Gene Kelly

Has anyone ever put their arms around why Oswald (the patsy) went to the Theatre? Was it simply on the escape route - after fleeing the rooming house - and a convenient place to duck into with police sirens blaring? Or was he intentionally there because he was to meet his 'handlers' for the next step? I seem to recall accounts that Ruby was actually present in the theatre. Why would both Lee and Harvey be in the same theatre, at the same time?

One aspect of this last stop (i.e. Texas Theatre) which is poignant is that movie theatres are classic meeting places for clandestine operators... was this another example of Oswald's exhibiting intelligence tradecraft?

Duke/Lee:

Do you have a picture of Captain Westbook?

Gene

All:

Gerry Hill's involvement in all of this certifies it (for me) as getting dangerously closer to the truth. Does Captain Westbrook also show up at some point? Does anyone have a picture of Westbrook?

Gene

Lee:

Do you have additional information on Captain Westbrook. I saw you quoted in another forum as saying he left the DPD and was with CIA in Saigion in a training role. Given his out-of-role behaviour that day, and all of the "events" he had a personal hand in (related to evidence and arrest), he seems an individual of primary interest. Was he ever subsequently interviewed? Does anyone have a picture of Westbrook?

Gene

James:

Digging into both the JFK and RFK murders, there are parallels with the use of police. I belive the plotters used police in both murders to setup crime scenes, control and destroy evidence, and later intimidate witnesses and bias the investigations. Wonderful cover-up layer and plausible cut-outs. Notably, some of those prominent police names were later co-opted to International Aid covers as well as shipped/hidden in Southeast Asia. I have suspicions that certain names figured publically in Phoenix operations too. Talk about "to serve and protect".

Gene

Mr. Carroll:

This is good stuff... thanks for laying it all out.

I second these notions... I am always interested when James posts, and especially value Larry Hancock's input. As an inexperienced but interested reader, there is far too much posturing and bickering that unfortunately clouds various threads. But when I see these names as contributors to the dialogue, its usually pure gold.

Despite the countless scenarios, theories and possible plots/plotters, my intuition strongly tells me that Cuba was the backdrop, and JM Wave the driving force... everything elase (as they say) is just details. Being present in Dealey Plaza would underscore the idea that revenge (i.e. motive) is a drink best served cold. I also think that any individual who shipped-off to Southeast Asia and for example Viet Nam, immediately following November 1963, is a person of interest... that's a red flag for me, taking a "hot piece" off the board and out of the country. I miss Warren Zevon.

Joe:

Warren Reynolds seems quite a person of interest. Do you (or others) know if anyone ever interviewed him in the subsequent years? The legend (published) is that he saw and chased Tippit's killer, but wasn't initally interviewed by authorities. He is also connected with the discovery of the bogus jacket. Then some one later takes a shot and tries to kill him... and he becomes a 'reluctant' observor of Lee Oswald as the shooter (the public perceives him as another example of witness intimidation). He is later drawn into the Warren investigation, but only at Edwin Walker's recommendation ... and hardly challenged in his WC interview. Yet he's then tied to the General (with allegatioins about sexuality) by a suspect mercenary and shooter (Hall) during the Garrision investigation. How did Reynolds suddenly drop out of everyone's sight? Its seems that he was much more than simply a used car salesman.

Gene

As I recall, Howard Hunt used the name "Knight" and it thterefore seems they were alluding to a chess game being played. Perhaps the remaining "pieces on the table" could be connected by unearthing other individuals using chess analogies as pseudonymns.

Joe:

The book is great. So far, an enjoyable read. I've dug deeply into both the JFK and RFK stories, and the parallels are so strong. This is particulary so with the use of the police - on the ground, in the moment, with the best cover in the universe - to enable the kill zone, manage the crime scene, manipulate or destroy evidence, and intimidate witnesses. Not only has the Tippit aspect been under-developed and lightly reserached (other than Dale Meyers' heavily fact-based slant), its where the police aspect is most evident when the layers are peeled back (as you've done). The single most convincing and telling part of Bobby Kennedy's murder (for me) was the role that officers Pena and Hernandez played, and their thinly-veiled ties to the CIA. I'm sensing that you saw the same pattern with officers Westbrook and Hill (and others). Can you elaborate a bit on this for me?

Gene

Is Gaeton Fonzi still around? Not much heard or published from him, after the Last Investigation. Former Philly guy... but not active in the research or internet community apparently.

Thanks for the response, Joe:

I look forward to the read. No sense in providing "spoilers'. I have a 40+- page paper I've prepared (mainly a compilation of other's work) which I'd like to provide to you at some point. I have no interest in a book, nor am I an independent reseracher. But i've developed a healthy interest in the Tippit story, for it holds the keys to unravelling the plot. And it has all of the hallmarks of intelligence; distractions, doubles, disinformation, and the use of poilce before, during and after (just like RFK's murder). Tight control of the plot, crime scene, evidence and witnesses. When I read that Roscoe White joined the force just beforehand, and that Capt. Westbrook later worked in Saigon, it became an "a-ha" moment.

Gene

Joe:

I appreciate your work. I too have a strong interest in Tippit's muder - an under-researched topic - and belive it to be truly a Rosetta Stone (although not in David Belin's context). Coincidentally, I started my own study of Tippit several months ago, so your book is timely. Like you,I have a life-long interest in the assassination, but have kept it low key as its difficult to discuss the subject rationally without emotional and strong reactions. Its also not an easy story to unravel, in part because of the nature of those involved and their expert obsfucation of the evidence. I have performed complex investigations in fields other than crime, and its almost too obvious how flawed the JFK evidentiary landscape is. I look forward to reading the book, and (at the risk of not having read it) would like to pose some initial questions here:

1. why do you think the plotters chose Tippit?
2. What kind of person was he... any truth to the "dirty cop" allegation
3. Was his murder diversionary (intentional) or an accident?
4. Were Tippit and Ruby acquainted and in cahoots?

Gene

David:

It strikes me that -- whenever the "public" (ordinary folks not deeply steeped in the theories and information) views the Z film -- dramatic showings of the frames move emotions, and create positive action forward. The major investigations were all precipitated by a showing of the film. It may sound corny, but its as if the film has a power and aura all its own. Whatever mystical powers are at play, it seems fundamentally important to pay attention to this film, and all of its subplots... stay with it.

Best,

Gene

David:

I've followed your posts with admiration, and the Z Film has become (for me) one of the more interesting subtopics in the eternal tale of Dealey Plaza. Following any of these subtopics is daunting, and takes pateince and attention to detail. I note that some members are quite contentious on this Z film subject, resorting to insults. I like the way that you stay above that chatter, and stick to the facts. For me, the most glaring fact (the one that still astounds me) is how the Z film stayed in the hands of Time-Life for more than 12 years, and was kept from public display until the Garrison trial and a 1975 television show. A President is murdered, and this key piece of evidence is held by a private (media) company? Simply astounding... that fact alone resonates strongly with me. When I travel to Rochester, and go by the protected area of Kodak's government work, I get the chills... Doug Horne's work tells us that something sinister probably occurred there, 50 years ago. But provenance and alteration notwithstanding, the film's story (chain of custody, authenticity, public disclosure, ownership) is very telling. And when I think of the three best efforts at investigation - the ones that keep us all from being totally in the dark (Garrison, HSCA, AARB) - behind each of these as the precipitating agent is the Z Film. Its as though the film keeps reminding us to keep digging, keep challenging, and never give up. So, keep up the good work.

Gene

Alteration theories aside, the Z-film always appears at the heart of public debate about what happened in Dealey Plaza. It seems to rear its graphic frame every 12 years or so (like sun spots), causing a ripple in the fabric of the published story. It also seems to prompt responsible steps forward (e.g. HSCA, AARB) in the revelation of facts. I think that the most telling aspect of its story is not what might have happened in Rochester NY at Kodak, but rather that the film’s provenance was not the federal authorities but rather a private company... Time-Life, who kept it from public disclosure for more than a decade, until determined individuals (Garrison, Thompson, and Groden) used the power of subpoena to show in pictures the graphic events of Dealey Plaza.

Time-Life paid a handsome sum of money for the film. Its chain of custody reads confusing and unclear, and that part of the film’s story is debated hotly even today. Supposedly, Time-Life was so upset by what the film depicted that their executive management decided to restrict what that company would show in its magazines. This rings hollow, and reminds one of Ruby’s stated reason for killing Oswald; that he was so saddened for Jacqueline that he didn’t want her to endure a public trial. Time-Life conceals the graphic facts depicted on film, such as bullet impact and body motion. It’s a matter of historical fact that they stopped the presses twice to mold their October 1964 magazine issue to complement the Warren Commission’s findings. Time-Life never authorized the film’s use for television or films; they sued Josiah Thompson when he tried to use pictures for his book. That such a key piece of evidence would be help privately for more than ten years is, itself, astounding.

In 1969, at the trial of Clay Shaw in New Orleans, Jim Garrison subpoenaed the film from Time-Life. The film was still made difficult to obtain, and protected from public disclosure. In retrospect, Time-Life seems determined not to show the film to the public. In 1975, Robert Groden and Dick Gregory secured access to a copy of the film and showed it on television. The public was allowed to see the film for the first time.... 12 years after the most public, controversial and famous murder in modern times. That fact alone is astounding. Public reaction was sensational; it prompted a hopeful re-examination of the murder with the House Select Committee formed the next year. Time-Life then philanthropically decided it didn’t want the Zapruder film anymore; returned to the Zapruder family (for one dollar). The film was still not in the National Archives, yet it’s an amazing piece of evidence in the murder of an American president.

Oliver Stone’s 1991 movie JFK was met with controversy, but used the Zapruder film to capture the emotion of audiences and the public’s attention once again. Newspapers ran editorials accusing Stone of taking liberties with historical facts; it felt (to this observer) like the critics were concerned with more than just art. The proverbial powers attacked Stone in a vicious and personal way, to discredit and blacklist him. The late Roger Ebert praised the film in his review for the Chicago Sun-Times, saying, "The achievement of the film is not that it answers the mystery of the Kennedy assassination, because it does not, or even that it vindicates Garrison, who is seen here as a man often whistling in the dark. Its achievement is that it tries to marshal the anger which ever since 1963 has been gnawing away on some dark shelf of the national psyche". Perhaps Stone got too close to the flame... but the film was nominated for eight Academy Awards, ironically winning Best Cinematography and Best Film Editing. One of the biggest ‘stars’ of JFK is the Z-Film... we hear the actor’s haunting voice narrate the Z-Film, with the words “back and to the left”... still a memorable scene. This prompted formation of the next leap forward in establishing the truth... the AARB. Following Doug Horne’s revelations, the Zapruder film is once again again forcing us to confront the inconsistencies and controversies that will never go away in the murder of a presidnt 50 years ago. For me, it doesn't matter that the extant film is original or altered, true or spliced... the film's story alone evokes emotion and passion, and that is telling.

With all due repsect to the early researchers and pioneers, a more modern perspective would have: Larry Hancock, James Douglass, Jim DiEugenio, Doug Horne, Dick Russell, and Gaeton Fonzi... I think that Joan Mellen might also add value.

Paul:

The Walker intrigues do seem central to the real story surrounding Dealey Plaza, but seriously confuse me... right wing fanatics (rabid anti-Communists) attacking each other? Was Schmidt further right of Attilla the Hun (as they say)? It seems both parties - Walker/JBS/Minutemen and Schmidt/Willloughy/Hunt - had the same agenda and interests. Why would they attack or discredit each other? Its a difficult scenario to follow.

What is clear is that Walker did a lot of overt things to attack Kennedy's character...almost too obvious and traceable. He had cetainly been embarrassed and denigrated by both Kennedys, and therefore had a strong motive for revenge. But given his acts leading up to the assassination, how could he expect to be protected and seen innocent in the days following? Surely he'd know the poster, Stevenson, and the handbills could be easily traced back to him... too obvious, for such an extreme act, in my opinion.

The shooting... is it real or staged? As I read this thread, the scene described in his home afterwards (bullet narrowly missed, hole in wall, boxes, a suspicious car, picket fence, questiobale ballistics, lack of FBI followup) immediately reminded me of the 6th floor of the TSBD. A manufactured crime scene. Before I even had time to reflect, it came into focus... like that initial answer to a test question that is usually the best answer. That both Oswald and Schmidt would conspire to actually want Walker dead strains credibility. Kind of like Nixon's gestapo reporting after the George Wallace shooting that Arthur Bremer was going to kill Nixon... a planted reverse psychology. Oswald was everybody's patsy... blame it all on a communist.

Gene

Larry and Jim:

Do you see parrallels to the Tonkin Gulf provocation, and the Northwoods Plan? Both seem manufactured as pretexts for military action... psyops stragtegies conceived by intelligence experts, to force foreign policy and manipulate the president, almost subvert his national policy. They are contemporaneous and apparently not originated from the White House. Who would sponsor the selective intelligence coming out of NSA? That seems a signpost to the "Big Planners" whom reserachers pursue today and speculate were behind Dealey Plaza.

Gene

Barry,

I've just listened to your spot on Black Op Radio, recorded yesterday. Your 'deductive proof' seems to require that five shots were fired in Dealey Plaza on that day.

You talk of the one-in-a-million chance of flipping an unbiased coin 20 times and getting 20 heads. What are the odds then, in your opinion, of three quarters of witnesses hearing three shots when there were in fact five?

Kind Regards,

Paul.

You do realize there is a HUGE difference between HEARING 3 shots and there actually being more shots fired, right?

And I'm not talking silencers which, on rifles in 1963, were r4eally supression devices, not silencing ones...

In any case.. 3 teams, all with Collins Radios..

FIRE is spoken into the radio

3 shooters fire at the same time

1 SOUND = 3 SHOTS

A FLURRY of shells enter the limo....

THREE shots cannot account for all the damage done in DP in those few seconds....

let alone that one bullet can account for what the autopsy said happened to his head and one more for his back and throat...

Why do you suppose Homer McMahon, a photo anlysis EXPERT, would say he saw 6-8 shots from 3 directions... if he didn't? When at the same time the FBI/SS is INSISTING to witnesses and government analysist alike that there was only 3 shots, and there will always only ever be THREE shots..

David:

Your analysis of shots fired, sounds, and later testimony is right on, in my humble opinion. I also agree with Chris Newton's points... going simply upon who "heard" what is a red herring. One shooter (behind) with that alleged weapon does not compute. Ample evidence exists for several teams of sophisticated shooters (Canyon Shot, silencers, simultaneity, sweepers, sabot rounds). The Homer McMahon interview is quite telling. The ambush location and planning (with distractions) is telling. The conflicting eyewitness testimony (and intimidation thereof) is telling. The scarce and embarrasing ballistic evidence is telling. The autopsy and wound dichodemies is telling.

Some day I'll put my finger on the precise logical argument to be made... but in the pursuit of investigative truth, the facts don't always neatly stack up. One draws a box around the possibilities, and eliminates them systematically... especially in the case of something intentionally obsfucated. But back to Barry's post... an interesting approach, "Impossible Case". I plan to read this, because it feels right.

Gene

Thanks Paul... I've admired the detailed work of Jim Root on Walker, who has developed some strong coincidental connections to Taylor, McCloy and Helms. Walker seems both comic but serious... a man who rose to general rank, yet was a fringe lunatic. With the lens of hindsight, he was a pathetic character. He seems to have been largely ignored in the decade following the assasination... why didn't anyone ever prosecute him? Surely, all of the smart guys would've known he was a prime suspect?

I have a difficult time taking him seriously, yet I don't doubt that he was the darling of far right in the early 60's. He led some important WW2 missions, and had Military Intelligence street-credentials. He had friends in high places (and enjoyed the financial backing of HL Hunt)... and the credibilty to enlist JBS/Minutemen activists. But could he command the services of the skilled mechanics and operatives who pulled off the Dealey Plaza 'hit'? It just doesn't fell right to me... why would the Establishment not later crush him (or sacrifice him) like a bug?

Gene

...The looming question that I'd like to have answered is this one -- Why do so many lone nut theorists focus soley on the "Oswald Did It" evidence so vigorously?

While ignoring everything else.

Try looking at the evidence, the mountain of evidence uncovered by private researchers and see where it leads.

Peter, it seems to me that those few on these Forum pages who continue to promote the out-dated, Lone-gunman theory (first promoted by J. Edgar Hoover in 1963) are motivated by their intention to take a free ride on the shoulders of Authority.

Their method of logic is called 'truth by authority." They select an authority whom they understand and can mimic, and then they stick with that as long as they can. That's the whole method.

Oddly enough, it works well fifty percent of the time. Given that high rate of success, and the relative ease of the method, it is reasonable that this method would be used on a wide basis -- it is actually a very commonplace method of logic and argumentation.

The problem is that the 'Lone-gunman' advocates have chosen as their authority the famous J. Edgar Hoover, along with his FBI agency and its offshoot, the Warren Commission. They closed their eyes and ears to everything else after 1963 (when the conclusions were first printed), gambling that nobody would ever fully disprove the conclusions of the great J. Edgar Hoover.

However, if they had been the least bit aware, they would have heard that the U.S. Government itself no longer accepts the Lone-gunman theory as of 1979. Here is the URL of the official HCSA report kept at the National Archives and Records Administration:

http://www.archives....rt/summary.html

The upshot of the HSCA findings is that Lee Harvey Oswald was one of the accomplices of the shooting of JFK, but he did not act alone, and nobody has yet (after 49 years) been able to adequately demonstrate sufficient proof to name any of the other accomplices,

Nevertheless, the HSCA concluded, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that individual members of anti-Castro Cuban groups may have been involved, probably in coordination with individual members of organized crime.

Again, no evidence has been substantiated enough to enable anybody to supply any name of any of these suspected maverick individuals from these two underground hate groups, with enough proof to hold up in a court of law.

That, ultimately, is the properly authoritative, official opinion of the U.S. Government, as it stands today.

To those few who still advocate the Lone-gunman theory on the mistaken premise that this is the position maintained by U.S. Government authority (as it was in 1963), I urge you to click on this URL and bring yourself up-to-date with established authority:

http://www.archives....rt/summary.html

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Paul:

Can you say who the Dallas Planner was... the one who was "far away"?

Gene

If Oswald had anything to do with the assassination, whether as a patsy, sniper, or killing Tippit, then because of his operational background as an intelligence operative, in USSR, New Orleans, Mexico City and Dallas, then whatever you believe happened at Dealey Plaza was a covert intelligence operation and not the result of The Lone DeRanger.

BK

JFKcountercoup

William, I think that's a well-established point in this Forum. Even the US Government no longer promotes the old WC idea that Oswald was a lone gunman. In 1979, the House Select Committee on Assassinations put the lone-gunman theory to rest, and it's surprising to hear anybody raise that self-contradictory theory at this late date.

Nevertheless, for the rest of us, the question that remains is about the precise character of the covert intelligence operation in question. Was it primarily an FBI plan? A CIA plan? ONI? Secret Service? An Army intelligence plan?

It is increasingly difficult for me to imagine that the CIA had enough players in enough positions to carry out a cover-up so enormous. The FBI did its part in covering up, but I doubt that it had enough powers beyond law enforcement. The Secret Service had a lot of responsibility in this cover-up, but like the CIA, did not have power over enough people all over the US bureaucracy to control an operation of this magnitude.

In my personal opinion, only a covert intelligence operation controlled by rogue elements in the US military could have planned, carried out and covered up something so enormous. A rogue, ex-military person, somebody like Oswald but far more powerful and effective, with decades of military experience, with a sterling reputation, with tight friends in very high places -- somebody who lived in Dallas and especially somebody who was cold and calculating when the chips were down -- this is the only kind of person who could have personally coordinated every aspect of the Dallas ground-crew (the most critical part of the JFK assassination).

The Dallas part of the operation was the most critical. Plots failed in Florida. Plots failed in Mexico. Plots failed in Chicago. Those plots did not have brilliant military minds planning and controlling every detail with the life-and-death loyalty of their men at their sides.

The Dallas planner was able to transform Oswald -- a low-level agent and a loose-cannon trainee -- into the patsy. The Dallas planner was able to change the Presidential motorcade route. The Dallas planner was able to place the patsy in the right place at the right time. The Dallas planner was able to manipulate the patsy to bring his rifle to the kill-zone -- unwary of the facts at hand. The Dallas planner was able to recruit covert members of the Dallas Police Department.

The Dallas planner did not need to be on site for the day of the crime. He could be far away. I believe I know who the Dallas planner truly was.

Best regards,

--Paul Trejo

Curtis Lemay? Walker's "handler" (John J. McCloy?)

Excellent article... I'm not as deep into the Z film alteration debates as others, but (moving back to 1,000 feet) its always seemed a highly technical topic with too much acrimony. The past threads all too often became unprofessional food fights... one expert's credentials against anothers, credibilty and personal attacks. I agree with Mr. Lowe's comments, that such character attacks and vitriol reflect an insecurity and do little for the attacker's own credibility... a true "red flag". In my expeience, real experts have a humilty and openness to comment, and do not become defensive.

Horne's work is impressive and important. Although the provenance of the film is a story that's hard to follow, there certainly exists much debate about what it shows and tells us. I can't put my finger on it specifically... but there's something there, something that just doesn't add up, something that 'feels' funny. For me, the most telling aspects are the frames withheld from later TIME magazine issues, and the fact that it took almost 13 years for the public to even see the film. The magazine people sure moved quick to buy it, and then put it under wraps. Were it not for Garrison's trial and Groden/Rivera, we may never have seen it. Add to that the fact that there were other cameras in the Plaza that day (many of which were harvested by "sweepers" and withheld from disclosure) presents another strong argument that there was a planned 'event' that was protected by powerful organizations.

I wonder if there's an even better motion picture of this event in someone's vaullt?

I am also surprised that this thread isn't more active... Cord Meyer seems right in the middle of the intrigues surrounding JFK's assassination. He had strained relations with JFK, apparently over an ambassaborship he was denied... and then JFK had an affair with his wife. The death of Meyer's young son was itself mysterious, and came on the heels of some internal CIA disputes, having the appearance (i.e.intent) of silencing Meyer. The murder of Mary Meyer - if one digs into the details - is certainly an enigma. The accussed (acquitted) killer seems a 'patsy' and the timing and circumstances of her death are sinister, suggesting that she knew something dangerous to the conspiracy. And then there's Angelton's post-event presence and the "diary". When asked who killed his wife, he is quoted as saying "the same bastards that killed John Kennedy". Last, Cord Meyer seems to me a dichodemy... a central figure in CIA 'Mockingbird' strategies and an acknowledged CIA subject matter expert in covert operations (some accounts call him one of the founding fathers of such). Yet, he is portrayed as both liberal and a suspect Communist; educated and erudite, a covert specialist and a gentleman... which one was it? Cord Meyer sure had motive, means and opportunity. I think there's lot more to him than meets the eye.