Larry Hancock

Beats me, if he can copy a photo into a post maybe it would work...not something I've ever tried.

Robert, that just means that its a file you saved into the download area of your computer. To share it you would have to upload/publish it to some site on the internet. Perhaps you could email it as an attachment to one of the moderators who could in turn publish it here? Otherwise you would have to email it to someone who operates a web site who could publish it there for linkage.

Paul, first off, given that you cite Wrone in regard to one of the most fundamental elements in your theory, you really do need to do that work yourself....apparently Wrone himself does not cite a source or you would have given it to us so at this point you are really just relaying an opinion or statement from him. Several of us have given you data which would seriously challenge the point that it was Hoover who personally initiated and orchestrated the "lone nut" scenario but clearly that is not what you want to see.....if Wrone really has some primary source (not just his opinion) its not up to us "prove Wrone wrong" because so far we have seen nothing that proves him right or for that matter gives us any insight to why he would make that claim...or if so I have missed it. -- just my opinion of course, Larry

There are others much more qualified to comment than I but I did a good bit of hunting as a young man and its not necessary to see the bullet in flight. Often you can be pretty clear about where the strike was from watching the target you shot at the time of impact.

Well played Greg....grin

Paul, I'm afraid I'll just have to wait for you to find the specific reference, I certainly don't think you can say something that specific is implicit in his writing. I had the opportunity to spend a good deal of time with Gaeton, discussed the Odio affair at length with him and specifically talked about who might have visited Odio. Certainly he thought Odio was telling the truth and was sincere. However I cannot recall any point at which he stated he believed that Hall and Howard had been the individuals visiting her - I recall a very different opinion on his part about Hall and Howard. However if you can find that specifically in his book I will fault my memory and cede the point. -- Larry

Paul, could you refresh my memory with exactly where Gaeton said that Loran Hall was a central figure in the assassination....

Venessa, the "annex" was a covered parking area to the west of the building....not sure but I think there was a gated/screened access off Elm that may have been used for shipping access at one time but on Nov. 22 it is closed...you can find photos of the tramps walking in front of it. The loading doc was on the back side of the building from Elm street. Both the covered parking area and the loading dock are gone now.

Sifting through the Hemming documents again is a fine idea. I did that for both Hemming and Sturgis and others like Howard, Hargraves et all several years ago but there could likely be a more documents available now. I did review all of Hemming's contact documents with the CIA, especially for the brief period in which he was a provisional informant after his return to Cuba. I also looked at a whole series of contact reports with the FBI. He and several others of his crew did that somewhat routinely, apparently just to establish some sort of relationship - albeit one way. Its really educational, even if there turns out not to be much new. Its also very useful to compare what is in the reports to what he was saying to the media at the same time or commented later in his extended online time. I'm presuming you have the Twyman book so you could also compare his remarks to Twyman to the rest. I should be clear in that I do think that Hemming did hear certain talk and gossip about the plot both before and after and he may have - as he told Twyman - just decided not to get on that train and stay. Having some knowledge would put him at risk, explaining his brothers remark that he needed to become essentially "unreliable" just to protect himself. However on the point you mentioned, could you give us at least a brief set of points showing that Hemming did have personal contact with Morales and Bannister. That would be helpful. Its probably also important to remember that Hemming actively accused Sturgis of being a "snitch", which he indeed was circa 1963, actively providing a broad range of info to his CIA handler.

Paul, the answer would be that many of us who have studied Hemming extensively simply cannot take anything he said as being valid unless independently corroborated. He has been proven to have circulated misinformation, his brother is on record as saying that Hemming intentionally circulated conflicting and misleading stories and that he did so frustrate and obfuscate. Although I consider him a brilliant individual I arrive at the conclusion that I certainly could not separate wheat from chaff in regard to his information, especially in certain areas such as his remarks about Hall whom is mistrusted and may have tried to cast blame on to get him out of Hemming's own hair and away from his contributors. I do think he may have come close to expressing some truths to Twyman but then pulled back when he had a chance to think about it and simply stirred to pot further. I know you use certain information developed by Joan Mellon, you might want to ask her how she came to feel about getting "help" from Hemming.

Ron, I will be interested if you get an actual explanation of what happened with the site....honestly assuming you were kicked off just for JFK material sounds a little paranoid. I've written three books which are at a minimum unflattering to several government agencies, especially the CIA, and I've seen no response to either the books, my web site or my blog... No threats, no harassment, nada. I'm not saying it never occurs but I'm not sure its reasonable to assume that's an outstanding risk for conspiracy research in general. In the meantime I need to make sure those helicopters flying past are just routine military and not black and unmarked... usually even those just wave though....grin

Just for a bit of context, the following study might lead one to at least be a bit skeptical that the FBI's evidence handling is always that reliable ....nor to mention their forensics and criminology lab work.... http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/20/us/politics/fbi-evidence-keeping-criticized.html?_r=0 Realistically it also seems that the Bureau's labs and expert testimony is open to challenge: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/csi-is-a-lie/390897/

Robert, are you possibly confusing Marita Lorenz a bit with Odio here? I don't know of any links between Odio and Sturgis and Odio's mother was certainly not NSA, Fonzi described interviewing her family after they made it out of Cuba and her Dad was just scrapping by. Also, never heard of Odio committing suicide, last I heard she had retired to Florida and that was after Fonzi had spent so much time with her and the HSCA. Could you be thinking of Lorenz on that?

Mark, indeed, as usual there are indeed a number of conflicting testimonies about Odio - after all this is JFK research, how could it be otherwise...grin. However her remarks were very likely colored by jealousy and that certainly comes through in her book and elsewhere. What I have to say about the Odio incident is in SWHT, no need to repeat it here. I can see a scenario where Oswald was there, one where he was not and a third in which he was there in a different context than we see in her statements - and one which would have worried here much more than a simple visit. And I find nothing to resolve the three states - its sort of like quantum physics, once you touch the Odio incident you likely "fix" it in the state you want to see. Basically I see it as an open mystery and as much of a diversion in regard to the events of Nov. 22 as anything else. After all, its not like we don't have other sources placing Oswald in company with mysterious Cubans, or that we have evidence Oswald was being "maneuvered" by mysterious Cubans, etc. Personally I consider the McKewon incident to be much more significant and more likely... However, there are are points such as Odio's letter to her father, which did describe the visit, that corroborate the incident occurred and that here visitors were playing some sort of game with her. There are also some personal things going on with her at that point in time that have to be factored into her reactions during that period of time. This post is too long already, if you want more on that drop me an email or PM. -- Larry

Mark, the only problem there is that there are a number of reasons not to believe Mrs. Connell about pretty much anything related to Sylvia or their mutual friend the priest....out of curiosity, have you read Connell's book?

Well folks, this is what I call research and what the Ed forum could be all about...well done Robert...

I certainly would not portray Oswald as totally entranced with the American experience...still, he had come to prefer it to Russia and who knows how his idealism might have fared in Cuba. We do know that he agreed to tell the FBI if he was approached by foreign agents (in his first post Russian interview) and that he did proactively contact the FBI in New Orleans. No doubt we would disagree on how many of his actions might have been driven by other agendas, I'd just say his behavior was often situational. He was an American, looking for something better than the established American experience - which was a bit bleak from his position in life - and pretty clearly looking for adventure along with that. I just don't see any solid proof that deep in his gut he "hated" America, nor JFK for that matter.

David, his visit to Russian (in which he did not legally defect as I recall) even in its simplest form reflects more curiosity than hostility. Its not like he contacted Soviet agents in the US or spied for them while in the Marines or performed sabotage or anything of that sort. And if you read his draft manuscript after his return if anything he was more dissatisfied with Russian dominance and manipulation of the Communist and Socialist agenda than stating any fundamental hatred of the US. DeMohrenschieldt described him as a proto hippie, socialist and liberal and progressive. And he turned to the romance of the Cuban revolution over Russian bureaucracy. Finally, take a look at his final speech in which he expresses his real concern that the US might be threatened by a military coup. If anything he suffered from an excess of idealism and a tendency to be annoying and disdainful about the American establishment....then again so did a lot of us in the 60's. Some of us even enlisted in the military despite that...sort of like Lee Oswald.

Actually this would be an ideal topic for education. It would take some work but there would be no reason why a list of all the primary films and photos could not be prepared and posted - listing issues with chain of possession, disappearing masters or footage, indications of image loss etc. The same sort of thing Mark Valenti did with the list of folks who had seen the second film. Then folks could get very specific in focusing in on whether the issues are simply human error or bureaucracy or something more questionable.

Certainly not a place I'd want to be seen....even visiting....

I'm concerned and feel that Venessa is expressing a very germane point. Although I would love to see less sarcasm and less negative comments, the end result of this is that you may end up with few posts with actual data and simply an ongoing series of opinions and expositions. That's fine if the intent is simply to provide a forum for expression but it could end up being pretty shallow. As I've proposed before, perhaps there could be an area for real research where posters have to offer documents, photos or actual data of some sort as well as a separate section for simply expressing their views and opinions. It would certainly would save time for those inclined to be interested in factual content vs. general dialog and commentary.

David, just to understand...are you saying the Marines had two personnel stationed in Japan, both named Lee Harvey Oswald - and that one went to Taiwan while one stayed at Atsuki and both had active medical records at the same time under the same name? Or does Harvey have records under a different name? And yes I have read John's book and listened to him present many times but that was not my impression of what he was saying....just trying to make sure I'm following you.

Mark, I'm guessing that it could be the plastic bubble top. Actually that was a sectioned, fold-able item that would be carried in the trunk and taken out on the spot to be used if the weather called for it. Its possible it may even have been on the car initially since it was raining and then removed - I've never seen that stated but its a possibility I suppose.

One of the more interesting points it the document is the confirmation that the Mullen Agency participated in a cooperative relationship with the Agency, lending itself to serve as a work cover and most likely an information conduit as well (those redacted words would be most interesting). If I'm reading the document correctly Hunt was actually given QKENCHANT clearance to essentially manage CIA contacts when his boss was not available. I wonder how many other agency "retirees" were farmed out and given clearance to run contacts for cooperative companies? In any event it confirms a number of things about such commercial relationships which we normally just speculate about....

Thanks for making that clear Paul, it seems to me everyone can make their own judgements about Harry as a source and your inclusion of him in your theory so I have nothing particular to say. I think it is good to have your comments on the thread.