Richard Booth

Craig is a good guy. I've corresponded with him a few times and he once sent me a box filled with documents, correspondence and materials that relate to the OKC bombing. If Craig says something about firearms you can take it to the bank, and I think the photographs of him and Hathcock pretty much reinforce that. I have some disagreements with Craig but I'm not going to trash him for a difference of opinion. He believes there is a middle eastern connection to the OKC bombing, which I don't see. That connection is primarily advocated by a former CIA director and a group of neoconservatives who argue that the first WTC bombing and Oklahoma City were the word of Saddam Hussein and that one of the 9/11 plotters was a double agent of Saddam Hussein. I vehemently disagree with that. Craig thinks there is some validity to some of these claims and you can find his arguments for that in his book, Medusa File II. Regardless of this major difference of opinion I like Craig and think you can trust what he says about Hathcock and what he says about firearms. He's also very generous with his time and he went out of his way to help me when I was gathering materials for researching a book on the Oklahoma City case, and I am very grateful for that.

People will say and believe anything in order to "fit in" - when I tell people that the coroner in RFK's autopsy said that RFK was shot at point blank range from behind and he proved this with forensic science, demonstrating the blast pattern of gunpowder on the ear using a real gun with real pig ears their eyes roll back into their had and they say "but Sirhan was shooting at him" Notice I never said Sirhan wasn't shooting, but they don't see that. The obvious answer here is that yes Sirhan was firing a gun and that someone else shot RFK in the back of the head at point blank range. I suppose believing that means a person has to risk sounding crazy. What a world we live in where the obvious is considered crazy and the ridiculous is considered obvious.

I've been reading Vince Salandria's writings again recently and find there is much value in these writings that we can apply to the world today. Most specifically I see that Salandria's views on the Kennedy case are almost entirely a template that can be lifted away from the JFK case and applied to the 9/11 case and the template matches perfect: 1) An obvious, public and violent execution 2) A false mystery: it's obvious, but we argue the minutiae 3) Immediately controlled opposition critics appear from the woodwork 4) All the citizens compliantly abide by the official story, they're good little citizens who can easily set aside what their eyes and ears see and hear in order to believe in a fake story With JFK, we see quite clearly the president was hit by crossfire, was struck from the front-right yet we're all supposed to believe it was Oswald firing from behind, violating physics. Newton's 3rd Law of Motion is not as universal as cognitive dissonance among a feeble minded populace. With 9/11, the entire world watched as three buildings feel into their own footprints, hundreds of floors came crashing down into their own footprint and we are to believe that two of these buildings fell because of aircraft crashes and one of them fell because of "falling debris" or "fire, or something" It was the exact same sort of attack as JFK, very overt, very public, very arrogant, with clues everywhere that the people who carried it out don't seem to care are quite obviously there because they know they will remain in power and their narrative will be accepted by the public. The only thing about Salandria's writings I don't quite agree with or understand are what he says about the Soviets. Salandria asks, essentially, "how did the conspirators get away with it, without being called out by the Soviets for what they did?" I think the same thing about JFK, and 9/11: why didn't the Soviets and then later Vladimir Putin call us out for what we did? In the case of the Soviets I don't know the answer. What I can tell happened is that somehow, Khrushchev fell out of favor and he was forced out of office by 1968. Perhaps he was viewed as not cunning enough to handle the enemy they faced, and too ready to make peace against an opponent who would kill it's own President for making the same mistake so they needed someone else. Whatever the case may be, the Soviets were silent, they got rid of Nikita, and their press and KGB kept silent about the coup. Salandria argues that there must have been some kind of agreement. I simply can't fathom an agreement between hardline Soviet cold warriors and U.S. intelligence. I suppose it was pragmatism: the Soviets knew if they said anything about the conspiracy the world would say they were just spreading conspiracy theories. Maybe. How about Putin and 9/11, why didn't he say or do anything? Maybe because we have not called him out for the 1999 apartment bombings, or the murders of all the journalists and dissidents that he's carried out? Some sort of tactic quid-pro-quo.

Vince's wise words were as applicable in the late 1960s as they are today. I think of BLM in all the riots and murders happening when I read this: "The power of intelligence agencies increases in direct proportion to the degree of sickness of a nation. A healthy and united people can localize the cancer of a power-usurping intelligence agency and eventually extirpate its malignant cells from the nation’s political life. Therefore, the intelligence apparatus which killed Kennedy has a need to keep our society in turmoil. It has — in order to maintain its power — to generate a high degree of chaos. Chaos is required to make a people willing to accept such strong medicine as is administered by the secret police in order to restore order and to stabilize a disintegrating society. It takes an acutely sick society to be able to accept as palatable the terrible cure — totalitarianism." "For, although the military still looks to winning on foreign fronts the war against Communism, the super-slick non-ideological CIA sees the need to bring the war home. We must be alert to CIA agents who would promote the polarization of our society. We must examine the evidence which indicates that fake revolutionaries, who are inciting insurrection in our cities, have had their pockets and minds stuffed by the CIA."

Rest in Peace A national treasure. Brave. Intelligent. He truly cared and he made a difference. He had intelligence, class, humanity, decency, and to my mind he was a survivor. He saw the true horror that befell our country, not just the assassination, but this huge hoax that we're all supposed to just accept what is so obviously a lie and we're to pretend it's crazy to think otherwise. Mr. Salandria was having none of that. https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FalseMystery/VJS-FonziInterview1966.html

Looks like I'm late to the party on this one. I discovered this documentary last night and sent links to several researchers, I can see they're already familiar with it. This show had some major problems. Like James Norwood mentioned, the fellow who immediately after the assassination was telling people Oswald was a Marxist and that he was doing this on behalf of the CIA -- this was a good part. However, as with everything else in this documentary, they fail to properly follow-up. What should have happened there is they should have provided additional evidence of similar things occurring, such as those letters that were sent from Cuba to Oswald's house the week before the assassination, or the whole debacle with Sylvia Duran and how the CIA was immediately on her within days. These are not isolated incidents. We see here a concentrated effort to connect Oswald to Cuba, and there are a half dozen examples that could have been used. Then we have Rolf Mowatt Larssen with a classic limited hang-out. Maybe he truly believes what he says he does, but I really doubt that. Anyone who works for the CIA would commit career suicide to endorse what Larssen endorses here so I think we can infer that what he's doing here on this program (and at a recent conference) is acting on behalf of the agency. This shows that in 2020, the CIA is still very interested in this case. We see in recent years from the efforts of Max Holland that this is very much true. In addition, we also see something similar in how Ernst Titovets was treated. Milicent Cranor did a great job in illustrating how Titovets' "troubles" getting a VISA to visit a conference here was something that was probably by design, some kind of scheme put together to make Titovets appear threatening to the narrative so we'll all endorse everything he has to say. With Max Holland and Rolf Mowat Larssen we see the agency is still active on this subject. One thing I thought interesting was that among the photographs shown in Larssen's spread of possible CIA sponsors, there was a distinctly notable missing figure: James Angleton. That was interesting given that the program mentioned how Oswald's file at CIA did not reside where it should have (SR) and it is Angleton who I think most of us suspect is responsible for the shenanigans with Oswald's file. Overall this program just barely scratched the surface, failed to add additional detail, and it presents what is obviously a limited hang-out from a CIA officer. He didn't tell us anything we don't already know. It's what he DIDN'T say or who he left out that should be interesting to us.

I believe it's normal for people to have differing opinions and I don't see any particular need to argue with others or "prove" people to be wrong. It's just not that important to me, arguing.

I'm an Oklahoma City bombing researcher and have done a lot of work on this subject. The materials I have gathered relating to OKC consist of FBI documents, Secret Service documents, trial transcripts, newspaper accounts, a great deal of court records relating to the McVeigh and Nichols trials and other materials. I have also published a couple of articles about this case which have been curated by the editors at Medium. I'm writing a book about the OKC bombing right now, and want to get my writing out there on this case before the book comes out. Below are the pieces I have written on this case: Surveillance Recordings Show Oklahoma City Bombing Documents, Testimony, Detail FBI Seized Footage August 13th, 2020 | by Richard Booth https://medium.com/@rboothokc/surveillance-recordings-show-oklahoma-city-bombing-ca3e8a955418?source=friends_link&sk=686ed633320c0f614c7c2ecbd95fbe2c Mystery in Cassville The Oklahoma City Bombing’s John Doe #3 aka “Robert Jacquez” July 27th, 2020 | by Richard Booth https://medium.com/@rboothokc/mystery-in-cassville-cd7785cc5b5b?source=friends_link&sk=e771d78c78f90ef25333aaf6b280907c I'm starting this thread as a place where I can post and add additional information as I continue to write stories on this case, and for when the time comes that my book is completed and published. This subject is one that does not have enough students, and one that is also polluted with a great deal of just bad information. I hear this all the time: "McVeigh was a patsy" and all this kind of thing. Timothy McVeigh was by no means a patsy and was absolutely driving a Ryder truck in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19th, 1995, which he parked in front of the Murrah Federal Building where he detonated a bomb. Timothy McVeigh engaged in a criminal conspiracy with Terry Nichols and other individuals--most of whom have not been named, indicted, or apprehended--and this is the focus of my research. My interest is in those people who were seen with McVeigh in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19th who have not been captured. McVeigh was spotted by over a dozen people that morning and every one of these people saw him driving the Ryder truck with another man in the passenger seat. The man in the passenger seat has never been identified. Many of the details of this case have been covered by the news media only to be forgotten and to disappear. Here is one example of a news report that talks about this other suspect: For those who are interested, you can find this news report along with hundreds more at the archive at TLI. You can also find there many FBI 302 reports from eyewitnesses who saw McVeigh in that truck that morning, with a passenger. The articles I published on Medium have their sources cited and you can click on and view those sources for yourself. The sources are mostly FBI 302 reports and trial materials.

Well that at least makes your comment less weird. Thanks for apologizing and given that you did apologize I will add some other things here where my typical inclination would be to ignore. I don't follow threads here on the subjects you mentioned (the medical evidence and things related to Russiagate or Trump) so I simply am not familiar with things you may have posted. Regarding Jim DiEugenio, I think he has presented a great deal of well written research over the years and there could possibly be things that we disagree on. If there are, I don't even focus on that--I focus on those things he's said or wrote about that I find interesting and correct. The same can be said for other researchers, I follow them when they write things that I think are correct. I don't badger them or hold things against them when I believe they're wrong because people are flawed. There are probably researchers whose material I follow and enjoy who are in total disagreement with one another. Ultimately the worst thing about this community is the tendency for there to be cliques that fight with each other over the most absurd things. I've seen that in my own area of research (which is not JFK related) and it seems to exist in any and every community, it must be a normal human trait. That is unfortunate and it speaks to why a lot of people are silent or do their work alone without talking to others or networking.

You are incorrect. I was not referring to you. I do not know who you are. The other person I was referring to who went unnamed, and will remain unnamed, made some comments about DiEugenio on another platform recently. He said that we need to "get rid of Jim" and that he needs to go the route of Fetzer. Again, I wasn't referring to you and I do not know who you are. Here is a screenshot of what that person said about Jim. I am not going to name him because I do not wish to engage in personal attacks or internecine squabbles and feel it is beneath me and a waste of time. What I can say is this: It was not about you, but you assumed it was about you, which is weird. Then you told me to blow you, which is trashy and dumb. My final word on this to you is this: I was not referring to you. I really do not know you and don't have any interest in attacking you.

I didn't accuse you of jealousy. I don't even know who you are. My comments about jealousy was directed at David Lifton. At any rate, you're full of piss and vinegar and seem to be very angry but unsure why, or who to be angry at, and for what reasons. I will proceed to ignore you: "Don’t wrestle with pigs. You both get filthy and the pig likes it." “If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest.” —Proverbs 29:9

Classy.

I didn't even consider it for a moment. There is no reason to do that, no plausible reason whatsoever. You have mentioned Milicent Cranor on BOR several times, I've seen her writing on your site. So she has several pieces there and you have supported her work. Then, in addition, you have many excellent writings over at K&K and clearly do not need people to write things for you anymore than you would take credit for someone else's work. It simply does not make any sense. No reason to do it, and really the only thing David Lifton's post and accusation did was cause me to think he is not credible and may have some kind of agenda. I have seen another person trashing you lately (within the last week) and it was uncalled for. I believe it may be some kind of jealousy, actually. Your current work with Oliver Stone is recent, and I tie personal attacks I am seeing to that. There is no other plausible explanation for these attacks and the simplest answer, Occam's Razor, is petty jealousy.

Didn't Oswald also write a letter to the FPCC (national level) and tell them that he got into a street fight with some "gusanos" and this letter was written before he got into the fight with Bringuier? That whole street demonstration looked to me like an obvious provocation. There were cameras everywhere waiting to capture it, Oswald writes this letter about it happening before it actually happens, he demands to be arrested when he did not have to be, he asks to speak to an FBI agent when he's arrested, following the demonstration he appears on a radio program that is connected to an intelligence operation: Butler and INCA connected to the WDSU radio program. To me the whole FPCC thing was artificial. I think Oswald was participating in something and it was later used against him to paint him as a Castro supporter. At the time that he did it, that was probably not the reason for doing it (to incriminate Oswald) but rather had something to do with infiltrating the FPCC or discrediting it. It's almost as if Oswald's actions were mostly ineffective (the false defection, the FPCC operation) but later become convenient and useful.

Why would Jim or Milicent do that? The notion doesn't make any sense...

One example is when Oswald displayed pro-Communist literature to William Timmer when he was approximately 13/14 years old (in 1953) -- that is 8th grade. Then there is the time he advocated for Communism at William Wulf's house and got kicked out, though he was 20 then. For those anti-H&L folks who claim the Timmer information is incorrect, I suppose they would say it never happened. Those same folks put the Pfisterers time period at 1955 rather than 1959, which would have him advocating for it at 15/16 years old. So you've got him advocating for Marxism and Communism when he's 13/14 years old, and still doing so when he's about 19/20, which tends to indicate to me that he probably advocated for it more than just these two times over a consistent period of time. Probably did so for as long as he was familiar with the ideology.

I take issue with you referring to H&L related research as "doctrine." That seems designed as some kind of insult, as if it's an ideology or a religion. I find the H&L material to be very interesting and I've got some questions about it, and acknowledge that some parts of it could be incorrect. By your rationale that would mean I am not abiding by "doctrine." Of course, there isn't any sort of doctrine that's just designed to insult people. There could be many different variables, many different conditions or situations involved here that we are simply unaware of and I think it's important to acknowledge that. I'm here because I am interested in H&L and the evidence presented in that book which is incredibly compelling, and if there are some speculative things that could be wrong, well, that's fine--I don't demand perfection and I think it's insulting to refer to discussions of this subject as "doctrine" and then use reductionist thought processes to try to invalidate something you obviously have no belief in. I probably will not reply to any other comments of this nature because I am interested in productive discussion of this subject and am not interested in arguing with folks whose interest is merely to "disprove" something. It's the same reason I don't argue with people who say the world is flat, or debate with lone nutters. It's a waste of time.

Thanks Rob, I appreciate your thoughts on this and they were offered in the spirit in which mine were given. It's important to examine different ideas in a constructive way.

I'm still not buying it---if he's willing to espouse support for Marxism and Communism as a child that's going to bring the exact same sort of ridicule that speaking Russian is going to bring. It's just about the same kind of thing... It's no more or less alienating to speak Russian than it is to spend hours talking about Communism and getting yourself kicked out of someone's house for it. If anything, speaking Russian would have been equal to or about the same as showing off a copy of "Das Kapital" or saying "I'm a Communist." Another thing that doesn't quite make much sense: based on the thesis in H&L, Oswald's proficiency in Russian was supposedly obscured or hidden from the Russians, where he is not speaking it when he's in Russia and he's hiding this proficiency. The entire theory behind H&L is that authorities take a person who speaks Russian and they dispatch this person as some sort of defector to gather intelligence while trying to ensure the Soviets don't know that the person is a spy. If that were the case, then why is he speaking Russian and taking a Russian test when he's in California? You would think that he would NOT be given a Russian test nor would he advertise his interest in the Russian language lest later on down the line Soviets find this out when they're using illegals or other assets to investigate the guy over here. That Russian test, and the speaking in Russian around bunkmates seems to me was rather careless if your goal is to conceal this person's fluency in the language. To the contrary, he seemed to be advertising his ability. If the whole purpose of having Harvey Oswald is so you have this person who secretly understands, speaks, reads and writes in Russian then you wouldn't be advertising it in ways that could be discovered if the KGB were to go and investigate.

You raise good points. I know a person who was born in the Philippines and he speaks English with absolutely no accent at all. I was born and raised in Oklahoma and I have no accent. Regarding fear and ridicule, I think Harvey was the kind of person who wanted to stand out and be different than others. I can see him speaking Russian just to show he can do something others can't. Just to show he's better or somehow a world apart. I know that I was a loner in HS and if I could speak Russian I would have done it just to show people I could. I suppose people all have differing motivations; as for Harvey Oswald, he clearly had no interest in being a conformist and based on what I have read from people who knew him he was very clearly a contrarian. I did read from one Marines' testimony that he said he and the other Marines would try to get Harvey Oswald to speak Russian--this during the time Harvey Oswald was enlisted and serving in California and making a huge big show out of speaking Russian--playing Russian records, reading, calling himself Oswaldovitch. He clearly had no problem with it in the Marines, so what about when he was a kid? Well, young Harvey Oswald is constantly talking about Das Kapital and Russia--such as at William Wulf's house. He clearly had no interest in being a conformist and was obviously making provocative statements by speaking in support of Marxism and Communism. So this notion that he didn't speak Russian because of fear and an interest in conformity doesn't pan out in comparison to his other behaviors. I have seriously thought about this problem here, this issue of operational security with young Harvey Oswald and his Russian fluency. On the one hand he's making this big show about identifying with and supporting all things Russia/Communism, yet, he doesn't speak a word of Russian? It would make more sense if he did speak it given how much he talked about all the other Russian related things. So, how do the people with the Oswald Project guarantee that Harvey Oswald does not blow his cover and speak Russian around Americans? They had to have thought about this possibility and surely would not leave it to "oh well he wouldn't want to be teased" -- that isn't enough. If I was in charge of the Oswald Project I would say "not good enough. We need to guarantee he does not speak Russian around others." How do you do that? I've seriously considered the notion that maybe young Harvey Oswald was subjected to some kind of post hypnotic treatment. It sounds a bit bizarre but it does work, and has been shown to work, and we know that in the early 50s this was seriously being studied by the CIA. What could guarantee that young Harvey Oswald doesn't speak Russian until the time is right? A post-hypnotic suggestion and behavior modification designed to instill in him a directive that he cannot speak Russian around people. I realize this is all hypothetical but these are the things I think about when I reflect on the H&L thesis. I am convinced of the thesis based on the evidence from 1958/1959 alone, and then that causes me many questions... "Why didn't Harvey speak Russian around Americans more" is one of those questions... Other Questions: How do you guarantee Marge plays ball? How do you guarantee she doesn't ruin the whole operation? Another thing I think about: How did the Oswald Project staff guarantee that Mysterious Marge kept her damn mouth shut about the whole thing post 11/22? As soon as 11/22/63 happened, her gravy train was gone. Her job was merely to babysit Harvey Oswald and act like his mother, a job she did very poorly and here she is now on 11/22 and everything comes crashing to a halt. She was in a position to where, if she wanted to, she could have easily blackmailed the project's caretakers by saying "either you pay up, or I'm going to tell everyone there is something going on here." She did do that: Mysterious Marge said more than one time that her son was a government agent. This can't have been pleasing to whomever we think ran this project, surely that would have caused alarm bells to go off. So how do we explain Mysterious Marge's behavior post assassination? Speaking of Marge ... John Pic said this about her: "That is the only thing—I don't really believe she really believes he is innocent. I think she is out to make money than if she has to say he is guilty. I think she is a phony in the whole deal." She seems mentally unstable, unreliable, and a major threat to security for any kind of clandestine operation. In fact, if I ran this thing I would insist that Mysterious Marge know as little as possible. I would want a situation whereby she actually thinks Harvey Oswald is her child. I would realize that this crazy woman could ruin the whole thing and if she knew any details about the operation she would try to use that information for financial gain or notoriety. So how do we fit Mysterious Marge into all this: did she continue to be paid post-assassination? How much did she know about the project? Did she really believe that Harvey Oswald was her child?

Another thing I want to talk about here that isn't particularly related to anything I wrote before: We really need some Harvey and Lee video presentations. John's work on H&L website is impressive and his recent article "Marines and Soviet Union" would make a fantastic template for a video presentation that features on-screen photographs, documents, and other imagery that relates to the text. The article is mostly related to the 1958-1959 time period and I think the title of the piece is a bit generic, I would have called it something like "Double Games, Deceptions, and Defectors: Lee Harvey Oswald in 1958-1959" ... anyhow ... there surely must be some people among our student group who are familiar with video editing applications and could put something together. Len Osanic did a fantastic job with 50 Reasons for 50 Years, and we have many many videos on YouTube from other content creators who are passionate about other subjects... We should see some collaborative effort on the H&L material I think, it's powerful... H&L would make a very good reference research base for a video series or podcast. I can envision a 10-12 part series that is an hour to an hour and a half for each segment, with each segment covering a 1 or 2 year period.

The single biggest factor that would contribute to the height and weight difference is nourishment. You see this in North Korea where the average height of people has been abnormally retarded by widespread famine. Harvey is obviously smaller because of the neglect and abuse he suffered under Mysterious Marge who probably did not feed him properly. I went to school with a pair of fraternal twins and they actually looked very different: had I not been told they were fraternal twins I would not have even guessed they were related. I believe it possible you could have fraternal twins and one be several inches taller. I also believe it possible I could be entirely wrong on this suggestion. It's just something I thought about. One thing that often comes to mind is "why didn't Harvey have a foreign accent?" Another thing that surprises me relates to operational security: you can't expect a child to maintain OPSEC, so I can see a situation where little Harvey wants to impress the students around him and he starts speaking Russian. We have absolutely zero examples of Oswald speaking Russian and just have to rely on peoples' word for it. We have Demohrenschildt saying he spoke it very well and could converse about literature and read Russian. This speaks to a very high level ability. I watched Ernst Titovets speaking at an AARC thing yesterday and he was asked at the end how well Oswald spoke Russian. His answer was incredibly confusing and bizarre. He said something to the effect of "I will speak to you now in the sort of accent he had." Then Ernst Titovets says, without changing his own accent in any way, "I can read Russian, speak Russian, and understand everything you say" or words to that effect. I wanted to see what Titovets would say compared to Ziger. The Zigers as we know said LHO absolutely never spoke Russian in Russia. It is unfortunate that Titovets did not elaborate more on this. I would like to see him address the subject of LHO's Russian ability in more detail. I am convinced that there were two people using the identity LHO and this is best exemplified by the year 1958 when Lee Oswald was in Japan and Harvey Oswald was in New Orleans. Still, there are many questions that spring forth on this where I am skeptical: why no accent, why didn't little Harvey ever speak Russian to people? How did Harvey learn Russian, was he raised in a household where English and Russian were taught to him as a child? I think he had to be.

I want to preface this by saying my comments to follow are within the realm of speculation: Has anyone considered the idea that Harvey and Lee were fraternal twins who were separated at birth? I have often thought about the fact that if Harvey had been some kind of European refugee child he would have spoken English with an accent. The Harvey in H&L did not have any kind of foreign accent. Lee raised by his family, with Harvey becoming property of the U.S. government and living with a caretaker. He would be taught English and Russian in preparation for tasks he would later carry out as a young adult. At the time of their birth, 1939, the OSS and CIA did not exist. However, the Office of Naval Intelligence did exist and was conducting counterintelligence operations. In 1939, FDR granted ONI some kind of authority concerning matters of domestic security. Within this framework we have the project starting under ONI, and transferred to the OSS-->CIA during WW2, or at the very least CIA taking on some kind of 'caretaker' or 'overseer' role for the project. ONI would sitll play some kind of role, insofar as being involved in the two Oswalds' tenures under one identity in the USMC and being involved in some way in the false defection. In this framework the project starts at ONI and later is transferred to the CIA, or there is some kind of joint thing occurring here. Within this framework the general goal of the project is about the same as described in H&L: the project is designed to raise a child as property of the U.S. government (how cynical is that), where the child would be provided with an education, a caretaker, some semblance of family, and he would share his identity with a real citizen. The child who was "property" of CIA would be taught Russian and one of the project's goals would be to utilize him as a young adult in operations directed at Soviets or domestic communists. The Oswalds in the USMC: Another thing that I think about in H&L is how Harvey (and Lee) both had such irregular USMC careers. We have Harvey going off to training classes with Lee attending entirely different training classes, as John documents from the Marine Corps unit diaries and other records. We have times when Harvey is out of USMC entirely and he's working full-time as a civilian while Lee is serving at Atsugi. Then Harvey is inserted back into the Marines. In order to facilitate this completely irregular service record where you have two Marines serving under the same identity it would make sense for this project to be coordinated by CIA along with ONI. No matter which way you cut it, you have to have some kind of collaboration between the Oswald project's handlers and the Marines in order to have made this whole thing work, to have allowed for these two to just enter and exit the Marines at-will, like they did for training and like they did when Lee was stationed at one base and Harvey at another. So there had to be some kind of liaison or connection between Oswald project's owners and the Marines -- and ONI would fit perfect right there. Then I also think to interesting ONI connections: Ekdahl's divorce lawyer, Korth, was ONI. John Edward Pic worked in some fashion with ONI. Robert Oswald was USMC -- and you'll find some other interesting possible ONI connections in this piece: https://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2016/08/oswald-fred-korth-and-office-of-naval.html The overall thesis presented in Harvey and Lee, which I find to be really fascinating, just works better if you have twins and it's something I have considered before. Of course, the problem there is the program would have to originate in 1939 and that leaves really only one possible agency ... which is why I speculate here about ONI. Within this scenario, it turns out that the two children are not identical twins but fraternal twins which explains why they look slightly different. However, by the time that becomes obvious (2-3 years old) it's too late--the program has been going for a couple years, deals have already been made with family, things put into place... So they work with what they've got. It's just something that I've thought about from time to time: what if these two were fraternal twins. Imagine being Allen Dulles and you have the opportunity to take over, manage, and plan this kind of program: he would have done it. And for him (or whomever ran the Oswald Project) to have been successful they would have necessarily needed a way to have some level of control over Oswald's role in the USMC, whether that be when Harvey was pulled out of the service entirely while Lee was stationed, or whether it be when you are arranging to have Lee stationed in one place (El Toro) and Harvey in another (Santa Ana). So this again brings me back to this idea of ONI serving some kind of role in the program and possibly having been the originator of the program in 1939. All speculation of course, but I think some of these ideas should be explored whether the thesis I propose is likely or note, specifically whether or not we have ONI connections and how exactly the Oswald project would have pulled off all these switches and scheduling nightmares that came about during H&L's highly irregular USMC service. I've been following H&L for a very long time, listen to John every time he's on BOR, have read the book a few times and read threads on this forum and others from time to time. I especially like David Josephs' work on this subject and would like to look at the spreadsheet he's made on this. I typically do not post on forums because I have absolutely no tolerance for debates or arguments and won't spend my time going back and forth with the detractors, to me it's a waste of time. I'd rather just do the work and the research and not waste any time at all with "debates" and the sort of internecine warfare and factions that exist within this community and all the drama that comes with it... --Richard

This is a good piece. What is obvious to me: * Someone at CIA with a good understanding of how their records worked both wanted to (A) keep records on Oswald and (B) make it look like the CIA did not have records on this person, if it were looked at after-the-fact. This person was arrogant enough to think that this would not be figured out, but as we can see with Betsy Wolf, someone did start to figure this out. * CIA was immediately carrying out a plan designed to frame Castro for the assassination: within 24 hours we have contacts with Duran and Elena Garro, both of whom would play key roles in a ruse designed to implicate Castro and frame Oswald as a Castro agent. Meanwhile, we have letters being sent from Cuba to Oswald, in the second week of November, that also implicate him in the assassination. I think it would probably be a wise guess to say that it was James Angleton who was manipulating Oswald's file and having it sent directly to Office of Security. Angleton is the prime suspect here, he obviously knew the conspirators and he obviously played a role in carrying out actions in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Aberration in the Heartland of the Real: The Secret Lives of Timothy McVeigh by Wendy Painting Based on many first-hand interviews with principle subjects. There is a lot of information in this book about the Oklahoma City bombing. McVeigh was no "patsy" and this book makes that very clear, the key question is "who were the others?" that were not apprehended. This book does not answer that question but it has some clues.