John Navin

This Sunday New York Times story details the failure of Scotland Yard to investigate the hacking by Murdoch's paper. Bringing it back to the JFK/Dallas realm, by studying today's news stories you can begin to comprehend what went on in America in late 1963 and early 1964. Collusion between journalists and intelligence/police to cover up -- it's often claimed that a conspiracy would need to be vast and include many people who would've talked -- but look at Murdoch's hacking scandal. The police let the evidence sit there and rot. It's taken YEARS to get people interested again...

Let's see here, what other similarities. Aha. Allegations of Murdoch "journalists" paying off corrupt policemen for information -- does the name Jack Ruby ring a bell? Was he posing as a journalist among his many friends at the police station? Was he working for an intelligence operation at the time?

Murdoch's media empire is better viewed as an intelligence operation created with specific political goals in mind. You start making progress on understanding the issues involved when you begin assessing the hacking as spying. It's somewhat like the Time/Life situation in the 50's and 60's -- Henry and Claire Booth have these little magazines which operate as propaganda vehicles and sometimes even more.

No such radio station as ADKA in the United States. There's a KDKA in Pittsburg.

Of course there's no such thing as a "left-handed scope," but who ever said there was? Straw man. The description I recall is that the scope was "set up for a left-handed person," or words to that effect. A different animal entirely, and a definite possibility. But quite right: there is no such thing as a "left-handed scope." Points for accuracy. And demerits to whomever mischaracterized a scope being "set up for a left-handed person." Warren Commission exhibit 2560 -- the scope was "mounted for a left-handed person." Oddly the WC failed to mention this in its "report." Just left it there to be discovered in the "exhibits" later. McAdams is misleading and distorting.

its a general understanding, when a felon is on parole, permission to leave the state he's been paroled to is required BEFORE he leaves that state? Showing up in Dallas with a hi, I'm here, is a no-no. According to Noyes, before leaving California, Braden had informed his Los Angeles parole office that he'd be traveling to Dallas. So he had done what was required. He didn't just show up in Dallas. Then, when he arrived, he was letting that city's authorities know -- nothing nefarious, part of his parole requirements. That's the problem with assuming Braden is part of the assassination detail. Highly unlikely, since he shows no quality of the "sneaking around" so characteristic of the other players in the drama such as Oswald, Ruby, Ferrie and the rest of the cast.

Almost certainly unconnected, but...wow...here's John Simkin's 2005 post on "The Georgetown Set" -- http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=4015 And I'm sure there's no connection to The International Police Academy which was located at Georgetown University, but if you want to read about it, here's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Public_Safety

More likely: Georgetown and the State Department have always had a close relationship. You can earn an international affairs degree at the school that can lead to a decent government career. And faculty members often come from State Department or other government backgrounds. An interesting bit of research would be to find who was teaching at the school (or getting a degree) in the Sixties/Seventies and see if they have any significant connection to the JFK/Cuba milieu.

The question is better framed "Why was it important for her handlers to make sure it appeared on her calendar?"

"The best evidence linking Phillips to Oswald surfaced in 1979, only to disappear in an apparent theft from the HSCA’s research materials: In 1979 investigators for the House Select Committee on Assassinations discovered a training film from the archives of Georgetown University. [David] Ferrie, [Lee Harvey] Oswald, [Guy] Banister, and David Atlee Phillips were all on an 8mm "home movie" shot in the summer of 1963 (Hopsicker 2001, p. 153). Antonio Veciana also appeared in the film, which was footage of a Cuban-exile guerilla training camp in Louisiana." http://www.bottleofbits.info/econ/Langley.htm

I recall much on Mitch Werbell in the Peter Maas book Manhunt, 1986, Random House. I think Maas actually interviews Werbell for the book -- can't find my copy, so I'm not absolutely sure. Here's the book: http://www.amazon.com/Manhunt-Peter-Maas/dp/051509014X Totally forgot about the Muammar El-Qaddafi connection -- some things never change.

So, just to make sure I understand the sub-text here...there are old films and recorded tapes of events concerning JFK in 1963 that keep showing up...old films and recordings that few have seen and that reveal new information? Is that what you're telling me?

From a probability standpoint -- statistically -- how likely is it that of all the films that could show the limo turn, none of them do?

"The Commission had also been informed about the Mannlicher-Carcano's defective scope -- 'the telescopic sight could not be properly aligned with the target' is how J. Edgar Hoover put it in a letter...the Commission neither mentioned nor explained at all that the scope was installed for a left handed person. Oswald was right handed." -- Robert Sam Anson, They've Killed The President, Bantam Books, 1975 Oswald must have been more than an expert shot -- he must have been a magician.

It's my understanding that Ruth Paine talks to people. An interesting thread might be a list of questions for her, specific questions. This would involve preparing carefully for expected answers and being ready to have follow-up questions. You'd want to record it for PSE analysis, etc. I nominate William Kelly as the right guy to come up with the questioning and then see who'd be best to contact her and ask the questions.

Greg, I believe you. Your recollection of the "other" film jibes with Richard Dellarosa and William Reymond. It's actually spooky to listen to your memory of it and then Dellarosa's and then Reymond's. Everybody's in accord -- very rare circumstance in detective work to have such basic agreement on key points. I don't think it would be a waste of time to reconstruct via animation the basic narrative of that mostly unseen film. In this kind of detective work, sometimes one's ability to understand is only developed visually. A recreation might open up certain knowledge-yielding contexts that have been missed so far. Also, I'm reasonably certain that this forum and possibly this thread are being read by someone somewhere who's been holding back on uploading the other film onto the Internet. It might even be someone we're all familiar with - the thought of a animation project might spur such a person to go ahead and find a way of YouTubing the "other" film.

Here's what would be cool: a frame by frame re-creation of the "other" film by a skilled computer animator, based on the recollections of those who've seen that film. The turn at Elm Street. The limo coming to a complete stop. Everything is corrected in the animation version of the Other Film. Let's just see what it might look like. Then, we'd have a visual reference point. It wouldn't have to include everything, just the relevant details. Since the Zapruder Film is an apparent re-creation, I don't see why an animator couldn't put together the basics of such a thing. Or, experts could comment on the creation of this version of the "other" film until some kind of consensus about its accuracy is reached.

Let's offer an invitation right here. If you have a copy of the "other" film, please be kind enough to upload it onto the Internet and then let us know where to look for it. I'm guessing that it's out there and available if someone at a news network had it available at one point. Or, someone with government access is itching to get it out there. Okay, let this be the invitation. Please post it and provide a link. Thanks.

I wonder why someone somewhere has yet to upload the "other" film onto the Internet. It could be done anonymously and without traces, under the right circumstances. Or, maybe it's up on the Net and I just haven't found it yet...

http://www.amazon.com/Documents-Government-Doesnt-Want-Read/dp/1616082267/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1302018568&sr=8-1 I know there's a Jesse Ventura thread already, but I think the publication of this book requires at least one new thread. I haven't read it yet, but I love the title.

Yes, I've seen that on-line version of the story and was not surprised to see the Bringuier paragraphs removed. I have no doubt that later editions of the story were hastily edited to remove his references to the FBI and CIA...most likely because they were accurate assessments. I assure you it's there in the original NY Times paper edition, which I've returned to its plastic bag and safe spot. I'd be delighted to show my old yellowed copy to anyone interested.

Then, of course, a couple days later, it's the classic headline: Dallas Citizen Shoots Assassin. The newspaper of record forgot to use the word "alleged" before the word "assassin" in violation of its policies. And I love how Jack Ruby is introduced to the world as a "Dallas citizen" -- what could more innocent than a "Dallas citizen"? Within a few days, we find out that he's a "nightclub owner." Then, weeks and months later "possible organized crime connections...close to many Dallas police officers." Aha. Oswald, intelligence-related. Ruby, organized crime-related. 2 lone nuts just wandering through history.

Okay, here it is. I pulled it out of the closet and took it out of the plastic cover. Yes, it's the New York Times for Saturday, November 23rd, 1963. "Leftist Accused" is the headline on the top half of the front page. The reporter is Gladwin Hilll. The quote from Bringuier appears in that article -- but further in the paper where the article continues from the front page onto page 4. Amazing, huh? Next day, complete "leftist" profile with Bringuier making the intelligence connection.

Carlos Bringuier is quoted in the New York Times THE DAY AFTER the assassination that he thought Oswald was working for the CIA. It's on the front page. I have a copy of that paper sitting in a plastic wrapper in my closet. I've always felt that it showed how anyone could figure out the basics of what happened almost immediately. I'm sure a few intelligence folks in Washington freaked out.

"HSCA: To your knowledge, did the CIA ever debrief Lee Harvey Oswald? MR. JONES: I have no personal knowledge of it. HSCA: To your knowledge, did Military Intelligence ever debrief Lee Harvey Oswald? MR. JONES: The Military Intelligence of my group did not debrief him." These are carefully worded non-denial denials.