Larry Hancock

If nothing else, his activities in NO - whatever the motives - would have made him an potential candidate for AMSANTA. For all we know a brief meeting with Phillips might have been no more than a screening interview. And at its most basic, if Oswald had somehow managed to leverage his mediocre FPCC history to get a Cuban visa, it would have posed all sorts of opportunities. In fact it might have set Oswald up to be in the same position he was in when he drafted his Soviet manuscript upon his return from Russia. That could have been a beautiful anti-Soviet propaganda piece if he had not suddenly changed direction - former Marine reports on "Soviet treachery in worldwide communist movement". Who knows what sorts of options might have been dangled to him. If we knew what the CIA memo that Bill Simpich really meant, the one that refers to Oswald "maturing", we might get a lot closer to the truth.

Yes, I definitely meant New Orleans. However I suspect that he pursued his self adopted role in Dallas to a great extent than we know. There were some great studies of this in the old Third and Fourth Decade magazines but if you check out his notebook, his letter writing and magazines, then the array of people he mingled with in both New Orleans and Dallas you find virtually every target group that the Bureau would have been interested in - from CPUSA and SWP, pro and anti Castro Cubans, ultra right figures and even the ACLU. Take a former Marine, married to a Russian wife, a socialist if not a full fledged Marxist, a Cuban revolution advocate and dangle him in front of that range of targets and see who approaches him about what. Classic. It doesn't matter if he is taking orders, general directions or just doing what interests him. Yet we are supposed to believe that the FBI subversive division lost track of him for months at a time.....

Tommy, my remarks were speculation about Oswald's overall feelings as to his activities in New Orleans, which I see in a very broad role in regards to being a source on all sorts of activities - initially activities of interest to the FBI. The FBI was just as interested in aborting exile gun deals and new raids into Cuba as it was in exposing Castro agents or pro Castro Cubans inside the U.S. So literally any Cubans Oswald might come in contact with would be interesting to the Bureau. Oswald may very well have been playing spy at a low level, passing on information....while at the same time other factions were using him for their own purposes. INCA had its own propaganda interests and effectively "ambushed" Oswald, taking his history and building some potentially powerful propaganda pieces - such as the Oswald record - around it. To what extent they may have been encouraged in such efforts by CIA officers is unclear but certainly they were "directionally" consistent. My view is that Oswald was building on a role that he had developed in Dallas, contacting a variety of potentially subversive groups and reporting any approaches they made to him. In his very first FBI interview upon his returned he had promised to do that and at some point it became a more developed pursuit for him. And while he was doing that he became visible to a number of different groups and individuals with their own agendas. By the time he returned from Mexico City, he simply had developed into a very viable patsy.

I'd really hoped that with the expertise available on the forum we would see some serious discussion of the material John Hunt found and described. Since this is far outside my line of expertise I would like to see thoughts on who was doing these path studies when, why they would be considering the path in item number 9 at all and in general what these photos and skeleton probes might suggest. Of course its also strange that we have photos of probles in pristine skeletons and nothing of the sort from the actual autopsy - although one or more witnesses has described the use of probes. And if they were not used then...why not? Rather than focus on John Hunt or everybody's individual theory, how about some critique of the actual items he discovered.....

JFK Lancer had just posted some fascinating research from John Hunt. You can view it at: http://jfklancer.com/hunt/WCSkeleton/Warren_Commission_Skeleton.htm

He has been asked, hopefully a response will be forthcoming...

Al, I think you cut to chase on the issue and I would like to be clear - as I hope I am in the most recent edition of SWHT - that I do believe that the autopsy began to be manipulated and maneuvered, as early as the multiple arrivals at Bethesda. I find Siebert and Oneill's observations - and their contemporary report - extremely critical and I think they expose the fact that there was an ongoing process of evidence manipulation. Its important to remember that in the end, as long as the official record contained nothing absolutely confirming multiple shots, that was all that was needed. The fact that that there are no photos clearly marking the wounds, as any legal protocol would require, and that years later the Doctors could not even identify them for the ARRB....and joked about it....speaks for itself. When Clarke would tell Johnson the good news was that the Doctors had reviewed the official evidence and found nothing to contradict the single shooter conclusion, he is very literally telling the truth. Its only what is in front of the camera that counts, everything going on outside camera range does not. As with the attack itself, I'm not concerned with any attempt to prove in shooting details, there were multiple shooters. And the physical evidence was managed over a period of time to ensure that simply was not "too obvious" - given the extent to which the WC and its staff was able to ignore so many obvious problems with the official story that obviously was not really that much of a challenge. All of which is simply my opinion and contributes little to the thread other than allowing me to go on record....enough said...

Paul, I'll drop Bill a note on the 1171 CIA documents...

Paul, could you provide some detail on your last remark? What JFK documents from what Agency....and did the President override the agencies involved, related legislation, the judicial review system etc. Sounds interesting but we need some details or at least a lead to chase...

Ray, first off could you cite a source and individual for that quote...always helps. Also, when in the treatment process? Certainly what the intern described could have become more visible during treatment - which had not truly begun by the time he got pushed out. Beyond that, I'm just trying to pass on first hand remarks from a witness....I long ago gave up personally debating wounds, trajectories, locations of shooters......

OK, I've posted this before and I will do it again since to me it could explain a good deal of the controversy about a rear wound. We had one of the Parkland interns speak to us at a Lancer conference. He was in the emergency room very early and was kicked out as more senior personnel arrived. He described elevating the head slightly by picking up under the rear of the skull - and feeling the skull to be literally cracked across a large area, similar to the effect from cracking the shell of a hard boiled egg. He felt it as pulpy, with the skill essentially being held together by skin and hair. If his assessment is true, certainly the efforts to save the President, combined with body transfer in Dallas and transport could well have resulted in a much more apparent rear wound than at Parkland. Or at least it seems so to me.

I should point out that her followers are both eager and active. I've seen a number of recent posts on various Facebook groups with them promoting Me and Lee as essential reading on the case. That sort of fervor has a great impact on people new to JFK research and they too are very sincere so its extremely convincing to the novice. There really is no equivalent, very public push at libraries, metro newspapers and outlets etc going on so it really stands out and is just the sort of sensational and somewhat final solution that sells well from a PR standpoint. I expect to see her getting far more attention rather than less.

William, I don't think the film is on line as there were lots of follow on legal issues related to its handling and availability. However, you can read the full story of the film and an analysis supporting the view that it does not show anything suspicious at: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/paschall.txt Which is just one more reason I'd like to see some independent photo researchers do a broader time line and photo montage bringing all these things together. Maybe there is nothing suspicious at all going on in the three to five minute period following the shots....or maybe there is.....it seems like a worthwhile line of inquiry but up to now the detailed analytical work has all been on the debunking side of the question, with no equivalent counter arguement.

David, I certainly understand - and didn't mean to imply there were not suspicious behaviors in the photos. Number one on that list for me is the very strange behavior of the "umbrella man" and "beret man" who seem to calm at all times and seriously violate some normal personal space constraints. As to the Hesters, I also understand the time delay issue but wanted to point out that people's reactions are pretty unpredictable, I've seen folks run to shelter from a tornado when he storm had already passed - after they had almost impassively watched it bear down on them before hand . That's why a montage/time line struck me as a really serious opportunity for some new photo research. While its perhaps not possible to absolutely time stamp, it would certainly be feasible to do it roughly starting at the time of the shooting and then lay out a photo series showing who responded and what they did....focusing on where they appear to have looked or responded to what they felt was the location of the threat/shooting. That would be a more objective exercise and test the Hester's reaction as well. My gut tells me there were people at the top of the steps looking over the fence and behind the pergola just about the time Mr. Hester moves to the rear of the pergola...but that is a gut feel only. Lots of folks do photo work, its something new they could tackle and at the same time give us an objective head count of who was really looking where for the shooter.

David, I guess we have gotten to the point after 51 years where virtually anything can be taken as suspicious.....and a lot of that is based on the logic of how things should have gone. I see a good bit of that on more than one thread. The problem is that in the midst of a shooting, of the sort of chaos that occurred during and after the attack, I'm not sure that logic serves as a satisfactory benchmark. I've never been in actual combat but I have been in a couple of pretty dangerous situations and I can say from experience that some of the actions and reactions of those times were reasonable but a number of things that I and others did at the time look pretty strange in retrospect. About the only thing that really means is that I'll just bow out and leave photo interpretation to others....

David, I don't follow the concealing something view but I've always felt that Hester and a couple of others who ran to the rear of the pergola clearly seem to be looking to the back and to the left, showing us that something was going on behind the pergola and towards the area behind the fence. It gets their immedaite attention.....you can confirm that in the much more recent film taken from the Records building which shows movement behind the east side of the fence...with someone apparently running in between the fence and the parked cars. It would be very interesting to see a photo montage of all the folks who immediately tried to look behind the pergola and the fence and contrast that to the number of people looking upwards towards the TSBD. Of course that would be circumstantial and proves noting - but it would be an interesting study none the less. No doubt this will get me another note from Gary M. ...grin.

Pat, thanks for coming back on that and clarifying Frazier's position that it was Lovelady on the stairs. I'm not in touch directly with his son but might be able to come up with something in that regard; I'll give it a try.

Carmine, beyond that I'm pretty sure that if she had been as involved and as visible to the conspirators as she has claimed its unlikely she would have lived passed Friday - a conspiracy brutal enough to kill a President is unlikely to leave obvious loose ends, especially with Oswald immediately in custody.

Just to chime in a bit on the concept of "blackmail", whether you want to call it that or a "poison pill" as PDS and Newman have, it would have been a major national security concern. If over the weekend following the assassination Johnson had met with a small national security group - which he did on Sunday - and asked them if they were prepared to announce to the press that there were indications that Oswald had been manipulated in his actions, that others were using him (with the MC impersonation as a minimum indication) and that very possibly unknown CIA / American intelligence officers had been involved with the assassination you can bet that all hands would have been raised not to go there and to immediately quash any investigation that would pursue leads to that effect.

Well I was at the conference, heard his full remarks to the group, talked with both he and his son afterwards and I know Pat was there as well. I don't recall any specific statement from him about Oswald not being on the stairs during his general remarks to the conference. However he did describe several of the people in front of him on the stairs and certainly made no remark about Oswald being among them. I think the only open question - which Pat mentioned earlier - was whether he was aware of anyone at all that might have been behind him....

Pat, I recall Frazier talking about someone who was quite short and he advised the fellow to go way down front on the stairs...do you recall who that was? My impression was the Frazier was indicating he was at the top of the stairs behind everyone else and with his height that gave him the best view other than the short fellow down front. I asked him several questions but should have asked if he thought he had been the top person on the stairs....

Paul, about all I can offer is that you are presenting pieces of logic to establish linkages - but without citation other than a general reference to Joan as a source. Are you able to find any citations in her work that offer corroboration....either for a linkage from Morales to Marcello or Beckham to Marcello (other than Beckham's own remarks). If you want to take matters further you really do need the citations and corroboration. Otherwise you are left with inference....which is fine but pretty much leaves you floating around with a number of other scenarios that are no better documented or corroborated. So I guess what I'm really saying is that if you propose those sorts of connections you need specific information from sources like Garrison and Joan rather than just referring broadly to their work (and if you were citing me I hope I'd be just as picky...grin).

Tom, actually I was not thinking of Truly - someone can help me but it was his boss (Otis or Orchus Campbell...probably wrong, it will no doubt come to me several hours from now) and the story appeared in a Saturday morning Dallas newspaper where he was quoted. After that there were no more quotes or remarks from him at all. I'm pretty sure that is in this this thread somewhere, possibly even with a link to the page. I think its also important that Buell Frazier has now gone on record that Friday night, Fritz actually strong-armed him and tried to get him to sign a confession implicating himself in a conspiracy along with Oswald to shoot the President. He was arrested, photographed and finger printed, not simply brought in for questioning - and much earlier in the afternoon than many of us had understood. Its pretty clear that anybody who might have thought of giving Oswald any sort of alibi had to see what that would imply for their well being, certainly by late Saturday and if not then by Sunday morning.

Chris, this thread simply proves that my high school scores in geometry were truly - and sadly - accurate. So help me a bit with interpretation. Does all this mean that the film simply had every other frame removed and the net effect is to slow down the apparent speed of the vehicles. Would that not double the time of the apparent shooting sequence as well. Or is it that the gimmick apparently displaces the actual shots in space....meaning an earlier shot further East and a final shot further west? I can roughly follow your numbers but what result do they suggest?

Paul T., first off you present a rather amazing question....? "The connection was natural -- the CIA would have inside information on this, but how else would Guy Banister, Clay Bertrand, Jack. S. Martin, Carlos Marcello and all the low-level street thugs named by Jim Garrison and Joan Mellen get this fresh information before the press -- if not from someone like David Morales?" First, could you substantiate or cite a source stating that Marcello, Shaw, Ferrie, etc had information about the progress of the Atwood back channel negotiations. Admittedly all those individuals had reason to speak out against JFK over events ranging from RFK's efforts to get Marcello kicked back out of the country to Ferrie's opposition to JFK's no invastion agreement with the Russians, I know of no indication they knew of the back channel deals. Now it is true that information coming from on the spring outreach contacts that was being circulated within segments of the exile community in Miami, during August and Sept, but that's another story entirely and I connect the dots on that in SWHT. Yet those dots go back to the earlier outreach from spring, and even discussions inside the SGA, which Morales and Shackley would have been privy too. The surprising restart and rapid progress of new contacts circa Oct was something entirely different, and I trace that in NEXUS. JFK was keeping that very tight and trying to use non State Dept communications, and there is evidence that Angleton and probably Helms were very much trying to monitor that, perhaps even with their own bugs on private and hotel telephones. Second, you are citing Beckham as a key source on activities being discussed by Marcello. I know that comes from my friend Joan and from Beckham - who I've cautioned about many times. There is evidence that he hung aground Bannister's office and Bannister's street people. The thought that someone with his record and lack of connections to the Marcello network would somehow be sitting in on Marcello organized planning meetings at his motel really is hard to credit given Marcello's known concerns over bugs, phone taps and informants.