Charles Drago

And so the figure in the doorway with the distinctive over/under shirts and the oh-so-tantalyzing facial features drives us to distraction. Oswald? Lovelady?

Yes.

Charles

Charles,

I am toying with the idea that Oswald is the man standing

beside the animated woman with

two hands in the air and that the man behind her is Jack Ruby.

Am I going too far?

Eugene,

Who am I to say?

My studies of the JFK assassination and related phenomena throughout history have focused on, for lack of a more appropriate term, more arcane aspects. As a point of general reference, I direct you to the recent work of author Peter Levenda.

The recurrences of doubles -- doppelgangers, agents, etc. -- within the relatively narrow confines of this site's main area of interest intrigue on any number of levels.

I write "doubles," but of course, in the case of LHO manifestations, we can count to ... what ? ... a half-dozen or more.

In an earlier post I asked, not rhetorically, if the Oswald/Lovelady figure in the doorway was a construct designed to create what I've defined as cognitive dissonance in the minds of investigators. I'd expand upon the question by noting that iron-clad evidence for the impossibility of forgery of the photos in question would hardly moot my point.

I'm lacing up my skates and heading for thin ice now, but what I'm referencing is the singularity most commonly personified and referred to as The Trickster. We needn't go skipping off into the realms of Bruno, Eliade, and Culianu to reach an understanding of this strangeness. We need not look beyond the works of contemporary masters of manipulation of human perceptions and behavior -- Gottlieb, Cameron, Delgado, and the rest of the BLUEBIRD and MK/ULTRA boys who in another age might have been labeled magicians -- to gain a workable sense of how and why JFK evidence has been altered.

The Oswald/Lovelady conundrum stops us dead in our tracks. The under/overshirts configuration stands out like a frigate bird's crimson puffery. Was this fashion statement rendered by others while LHO was in custody -- specifically to resemble the figure in the doorway?

Am I going too far?

Another example: Was the "terrible sound," as George Michael Evica has described what earwitnesses characterized as everything from a firecracker to a railroad torpedo, designed to trump the instincts and blur the long-term perceptions of protective agents and witnesses? This in addition to creating a tangible threat in the front of the motorcade that would prompt the drivers to halt their progress -- if only for a moment -- toward the sound?

There are studies focusing on the expansion of sensory input during trauma which leads to time dilation. Surely we can expand the definition of "trauma" to include the psychological as well as the physical. And the former surely was experienced by the innocent in Dealey Plaza that day.

Do I "believe" that the figure in the doorway -- at least in Altgens -- is a combination of LHO's body and Lovelady's head, or is the photo unaltered?

Yes.

Charles

I've comandeered the term "cognitive dissonance" to describe the phenomenon consciously generated by manipulators/forgers of evidence in this case. The Z-film, for example, may have been altered as much to be discovered as a "fake" -- and thus promote rancor and confusion among investigators and otherwise dilute our energies and mire us in secondary mysteries -- as to obliterate proof of conspiracy.

And so the figure in the doorway with the distinctive over/under shirts and the oh-so-tantalyzing facial features drives us to distraction. Oswald? Lovelady?

Yes.

Charles

Aw the Wiegman....I believe this is a better copy......

of the doorway....the smaller is about the same..

It could be showing someone on the left, in the back

of the doorway with

a camera......???

I have found the same frame from Wiegman, it may be

a little brighter..but blurred also, he was running at the time,

from what he said...

B

Bernice,

And to the cameraman's left, emerging from shadow, replete with the deep white "V" of T-shirt ... ?

Charles

Jack,

"If the photos exist and if Tom's embalmer wax study is valid, it is proof that THE

AUTOPSY PHOTOS WERE FABRICATED. What more proof is needed of

govt involvement? These materials NEVER left the control of the USgovt;

Cubans could not fake them; Russians could not fake them; Mafia could

not fake them, etc."

No argument from these quarters. But it is impossible for me to overstate the importance of separating the "how" and "who and why" questions when we address a public on whose behalf we struggle.

Wilson's work, if verified, will amount to dramatic support of the already arrived-at "conspiracy" answer to the former, and in all probability provide very strong suggestions for answers to the latter.

No time now to explain in depth 1. my argument that the segregation of questions as noted above remains the key to our ultimate success, and 2. the definition of "success" in our shared endeavor. FYI, I've presented and published at least three lengthy papers on the second subject at Lancer conferences and within the pages of "The Third/Fourth Decade."

To be blunt, intellectual rigor and the vaulting courage of our convictions are demanded as we move forward.

Be of good cheer.

Charles

For John Dolva,

I too am convinced that sufficient -- and then some -- intellectual and experiential resources present on this site to tackle the challenges inherent in replicating and evaluating Wilson's methodologies and conclusions.

Alas, having been around the organizational block thrice too often -- and at the risk of earning the epithet of "naysayer" -- I feel obliged to comment on the odds stacked against such an effort ever bearing fruit.

Put aside, if only for a moment, the probability that agent provocateurs are among us and await opportunities to turn any such efforts to their masters' advantage. I've witnessed my own initiatives to create a JFK-related amnesty commission, after the South African model, and to unify the at-odds JFK Lancer and COPA organizations go from white-hot, enthusiastic approval to absolute zero. And while without hesitation I indict myself for having done less than I might to move those operations forward, I must also report, with equal candor, that there are inherent weaknesses in the "I've got some material, you've got some lumber, let's build a stage and put on a play!" paradigm sufficient ultimately to render moot a program such as you so nobly envision.

Anyway ... That cautionary tale notwithstanding, I'll step forward to do what I can, from a non-technical standpoint, to make suggestions in the areas of communications, public relations, and overall planning of strategies and tactics.

For Peter Lemkin,

Thanks for taking the time to address my points with such clarity.

I would submit that Wilson's own verifications of his method are of zero probative value to a body that, in part, is "testing" the man's intellect and character. Of course they may be of some real assistance to the investigative process.

I agree with your characterization of the American body/mind politic as inertial. Hence the aforementioned offer to consult on p.r. issues. We must appeal to the intellect and the viscera simultaneously

A final note: Even if Wilson is shown to have led us down the primrose path -- innocently or otherwise -- we nonetheless can put to productive use fair evaluations of his work and his game.

Charles

John Dolva,

I am in full agreement with your suggestion that Wilson's work is deserving of intense and unbiased evaluation -- which would include, of course, testing on control subjects.

One caveat: Whatever the final verdict may be on Wilson, we forget at our own peril that it will have zero bearing -- repeat for emphasis, ZERO BEARING -- on the answer to the conspiracy/no conspiracy question.

Conspiracy in the case of the assassination of John Fitzgerald Kennedy -- the "how" of the crime -- has been established beyond reasonable doubt and, to borrow a term from a certain defrocked Jesuit, "to the degree of metaphysical certitude."

As for the "who" and, by extension, "why" questions, we'll just have to be patient.

It seems to me that the first steps must be to identify methodologies, then run control experiments.

One more thing: I have enjoyed private communications with a number of well known JFK researchers on the Wilson issue. Within the past 72 hours I have been urged both to pursue and to abandon this "all-important area of study" and "quackery", respectively.

The smoke rises. Presume fire.

Charles

For what they're worth, two recollections of Wilson in Dallas:

1. One of his wide-frame views of Badgeman shows, to the "shooter's" left, a figure apparently wearing a hardhat and peering through a hand-held object that seemed part camera, part binocular. I vividly recall thinking that the figures seemed hand-drawn -- and crudely at that. Or perhaps what I took for artwork, if you will, were byproducts of Wilson's processes.

2. Wilson was a grand provocateur -- not quite in GPH's league, but gifted nonetheless. He told us that he'd shared some of his work with Oliver Stone -- in particular, photos of the so-called sniper's window. "I told Stone," he said, "that he won't like what I found."

I must say that I'm pleased to have opened this can of worms. I don't see anything counterproductive coming from renewed interest in Wilson's oeuvre -- wherever and whatever it is.

Charles

Jack,

If Wilson did receive such authorization to view secret archives materials, then directly related official and/or private correspondence may exist to corroborate the claim.

Would the Kennedy family have the authority to permit access to "classified" materials at the Archive? Not to split hairs, but might we be talking about photos and other holdings owned by the family, who retain the rights to grant and restrict access?

Wilson's claim that he was working with "Congress" put me in mind of Knudsen's claim (reported by a surviving family member, if memory serves) that he testified and reviewed photos before what to most of us remains an otherwise unknown Congressional investigative body.

Charlie

If you are going to make such claims, I suggest that you back them with documentation.

My sources are Charles Drago and William Kelly. Have you read the damn thread?

Gentlemen,

Permit me to correct the record I may inadvertantly have skewed.

When I last heard Wilson in Dallas, to the best of my recollection he stated that he was working with the FBI and Congress. But it is not unlikely that I may have conflated those elements of the USG.

So I'm inclined to take Jack at his word in re Wilson's animosity toward and suspicion of the Bureau. But the FBI memory -- creative or real -- lingers.

If transcripts/videos/audios of the ASK sessions in question exist, we all would benefit from their production here. Is Gary Shaw able -- or willing -- to help out?

Again, my error for stating with such certainty a factoid that is anything but certain in my memory. I assure you that such an occurance is the exception to my rule.

Hope this helps.

Charles

Thanks, Bill. Your recollections are in line with my own.

Wilson's work cries out for peer review -- an unbiased scientific evaluation of the claims he made for his process. Absent same, it ain't worth a hill of Reilly coffee beans.

I'm reminded of the basic problem I have with forensic reconstructions of facial features from bare skulls. Where are the records of control experiments in which the skulls of known individuals are given "blind" to reconstructionists in order to test their skills?

Otherwise, as my dear friend George Michael Evica would answer the "science or detective work" question: Yes.

Since the approaches are neither mutually exclusive nor naturally antagonistic, I have the same degree of faith in each. And while I'm not yet ready to corral Wilson with the John Craigs of the world, the Wilson jury on which I'm foreman remains out.

Finally, I join you in the call for expert opinion of the sort we expect on this forum.

Charles

Forgive this rookie if previous threads have addressed the work of the elusive, problematic, late Tom Wilson.

Twice in Dallas, at ASK conferences, Wilson came forward to describe his computer-generated analyses of photographic material and present -- oh, how shall I put it? -- intriguing examples thereof.

I'll leave it to Jack White and others who have made photographic evidence the focus of their inquiries to comment on the technical and interpretational viabilities of his product and its proffered significance.

I'll simply provide one of many examples of his stunning claims as I quote him, just about verbatim, on his work on the Badgeman image:

"I can zoom into his eye, and from the 3D image I could prescribe eyeglasses."

At his final appearance in Dallas, Wilson claimed that he was working closely with the FBI on further development of his processes in general and the JFK evidence in particular.

Not long thereafter he passed, and now I'm led to believe that his son is guarding the work.

To my knowledge, Wilson's last public appearance was on a later volume of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy." Perhaps images from that production can be added to this thread?

By definition there is a likelihood bordering on certainty that the identities of the gunmen in Dealey Plaza that day remain unknown to all of us on this site -- save those who may be doing the bidding of their original employers.

And even then ...

The best hunters of humans in all the world: That was the population from which the assassins who shot John Kennedy were chosen.

SS Rat Line snipers? Shin Beth gunmen? Green Beret hardons? How novelistic do you want or need to make these speculations?

Failure, as they say, was not an option. Professionals were hired. They did their jobs. They successfully escaped the scene and evaded pursuers.

And then?

I doubt that they were subsequently killed. These people knew the risks attendent to taking the contract on the big vegetable. They would have provided for their personal security. The relationship between the gunmen and their cutouts would have been the equivalent of MAD -- mutually assured destruction should either party be the first to fire on the other.

They lived. They prospered. And they carried the memories of that special day to their deathbeds.

Not that one or more couldn't be alive even as we ponder their identities ...

Jack,

Perhaps you'll share your takes on Tom Wilson, the technical legitimacy of his work and the processes allegedly empowering it, and his motives as best as you can know them.

If there already exists a Wilson thread, please inform this newcomer.

As always, warm regards,

Charles

Brought back for Charles Drago

Jim Root,

Sincere thanks for hipping me to the thread.

Best,

Charles

There have been rumors over the last few years, that the DOD

had drawn up plans to use Army troops to put down any uprised

following the assassination. The question is, were these troops already

in the air prior to the assassination? The code name given was "Operation

Big Lift" which I have on 16mm footage. According to the DOD, this

operation was to send US troops over to Germany.

johnw

I must be out of phase.

Was "Big Lift" (if true) meant to deal with possible uprising in Europe or in the US?

Myra, does the code name ECOMCON ring a bell?

It is in fact a plot device created by Fletcher Knebel and Charles W. Bailey II in their novel "Seven Days in May," an "exercise" in which control of all American radio and television broadcasts would be assumed by the Pentagon, while the president would be in a secure location.

It was also a critical component in the fictional JCS's plan to overthrow this country's civilian government, led by a chief executive whose plan for unilateral nuclear disarmament was, shall we say, less than popular with the brass.

It is said that JFK at the very least admired the novel and made the White House and other USG facilities available to the filmmakers bringing the work to the screen.

Knebel especially was an insider of the nth degree. Apparently he knew whereof he wrote.

Beware of any Preakness pools.

Larry,

I still don't buy the need for any "sacrificial" TSBD team in order to intimidate LBJ. Too cinematic. Too dangerous.

If the kill was made, there could be no greater intimidation than that witnessed by Johnson in the Plaza and at Parkland.

If the kill was not made, then either JFK continues as president -- at which point Johnson becomes a piece of overcooked longhorn steak, and no plea to trade info for leniency possibly could save him (the Kennedys would have rounded up their tormentors soon enough) -- or the brother of a disabled former president, the newly, richly empowered RFK ,brings the bastards to justice.

The Dealey Plaza Massacre as evidenced in the state of John Kennedy's cranium was all the message Lyndon Johnson would have needed.

In this case, more is less.

Charles

I made this link comparison a couple of years ago, but I don't think I ever posted it on this Forum. Is this the same man in all three photographs, and can anyone identify him?

Duncan

The nose and chin match up, as does his taste in eyewear,

but who needed black glacier wraparound goggles in Texas?

The man with the wraparound goggles and hat with the headband is said to be that of Jim Braden at Dealey Plaza, before being taken into custody in the Dal Tex building by Dallas Sherriff deputy Lummie Lewis.

I'm not that convinced it's him.

BK

Ah, Jim Braden. His presence in the plaza was, IMO, strong proof of the Hunt klan's involvement in President Kennedy's murder, since he was a lackey for them.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhuntHL.htm

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKbrading.htm

That is one of the few times that I've ever seen Jim Garrison fooled. He said, in On the Trail of the Assassins, that he thought Braden was placed in the plaza as a red herring, to fool people into wrongly believing oil money was in the mix. Gotta disagree with big Jim on this one.

HL Hunt and that hideous Lamar son and that other son Whatsisname had the President's blood all over them. Not sure about Murchison... but probably. (When Nixon referred to "The Texans" I think he meant Hunt and Murchison. Input on this point is welcome & appreciated.)

So the Lamar Hunt Trophy, presented to the AFC champion each year, probably should be in the shape of, or at least contain a diamond chip-like slice from, the Harper fragment?

The other son, I believe, is Bunker Hunt. Which is what the Russian Army went on in Berlin in April, '45.

A plague on the house of Hunt.

Ron, that's a question we really should get someone like Ian or Sherry to respond to, I'll try to catch Sherry on it.

My impression though is that while it may be realitve easy to transfer prints on a very smooth material...say pick up a print

with a piece of tape and transfer it to a glass....that placing prints on a cardboard box is not nearly that easy. In fact there

was a lot of speculation about how easy it was for anyone to leave prints on the cardboard boxes unless there hands were

sweaty or someting like that. Great question, will try to get a professional response.

I have to say my own scenario is heavily influenced by Glen Samples work, Loy Factors information - which seems highly credible to me - and

some additional work I've done which essentially places a "sacrificial" team in the TSBD - as hard as that is too swallow. Well it would be

sacrificial unless the President/Johnson was being forced into it and then I suspect that even if caught he would have been able to come up with something

to get them out of it and cover up the whole thing..

-- Larry

Larry,

There's a question that's been bugging me about the Wallace prints. If they are indeed his prints, does it necessarily mean Wallace was there, or is it possible to plant fingerprints? Do you need the person's fingers, or just fingerprints to work from? The idea of planting the prints being, of course, to blackmail Johnson, whether Wallace was physically on the scene or not.

Ron

Larry,

"Sacrificial" -- Willing or otherwise?

This seems to be a needless complication, the sort of additional component that offers far more liabilities than strengths. There were any number of safer and, arguably, more effective methods of compromising Johnson -- if he were not wholly self-compromised by real complicity before the fact.

While Occam's Razor is a wholly ineffective tool for dissecting intelligence operations -- undertakings which by definition are protected by cover stories designed to satisfy the Occamites' yearnings -- it is a valid governing principle for the planning of black ops.

The fewer components the better, if you follow.

Acquire target. Kill target. E&E. Around this onion core, each additional layer increases vulnerability.

So if Johnson, for example, could be tainted at a Murchison gabfest on 11/21, what need for the risks posed by this sacrificial team?

Charles

Thanks Larry and Charles for the information. I wish I'd been at the Lancer panel to see GH in person. I gather from what others says too he is somewhat of a 'character'! I never know what to make of him from reading his forum posts. As you say there seems to be some truth in what he says but he comes out with a load of other stuff too!

I'm not sure what he thought Chelsea Clinton had to do with the JFK case though!

Larry, thanks I will go and look Harbor's photo up on the website. Now I'\ve finished the book I think I will understand all the info on there better.

Hemming, of course, drew no direct connection between Miss Chelsea and JFK. Rather, he offered the Clinton/McVeigh date as an indication of the breadth of his knowledge of black ops, an invitation to appreciate such an event as a means to threaten and control Chelsea's dad (and now, her mom) into silence and acquiescence, and a classic exercise in disinformation.

A true story? With Hemming, who can say? For all of us, who can dismiss it out of hand?

Which was precisely Hemming's point.

Charlie

Charles, your mention of Gerry Hemming's story is interesting, I haven't heard it before. Could you expand on it? By windbreaker man, do you mean the man who some people think is Orlando Bosch or Felipe Vidal?

I get confused!

Larry, excuse my ignorance but who is Dennis Harbor? I have not come across that name before.

Francesca,

GPH met with Gordon Winslow, Jerry Rose and me for a multi-hour breakfast on the day of Lancer's notorious (to some) Hemming Panel. He was alternately glib, intimidating, funny, humble ... and always in command.

It didn't take me long to realize that I was in the position of a Hollywood development director listening to what amounted to classic "pitches" -- story ideas, some wholly fictional, others a blend of fact and fiction, all intended, in my opinion, to disinform.

Among the most memorable:

-- Chelsea Clinton went on a pre-OKC bombing blind date with ... wait for it ... Tim McVeigh.

-- A former SS sniper/Rat Line emmigrant was in the NORTHWEST TSBD sixth floor window shooting at the guv with a weapon on full automatic. Hemming asked him, Why that particular target? "He didn't bid high enough." Aren't you worried that researchers will reveal your identity? (laughing) "Just make sure they spell my f***ing name right." (Responses mimicked in deep German accent.)

-- The dark complected man standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Umbrella Man and clenching/unclenching his raised fist as the presidential limousine drove past was the character I previously described -- according, again, to Hemming.

Very cinematic, wouldn't you say?

Hemming is a gem -- albeit a conflict stone.

That's all I have. Hope it helps.

Charles

Hi Larry,

in your book you mention that Tony Varona was a language teacher for Berlitz at one point - didn't David Phillips also have something to do with the Berlitz school? I seem to remember reading about it in The Last Investigation. Is this just a coincidence do you think or could there be more to it?

I might add that, during a preliminary briefing session for JFK Lancer's Hemming panel, Gerry identified the so-called Windbreaker Man (Umbrella Man's pally) as a linguist who privately tutored the children of wealthy Cuban exiles and was known as The Professor.

And if we have the author's attention:

Did you run across references to Field Operations Intelligence in relation to treasure recovery/transfer?

Hi Charles ~

Sorry, but Peggy only lets me out of my cage every other day.

No. Not that I recall. I know the term, but don't associate it with recoveries of Japanese loot in the PI. There everything seems to have been done by Willoughby's G-2 (with help from US Army Corps of Engineers) until CIA came on the scene and privatized it. However, in Japan, Willoughby re-focussed on having leftists and liberals assassinated, and employing Kodama, Sasakawa and other war criminals excused from Sugamo Prison -- so the US Army carried out most recoveries in the Home Islands. This is supported by US Army archives that cite an astonishing quantity of recovered war loot and drugs. This meant a number of organizations became involved in Japan.

Sterling

Sterling,

Many thanks. The FOI business is more than a hunch, less than a defensible hypothesis. At least for the time being.

Field Operations Intelligence has been referenced only twice -- to my knowledge -- in the canon, most recently and intriguingly by Dick Russell in "The Man Who Knew Too Much," and even there just briefly. That Richard Case Nagell connects to FOI -- or so he claimed -- and to intelligence ops in Japan, and to relatively arcane insights into Willoughby (who at the time of publication of Russell's tome was not at all appreciated by the JFK community) was enough to activate the radar.

Nagell played the FOI card very close to his vest. He intimated that the organization was important and, to paraphrase, above top secret.

Yeah, I may be far off the mark on this one. But the scent lingers in the air, like cordite on a warm, late November afternoon in the South, so we press on.

Charles

My point being that we have been deliberately selected to be under represented by forum moderators, and this was done, in my opinion, as an insult !

We are not the United Nations ...

Darn. I was looking forward to having Hugo Chavez come here and call Bush "El Diablo."

I'll send him an email, see if he is available. If not I will happily call El Presidente anything you require.

I appreciate the offer, and I must say that you are a full service moderator. Ok you're on.

I want you to call him what he really is: irrelevant.

He's the puppet the regime created, props up and controls. Charlie Mccarthy was more life-like and human.

So call him irrelevant.

Please and thank you.

And say it in Spanish like Prez Chavez would.

File this in the "Media Sophistication" bin:

On the day President Chavez offered his keen observation of the UN General Assembly's air quality, Chris Matthews keenly observed that the Venezuelan chief of state was making "fart jokes" at the expense of President Doody.

Crazy Chris missed the reference entirely.

What were the chances?

I would draw your attention to "And When We are Young," the ballad written and first performed by jazz saxophonist Phil Woods on the day RFK died.

Various renditions are available on CD. In any event, you ignore Mr. Woods at your incalculable loss.

I made the suggestion that the open umbrella in Dealey Plaza could be appreciated as the "signature" of the assassination's prime movers. After all, doesn't a mixture of hubris and mordant humor reside at the heart of evil?

For what it's worth, I've utilized this imagery (in a proprietary fashion) in a forthcoming drama. See Mr. Seagrave's second video disk for a rendering of the Umbrella's symbol as printed on documents and, if I'm not mistaken, stamped on gold bars.

Dissolve the image into that of the Dallas bumbershoot.

Which would make the Umbrella Man a bumbershooter ...

On a serious note: Would the author be aware of the existence of photos of Napoleon Valeriano c. 1963?