Kathleen Collins

Myra:

You wrote that I "demand explanations of the previously explained"; well, look at my thread, times a'wastin' where I asked members to post any evidentiary basis that the assassination was an "inside job". No one yet has been able to post a single evidentiary basis--except the one suggestion I made for a theory ("security stripping") that I believe is discredited. What troubles you I think is that there you know there is no explanation for 90% of the assertions posted here. Why don't you go to "Times a'wastin'" and post your evidentiary basis for believing the conspiracy was an inside job.

Where is Times a wastin?

Kathy

I catch the eye of the physician and nod my head gently in the direction of Parka Man. And I watch my friend's eyes widen in amazement. Then his brother takes a look. Same parka. Same backpack.

Parka Man disembarked at the next stop.

So ... What are the odds?

Enemy action?

Charles

So what silenced you and your lawyer friend? Did the cat get your tongues?

Why didn't you approach this guy and ask him if he was following you? Were you afraid of him?

Considering there were three of you and only one of him, you make yourself sound foolish here.

Also, can you tell us what makes you so special that some guy from London would want to follow you around?

I was in central London a few weeks ago. Central London, as opposed to Greater London, is actually quite a small space. I bumped into several people several times (all very nice people, I might add) in that one day

I think you are suffering from delusions of grandeur.

No, he is not suffering from delusions of grandeur. How do I know? Just being a woman, I know. I had some strange incidents with men following me when I was younger. The solution? Gaining weight seems to stop this from happening.

But, yes, I think this character was following Charles. Why? Did he know Charles was a JFK researcher? Was he gay and saw Charles and followed him? You'd be surprised how many weirdos (no offense meant to gays) are out there. I believe Charles' story. And you have to learn to trust your instincts. Also, there are people who will pick out a person and just follow them for fun. Some of them want you to know you're being followed. So they make their appearances and disappearances like phantoms.

Kathy

Mr. Colby,

We aren't even close to justifying a "whodunit" or "whydunit" investigation of Diana's demise.

First we must address and satisfactorily answer the "howdunit" question.

And that question, I submit, remains open.

We must not conflate these areas of inquiry -- at least not at this stage of the game.

Is it reasonable, you may ask, to question the "how" of Diana's death?

Based upon what we know to date: quite reasonable indeed.

Charles Drago

Even her sons think her death suspicious, as they said in a recent TV interview.

Kathy

Has anyone got any information on William Frawley?

Yes, William Frawley played Ed Mertz on I Love Lucy. Later he played something of a house wife on My Three Sons. The woman who played Ethel on I Love Lucy hated him and vice versa. I know he was in some movies. He passed away long ago.

Kathy

Right, so now the ambulance crew are part of the assassination

Lets see, Royal family, MI5, MI6, French secret service, Paris coroners office, French health service, Diana's body guard, and other assorted bogymen to numerous to mention. Did I miss anyone? I hear Elvis is alive and well, and living it up with Hitler in Argentina. I have no time for our "Royal family" and quite frankly wouldn't put much past them, I have no doubt they heaved a collective sigh of relief when the Queen of hearts snuffed it, but this wild baseless speculation is little short of preposterous.

Interesting coincidence however that Diana wrote in her diary that she feared being murdered in a car crash. If I remember correctly she had penned this fear about 6 months prior to it happening.

And why would the driver of the white car be killed? Looks pretty suspicious to me.

Dawn

Diana wrote a letter to someone that she thought that Prince Charles would have her killed in a car "accident." I don't think he ordered it, but his father, Prince Philip, may have. Or MI6 could have done it on their own.

And you're right about Andassan being burnt up in a car years later. That was a homicide, in my opinion. He was the driver of the white Fiat.

Kathy

I believe Diana was murdered. It took them 2-3 hours, I believe, to get Diana into an Emergency Room. The nearest hospital was 10 minutes away. They passed it by and another hospital too. The ambulance was moving at 10 mph so she wouldn't go into cardiac arrest because of the ambulance going too fast. Trying to resuscitate her by pressing on her heart was a big mistake -- or was it? If they had gotten her to the hospital, they would have learned that her aorta was ripped open and they were actually killing her. Two ER nurses saw Diana come in white and bloodless and got sick to their stomachs. She was pronounced dead. Then she was partially embalmed.

Kathy

Right, so now the ambulance crew are part of the assassination

Lets see, Royal family, MI5, MI6, French secret service, Paris coroners office, French health service, Diana's body guard, and other assorted bogymen to numerous to mention. Did I miss anyone? I hear Elvis is alive and well, and living it up with Hitler in Argentina. I have no time for our "Royal family" and quite frankly wouldn't put much past them, I have no doubt they heaved a collective sigh of relief when the Queen of hearts snuffed it, but this wild baseless speculation is little short of preposterous.

How do you explain all the Carbon Monoxide in Henri Paul's blood? The car manufacturer said it couldn't have come from the car. And did Henri Paul look drunk to you? He sure held his alcohol well.

Kathy

Donald O. Norton:

Here are 2 buildings at the addresses of Anoka Ave and a doctor's office at W. Pleasant St in Avon Park, FL via Google Earth.

Kathy

That roof on this Google Earth is not a real roof, but a computer generated one...why?

I went back and looked again, and the roof does appear to be faked. Whey would anybody

put a fake roof on this building?

Jack

I notice the roof covers the entire building -- is someone trying to hide something?

Kathy

His hair was dyed red, which was what John Armstrong told us several years ago, when he visited Norton's home in Jupiter FL while pretending to be a real estate buyer, since Norton's home was then on the market.

Where ever he is, you can bet Donny O is near water.

BK

So my instincts were right when I followed a hunch and looked up fishing businesses. I came across not only Don O Norton, but Ralph Geb as well. Eventually, under some pretext, I wrote to the website about Ralph Geb and was told a week later that his name was Bill Dietz from North Carolina. But the website displayed the name Ralph Geb as his picture downloaded. I had never heard of him, but looked it up on the Internet as an after thought and found Ralph Geb, an impersonator of LHO at the Mexican and Russian embassies in Mexico. What struck me about his picture initially was that he looked like the Norton yearbook photo.

About Don O Norton's red hair being dyed: I'd like to meet his hairdresser because it's a beautiful, natural-looking shade of red. But when I did my research of him, he was surrounded by redheads. I never saw so many redheaded men.

thecloakofdarkness.blogspot.com

Kathy

You are entitled to believe that, Charlie, like many do.

I am more influenced by the work of John Armstrong

in the Tippit matter.

Two key unresolved matters are the THROWDOWN WALLET

and the AUTOMATIC SHELL CASINGS....both indicating

a framing of Hidell by someone other than Tippit or LHO.

If Hidell was framed...SOMEONE ELSE KILLED TIPPIT.

I believe that Tippit and Roscoe White were co-participants

in some covert operation in Oak Cliff regarding Oswald. I am

not convinced that LHO even had a revolver. If he did not

own Hidell's MC rifle, why do we think he owned Hidell's

pistol? No bullets for rifle or pistol were found in ANY of

his residences. If LHO was NOT Hidell, case closed.

Jack

I read Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong. I believe Armstrong's view, which has Tippit mistaking Lee Oswald for Harvey. Lee shot Tippit before Tippit could shoot him. I believe Tippit was out to kill Harvey, as another cop failed to shoot him in the TSBD, due to witnesses.

Wasn't Tippit "Badge Man"?

Kathy

All my movie star books that I started to collect in my teens are with somebody in a different state, so I can't consult them.

I was reading Brothers by David Talbot. On Pg. 92, there is a description of Bobby Kennedy's elaborate office, an office that had his children's drawings hanging up. It is mentioned that Bobby had a fireplace in the room. What was near this fireplace grabbed my attention.

This was in Chapter "1962." Bobby had a "stuffed tiger" near the fireplace.

And here she comes, the scourge of Kennedy Researchers... On the day Marilyn Monroe "committed suicide" in August 1962, photographers saw a stuffed tiger near the swimming pool and people wondered why it was there and who gave it to her.

Monroe's stuffed tiger was a toy. But when Talbot describes the stuffed tiger, I wondered if it was a real stuffed tiger from a taxidermist and not the same object near Monroe's pool. Coincidence?

Kathy

I wouldn't be me if I didn't acknowledge the 45th Anniversary of Marilyn Monroe's mysterious death.

Kathy

Thanks for showing those pictures. I've never seen them before. Where did you get them?

Kathy

LBJ, according to Madeleine, was incredibly turned on by any "purty" woman, including

Jackie. Although she despised him, I think there was a flirtation. If you listen to her

voice on the tapes, you can feel the taunt..."you got Jack, but you can't get Jackie!"

I bet he got his jollies fantasizing about her instead of the Bird.

Jack

I don't think the Bird cared. Some women are like that. Have your fling, I don't have to deal with you, I'll just enjoy the money and prestige.

And I agree with you. Jackie was a sexy woman. And so beautiful she didn't need make-up, just her red or pink lipstick, and a blush of pink across her cheeks.

Kathy

Probably old news to many.

Daily Express

August 1, 2006

by Martin Evans

A WITNESS who holds vital clues suggesting Princess Diana’s death was not an accident is set to give evidence at her inquest.

Christophe Pelat could be one of the most important people to take the stand when the hearing begins in the autumn.

The French firefighter’s sensational claims concern the discovery of the “shot” body of paparazzi photographer James Andanson.

Andanson was an MI6 informer who followed Diana’s every move in the weeks before she died alongside Dodi Al Fayed and their chauffeur, Henri Paul.

He is also believed to be the driver of a mystery Fiat Uno that collided with Diana’s Mercedes moments before it crashed.

Three years after the fatal crash in Paris in 1997, Andanson’s badly charred body was discovered in a burnt-out BMW in the French countryside.

The official verdict was that he had committed suicide but now Mr Pelat, who discovered his body, insists the photographer had been shot in the head.

The authorities have always claimed any damage to his skull was the result of the intense heat of the fire.

But returning to the scene where Andanson’s body was found, Mr Pelat said: “He had a hole in his skull, as if he had been shot with a gun.”

Mr Pelat, pictured for the first time today, told the Daily Express last night that he was willing to testify at the inquest and expected to be officially called in the coming weeks. He said: “Of course I will contribute to any inquiry of this nature. It is my job."

A former Operation Paget detective, who has now been tasked with collating evidence and witness statements for the inquest, also confirmed Mr Pelat’s likely inclusion.

He said: “Anyone with this kind of information is high on the list of those who will give evidence.”

The circumstances of Andanson’s death remain vitally important to any investigation because of his connection to the mystery white Fiat Uno, said to have clipped Diana’s Mercedes.

Andanson, 54 at the time of his death, owned a white Fiat, which was repainted shortly after Diana’s death and sold by him later that year.

When the vehicle was eventually traced, forensic reports claimed paint scratches on the side-view mirror and bumper of the Mercedes were identical to samples from Andanson’s Fiat.

The revelation that Andanson could have been shot threatens to blow apart the inquest into Diana’s death and lend weight to conspiracy theories that she was murdered in a plot to prevent her marrying Dodi.

As a leading paparazzi photographer, Andanson spent weeks following the 36-year-old Princess as her romance with Dodi blossomed .

It is believed he supplemented his income by also acting as an informer for both the British Secret Intelligence Service and the French authorities.

Andanson had been in Sardinia during the last week of August 1997, as Diana and Dodi enjoyed their last holiday together before returning to France on August 30.

Less than six hours after the fatal crash, and for reasons that have never been revealed, Andanson boarded a flight at Paris’s Orly airport bound for Corsica. He claimed he had been nowhere near the centre of the French capital when the crash happened but could not provide any real evidence.

His body, found in thick woodland near Montpellier, was so badly charred that it took police almost a month before DNA and dental records confirmed his identity.

The official verdict was suicide but Mr Pelat’s claims support the theory that Andanson was assassinated because he knew too much about the Establishment plot to kill Diana.

Several weeks after his body was ­discovered, Andanson’s office was burgled and a number of his personal belongings were stolen.

The owner of the land where the body was found has now also come forward to question the circumstances of Andanson’s death.

Julian Christian told a Japanese ­documentary team that the area was so secluded only a local would have known how to locate the field where the burning BMW was found.

In a further twist, Andanson’s wife has confirmed that to her knowledge her husband had never before ­visited that region.

Harrods owner Mohamed Al Fayed now wants the latest evidence to be fully aired at the joint inquest into Diana and Dodi’s deaths.

He is among those who dismiss the official story that the crash was caused by the couple’s drunken chauffeur losing control of the vehicle.

Instead, he believes the pair were murdered by the British security services because senior British royals, including Prince Philip, did not want Diana to have Dodi’s baby.

Mr Al Fayed is convinced some of the paparazzi following the couple that night were MI6 agents determined to stop the announcement of the couple’s engagement – and Diana’s pregnancy.

Lord Justice Scott Baker, the fourth official chosen to oversee the inquest, has demanded full disclosure of all the evidence. He has identified 20 key issues he wants to examine further, including whether Andanson was in Paris on the night of the crash.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15228/...TH:-New-witness

Thanks for starting this thread, Mike. I've read a number of books on Diana and have seen many documentaries about her. The one thing about Diana's death that always disturbed me was Henri Paul, supposedly extremely drunk and overwhelmed by Carbon Monoxide. Someone posed that a suicide victim's body was mistaken for Henri's in the morgue that night. This unknown man had gotten into his car in a garage drunk and drank some more alcohol to give him the courage to start the ignition and die from asphyxiation. In his bloodstream they found anti-depressents. This explains why this man had so much carbon monoxide, alcohol and anti-depressents in his system: he wanted to die. It was not Henri Paul's blood!

Was this a fluke, a switcheroo, or did someone kill this man in his garage so they could use his blood? It's so coincidental. And the blood could have been around for awhile, not just that night, waiting for this chance. And possibly MI6 knew Diana was coming to Paris. And Henri Paul was tied in with MI6 and they double-crossed him. Why did he go through that tunnel if he didn't need to? Also, there's a report that a motorcycle with 2 people on it, passed Diana's car fast and the guy in the back shined a blinding light or laser into Henri's windshield. It's been claimed on the Internet that cocaine was found in the back seat. If it was, it was planted there immediately after the crash, in my opinion.

I believe Diana was murdered. It took them 2-3 hours, I believe, to get Diana into an Emergency Room. The nearest hospital was 10 minutes away. They passed it by and another hospital too. The ambulance was moving at 10 mph so she wouldn't go into cardiac arrest because of the ambulance going too fast. Trying to resuscitate her by pressing on her heart was a big mistake -- or was it? If they had gotten her to the hospital, they would have learned that her aorta was ripped open and they were actually killing her. Two ER nurses saw Diana come in white and bloodless and got sick to their stomachs. She was pronounced dead. Then she was partially embalmed.

Kathy

Good point. It could not have been a decision that LBJ made by himself. It was made in concert with all the right people. After all, LBJ heard those shots in Dallas, and even asked Hoover if any were aimed at him. (Exactly how many shots did he think "Oswald"might have fired, acquiring three targets - JFK, Connally, and LBJ - in the process?)

When I listened to the tapes of Johnson talking to J. Edgar, it seemed to me he was putting on an act. He sounded like a scared little kid, but I thought it was all BS between Hoover and Johnson.

What bothered me was the tape of Johnson talking to Jacqueline Kennedy. I think she called him to thank him for something and she sounded like a little girl and very alluring in that almost obscene voice she had. I understand she had carried out an investigation of her husband's death through Daniel Moynihan. Didn't any suspicion of Johnson set in at this time?

Kathy

All my movie star books that I started to collect in my teens are with somebody in a different state, so I can't consult them.

I was reading Brothers by David Talbot. On Pg. 92, there is a description of Bobby Kennedy's elaborate office, an office that had his children's drawings hanging up. It is mentioned that Bobby had a fireplace in the room. What was near this fireplace grabbed my attention.

This was in Chapter "1962." Bobby had a "stuffed tiger" near the fireplace.

And here she comes, the scourge of Kennedy Researchers... On the day Marilyn Monroe "committed suicide" in August 1962, photographers saw a stuffed tiger near the swimming pool and people wondered why it was there and who gave it to her.

Monroe's stuffed tiger was a toy. But when Talbot describes the stuffed tiger, I wondered if it was a real stuffed tiger from a taxidermist and not the same object near Monroe's pool. Coincidence?

Kathy

Great thread.

I think it WAS about Cuba for the originators of the plot, who, in the end, would be cast aside by far more powerful political players.

IMO, the plot that culminated in Kennedy's death was compartmentalized by necessity. The post-Cuban missile crisis rumblings that first coalesced into active planning for Kennedy's murder could not have succeeded without some degree of information/cooperation from people inside the Johnson camp. In particular,information was needed about the developing Kennedy visit to Texas. This trip was lobbied for and planned by the Johnson/Connally forces, and was known to be a near-certainty no later than April 23, 1963.

The eventual involvement of people close to Johnson with the Morales/Phillips/anti-Castro zeolot plotters represented a marriage of convenience for both groups. They certainly did not fully share the same goals.

Peter Scott's phase one/phase two analysis represents a clear explanation of what actually DID occur but is, I think, unsatisfactory as a theory of the plot's conceptualization. The problem lies in the assumption that we are looking at one A-Z affair, in which the managers (Group 1) are making use of the passions of other groups in order to advance higher ends. If we switch focus, and assume the possibility that we are looking at a convergence of plots into a sometimes unwieldy whole, different possibilities emerge.

I assume that the people who created the sinister-looking Oswald-Kostikov link (people who would have to have been close to David Phillips) really DID want to provoke a war. I think that the Johnson people were NEVER interested in a U.S.-Cuban-Soviet conflict, but were simply interested in saving Johnson from political extinction, and in protecting/expanding the politico-economic empire Johnson and cronies had skillfully fashioned over the years. The Kennedys stood in the way of both groups.

If this theory of convergence has validity, we need to look for "crossover" types in 1963: people who had relevant connections to the Johnson camp and were also plugged tightly into anti-Castro-intelligence circles. I think they can be found.

In sum, I think that the plotting began with religious fervor, and in the end was whittled down to a very profitable, sophisticated investment plan. The twists and turns of the plotting as it developed during 1963 reflect the "chaos theory" inherent in Scott's deep political analysis.

The conspiracy to kill Kennedy is as intriguing and complex as a Parker Bros game.

Kathy

Great thread.

I think it WAS about Cuba for the originators of the plot, who, in the end, would be cast aside by far more powerful political players.

IMO, the plot that culminated in Kennedy's death was compartmentalized by necessity. The post-Cuban missile crisis rumblings that first coalesced into active planning for Kennedy's murder could not have succeeded without some degree of information/cooperation from people inside the Johnson camp. In particular,information was needed about the developing Kennedy visit to Texas. This trip was lobbied for and planned by the Johnson/Connally forces, and was known to be a near-certainty no later than April 23, 1963.

The eventual involvement of people close to Johnson with the Morales/Phillips/anti-Castro zeolot plotters represented a marriage of convenience for both groups. They certainly did not fully share the same goals.

Peter Scott's phase one/phase two analysis represents a clear explanation of what actually DID occur but is, I think, unsatisfactory as a theory of the plot's conceptualization. The problem lies in the assumption that we are looking at one A-Z affair, in which the managers (Group 1) are making use of the passions of other groups in order to advance higher ends. If we switch focus, and assume the possibility that we are looking at a convergence of plots into a sometimes unwieldy whole, different possibilities emerge.

I assume that the people who created the sinister-looking Oswald-Kostikov link (people who would have to have been close to David Phillips) really DID want to provoke a war. I think that the Johnson people were NEVER interested in a U.S.-Cuban-Soviet conflict, but were simply interested in saving Johnson from political extinction, and in protecting/expanding the politico-economic empire Johnson and cronies had skillfully fashioned over the years. The Kennedys stood in the way of both groups.

If this theory of convergence has validity, we need to look for "crossover" types in 1963: people who had relevant connections to the Johnson camp and were also plugged tightly into anti-Castro-intelligence circles. I think they can be found.

In sum, I think that the plotting began with religious fervor, and in the end was whittled down to a very profitable, sophisticated investment plan. The twists and turns of the plotting as it developed during 1963 reflect the "chaos theory" inherent in Scott's deep political analysis.

The conspiracy to kill Kennedy is as intriguing and complex as a Parker Bros game.

Kathy

What about Alex Jones? I've seen some of his videos on youtube.com. The Bohemian Grove is incredible. And there's one in which he asks David Gergen, top advisor to several presidents, about his participation in Bohemian Grove. Jones says, "I'm the one who made the movie in 2000. I've seen what's going on there." And Gergen becomes so indignant. Even when Jones asks about the real human sacrifices in the '80's, he stands there like he wants to kill Alex Jones. I want to go back and watch it again.

The problem is drawing the line. A lot of Americans believe the United States had complicity in what happened on 9-11. But other people tell us we're crazy. And then you have a Tom Flocco whose stories are false scandals. I almost wonder if he isn't working for the CIA. Since people realize these stories are not true, then they believe the stuff about 9-11 can't be true. And that the assassination of Pres. Kennedy was perpetrated by Oswald alone.

Kathy

At the link below, you will find a 3-and a-half page plane crash analysis on the tragedy that occurred to John Kennedy, Jr and passengers. It's on Tom Flocco's site and it comes from Stew Webb, who got it from "Division 4." I believed this was on the up and up for a very long time. But someone here told me Flocco is a "sensationalist." Someone I trusted introduced me to Flocco's site. So, I took it as law.

Now I want members to read these short pages at this link and tell me whether or not this crash investigation is the real thing. Or is it left-wing disinfo? If it is, then Flocco and Webb are worse than my scandal sheets (Enquirer, Globe, Star) ever were.

I used the search engine here and came up with nothing on John Kennedy Junior, though I tried different keywords. So this is a new thread.

http://tomflocco.com/Docs/Interpol/index.htm

Kathy

If the motive was the overthrow of Castro, they achieved nothing by killing JFK.

Right, I agree with this statement, even if you believe it came from a different entity. John Kennedy died in vain. And Castro is still in power 44 years later.

Kathy

...at thread. We all think about the Dallas connections, the Cuba connections, Mexico City, but Hollywood??? Of course he and Sinatra were buds. I always believed Sinatra's son's kidnapping was a fake to get JFk assasination off the front pages. Have seen maybe one thing on this, (perhaps by John here at the forum?) that also finds this a plausible explanation of that whole werid event.

Now I really want to visit LA, Ca, many firends out there ....

What about Las Vaas, Hughes etc, for that matter the damn Morman church??

Dawn

ps:

Check in on the book section on the Tx. connection, questions being answered.

Sinatra, Jr. being kidnapped could well be a way to focus the attention away from the Kennedy Assassination. So too the death of Karyn Kupcinet. Maybe she was killed to get her father, Irv Kupcinet's attention off the Chicago angle of the Assassination -- Jack Ruby.

Kathy

I really appreciate the quality and quantity of discussion on this.

The overarching question is whether or not an invasion of Cuba was part of the original plot. I don't even know enough to have an opinion yet. But I'm unconvinced that the capture of Oswald would make it necessary to cancel existing plans to invade Cuba.

Granted it was a big snafu, but they could have played the Ruby card with the narrative propaganda that this wholesome apple-pie eating flag-waving American Mr. Ruby was so outraged at the actions of the Castro-coddling commie scum Oswald that he snapped and took the law into his own hands bla bla bla. The plotters and their mockingbird allies could then fan the commie-hating flames and proceed to manipulate the public and congress into a justifiable righteous retaliatory invasion.

Again, I'm unconvinced that the capture of Oswald would make it necessary to cancel existing plans to invade Cuba. The plotters were determined, ruthless, and powerful. Why would they so quickly abandon one of two objectives?

Unless Johnson, when put in charge of the cover up, simply wouldn't play along with the invasion scenario now that he had what he wanted. But if that were the case I'd think they would have insured that LBJ lose the 1964 election. And clearly he was willing to give the military industrial complex their Vietnam war in return for the crown they handed him.

I just don't know...

Good reasoning, Myra. I don't think Oswald was an accident. They, the conspirators, deliberately made him the patsy. They even had Kennedy's limo drive by where Oswald worked. But I believe they threw his name around so much, making him a "commie," and setting him up for the blame -- the lone assassin.

I believe he was going to be killed right away, but it didn't happen due to bystanders. Had he died right away, he was still going to be the patsy. Belonging to the FPCC, the backyard photos, Mexico, people impersonating him, his time in Russia. I think the real objective was to have someone to blame for the Kennedy hit. I don't see an invasion plan: they were passing Oswald off as the only sniper. If a pro-Castro nut did it by himself, where is the invasion of Cuba? How can you blame a leader if someone all on his own kills his enemy? The main objective was to kill Kennedy and they succeeded, except for Oswald being captured alive. If Oswald was the lone assassin, wouldn't he enjoy the glory of it all? Instead he told the reporters just what he was -- a patsy. His "brother" Robert claims to this day that LHO did it for the fame or, rather, the infamy. No, not in my opinion.

The intention was to kill Kennedy. Who really did it? Agatha Christie wrote a mysery entitled Murder on the Orient Express. It was made into a movie. One person on a train is murdered and Hercule Poirot, a detective, must find the culprit. Not surprisingly, it turns out that everyone on the train had a motive and they all killed him: he was stabbed in the back a certain number of times, each time by a different person -- a real conspiracy. Whose knife wound killed the victim? No one knows. So it can't be said one person did it. They all did it:

Lyndon B. Johnson

CIA-trained Cuban exiles

Rogue elements of the CIA

J. Edgar Hoover

Richard Nixon

Congressman Al Thomas -- who winked and smiled at Johnson being sworn in on Air Force One, while Jackie was there covered in her husband's blood. (Best Evidence)

The Mafia -- Giancana, Trafficante, Marcello, Jimmy Hoffa, Roselli...

Mac Wallace

Lee Oswald

Military Intelligence and Industrial Complex

The Secret Service

The Oil Barons, starting with Clint Murchison and George H.W. Bush

They all killed President Kennedy. That's why we can't single out any particular faction as the Assassin. There was no invasion of Cuba in mind, much to the Cuban Exiles' torment.

Kathy

Sometimes I think there are more Oswalds than there are Kennedys! It's gruesome but whose head and whose body lie in Oswald's grave? Why did the medical examiner take so long id-ing the dental records? Can we assume both Lee and Harvey are in the same grave, so to speak; as the head exhumed was separated from the body and there were signs of tampering on the vault, particularly on the bottom?

Kathy

Ok so it's widely believed that Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive.

Obviously this was remedied by sending Ruby to kill Oswald.

Aside from having to arrange Oswald's murder, what difference did Oswald's capture make in the way the plot unfolded?

I am among those who contend Oswald was not supposed to be captured alive, but am not among those who suspect he was to be killed "while resisting arrest," or anywhere near the crime scene.

If we comb through the fragments on display in the official documentary record, we find residual traces of what I contend was the intended plot, which was in some ways markedly different from events that actually transpired.

Oswald's dalliance with the FPCC culminated in precisely the result that was intended. He was identified in the media at the time as a pro-Castro firebrand, trying to do the unthinkable by recruiting FPCC supporters in New Orleans. Had it been a genuine effort on his part to actually recruit members, he presumably wouldn't have listed incorrect addresses on the recruiting leaflets. On the occasion he distributed those leaflets without being arrested, he did so only for about 15 minutes, just long enough to be photographed and noticed. On the occasion he distributed those leaflets and was arrested for clashing with Bringuier and his cohorts, even the arresting officer opined that the fracas had been staged. Rather than represent the FPCC, Oswald disobeyed every legitimate direction received by him from the NYC FPCC HQ. Instead of building a local chapter, his only achievement was registering on the local media radar, including filmed TV footage and a radio debate.

Leaving aside questions of impersonation for a moment, Oswald's approaches to the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City were equally fraudulent and self-defeating. According to the testimony taken from staff at each, Oswald seemed wholly ignorant of travel restrictions imposed on US citizens traveling to either country. Yet the real Oswald was well aware of all the bureaucratic red tape that this entailed, for he had already experienced same in his travels to the USSR, and in his repatriation. To bolster his eligibility for a travel visa, the Mexico City Oswald purportedly presented a brand new CPUSA membership card [LHO was not a member], which embassy staff found odd, since special allowances were made for CPUSA members, none of whom had ever needed to brandish a card to receive that special consideration. Oswald also allegedly presented a New Orleans newspaper article with a photograph of him being arrested. No such genuine newspaper article was ever published, according to the extant record. Again, this was not a genuine attempt to receive a travel visa; it was merely an opportunity to register him as a visitor to enemy embassies, and during once such visit to meet with a Soviet named Kostikov who would only later be "unmasked" as an expert in assassination and murder.

The incidents at Redbird airport in Dallas were staged for a purpose. An "Oswald" was sighted there prior to the assassination, as part of a group seeking to charter an airplane for 11/22/63. A plane sat idling for an hour or more on the Redbird tarmac in the early afternoon of 11/22/63, then eventually left. Subsequently, special attention was paid to an incoming small aircraft in Mexico City, and the alleged transfer of a single passenger to a Cubana Airlines flight that had been delayed there, as though waiting only for that passenger. According to an obscure little footnote in Dick Russell's "The Man Who Knew Too Much," after the assassination CIA had discovered luggage at the Mexico City airport for one Lee Oswald.

When Oswald was arrested, I suggest that there was no ID in his wallet containing the name "Hidell." Had there been, one might have expected any of the arresting officers - several of whom were contemporaneously interviewed by the media - or any of the DPD hierarchy to have mentioned that fact. Upstanding citizens don't use an alias, and those who carry false ID are immediately suspect for that fact alone. Despite the received history on this aspect of the case, it wouldn't be for a full 24 hours that the name "Hidell" was first uttered by those who arrested Oswald and purportedly found "Hidell" ID on his person a the time.

In fact, I suggest that all the so-called "Hidell" ID was actually discovered in the wallet located at the Tippit crime scene. This is why the name "Hidell" entered the nomenclature of the crime only after the rifle had been traced back to a mail-order buyer using that name, via Oswald's PO box. It was only when Captain Fritz was confronted by two wallets, both ostensibly belonging to the same suspect, that this became problematic, as we'll soon see.

Taking the foregoing into account, let us assume that shortly after the assassination, the man known as Lee Harvey Oswald simply vanished. What would have been left behind, and what inferences would have been drawn from that residue?

The wallet at the Tippit crime scene would have disclosed that a man named Lee Harvey Oswald, who also used the alias "Hidell," had killed a policeman. In tracking down this man's whereabouts, DPD would have discovered - as they did - incriminating photographs of Oswald posing with weapons. After the rifle had been found in the TSBD, it would have been traced back to Klein's in Chicago, and from there to a buyer named "Hidell" at Oswald's PO box. In short order, Oswald's masquerade as a FPCC radical would have surfaced, along with his criminal arrest in New Orleans, and the subsequent TV and radio appearances in which he advocated strongly on behalf of Castro.

Soon thereafter, sources within the US government would have disclosed that Oswald had made approaches to two enemy embassies in Mexico City, and CIA would have revealed - as it did - that one person Oswald met there was in charge of Soviet assassination plotting in the western hemisphere.

At which point, it would have come to the public's attention that a light plane had left Redbird airport shortly after the assassination, that a plane of similar description had landed in Mexico City, and that a single passenger had deplaned and entered a waiting Cubana Airlines flight bound for Havana. Conveniently, that passenger would have been identified as Lee Oswald, based on luggage that had mistakenly been left behind there. [so central to the plot was this airplane story that even after Oswald's capture, the tale was subsequently retro-fitted so that the mystery passenger morphed into several other Cuban actors with purportedly strong Castro allegiances.]

Had Oswald simply disappeared and left behind this breadcrumb trail of evidence, what inescapable conclusions would have been drawn, and what would have been the official US response?

The assassination didn't transpire precisely as had been planned. Yes, it succeeded in killing the President. It failed, however, to deliver the ancillary benefits of placing direct blame upon the Havana despot, as had been hoped.

The single most critical failure in achieving that end was Oswald being arrested with his own wallet in his own pocket.

It has long been my contention that if Oswald was framed, as the majority here seem to argue, then it is by locating and examining the elements of that frameup, pre- and post-assassination, that we can identify both the methods employed and those responsible for executing it.

When I had a chance to discuss this in person with Peter Dale Scott, whose own hypothesis is slightly different, he asked me "If the purpose was to incite a military response against Cuba, why didn't it happen?" I replied that Oswald's arrest had derailed the most critical aspects of the plan, for the same reasons outlined above. Exemplifying intellectual impartiality, he agreed it was worthy of further consideration.

I take it you don't believe the 2 Oswalds theory of Harvey and Lee by John Armstrong. Having Oswald on that plane at Redbird, flying to Mexico City, then onto Cuba was possibly Lee Oswald escaping from the U.S. We last saw him getting into a car with someone else driving and making a getaway. Did Lee become a Cuban or Russian citizen? He is not the one speaking badly annunciated English into a tape recording as he reads something written in English -- to my satisfaction that's Harvey who wasn't American in my opinion. Of course we know it wasn't Harvey getting onto any planes, as he was in police custody and murdered 2 days later. Lee must have been proficient in Spanish. His presence in Cuba would not seem too strange to the Spanish citizens. But would Castro harbor President Kennedy's killer? If he did, than he was behind the assassination after all.

Norman Mailer described Oswald being taken out of the front door of the Texas Theater in a near riot and seen by a store owner, being taken out the back door by 2 cops. Did Lee eventually return to the U.S.?

Kathy

Deleted. Sorry.