B. A. Copeland

Larry I am not sure if Malcolm ever verified if Weiss was a Lt. in the 112th. Investigating that would probably reveal newer leads.

Sounds like it lol.

Thanks Bart. I don't understand why Marina decided to withhold so many names of certain individuals in the document.

Talk about a great cliffhanger whilst reading documents.....can anyone shed any light on what those "high level" individuals showed Weiss that "scared the sh*t" out of him??I am referring to the document produced by the ARRB titled "Intial Conversation With Stephan Weiss Of The 112th M/I Group" and am absolutely curious but definitely understand that he most likely never, ever revealed it to anyone :(...According to the documents, what scared him was info relating to the Warren Commission (I assume from his use of "WC"). Thanks to Uncle Malcolm and Barto, document can be found here: http://www.prayer-man.com/gifts-from-uncle-malcolm-part-6/ . This is absolutely fascinating and I lost just a teenie bit of sleep just wondering what in the hell could it have been....I couldn't find any topics concerning Weiss here so I thought this could server as one for sure and if one is ever officially created of him, this can be merged. Great small set of documents on Weiss and the 112th.

Fascinating studying David....that .38 special ammo request bit of info....that is something else....also, your bit here: It certainly does but I am also trying to process a fit for William King Harvey down there as well....but when looking at mexico City I definitely don't want to focus too narrowly, or else, as Blunt so masterfully put it: "you lose stuff on the periphery".

Perhaps also...Dr Newman shouldn't have classified himself as such? I mean I've no idea but just a possibility. I am very curious as to what his thoughts would be on such a term, I'd also love to know the same from say, Alan Dale, I believe I know what Simpich would think lol, or Malcolm Blunt. I mean just look at how David Von Pein (as an example) uses it...Personally it seems too simple a term that is never really clarified these days and of course, used pejoratively so much....I think its also too narrow (I could be wrong) but I wouldn't say Dr Newman's a "conspiracy theorist" in the sense that he is more of an investigator, which could indeed involve or include conspiracies of any kind but not necessarily. The mere fact that the CIA hunkered down on the term and used it the way they did is probably worth a case study. The powers that be have essentially taken an otherwise innocent, intelligent term and used it in such a way as to denigrate and attack intelligent discussion, thought and even individuals.

Thanks Barto.

Much appreciated John and thanks for the response and permission to use said work.

* Any information concerning the notes of one Joan Higdon(?) (Church Committee?) and the 2 researchers whom she mentioned as having "explosive" evidence, who were then also seemingly attacked whilst driving unfortunately...I can only imagine what explosive evidence did those 2 actually find...how they found it, etc...This all from the esteemed Malcolm Blunt of course.

Been fun working on those reports Dave lol (even had to title them "Boylan/Rep -1, 2, 3 etc). Its more reading and reading which is right up my alley. Back on topic though, Simpich had an interesting bit on USAF and Webster: The police work goes on and on lol. Thanks for your work as always. (source: https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/State_Secret_Chapter1.html)

Thanks for the response David. I have to digest all this. As for your interesting language question regarding Marina and Marguerite....I take it you believe Marina knew English well enough to converse?

I never meant to truncate anything you said and if you feel that way, I certainly apologize. "Butcher"? I never intended to do that, I don't need to as your post in full could easily be linked to in my own response or quoting of your words, no worries. Of course, this all assumes Marina took the photos. "trivial" is your interpretation or view of what she probably felt or thought about such details as she was asked about and it is that which I sought to respond to. You're probably correct in your interpretation of what Marina may have felt but who knows. I went a bit off the rails with the bit on the focus on the photos themselves but tried (and perhaps failed?) in tying it together with my above excerpt and in the end, certainly is my own opinion just as well.

Is it possible she was lying or mistaken? Isn't there a discrepancy concerning what camera she used? Also you're citing a known plagiarist and also, unfortunately, someone who wasn't concerned with unearthing the facts in this greatly complicated case but beginning with the conclusion or hypothesis that Oswald was guilty and worked from that conclusion to prove said conclusion and that is circular reasoning, just as Bugliosi commits ("we know LHO is guilty....therefore"....no we don't, not necessarily and that is what and why we're researching). You could've cited many more astute authors and researchers, regardless of your agreements with their theses. Stop merely citing those who believe LHO's guilt. Many authors, who believe it was a conspiracy also provide excellent facts and research. Well....no sarcasm intended but that could be an issue when you're researching to uncover facts. We've got to dig deep more times than not. Are you kidding me? Was that photo so "trivial" on 11/22/1963? Those photos were used to hang him and this "cocky" and "arrogant" "assassin" even said he would prove the photos were fake. I think anyone can argue that those photographs are certainly a big deal, especially allowing the possibility that they were created in order to frame and/or convict LHO in the public's mind. The photos, who they were taken by and how they were taken is no triviality because of how those said photos were used against LHO. Even then we have oddities to and fro of numerous backyard photos. It doesn't seem to make any sense if Lee were up to this all on his lonesome. However.....

Thanks as always Larry! I don't think Carl Jenkins ever gets enough research but then again I haven't read everything lol.

That is an interesting focus David because I do know for sure that Simpich (at least sometime ago) cited Gregory's vouching for LHO as one of the strongest proofs of LHO's proficiency in Russian. I do believe that Walt Brown doesn't believe LHO knew Russian very well (please correct me if I'm wrong) and I wanted to toss the Gregory bit at him to see how he'd dissect it. If it can be broken down, perhaps this could be something relating to the fact (and lack?) thereof of LHO's evidence of knowing Russian. Also, this motivates me to consider this....say LHO did not know Russian....then lets consider Mexico City and how the man on the phone spoke "broken Russian"....I mean what the hell? Doesn't that almost jive with the alternate possibility that LHO did not know Russian all that much lol? If LHO did know Russian (putting aside the H&L bit) then its bad for the conspirators, and if he didn't know Russian it could've actually worked for the impersonated phone calls.... I know there is so much more to this than I will probably ever know (hell, Blunt himself won't go near Mexico City lol).

Thanks a ton john (and David + whoever created said diagram). That is an amazing diagram and I will definitely check the site out. John if the site ends, what of your work?? Why does it "end"?

"Now wait....isn't it documented that JFK's body left Parkland in Sandy have you ever read Twyman's book Bloody Treason? I found it very interesting when I first read it where he mentions that there was certainly another corpse in the autopsy room that night, that of an USAF officer(?) This was specifically mentioned on pg. 207 (254 on the .pdf): (Bold) emphasis mine, posted with the rest of the paragraph that I found relevant.

Interestingly enough John, and certainly related to your own thinking here, was that someone or somewhere I read recently, asked a rhetorical question concerning such a huge event in Dallas, Texas that day, namely, wouldn't one expect far more photographers and even cameramen operating that day as part of the local and national media? I believe the speaker was surprised at how relatively little there seems to have been officially or how little we have as far as videos and photographs even compared to what one might naturally assume give how important and unique such a visit would have been. As I read or listened) to that I couldn't help but to wonder how much media was possibly confiscated and/or destroyed, be it films or photos...its annoying and frustrating.

I can easily see someone being hit in the back with a round (whilst wearing a back brace, mind you) and throwing their arms up like that. While his hands and arms seem directed towards the throat, I never see him actually clutching it but that the shot has always seemed to me to be one of just him reacting to a powerful hit in the back. I'm always open to the facts as this is my speculation. I don't blame anyone who doesn't necessarily believe JFK is reacting to the throat wound though.

Could any of this have anything to do with the WH communications 'black out' on that day?.....this is deeply fascinating and thanks VInce for it.

My pleasure Mike. Yeah if you really want to get to the bones of Simpich's hypothesis I would encourage you to read State Secret and listen to his audios found at Alan Dale's site: Bill Simpich 1 Bill Simpich 2 State Secret Also are other amazing audios by Peter Dale Scott, Jim DiEugenio, Larry Hancock, Jeff Morley, J. Newman, Malcolm Blunt just to name a few: http://www.jfklancer.com/audioconversations.html Hey Jim, doesn't Nechiporenko essentially (or indirectly) toe the WC line concerning LHO?

Hey Dave, do you (or perhaps Larry? Jim?) know who De Torres' Case Officer was?

Couldn't agree more Mike, concerning the fanboy bit. I really try staying the course on the evidence and frankly, that is the element I love about 2 great researcher's works (Simpich and Newman for example) and how Simpich basically (and respectfully) disagree with Newman that Angleton played a big role in setting up LHO, especially in Mexico City (please correct me if I'm wrong someone (or Dr Newman!). Simpich says Angleton was duped by Harvey/Morales & Co (this implies (possibly?) a rogue group) in more ways than one. Dr Newman doesn't seem to mention Harvey or Morales much in his older work (Oswald & The CIA) which is very interesting when you consider just who Harvey and Morales was in the conext of the Secret War against Cuba. Its really challenging for me NOT to consider those 2 when you get to Mexico City and I believe we're just probably at the tip of the iceberg....there is probably so much more to know but I think some light is certainly being shed into those events. Mike, from what Newman has presented, it seems compelling that Nosenko was not a bonafide defector. I was just listening to even Malcolm Blunt and Dale's talkes (I never get enough) where Blunt himself has always been skeptical of Nosenko's bonafides as well based on the evidence we do have.

Thanks as always Dave! Just more possibly interesting leads I’ll definitely look into when I have a moment Paul, thanks. I’ve been devouring you and Steve’s posts on Military Intel so this fits right in.

Thanks Mike. Honestly I don’t remember much more than that but Mike posted an interesting link. I’m with you. Radio shows are certainly a tool or resource but at the end of the day, we still have to roll our sleeves up and even check any particular show’s hosts/guests claims and work. I safely take it all with a grain of salt, if I haven’t come across any confirmation or corroboration myself.