David Andrews

Is there a single known image of LHO in a similar stance in another location and time? We're limited creatures with a small repertoire of poses. Even the photo of him as a cocky kid at the zoo doesn't work for me in context with the backyard photos. Today, posture, stance, and gait are all analytic indices to identifying photographed criminals.

I think Honest Joe is mentioned in Noel Twyman's "Bloody Treason." Don't quote me yet (I don't own a copy), but Joe may have known Loran Hall over gun-related business.

Hard to find the murder attempt on the web - just material on Hodgson nursing in Spain.

That may violate the archives' terms of gift from the donor, the archives' copyright, etc.

Jeanne De M. born in Harbin, Manchuria, something of an espionage crossroads. R. LeGon had a past of his own. Husbands blurt things when their contents come under pressure. Espionage provides many palliatives. WC Testimony of G DeM., 22 April 1964. Mr. JENNER. Is it your understanding that your wife's former husband, Robert LeGon, married your present wife, and after they were married, they--his name was then Robert Bogoiavlensky? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. It is my understanding. Mr. JENNER. And after they were married they changed their name to Le Gon? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I understand that when they came from China, they decided that the name was too difficult to pronounce, and they changed their name to Le Gon. I have always known her as Jeanne LeGon, my wife. She is still carrying that name professionally. She is well known--she is a well known designer, she has a name practically as a trademark. Mr. JENNER. She met Mr. Bogoiavlensky in China? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes. This is all hearsay, of course, because I was not particularly--- Mr. JENNER. She will tell us first-hand tomorrow. Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. I understand of her family--she also has Russian background. Her father was a director of the Far Eastern Railroad in China, and she was born in China and lived there. Mr. JENNER. Harbin? Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Yes, in Manchuria. Lived there until 1938. She came to the United States the same year I did. +++ Re: stamp collecting. Philately had a certain snob appeal in the 1950s-1960s. If you were a traveler to boot, you could trot out all your pretentious stories. It was the rich man's vacation slide carousel. Probably good for separating useful intel subjects from daytrippers and such.

Two important questions to consider: 1. Why did 'they' leave the apparent rearward headsnap in, which gave fuel to the conspiracy fire when the film was first shown on American TV in 1975? 2. How did 'they' ensure that the altered Zapruder film was consistent with the entire photographic record of events in Dealey Plaza on that fateful day? (Please spare us any reference to any of Jack White's 'studies', all of which have been debunked). I'd be interested to read sensible answers. Paul. 1) Because there is no way to mask the headsnap, only to do aftermarket explaining away - the "jet effect," the neuromuscular spasm... 2) It just does not match with all other photos in Dealey, as at the NW corner of Houston/Elm, and at the NW side of Elm east of the Pergola. It doesn't even match eyewitness testimony (Hill, Moorman). After multiple viewings of the photos and films, there are nagging dissimilarities that you can sense even before you tote them up. See also edited post #16 above.

Darkening the back of JFK's head to mask the rear exit wound blowout. Sanitizing the view by reducing number of frames in which blood spray appears, making temporal wound seem an exit wound. Painting in an overlarge temporal wound skull flap to disguise frontal entrance. Making the timing of the shots harder to establish. Masking wounding of JFK with overlarge Stemmons Freeway sign, now undamaged by rifle fire miss.

From your photo, Paul, you're a young man. When you were 24 years old, did you, or anyone that you knew, have such demonstrable intelligence associations (to put it broadly) as Oswald had at 24, and for several previous years? No one I know did. No one my friend, an Army captain, knew, did. Something was up with that Oswald fella. Way too much action in his life to be a loner, or an unaffiliated operator.

I recall reading not long ago that Fr. Huber once also claimed (or told Jackie) that the sacrament was administered to JFK's bare forehead, when another source established that the head was wrapped in sheeting by the time the priest arrived. That may be on a thread here, but I didn't keep track of any lay conspiracies.

quote name='Bill Simpich' date='Nov 3 2009, 07:57 PM' post='173970'] [Andrews] "Maybe that was the thought creeped out the old Senate power-broker in the Air Force One toilet. It probably creeped him out again when he "denied himself" the nomination, knowing or sensing that he was giving the seat up not to Bobby after all, but to the old hard-line anti-communist, Nixon - the Black Prince of our tragedy." "The Black Prince of our tragedy." I think I know what you're referring to, but I'm not sure. Could you expand on that? Bestubbled dirty-fighter Nixon - unloved in 1960 compared to golden JFK. Unloved afterward by the GOP that Nelson Rockefeller was seeking admittance to. But once super-rich, divorced Rocky couldn't beat extremist Barry Goldwater in the "popularity vote" for the GOP nomination 1964, in 1968 all that Rockefeller money got behind RMN, a potential Vietnam hardliner who - unlike Goldwater, it seemed - could be controlled by the money powers. If LBJ could not win the war, who was the logical successor? Not CIA-friendly Gene McCarthy, certainly not vengeful Bobby; never the corrupt colossus Goldwater, not the unelectable (and never-elected) Rocky - Nixon's the One! Really, in the chaos of the post-Kennedy Vietnam era, who did the electorate and the money think was going to inherit the White House? None other than the once and future pretender - Richard, Black Prince of our tragedy, anti-communist hard-noser. the anti-Goldwater, the Rockefellers' own anti-Nelson, a comfort to the Silent Majority of ordinary American conservatives. My point: Nixon was the Vietnam War candidate for the GOP, the one that they had needed in 1964, but whose 1960 defeat was still too fresh to countenance then. Rocky, Goldwater, Stassen - none of them were ultimately electable, Goldwater was not deemed controllable. Nixon was destined to be the GOP prosecutor of the war, "controlled" and finessed by Rockefeller protege Kissinger in his first term, and in his second by the Rockefeller clique of Haig, Butterfield, et al - who ultimately brought RMN down, and paved the way for Nelson as unelected VP.

JAM was a veteran, which is how he learned sniping and evasion. I've seen internet speculation on JAM as an MKUltra subject, or other mind-control subject, but I have to reserve judgment at present.

G.P. Hemming, found by Tom Scully: 'The Connally hit was a "separate deal" and the west-end window shooter had no urgent intent at hitting either JFK, nor anybody else in the "J/Canoe" -- but if he had to complete his contract by switching the "Broom-Handle Mauser to full automatic ["spray & pray"] he would have unhesitatlingly done so !!' *** I'd hate to challenge GPH on weapons capability, but the Mauser C96 (even with detatchable stock) on Connally from the west end of the TSBD? And opened up at full auto from that height? The mind rebels a bit. Thanks, Tom, my bad. Why would it be necessary to "hit" Connally? To jumpstart a Cuba invasion?

Well, I was trying to answer it in terms of the original question, a schoolteacherly habit. If I was lecturing, I would have made my case along different lines. Wish I could do that in a classroom.

Something I thought of today, re: the bulge under DCM's white jacket. Somewhere in all of Gerry Patrick Hemming's mixed bag of tricks, he noted that there was a guy in Dealey carrying a "broom-handled Mauser pistol," of WW I variety, prepared to empty it into the limo if all else failed. I think Gerry said that in one of his posts on this forum, but I don't have time to search for it now. Someone else on this thread offered info that DCM was there with a "machine gun," prepared to use it at close range in case of failure. Same guy, same gun? For some reason, every photo I try to upload is claimed to be too large for available space, even when it says it's not. So here's a Wiki link to the Mauser c96. Mods, why does the upload feature do this? Conspiracy? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broom-handle_Mauser

The head-on shot on Houston would have prevented the limo from entering the true kill zone, where David Ferrie's vaunted "triangulation of fire" would be in effect, and the combination of multiple silenced and unsilenced weapons would insure confusion over shot direction, down to conflicting witness testimony. Maybe a useful question is, why would triangulation and multiple shooters be necessary, if it was all to be pinned on one man with a matchable "pristine bullet?" To provide options for explanation? To guarantee total confusion? If the latter, it surely succeeded.

Well, like I posted above - people do things for conflicting reasons, or give out reasons that conflict with reality. LBJ was caught in several hintings of conspiracy during and after the Presidency, and seemingly for conflicting purposes. Shakespeare told Kevin Costner (in "JFK") that one may smile and smile and be a villain. Well, one can cry and cry, too. Just watch courtroom broadcasts on cable. P.S. - This is no knock on your argument, but Barr McClellan's book on LBJ is an ephemeral historical work, so slight it isn't even really there. It's one insubstantial anecdote - a business associate of McClellan's and LBJ's told McClellan that Lyndon had had Jack offed - surrounded by a hundred pages of innuendo. This does not make a complete book, much less a useful history, and I'm amazed that the small money involved could induce a publisher to accept what, by rights, should have been a one-page magazine piece. This does not mean that I believe LBJ was innocent - but he and his Suite 8F clique were essentially ground troops for the real kingmakers, who resided at a further economic remove in the business and politics of oil, drugs, military spending, and globalist-inspired anti-communism. LBJ was perhaps only as responsible as Edwin Walker or Joseph Milteer or Ed Lansdale, and just as disposable. Maybe that was the thought creeped out the old Senate power-broker in the Air Force One toilet. It probably creeped him out again when he "denied himself" the nomination, knowing or sensing that he was giving the seat up not to Bobby after all, but to the old hard-line anti-communist, Nixon - the Black Prince of our tragedy.

"Apparently LBJ conducted much of his business from the hopper." How could I forget that, Bill! It drove MacNamara crazy. So - more support for McHugh.

You can see it that way, and I am sure-as-heck too cynical to rule out the crying thing as a cover story, or - if it happened - as an LBJ-manufactured excuse for why he was distraught. However - big murder, big conspiracy, and big debts are traumatic things, maybe producing momentary regrets, once one sees the upshot and responsibility of one's own handiwork.* And Johnson expressed other conflicted behavior, in prattling on, early and late, about conspiracy and "a damned Murder Inc. in the Caribbean," to what seemed like different purposes at different times. So the man was not unflappable, not unafraid. Of something. I have no doubt the man was "in on it," but to what degree of responsibility and action? Maybe, in an instant, it seemed less than he had imagined, and being suddenly thrust into the bloody target seat, still warm from Jack, unnerved him. He did, after all, retire Kennedy's desk. (And Nixon didn't bring it back.) Gloating? Sweeping change? Fear? This is biographer's meat, and we need to cut and cure more of it, so better biographies are written, and very good ones (Robert A. Caro's) might be perfected. +++++++++ *Sidebar: I referred above to Johnson being, "unmann'd" by his guilt, in the language of Shakespeare's Macbeth. We should recall that in 1967 "MacBird," a rather well-received satirical play on Johnson as the king-killing usurper, and Bobby as the avenger, was popular off-Broadway. So the "Johnson did it" view was contemporary. And I find from my JFK and RFK research that works - even fictional works - written soon after such events do catch much important fact and opinion that was in the minds of witnesses and the general public. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacBird

It's possible, despite report of the secret midnight meeting the night before and Johnson's reputed boasts about the outcome, and despite every "Johnson did it" scenario. The multiple wounds on Connally may have scared LBJ. It might have brought home to him that, however much he himself was involved in the coup, higher powers than his small-oil Texas right-wing cronies had to have given the green light first. And even Macbeth was "unmann'd" by his own deeds. FYI, I read of McHugh's discovery somewhere else recently. If it's important, I'll try to track down where.

"Ah, that "CIA, Next RIGHT"sign always makes me laugh [to keep from depression]! How apt! A sign of our times!" > > Notice that Richard Case Nagell makes comedy out of that sign in his most famous Verdestein letter.

Hope they're good. Over the last three years I've been reading a number of agency and bureau histories, "unauthorized histories," and "secret histories." Most come off as fawning and slight. One book on the CIA-FBI relationship, "Wedge," by Mark Riebling, has only a half-paragraph on Bush's CIA directorship. The time seems right for upgrades of the offerings of the 1990s and the post-9/11 cash-in books. I wonder if people would chime in and post their candidates for best books on intelligence and investigative agencies, US and other.

Good point reminding us that Mary and Jean strayed into the no-spectators zone, Bernice. The opposite side of Elm didn't seem forbidden, though - so one wonders what might be being concealed from whom. The knoll fence from center-mall spectators?

"And David, to address another one of your points - I think Americans enjoy arguing with each other, like brothers fight, as it develops a good sense of competition. Things get sluggish when there's no competition." < < It really is one of the key American myths in film, and it has one of three typical outcomes: At the end of the picture, everybody proves themselves by banding together against the common enemy, and 1) everybody goes home somewhat damaged, but proud. ("The Horse Soldiers," "Alvarez Kelly") 2) the biggest malcontent proves the greatest hero, sacrificing of his life for the others. ("Air Force," "Major Dundee") 3) the hero actually gets it in the end, but his sacrifice inspires the malcontents to soldier on righteously ("Saving Private Ryan") See "Platoon," the "Star Wars" movies, for variants. The story filters into non-war American films as well. Is this the seminal American myth? It descends from the Gospels, like Puritanism from the Exodus. This must look typically self-absorbed to our global members, a Greek vase cartoon of our character.

"Yes, the idea of a sophisticated hit team employing a man with an umbrella as a lookout is ridiculous. However, so are many other things that the conspirators did. Planting a nearly pristine bullet, for instance. Nobody would do that, unless they wanted to draw attention to the obvious incompatability of CE399 with any real bullet on the planet. Or using such an obvious low level mobster like Ruby to silence Oswald in the midst of all those police officers. Even as a seven year old, I instantly realized how absurd that was." "I have been accused of hijacking this thread, but would like to reiterate that "Chittybangbang" by side, the position taken up by the UM if he is signalling to a shooter then this is a valid argument in favour of the throat shot originating in a narrow field between the Stemmons sign and the limousine." > > Not to keep pushing, but TUM and DCM are indices of how connected and how disconnected the plotting is. People from disparate groups are working in DP. They're lucky if they all see each other beforehand, much less if they know each other. So many circles of opportunity had failed before to coalesce, in Miami, Chicago, Tampa. In the park-like center and north pergola areas of the Plaza, there is opportunity for crowds to bunch in the green areas and curbsides on the north and south of Elm Street, and for people to spill into the street. By chance, it didn't happen, but not because any plotters were shooing people away from the Stemmons sign. The shooter teams need a man at curbside at the beginning of the last optimum fire zone, to announce whether a fatal hit has been given yet. The fewer rounds fired, the better. This signaler has to be distinguished from others in a possible curbside throng. Not even the Cuban hitters have time to search for a familiar face. So he's announced as the guy in the white jacket, near the guy in the dark coat with the black umbrella. The umbrella may not have been a political statement at all - just an image overkill to make sure that the signaler was identified by proximity. Notice how, in his vicinity, DCM was the only person in the street, except for Jean Hill and Mary Moorman just west of him. No crowd was there, at that remove from the office buildings, to urge people forward - only purpose and desire.

Whenever I see William Holden play a CIA officer in the somewhat underrated spy spoof, "Casino Royale," I think of Phillips. Too bad no Hollywood-struck Cuban said, "Maurice Bishop? He looked like William Holden!" There should be more typology in identification. Holden made several films touching on the cold war or its anxieties. He would have made a great Graham Greene-style ugly American in a Caribbean adventure - he had that comic-absurdist executive/spy thing down cold. Phillips looks most like Holden in that photo of him under the CIA road sign. Though Phillips looks booze-hollow there - dessicated, as if secreting a load of bad teeth in the back of his mouth