA in 1974. In reality Paisley continued to work for the CIA. He allegedly carried out several highly secret assignments where he reported directly to Colby. In January 1976, Gerald Ford sacked Colby and replaced him with George Bush. Soon afterwards Bush agreed to the setting up an analysis team that would now have access to all of America's classified knowledge about the Soviet Military. Later, Paisley and Henry Kissinger were accused of working as Soviet agents, and that Paisley was purportedly one of several moles in the CIA. However, when Jimmy Carter took office, he in turn sacked George Bush and replaced him with Admiral Stansfield Turner. Paisley continued to do work for the CIA before his death in 1978. In a close analogy to Colby's death (in a similar location), no evidence was found aboard his boat, which "suggested that the victim had been killed in the water or perhaps murdered elsewhere and his body dumped at sea". The informed speculation about Paisley's murder is a story related by Dick Russell, where he describes a CIA memo that stated Coast Guard personnel found "some papers dealing with the Cuban crisis”... cryptic language that Paisley was writing a report about the assassination of John Kennedy. Paisley apparently knew a great deal about the assassination of John Kennedy and was murdered during the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation because he was "about to blow the whistle". So, what was contemporaneous in 1996 associated with JFK investigations that Colby may have been contributing towards ... AARB?

The stars align. The entire Third World Central American communist threat that CIA espoused in the late 1950's-early 60's always rang hollow for me. The Clandestine factions cut their teeth on Argentina and Guatemala... with the Dominican and Cuba thrown in for good measure. They claimed these as resounding successes. The stated threat was communism ... but the real issues were oil, money and profit for the United Fruit Company. John Kennedy saw through these excesses. The game plan or template for Dealey Plaza is remarkably similar to that executed in those hostile covert take-overs ... and similar to the game plan played out at the Ambassador Hotel when Bobby was murdered. CIA and Hunt et al kept running the same offense, even when it became apparent that it was old school, dated and ineffective. Helms, Hunt et al were devotees of the Dulles cult ... they should all be burning in a special place in hell.

I'm not sure I agree that certain revelations about limited rogues or a few treasonous intelligence officials could be endured by the country today. I once had an amazing discussion with a gentleman who was a part of the HSCA investigations. He related how incredibly difficult it was to get any information from CIA, although he was certain they were involved with the operation. I asked him the typical question of why, after 35 years, they (the government) couldn't just come out with the larger truths about Kennedy's murder. His answer gave me pause, and I still think about it to this day. He said: "What makes you think that was the worst thing they ever did?"

Cliff/Jim: I've been studying Averell Harriman and his affiliations. What puzzles me is the fact that on December 6th, Jacqueline Kennedy moved to the Georgetown house that Undersecretary of State W. Averell Harriman had provided for her use until she was able to acquire a property of her own. Strange move, given that he's a possible high-level plotter. Gene

Jon: I go back to basics when thinking of JFK's death. The term “assassin” was first coined about 1090. Assassins were Muslim warriors from Persia and Syria whose chief objective was to assassinate Crusaders. In JFK's case, the warriors killed a crusader. I point you to an interesting paper by LTC Victor D. Irvin (April 2002) “Political Assassination, The Strategic Precision Weapon of Choice” U.S. Army War College that condones this act in the aftermath of September 11th. The author states that "The strategic application of assassination to cause political or social change, or strike emotional, if not physical fear, in the target or enemy force so as to steer behavior in the direction of the desired political or social outcome ...". He further states that such killing is justified as the person singled out must be a "belligerent". Parks calls this “lawful targeting (as opposed to assassination).” I believe the roots of JFK's demise are partly in revenge (the whole thing just feels like an eye-for-an eye act) for Bay of Pigs and Dulles' ouster, and also militaristic in its overtones. JFK was on a path for peace as James Douglas points out, and this was in contrast to the cold war policy of the nation at the time. His overtures towards Russia and third world communists, as appeasement, were unacceptable to the policy makers. Making an analogy to Clausewitz that war is a “continuation of political activity by other means", some have termed assassination as "politics by other means'. What always strikes me (at a 1,000-foot level) is that the Dealey Plaza ambush was open but covert in its nature; much more than a killing, but rather a bold statement. He could've been taken out by many means. This was broad daylight, high noon, sitting next to his wife. CIA (and US military) was obsessed with the use of assassination in the 1950-1970 era. In 1975, the Church Committee revealed that the Central Intelligence Agency had indirect, if not direct roles, in numerous assassination plots around the world that spanned several presidencies including those of Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. Such acts and thinking swirled around JFK's time in office. Richard Helms later defended the Agency's position, stating that the CIA was “the agency of the President precisely to provide a policy option midway between persuasion and military conduct; the point of covert activity is that it be covert.” JFK was viewed as a threat to national interests. The author of the Army war College paper states that assassination is an acceptable form of governmental response to foreign threats that would endanger the nation... he offers it as the 'strategic precision weapon of choice'. I believe that it was this form of warrior thinking that resulted in the assassination of an inspirational crusader for peace ... a president who advocated a different type of American democracy and foreign policy. Gene

Cliff: I'm OK with Dulles being an employee. I also understand that W. Averell Harriman was the senior statesman of the day... keen on 1950's imperialism and Vietnam. The BOP facts (simply stated) are: BOP started out small and ended up larger and more ambitious It was Ike's baby and Nixon was the original executive sponsor JFK made Nixon look bad challenging him in televised debates about details he couldn't discuss Kennedy inherited a bag of worms and unsuccessfully tried to tone it down or turn it off The knowledgeable tactical commanders didn't want to go forward but were over-ruled Dulles distanced himself (literally) from the game-day decisions and calls The entire thing smacks of a provocation (to Castro) and a pretext (i.e. entrapment) for invasion JFK didn't buy it, and he realized that he was being duped. He fired responsible CIA executives. I'm told that Kennedy's purged everyone remotely related to Dulles and his family... Corsican-like The air cover story is a simplification and a convenient excuse to lay upon (i.e. tar-baby) JFK The people who tried to make BOP happen didn't get mad; they got even with JFK (imho) Gene

Cliff: I recommend reading Harlot's Ghost by Norman Mailer. This book was written in 1991, and gives a semi-fictional account of the CIA, including BOP, Angleton, Harvey and Allen Dulles. I had the strong sense that there was authenticity to it, and of course Mailer's special touch. It is especially insightful into the enigmatic William Harvey. The book paints a picture of Dulles as a revered figure within intelligence circles. Hunt was devoted to Dulles, plus I believe that Richard Helms was a pallbearer at his funeral. Dulles was a puppet master and cult figure within CIA. I see BOP as another operation right out of their 1950's third world playbook, with deception and vaudevillian magician tricks plus Northwoods-like pretext plots designed to induce a military invasion for pure economic objectives. The United fruit Company brought to you by the Ugly Americans. When it failed, they salted the land (as another thread explained) and placed blame on Kennedy -- just as they (i.e. Nixon) attempted to do during Watergate with the false Diem cables in Hunt's safe -- to poison his legacy. Ironically, this is much clearer today than it was 50+ years ago, when the history books were written. I'll go out on a limb and state that Dulles was an evil person. Gene

Good comments. This thread and the pending book by Talbot will shed more light on the upper echelons of the plot. I cite the Rockefeller's because they were (as one poster put it) the "stars" of the show and tell earlier in 1959 for Khrushchev. I believe that they were the power elite coming out of the 1950's, but the Kennedy's posed a threat to their power. I am reminded of a comment by Bobby in 1965 that "Oh, come on. We Kennedy's eat Rockefeller's for breakfast". Later, President Ford directed then Vice-President Nelson Rockefeller to head up a President’s Commission on CIA Activities in the United States. The “Rockefeller Commission” (whose Executive Director was David Belin) investigated CIA mail opening programs, monitoring of anti-war dissidents, and conducted a very limited review of JFK’s assassination. The Commission was accused of being an attempt to fend off more thorough investigations, although the Church Committee soon followed. Rockefeller claimed that there was no "credible evidence" that Oswald or Ruby were CIA agents or informants (obviously not true). His report argues: "Hunt's employment record with the CIA indicated that he had no duties involving contacts with Cuban exile elements or organizations inside or outside the United States after the early months of 1961" (also not true). The Commission predictably concluded there was no credible evidence of any CIA involvement. The report was condemned as a cover-up and openly criticized by Cyril Wecht who accused the Rockefeller Commission of "deliberately distorting and suppressing" part of his testimony as to the nature of Kennedy's head and neck wounds. Wecht demanded that a full transcript of his testimony be released, but Rockefeller refused on the grounds that the commission proceedings were confidential. I think its fair to conclude that Rockefeller's Commission was a strategic effort to fend off the upcoming congressional investigations, with little interest in getting at the truth... in essence, one of those infamous "limited hang-outs". William Colby has just been appointed as CIA Director, and appeared before the Commission, but after Colby's second or third appearance before the commission investigators, Rockefeller drew Colby aside and said, "Bill, do you really have to present all this material to us? We realize there are secrets that you fellows need to keep, and so nobody here is going to take it amiss if you feel there are some questions you can't answer quite as fully as you seem to feel you have to." Colby was fired in late 1975, and replaced by George Bush. John Simkin started a thread on the Rockefeller Commission in December 2006.

Greg/Chris/Larry/Jim: Your insights on BOP are priceless. I've enjoyed reading this thread. Not only because of its well-informed commentary and high-level assessment, but the professional discourse. Too many threads these days disintegrate into personal attacks and animosity. This one is refreshing in its collegiality. It is after all focused on Dulles, and his means/motive for what transpired in 1963. I too have read much on BOP and have always thought that it precipitated what happen to JFK. As Jim points out, many of the BOP players (Ferrie and Bannister, Arcacha Smith and de Torres, Morales, Hunt and Phillips) come back as as suspects in Dealey Plaza. The comment about Nixon "salting" the land prior to the Kennedy administration and Dulles' script writers reversing the blame upon JFK bring the reasons for his death full circle in a common sense way. And the bigger picture also becomes more clear ... the Kennedy's and Rockefeller's were at war. Gene

Jim: This is great work and very enlightening. I've always felt the "answer" to what happened to JFK is contained in the political backdrop or bookends of history that surrounded his presidency. I also agree that - of all the policies that went counter to the prevailing Power Elite - the Middle East was (forgive the pun) the straw that broke the camel's back. None of the foreign policy for the next 50 years (including current) would have happened on JFK's watch... it simply wasn't his style. Gene

Tom: I thought that I'd post in your thread, since it seems you've been inviting folks but no one wants to bite on these puzzles. Unfortunately, not too may cryptologists on the Forum. I thought the I. G. Farben connection was interesting, and a bit sinister. Smacks of post-WWII OSS overtones, Allen Dulles, et al. Coincidence? Gene

Actien Gesellschaft fur Anilin Fabrikation, or Agfa, was formed in a suburb of Berlin, Germany in 1867 as a manufacturer of dyes and stains. The first Agfa name on cameras, however, was not until 1873. In 1928, Agfa USA joined with Ansco, a New York company founded in 1896 as the Wescott Photo Specialty Company, which was acquired in 1905 by Edward Anthony and the Scovill Manufacturing Company. In 1939, their holding company (American I. G. Chemical Corporation) was renamed General Aniline & Film Company (GAF). In 1941, due to the company’s ties with Germany, after the US entered WWII the US government seized Agfa-Ansco as enemy property and placed US Treasury agents in company offices to supervise operations. The company temporarily ceased producing cameras and dedicated its workforce to the war effort. In 1944, after the war, Agfa was dropped from the company name and was again known as Ansco, which adopted a patriotic red, white, and blue color scheme for its film packaging. In its heyday in the late 40s, Ansco produced more than two million cameras per/year. Even before the outbreak of war in Europe, concerns over possible Nazi influences on American industry led investigators from the Securities and Exchange Commission to raise questions about the ownership of General Aniline. Was it I. G. Chemie or I. G. Farben, and what was the connection? After they received evasive answers from three members of the board, government officials concluded that I. G. Chemie was no more than a dummy corporation for I. G. Farben.

Don and Tom: Thank you for your responses. Tom: I am interested in why you call Jerry's friend "Gabby" and how you know about him (from the Code, I presume). I have no more input to add on Belknap, other than he is an interesting anecdote. I would not characterize the questions as beating it to death ... it seems little is known about his role (if any) that day, or what became of him in the years that followed. While i think the "timing" thread is important, the Belknap seizure incident is of far more interest to me. Your work on the Code is fascinating, and new information for me. You have indicated that his colleague "Gabby" is still alive... that is a tantalizing fact that I'd love to know more about. I will follow your storyline on the Oswald Code thread. Gene

Tom: I got caught up in studying your Oswald Code discussion and lost track of the question which you posed. To answer your question, I have not learned anything additional about Belknap (until your Oswald Code work) since that thread almost seven years ago. I was hoping that someone had more detailed information, or a picture. I also hoped that someone would share the same resonance that I have for the seizure incident. I would also think that this Code aspect - which ties many seemingly unrelated suspects of the JFK story together (Nagell, New Orleans, Phillips, Barnes, Vaganov) - would answer Jon Tidd's question as to whether Oswald was an intelligence agent. Gene

Tom: Thanks for your response. Your work is fascinating, if not difficult to follow. I am not knowledgeable in decoding ciphers. It would seem that in using encryption, the challenge is to pass on the decoding mechanism or key to the intended recipient in a way in which it cannot be intercepted. Perhaps they were trying to protect themselves while reaching out to other unknown (but 'friendly') entities. Reading some of your work with "ICO", they used anagrams where the order of letters was rearranged to form a new word or phrase. They hid the message in plain sight, while being unlikely to be recognized as a code. I wonder who the message was intended for? You posit that one anagram was a metaphoric connection to Tracy Barnes, as a CIA confidante of Richard Nagell. Were they trying to alert the rest of the intelligence world? Cryptanalysis is the province of intelligence organizations (e.g. the NSA). So I'd think the message was intended for intelligence authorities... rather than posterity. It seems the "ICO" is a transposition cipher. If there were over 200 coded anagrams, one would think these "messages" would have been indeed recognized by knowledgeable persons (either in real time, or in subsequent years). They relate (literally) to many "cryptic" pieces of evidence such as the the Historic Diary, the Hidell alias, the backyard photos, the Odio incident, and the mail order revolver. The encrypted puzzle on the Undelivered Package was examined by the FBI; its strange that the Bureau (who had cryptologists) would not recognize the code hidden in plain sight. The fictitious Nassaus is not a word (nor a street name) but anagrams to “assassinate” and Guy Banister. No wonder Oswald was reaching out to John Hurt while briefly incarcerated. It's also quite curious that this Code clue has never surfaced publically - or been solved - before your threads. Do you have a view on the comments by driver Aubrey Rike who mentioned that the O'Neal ambulance switchboard had received a number of calls for ambulances to respond to bogus emergencies in various places around downtown Dallas in the days leading up to President Kennedy's visit? He suggested that the purpose of these calls may have been to determine the ambulance response times to various locations. Is there a clue as to this in the anagrams and ciphers? Since DPD Officer Smith is who responded to the incident and called for the ambulance, perhaps they (i.e. "ICO") wanted to ensure there would be enough time dispatch the ambulance to TSBD ... prior to the motorcade approaching Elm and Houston. In summary, I find the Belknap incident fascinating, and am strongly drawn to it as symbolic. I wonder why Jerry and his friend were left alive in the years that follow. I'd think they would be very dangerous to the plotters and ground crew. I'm now curious about the person you call "Gabby" who is still alive. Also, would you care to share some of your background? You seem quite proficient at cryptanalysis. Gene

David/Tom: There are many vignettes and incidents associated with the ambush and murder that draw one to the JFK story. However, none is so fascinating for me as the Belknap "seizure". Its timing and location are mighty suspicious. The ride in the ambulance to Parkland, and the lack of subsequent medical record, are intriguing. I've often thought (pure speculation) that it was intended as a diversion, drawing attention away from shooters (and others) and allowing them to get into place. Just as the alleged shooting from and activities at the TSBD are a diversion. It also serves as a signal of sorts ... letting the ambush teams know that's its almost time (i.e. a two-minute warning). Since many view the ambush as the act of experts - who were masters of such scenes (akin to magic with sleight of hand and sensory diversion) - I'm inclined to see Belknap as part of the plot. By taking him to Parkland, it perhaps alerted those who would be stationed and positioned at the hospital (as contingencies); somehow, it seems associated with clearing a path to the hospital. Was there not a story where the ambulance ride to Parkland was timed by the driver previously? I wonder what would be critical (to someone) about how long that ride takes? Belknap is germane to this thread, as it is somehow establishes the timing for events that follow. I've often wondered about what became of Jerry Belknap ... who he was, and how he fared. Not sure there's been much written about him. The seizure incident resonates strongly to me as no coincidence. Gene

Jon: I am not trained or experienced in intelligence matters. But I have investigation experience. I have read this thread with much interest; quite thoughtful. Its apparent (to me) that "Oswald" appeared to act on behalf of an intelligence service. As you have pointed out, there are many "red flags' that indicate Oswald fit a Covert Operational Personality profile. What I do think is that his legend was sheep-dipped very well. As you state, every CI-analyst in every country in the world recognized Oswald for what he was - a covert intelligence operator and an agent, asset or operative of some intelligence network. Perhaps that was purposeful. Oswald was also associated with a number of other covet operations; not just the Walker shooting or JFK murder ... as they say, it did not appear to be his first rodeo. But he was not apparently gathering information and passing it on to a case officer (either directly or via some intermediary) as a classic operative might. This implies that he was being used (as a "dangle") as opposed to a skilled operative. If he were such, he would not have allowed the operation planned and executed to be pinned on him. I also believe that there were other opportunities... other kill sites (and patsies) being developed, which are documented in the stories and literature. Chicago, Miami and Tampa to name a few. Oswald appears to be not the only game in town. Keeping that in mind, he was not the only choice. There were likely plenty of candidates who would fill the bill, fit the role. His use of the Hidell alias and the fake selective service card are suspicious, as are his Minox, use of trade-craft (particularly after the assassination), moving residences, library books, unexplained money, interrogation skills, and especially the paradox of his Russian speaking skills. His association with DeMohrenschildt and the Paines is suspect. All of these "markers" seem too obvious. I wish that I could add expertise and insight here, but it all seems either genuine or he was expertly sheep-dipped (the latter seems plausible). It seems intelligence (what little I know) is about using others, creating mis-direction, and making things appear as they are not. I don't think he was an "agent" (whatever that means) nor do I think he was an "officer" or acting in any official capacity ... he was simply being used, to be discarded or burned in a limited hangout at the right opportunity. A true enigma. Gene