Ashton Gray

Bill, I'm assuming your message was directed to me. If not, disregard the following:

Before rushing off to put up the photo and film evidence, which already appears to be pretty much on line now anyway, what about the combined Timelines?

A. I'm not "rushing off to put up the photo and film evidence." I've suggested that it's something that would be valuable, but stated in my first message in that thread that I don't have the means (and that includes the web know-how) to do it myself.

B. As far as it being "pretty much on line now anyway," I respectfully disagree, or I wouldn't have raised the issue, and it absolutely does not exist in the forms I specified in that thread anywhere on the internet. That is inarguable. I think it should, and will contribute to that effort in any way I can, and that has included making inquiries where I thought it might do some good. This is a far cry from "rushing off to put up the photos and film evidence."

I think it is imperative that the Timelines that exist should be compiled together in one computer program.

I couldn't agree more. That's why I started this topic and uploaded a FileMaker Pro file that I hoped would help facilitate just such an effort. As I also said in the introductory message in this thread, I cannot do it myself. I am SLAMMED with committments I have to meet, and have very limited time to devote to any of this, and already spend more time than I can justify on it.

I downloaed the Timeline software suggested, but now it says it can't open it without proper files.

This is a yes or no question, and please respond to it: Do you have FileMaker Pro or not?

If your answer is "no," you never will open the FileMaker Pro database file I uploaded.

If your answer is "yes," please tell me what version you have. If it isn't the latest version, that may well be the problem. If you do have the latest version, then I will see what I can do to debug this, but if it's simply a case that you don't have the necessary program and version, I'm not going off to fix that which ain't broken. I simply don't have time, and I also may need to get some technical help on it. So please give me the information asked for.

In any case, I think the timelines are important and a project should be undertaken by interested and computer savy enough parties to combine them and make them available to everyone.

I totally agree. 100%. I've tried to help make that possible. There are people posting here who very obviously have more discretionary time than I have. I had hoped there might be some active interest.

I do have a few friends and acquaintances who have started using the FileMaker Pro file to timeline the JFK assassination, and they've sent me some excerpts of their efforts, some of which I've posted. I hope to be posting more soon.

But they send me what they feel like sending me, and I have no sway or say over how much they get done or when except by polite request. I'm going to try to get their efforts coordinated and combined and at some point see if they will allow me to upload what they've done.

I vow that when and if I have something of note, I will find or make the time to get it uploaded here as soon as I reasonably can. I have no reason at all to do otherwise.

I don't mean to be in any way abrasive on this, but I can't seem to get across the fact that I simply do not have the time to invest in it. I'm already over two weeks behind my own self-imposed deadlines on getting a series I started in the Watergate forum finished because of demands on my existence. I try to get by this forum when I can, but only then get to a handful of threads that are of interest to me.

If there's anything I actually can do to be of help, I am happy to within the constraints that I absolutely must deal with.

Ashton

And when you did your assessment, there were about 4 messages out of the 32 that were responsive and on-topic, and it all included a visit by the forum administrator.

It doesn't take a math genius to figure out the signal-to-noise ratio.

Ashton

I agree - it's one reason I recapped the posts. I'm as guilty as anyone of piling on when the going gets rough. Someone once suggested a two hour requisite cooling-off period between reading and returning Internet emails. Posts intending to inflame and provoke are too often successful. I'm going to give it a try and see if I can make a small contribution toward comity on this forum.

MV

Thanks very much. I'll try to do my part better in that regard, too. I hope this thread can result in some kind of coordinated effort at some point, but I'm also putting out feelers on other lines. I have no doubt whatsoever that the resources exist. It's really only a matter of enough agreement on it being a worthwhile purpose to get a seed planted. It can grow and improve over time.

The first requirements are going to be a server that can bear the strain and someone with the technical savvy to set it up intelligently and maintain it. I'm making inquiries on both counts.

Ashton

Ashton has bemoaned the state of this thread. Let's recap the posts and see where it went all screwy:

1. Ashton starts the thread asking for info about photographs.

2. John Dolva offers some helpful links.

...

32. Ashton Grey calls the Forum a "petri dish for such agent provocateurs and idiots"

This stuff deserves its own TV series...

MV

And when you did your assessment, there were about 4 messages out of the 32 that were responsive and on-topic, and it all included a visit by the forum administrator.

It doesn't take a math genius to figure out the signal-to-noise ratio.

Ashton

All salient and important points, Greg.

This links to the early August 1963 dog-and-pony show where Carlos Bringuier and friends put Oswald where he wasn't at the time.

Ashton

Don't give up Ashton. It is a great idea and one that should have been implimented long ago....as you can easily see there are agent provocateurs, idiots, lethargy and dissention between reserachers. It is still do-able, at least in part.

Thanks, Peter.

I have no doubt that it is do-able, and I'm certain that it's a worthwhile pursuit.

But it won't get done through a forum that apparently is a petri dish for such agent provocateurs and idiots.

Read this thread again if you think for a moment that it's otherwise.

Ashton

I no longer wonder at all why there isn't a good central resource for JFK film and photos.

Nor do I any longer wonder why the world is constantly at war.

Nor do I any longer wonder at Congress.

If anyone is around to scratch out a final epitath for mankind in the green glass, I humbly submit this entire thread.

Ashton Gray

Ashton, I have a feeling you could care less what I think, but I find your response lacking in the class I thought you had.

Michael, I care a great deal what you think, and have always valued your observations and thoughts on the topics at issue. Bill Miller ain't one of them.

I'm attempting herein to solicit interest in getting together a useful and as comprehensive as possible collection of the images from the Kennedy assassination. If there are any thoughts on that topic you'd care to contribute, I'd be vitally interested.

Ashton

I found Bill to be a likeable, sincere and well informed guy.

Gee, I've heard the same kinds of opinions of Richard Helms and Ted Bundy.

Maybe some of you guys can form a "Bill Miller Admiration Society" and start a forum for it somewhere else with the free forum software that's available, and keep him coralled over there stroking and petting him (all posts must be in boldface only, of course), and maybe then there'd be some chance in hell of keeping a thread on topic in this forum.

Ashton Gray

http://www.jfk-online.com/films.html

has a number of films including Bell

many photos are here

http://jfkmurderphotos.bravehost.com/photos.html

listing here

http://www.jfk-info.com/photos1.htm

Thanks for the links, John.

The films link is great. Then again, the size and resolution are lamentable, which of course cycles back to the bandwidth limitations, and 'round and 'round she goes.

Speaking of bandwidth, the bravehost site gives just such an error page.

And I had found the page of listings—which actually is exactly what prompted this entire topic.

And 'round and 'round she goes...

Ashton

P.S. A comment about turning to butter came to mind, but since one King Twit already tried to sabotage this thread with amateur remote-viewing psychoanalysis, all we need is an excuse for some King Twit wannabe to launch into a racism diatribe.

Do I need to post more of the symptoms of schizophrenia...

*PLONK*

Permanently into the twit-file.

Symptoms of chronic scumbagism are incurable.

Ashton Gray

I've been somewhat amazed at the seeming difficultly of locating anything resembling an easily accessible comprehensive repository of the known photos and films from the Kennedy assassination.

I have no idea what role copyright ownership, and/or bandwith and logistical hurdles might play in this scattering and dearth, but it seems to me that the collection and effective presentation of as much as possible of the visual record would be of inestimable value and use to researchers and posterity. If I had the access, means, and time I certainly would be embarking on such a worthwhile project.

I merely happened across this reference from the Wikipedia page on the Zapruder film while briefly browsing the forum this morning and trying to find out what the "Bell" film was:

• There are at least eleven known films and photographs in Dealey Plaza during the assassination by these amateurs with cameras: F. Mark Bell, Charles Bronson (not the actor with the same name), Robert J. E. Hughes, John Martin, Charles Mentesana, Patsy Paschall, Elsie Dorman, Tina Towner, Marie Muchmore, and Orville Nix, along with an unidentified "Babushka Lady". Nix's, Muchmore's, and Bronson's films include the fatal head shot, and the films of Bronson and Hughes show the open 6th-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository.
  

That alone was staggering information for me, and I have yet to find any place to view just the Bell film.

In the many threads concerning still photos, the images posted in the forum itself are often of little use for any kind of actual analysis, since they are usually low resolution jpegs, often cropped, and already, in many cases, processed in some way.

Of course another major problem is that there is no standardized naming or identifying convention for the various images, so one often has no ideal what even to search for.

I'm sure I don't need to belabor this further, so I'll only say that it would be a vastly worthwhile project to assemble the best (closest to original) still images that can be collected, get them scanned at least at actual size and 300 dpi resolution, and make them available somewhere, in some format with as little in the way of artifacts as possible (meaning no jpegs). And for the films, of course, to make as many available as possible in a widely-available digital format for viewing or downloading for research and educational purposes.

I do realize there are copyright issues as well as bandwidth and other technical issues in a project of such scope, but I also believe people could be found who might help make such arrangements as a charitable contribution. If there were enough interest, perhaps even a non-profit organization could be set up to be a repository and trustee of such works for educational purposes. Lord knows it would be a welcome counterpoint to the profiteers and vested interests. It also would tend to show those in their appropriate light through the listings of images made available vs. those withheld.

This is not a fully formed plan. It's merely an observation of a much needed resource that seems resoundingly absent, with a hope to get that corrected at some point in time. As I've mentioned, I don't personally have the means, but if others are interested, I'm happy to help in any way I'm able, and I'd like to hear other thoughts about it.

Ashton Gray

"someone who read where Hill said he had his foot over the door panel"

who read this? where?

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to secure a handhold or a leghold or any sort of a hold on the automobile as you moved forward?

Mr. HILL. Yes, sir. I had my legs--I had my body above the rear seat, and my legs hooked down into the rear seat, one foot outside the car.

Mr. SPECTER. Were you able to secure a handhold or a leghold or any sort of a hold on the automobile as you moved forward?

...as you moved forward

...as you moved forward

...as you moved forward

Ashton Gray

P.S. Could there maybe be a reading comprehension test requirement?

I know of a number of JFK Assassination Chronologies/Timelines -

Thanks. Yes. I've seen them. In fact, they are one of the primary motivations for my having created this thread and uploaded the database file. It's why I said in my introductory message:

• People putting them together will say something happened in "1961," or maybe as localized as "October 1961," and leave it at that, when the precise date is absolutely crucial to any hope of actual understanding how it relates to other events.
  That's why this database format is such a merciless time machine: it is self-correcting as it grows, and it refuses to take any vague broad-stroke generalities about time. Things happen at specific points in time. There are relationships between events that often remain completely occluded and invisible until the correct sequences of events and their time relationships are identified.
  

Ashton Gray

I concur with what Robert points out, and add that I find this document quite an important one. JFK was trying to wrestle back control from the CIA, under Executive oversight via the Ambassadors. Before, during and after JFK the CIA had done many operations without notifying anyone - and certainly not the Ambassador in the country concerned, as has long been proscribed by law and custom [Ambassador is Chief US officer over all activities in the country on behalf of any US Agency or action]. The War between CIA higher-ups and JFK was in full swing. It culminated in Dallas.

Yes, Mr. Dunne's typically perspicacious observation went to the heart of this further damning evidence of CIA's long reign by nihilism. It's that very nihilism that also has allowed them to use the ambassadorships, as it suited them, in another way: as branch CIA emplacements.

In the case of Lodge, CIA played him like a lute to effect the surprise murder of the Diem brothers three weeks before CIA took Kennedy out. Lucien Conien paid $40,000 in tax-funded blood money for the Diem hit, a necessary precursor to their hit on JFK, which, among other CIA "benefits," allowed them to then set up the Tonkin fraud. Naturally, Conein would later be involved with Hunt in the fraud-within-a-fraud to smear the Kennedy administration with the very double murder in Vietnam that CIA had orchestrated. There is no measuring stick in human ken for the plumbless depths of their arrogant, pompous perfidy.

Then there are the many instances of their arranging appointments of their people to important ambassadorships—such as George H. W. Bush, and Helms to get him shunted away after he and Gottlieb destroyed the things that would most likely hang them at the end of 1972. This also set up sliding Schlesinger in to pretend to "clean up" CIA, while of course his only real job was to further protect their dirtiest secrets. Perfected concealment by "admission" is the bloody handprint they leave everywhere.

Ashton

One story that Hugh Scott and Carl Curtis were very interested in was a visit Bobby Baker made to New Orleans, Miami and Dallas in May 1963. Scott claimed that Baker was accompanied by Paul Aguirre, Carole Tyler and Ellen Rometsch. Aguirre denied he had been with Baker when he went to Miami and Dallas. However, he told committee investigators that if he were “asked anything about what took place on the trip to New Orleans he would take all the amendments from 1 to 28.”

Does anyone know anything about Paul Aguirre? Does anybody know what Baker was doing in New Orleans, Miami and Dallas in May 1963?

Do you have any specific dates on the trip, and a source for the information about the trip?

Ashton

I'm passing along information supplied to me, with an appeal to John Simkin to correct the relevant pages on spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk regarding a matter that, from what I've seen on this now, I feel is important. It concerns a letter dated 2 May 1963 from Acting Director of CIA Marshall S. Carter to Kennedy's National Security Advisor McGeorge Bundy. In it, Carter paraphrases a cable he says he had received from the absent John McCone that morning regarding the Lisa Howard interview with Fidel Castro.

Before posting below the actual relevant documents, I'm going to lay out the research tar pit the person who brought this to my attention fell into when trying to track this down:

1. In the September/October 1999 edition of Cigar Aficianado magazine, an article called "JFK & Castro: The Secret Quest For Accommodation" appeared with the following very questionable paragraph:

• CIA Director John McCone adamantly opposed Howard's approach to Cuba, arguing that it would leak and compromise a number of CIA operations against Castro. In a recently declassified May 2, 1963 memorandum to Bundy, McCone stressed that the "Lisa Howard report be handled in the most limited and sensitive manner," and "that no active steps be taken on the rapprochement matter at this time."
  

2. Essentially the same information, including "quotes" from the above, falsely attributed to a 2 May 1963 memorandum from John McCone to Bundy, have been included in the spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk bio pages on: McGeorge Bundy, Lisa Howard, John McCone, and William Attwood.

3. Those pages being top Google hits for the personalities named above, that false attribution of McCone "quotes" and historically fuzzy information has propagated further to web sites who pick these bios up and mirror them, reinforcing the false belief in the existence of a purported declassified memorandum from McCone to Bundy that doesn't in fact exist.

A great many hours of several researchers' time was invested—wasted—in attempting to track down any such "recently declassified memorandum to Bundy" from McCone, and it didn't exist, at least anywhere that could be found. And although the fuzzy-enough wording of the Cigar Aficianado piece might justify in some minds their shorthand statement of "facts," it is a research nightmare, and it is precisely these kinds of imprecise "facts" that can completely color "history" and completely derail accurate analysis.

For reasons I'm not going to lay out here at the moment, I consider it of considerable importance to supply the correct information on this, and I urgently request that John Simkin get the spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk pages listed above corrected.

Below is the actual document giving rise to all the foregoing:

• 32. Letter From Acting Director of Central Intelligence Carter to the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy)
  Washington, May 2, 1963.
  //Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, Intelligence Material, Vol. V. Secret.
  Dear Mr. Bundy: With respect to the Lisa Howard report,/1/ Mr. McCone cabled me this morning stating that he cannot overemphasize the importance of secrecy in this matter and requested that I take all appropriate steps along this line to reflect his personal views on its sensitivity. Mr. McCone feels that gossip and inevitable leaks with consequent publicity would be most damaging. He suggests that no active steps be taken on the rapprochement matter at this time and urges most limited Washington discussions, and that in these circumstances emphasis should be placed in any discussions on the fact that the rapprochement track is being explored as a remote possibility and one of several alternatives involving various levels of dynamic and positive action.
  /1/Lisa Howard of the American Broadcasting Company had a 10-hour interview with Fidel Castro on April 22. During that interview Castro made a number of points, the most important of which was that Cuba was looking for ways to establish a rapprochement with the United States. Cottrell summarized the main points of the interview in a May 2 memorandum to Martin, and Richard Helms prepared a more detailed account in a memorandum to McCone, May 1. The President read Helms' summary. (Department of State, Central Files, POL 15-1 Cuba and Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, Intelligence Material, Vol. V)
  In view of the foregoing, it is requested that the Lisa Howard report be handled in the most limited and sensitive manner.
  Faithfully yours,
  Marshall S. Carter/2/
  Lieutenant General, USA
  /2/Printed from a copy that indicates Carter signed the original.
  

The "quotes" from the Cigar Aficianado article are not from John McCone, but from Marshall S. Carter, who is Acting Director CIA at the time in McCone's absence. It is his paraphrasing of McCone, and so far no declassified actual cable from McCone to Carter has been located.

Not only does this give an incorrect source for "quotes," it also obfuscates the absence of McCone at a very crucial period of time.

And the following document from the same day, 2 May 1963, is indicative of at least some of the likely historical weight and consequences of this exact incident:

• 333. Memorandum From the President's Special Assistant for National Security Affairs (Bundy) to the Members of the Standing Group of the National Security Council
  Washington, May 2, 1963.
  //Source: Kennedy Library, National Security Files, Countries Series, Cuba, General, 5/1-5/15/63. Top Secret; Sensitive; Eyes Only.
  The following assignments have been made as a result of the discussion in the Standing Group on Tuesday, April 30th:/1/
  /1/Document 330.
  1. There will be an examination of the possible developments in Cuba if Castro were to disappear from the scene. This analysis will be developed by Mr. Sherman Kent and will be available for discussion at the meeting of the Standing Group on May 14th.
  2. There will be an analysis of the possible use of contingencies for the achievement of wider political objectives. This analysis will be conducted under the direction of Mr. Alexis Johnson and Mr. Paul Nitze, and its first results will be available for discussion at the meeting of the Standing Group on May 14th. This first analysis will provide: a. A detailed examination of possible action in the event of interference with surveillance; and b. a more general assessment of possible use of other contingencies in Cuba or in the waters around Cuba.
  3. The Central Intelligence Agency will prepare a general paper on the possible forms of effective interference with the economic life of Cuba by sabotage or other means. In particular, CIA will report on the oil problem in relation to Cuba. It is hoped that a first report on this study may be available next week for distribution.
  4. The Department of State will examine the possible use of the sugar market as a means of complicating the life of the Castro regime. It is hoped that this study will be available next week.
  5. The principal topic of discussion for the meeting of the Standing Group on May 7th will be the development of a U.S. program and policy toward post-Castro Cuba, and the initial lead in the discussion will be taken by Mr. Wilson for USIA. Appropriate papers will be circulated before noon on Monday, May 6th.
  McGeorge Bundy
  

There also is information on certain personnel in that document immediately above that may, or may not, have considerable impact on analysis of the events of 1963 leading to Kennedy's assassination, but in any case I urgently recommend that the bio pages on spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk referencing this purported "memorandum from McCone to Bundy" get corrected, and that any sites that have picked up and propagated the inaccurate statements be contacted and sent the corrected information.

Ashton Gray

Good lord, don't leave out Richard Helms and Sidney Gottlieb. These two were also central to building CIA's most deadly weapon ever, and one that is almost completely invisible: a still-secret standing army of like-minded psychiatrists gleefully happy to do anything to anybody for the sheer perverted, sadistic pleasure of doing it. Few things from CIA are ever as redacted as the names of their pet psychiatrists, who not only have wreaked more atrocities on mankind than possibly any other group in history, but who have stood for over half a century as CIA's primary totally protected and secret source of blackmail leverage.

I have seen no evidence that Sidney Gottlieb was a “freelancer”. Richard Helms is in the same category as Allen Dulles, George Bush and William Casey.

I agree with you about Helms's category, and didn't mean to imply in any way that Gottlieb was a "freelancer." I placed my comment badly when I put it after the string of "middle-ranking CIA officers" you named, because it was more directly responsive to the major premise of your message, as summed up in your statement:

• "On the surface it might seem to be a 'rogue' group. However, this does not take into account that senior CIA officers were fully aware of what was going on."
  

Gottlieb probably deserves his own category until the end of time. Hopefully Hell has solitary confinement.

Ashton

It's been brought to my attention that the 1 May 1963 memorandum by Richard Helms to Director of Central Intelligence John McCone, summarizing Helms's interview with ABC newswoman Lisa Howard after her interview with Fidel Castro, is signed this way:

The only thing I've been able to locate with respect to any "W. Lloyd George" and CIA is the rather crucial document below, dated 10 August 1961, the subject and substance of which is an entire study in and of itself (one that so often goes overlooked) concerning CIA and embassies. This pivotal document has the curious attribution: "Drafted by W. Lloyd George of the Deputy Directorate of Plans, Central Intelligence Agency."

Here is the document in full, with notes and cross references as found in Department of State records:

• Telegram From Director of Central Intelligence Dulles to All Chiefs of Station/1/
  Washington, August 10, 1961.
  /1/Source: Central Intelligence Agency, DCI (Dulles) Files, Dispatch and Book Dispatch, 1963, Box 6, Folder 11. Top Secret. Drafted by W. Lloyd George of the Deputy Directorate of Plans, Central Intelligence Agency.
  DIR 05454. Rybat.
  1. President Kennedy's letter to Ambassadors of 29 May 1961,/2/ affirms their responsibility "to oversee and coordinate" all programs or activities of the United States in their particular areas, whether of the diplomatic mission or of other US agencies. Further, he made clear he expects Ambassadors to be fully informed of these programs or activities.
  /2/See footnote 2, Document 30.
  2. As you are aware you have always carried the responsibility for reviewing with the Ambassador covert action matters growing out of our responsibilities under the 5412 directive of the National Security Council. Furthermore, most of you have arrived at relationships with Ambassadors in the past which have made you conscious of the need to keep the Ambassador informed so that he may judge the political risks inherent in any activity, whether deriving from "5412" or developed in pursuit of our statutory responsibility in the field of espionage and clandestine counterintelligence. However, the feeling had developed over the past few years within diplomatic missions around the world that Ambassadors are not sufficiently well informed properly to protect them in their responsibility as the principal United States officers in their respective areas who bear the brunt of any covert or clandestine activity that inadvertently becomes known to and represents a serious affront to the local government.
  3. Where espionage and clandestine counterintelligence are concerned we have always been aware of the possible political risks inherent in our activities. This is the reason for the language of NSCID 5, paragraph 6, which states Ambassadors will be kept "appropriately informed."/3/ However, it is clear today that many Chiefs of Mission feel that our officers' interpretation of this phrase has not produced sufficient information.
  /3/National Security Council Intelligence Directive No. 5/2, September 15, 1958. See footnote 5, Document 84.
  4. Therefore, you will take steps to insure that the Ambassador is informed of your espionage and clandestine counterintelligence programs in addition to your covert action projects. With relation to these operations, he should be made sufficiently aware of them so that, in his capacity as principal officer responsible for the United States position in the country to which he is accredited, he is enabled to make an informed judgment as to the political risks involved.
  5. In advising him of your various programs, you should pay particular attention to clarifying in his mind their general nature, scope, and purpose. Review with him, for example, the categories of covert action such as psychological warfare, black and gray propaganda, political action and economic action in pursuit of approved 5412 programs. Present your clandestine intelligence activities in categories such as scientific, political, technical, economic and military information objectives carried on against approved requirements, through working relationships with local intelligence and security services and through independent activities. Review your clandestine counterintelligence objectives to acquire knowledge of all other intelligence organizations and membership, to manipulate some members of these to a U.S. advantage, to obtain information by counterintelligence activities, as well as espionage, about all Communist Parties and to counter their objectives through local services and independent activities, and to develop higher capability through training the so-called friendly services.
  6. In many of your activities there are involved sensitive source identities and sensitive techniques, which it is desired that you safeguard. The Ambassador at times will feel he needs to know these and, in some instances, has a right to know. Judgment with respect to these, however, may have to be made ultimately in Washington. If you are in doubt about passing these ultimate details, the matter should be referred to Washington where decision will be made after consultation between the Director of Central Intelligence and Chief ODACID as to whether you should give the Ambassador these details.
  7. There will be occasions when an objectively discussed problem will result in an honest difference of opinion between you and your Ambassador regarding whether an operation should be carried on. President Kennedy's letter makes clear that you have your own channels of communication and may use them to refer your problem to higher levels here. While the Ambassador also has his own channels to Washington, he will normally expect you to convey his views on such matters via your channels.
  8. You should consider this instruction to be of interim nature, pending review of the 1957 agreement between this Headquarters and ODACID (STACIA)./4/
  /4/Not found.
  9. ODACID has seen and concurs with this message and is requesting all its chiefs of missions and certain principal officers to confer with you regarding it. They may, of course, see it.
  

And that's it.

I can't find any other "W. Lloyd George" reference related to CIA anywhere.

There was a W. Lloyd George who was editor for the "National Resources Planning Board," which was established in, I believe, 1939, and disbanded in 1943.

Does anyone know anything about the CIA's "W. Lloyd George," and why his signature would be over Helms's name? If he actually existed in CIA, he must have been very, very well placed indeed to then have so little record about him.

Ashton Gray

I like Walker's letterbox in this image below. He obviously wasn't too worried about unfriendlies knowing where he lived. I guess it would have come in handy if Oswald got lost on the way.

Something very similar has been sticking in my craw for quite a while, and you just gave me an excuse to unstick it:

Everybody nice and located now? Everybody know where we are, and where the gun was found? Juuuuust checking.

And since I've brought it up, on that bottom photo, does that look like freshly laid plywood to anybody? Looks a lot like ancient beat-up dirty floor planking to me. And speaking of which, just how long could it have taken five of Truly's men to lay down plywood, anyway?

Ashton

I think it is misleading to talk about a “rogue” element within the CIA.

It's 100% pure CIA-brand perfumed holy water, the same brand they spend millions of tax dollars on every year sprinkling all over themselves to try to cover up the ever-growing stench.

In fact, it was the perverse perjurer Richard Helms himself who poured the "CIA was never a rogue elephant" poison into the water, and the "rogue elements" is just a subset of the same lies.

The corruption of the CIA began in the late 1940s. This involved taking rake-offs from the drug trade in South-East Asia.

The CIA hadn't been in existence more than a year when they set Clay Shaw up for good in the CIA-spawned "International Trade Mart" business, giving him the cover that they later claimed they only exploited. It's a complete lie. (And what else is new?)

This is the same general M.O. they used when Helms laundered his own order through Hunt, Colson, Ehrlichman, and back to CIA via Deputy CIA Director Cushman for CIA to "help Hunt," which I covered in White House "Request" for CIA Help Was a Helms Con. Same M.O. It's about as subtle as a zebra's stripes. Of course, when they finally are forced to spit out any "admission," it gets completely flipped around so that, as in the case of "helping Hunt" they were "only following orders," and in the case of Shaw, "oh, well, he was there and had this thing already set up, so we merely utilized—" Just lying scum. They can't issue any statement, ever, without lying.

Some agents were willing to make money for carrying out covert actions for military dictators in the Third World. This often involved assassinating left-wing activists.

And anybody else they decided was an inconvenience to their plans and operations. The entire organization was set up from day one in the exact model that could not otherwise than attract the most debased, amoral, criminal elements in the society who saw the entire organization as completely sanctioned cover, with virtually unlimited funds and power, for any malevolent activity they wished to pursue—all wrapped in the flag and standing in a noble pose on the highest moral ground they can find. <SPIT!>

In time, a group of middle-ranking CIA officers emerged who could always be relied on to organize these actions. This included Paul Helliwell, Ted Shackley, Tom Clines, E. Howard Hunt, David Atlee Phillips, David Morales, Carl E. Jenkins and Ray Cline.

Good lord, don't leave out Richard Helms and Sidney Gottlieb. These two were also central to building CIA's most deadly weapon ever, and one that is almost completely invisible: a still-secret standing army of like-minded psychiatrists gleefully happy to do anything to anybody for the sheer perverted, sadistic pleasure of doing it. Few things from CIA are ever as redacted as the names of their pet psychiatrists, who not only have wreaked more atrocities on mankind than possibly any other group in history, but who have stood for over half a century as CIA's primary totally protected and secret source of blackmail leverage.

"Rogue elements" my ass.

Ashton Gray

Hey, Peter.

I love the flight manifest on April 8!...I guess they were just going ice skating.

And noting that it's from New Orleans to just outside Dallas, it looks like Oswald arranged his "firing" and his last day at Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall in order to make it to some important rendezvous in New Orleans on 7 April.

It seems to me besides filling in any additional items, and maybe extending it a bit longer in time, it would be good to make a list of the persons and list under them their associations with others. DeM, for example, knew Dulles and Poppy. Etc.

See my note earlier in this thread to Mr. Hynonen on this. I'm just posting data I'm getting from others as I can find time. I regrettably don't have time to be doing inputting on this or a tenth of what I'd like to be doing on it (I'm playing hooky from my work right now just to post this). I'll pass it along though.

Ashton

Hi, Mr. Hynonen,

Mr. Gray you may want to add the alleged "pot shot" by Oswald at Gen Edwin A. Walker to your time line, this occurred on April 10th 1963, if I recall correctly. Great time line by the way.

I'm sure the shooting at the Walker house is going to be added. This excerpted section of timeline was sent to me from a friend who for a few days has been inputting JFK data using a copy of the timeline database file I posted about in this thread:

JFK Timeline Database and Hopeful Thoughts

As I understand it she noticed these particular relationships emerging and just exported a text file of a selected set of records, so the Walker incident may already be in her database but didn't meet her export criteria for this particular segment. I'll check. I hope to get a copy of the database itself with everything she's entered so far sometime this weekend.

Also I find it interesting that the Camp & Lafayette St. corner comes around again.

Yes. She had sent me another excerpt as well that's centered around Oswald's stint in the Big Easy, and, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, it also has some pretty interesting relationships showing up. I haven't gotten a chance to post it (it takes some annotating and formatting that I haven't had time to do), but in brief: it looks very much like Oswald was not in New Orleans at all the first week in August 1963 when he purportedly dropped into Carlos Bringuier's shop. Timelined, this coincides with the very strange "defection" of two anonymous Cubans from the "Anti-Castro training facility" and its equally strange demise. And it also coincides with the return of Kerry Thornley to New Orleans from his little extended "vacation" to "California and Mexico."

In other words, this whole dog-and-pony show from Bringuier and friends about Oswald's visits to his shop on 5 and 6 August is complete hogwash designed for no other purpose but to alibi Oswald's whereabouts during that period of time, with the absolutely insane inclusion of a "Guidebook for Marines" with "L. H. Oswald" in it to "prove" that he had been there. Then they followed up, when he came back, with the whole staged "fight" on 9 August, leading, of course, to the equally staged radio "debate."

This alibi fraud basically is the same M.O. as the fraudulent "first break-in" at the Watergate, which also never happened, and is yet one more bloody fingerprint on this identifying the same CIA scum operating in the walls.

I have every hope of getting that section of timeline she sent me also posted this weekend, in its own thread.

Ashton Gray

The reason I posted a year or two ago is the same reason I gave you. It is not a matter of right or wrong, but rather the way I opted to post on these forums.

I think if you do a search that you will see that I stated long ago why I use such lettering.

You already gave a "reason" in this thread, and I'm not going off on a search to find another excuse that won't be any better.

You just go right on being right about it, okay?

And if I ever feel a need for somebody to tell me how to spend my time, I'll ask somebody who doesn't feel the need to put everything they write in boldface. Thanks for the application, though.

Ashton

What does this imply about the idea floated by some writers that "rogue elements of the CIA may have been involved in initiating the assassination, but not the agency as a whole? "

The only possible correct statement wouldn't involve the adjective "rogue." It would be: "Core elements of the CIA were involved in initiating, planning, and executing the assassination." And of course the entire rank-and-file corpus of CIA wouldn't be put in the loop. But there's not a chance in hell that it wasn't coordinated from the top.

If anything, "rogue elements" was apologist crap floated by the CIA itself when some investigations and researchers started getting too close to the truth.

Ashton Gray