Larry Hancock

Thanks Cliff, just want through Manchester again and confirmed the same thing. He relates Johnson talking to Bundy (third in line after RFK, Jenkins and then Bundy) about the return to Washington and the oath - which was apparently the top thing on Johnson's mind. Later aides passed on radio messages about arrangements in DC, and logistics after the return. Looks like that one call was the only time they talked. Actually Tazwell Sheppard (sp) had set up the Sit Room at Bundy and JFK's request and was there initially on the 22, but he left it to go to the airport. Bundy was all over the place it appears, leaving the Sit Room somewhat on its own or at least at the disposal of various staff.

I'm going to put together a timeline of relevant AF 1 communications and start a new thread, including a cross reference to media announcements....this is educational and a good test of the accept dialog and memory of events that afternoon...

Cliff, I'm pretty familiar with the stages of the transcripts, actually what Bundy was given an edited version to work from - after hearing of the tapes existence, pestering the White House, being turned down and ultimately being given the edited version we have now. The revelation from a couple of years ago was of an intermediate version of the transcript which had been withheld but only now has become available. We do know that Manchester was given a version of Johnson's telephone call log which was later revised for the official record - I came up with that in comparing the extant call record to the calls and call times Manchester discusses. But to my understanding Manchester was writing about telephone calls based on the transcript we have now plus his personal interviews with the participants.

I'll be going to Manchester's book shortly but to save me time could you me a citation for the Johnson/Bundy lone assassin call you quoted...that would be a great help, thanks, Larry

Paul, I'm going to do some further research on exactly what Bundy did communicate during those first hours...specifically to Air Force One which was what my comment was in regards to. I want to make sure it was Bundy himself speaking, who he was talking to and to whom the message was directed. I also want to confirm some other things as well. I've come to mistrust a number of things that have been bandied about as absolute fact over the years - as well as my memory - and before commenting further I need to do a fact check. Also, as I mentioned to Cliff, my remark only relates to anything Bundy may have communicated during the very first few of hours following the assassination. I'll respond further but in the interim I would suggest anyone interested read the full transcript below and that we move this to another thread rather than taking this one even further off track than it normally goes.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/search?q=air+force+one+transcript

Cliff, I'm reading from the transcript on Bill's blog site and I do not find any sign of actually communication between Johnson himself and Bundy followiong the initial call from Jophnson where he discussed the return and the oath of office (Manchester p 270), later aides passed along separate info to Bundy on arrival arrangements. I don't see any conversation such as that you quoted but I might be missing it. Could you look and check.

http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/search?q=air+force+one+transcript

Also, I do see several instances of where the Situation Room is reading right off the news wire or from broadcasts to the Air Force One in general, but no specific message to be passed to Johnson..

I'll have to take a closer look at the transcript Cliff, that was certainly not the wording in the exchange I was referring too.

Cliff, first off I'm not talking about Bundy's entire range of activities nor the evolution of the lone nut story. My comment was in regard to the single call from the Situation Room call to Air Force One which corresponds to the timing of the broadcast of Oswald's arrest as announced by the networks. As for your other questions on who was giving orders law enforcement to Dallas and the Texas AG, I detail those calls and directives in SWHT. And finally, there were press reports of the capture and arrest of Oswald's capture and he was portrayed as the individual who shot the President. However there was constant talk of conspiracy of all sorts - on a phone patch from AF1 Ted Clifton asked Bundy directly if there was evidence of an international plot and Bundy put him off with a remark that the Pentagon was handling the situation. Also, an AP bulletin something like an hour after the shooting specifically declared that the President had been shot in the front of the head.

This dialog is way off on a tangent to the thread, but I will note that I will be presenting the most up to date transcripts of the AF 1 traffic later this week in Dallas, courtesy of Bill Kelly. I will also be discussing recent research of my own that suggests - contrary to all official statements - that there were scrambled, security voice circuits in operation to AF1 and such circuits would either have not been captured on tape or if they were would have been an unintelligibly series of squeals. If that is true our picture of the full voice communications traffic to the plane may be very incomplete....and that the secure communications were intentionally concealed as a basic security issue.

A simple answer - Bundy was repeating what was coming off the wire and over TV. That was an evolving story covered by a variety of media folks who were reporting on all sorts of events, many of those reports contained ample suggestion of conspiracy....examples would be the interview with Fritz where he talks about Oswald being driven off in a station wagon by a suspicious person or even my friend Connie Krtizberg''s quoting of a Doctor speaking of a shot from the front. As far as I can tell the media coverage during the first six hours or so was as good or bad as it ever is during a crisis. However over the weekend the national media began to be "subverted" into the party line of a single assassin and no conspiracy. You should know quite well that I write about that story and direct orders to avoid discussion of conspiracy coming down from Washington starting early that evening....I also write about Connie's story being changed by the FBI, according to her editor. By Sunday Johnson was privately talking to Henry Luce and the implications of that are obvious. So to answer your larger question, by that weekend the media was being manipulated and the major national media began to fall in line to what became a truly shameful job of investigative reporting and denial that has lasted for decades.

Cliff, its probably not mysterious enough but as I recall if you look at a time line of communications into and out of the Situation Room, Bundy's remark was made immediately after the AP and TV news carried the story out of Dallas that the President's assassin had been captured and was in custody. If you really dig into the communications out of the Sit room that day, they are pretty much doing nothing but repeating what the press was saying.....the entire crisis response system had fallen apart with everybody just watching TV broadcast news.

Certainly BS as far as the assassination is concerned, but as with James Files, the media loves sensation and with her current, extensive book tour we may well see more local coverage

such as that below:

www.wndu.com/home/headlines/Who-Killed-JFK-Michiana-native-says-its-not-the-usual-suspect-282481221.html

Dr. Mantik has recently published further studies of the Harper Fragment, you can find his work at :

http://www.ctka.net/2014-mantik/essay/Harper1.html

Paul, just to round off my comments, the reason that I suggested you write a book is that if you truly want folks to take your theory seriously you need to do the sort of detailed presentation a book requires, including end-noting and citation of primary sources. And in that regard you really can't use citations such as "findings as portrayed in a movie"....or at least you should not.

This begin with you asking for a scenario which would address Paul's point on how Oswald could be associated with Bannister but not under his control and I gave you one based on known FBI practices....I made no attempt to prove it although I do offer evidence of that nature in SWHT. A forum is a poor place for the sort of obnoxious detail that readers should demand in such efforts. You maintained that I had not proved my scenario - which was true - and offered a variety of points to prove yours vs the one I offered. My response was that if they were to be proofs you needed more details and much more solid citation. At that point you back to a generic citation of the Garrison investigation as seen in the movie (great movie, but still only a movie).

All of which leads me back to the suggestion that you do produce a solid book on your overall theory and then offer it to readers and reviewers. That's the best way to really test it. Continuing these sorts of extended threads takes you only so far and without something new I would think most people have gotten your general message at this point. It was an honest suggestion, Larry

Paul, citing Jim Garrison is not sufficient, you need to cite primary evidence....so please provide the primary evidence for your points.

According to Jim Garrison's book, he found that Lee Harvey Oswald worked in cooperation with Guy Banister very shortly after he arrived in New Orleans in late April 1963, to establish a Fake branch of the FPCC. In that operation, Banister worked closely with Clay Shaw and David Ferrie.

....Garrison and other found Oswald had actively worked to establish a fake branch, through letters, leafleting, and flyers. The only direct association with Bannister was the address of his building as contact address on a few of the flyers and anecdotal information that Bannister was aware that Oswald was not a commie and that Oswald might have infrequently used a spare room in the building. Nothing in that tied Oswald to taking direction from Bannister nor working in the effort with Shaw or Ferrie. Other reports indicated that he might well have known Ferrie or Shaw but nothing connected them to his FPCC effort.

This activity continued through May, June and July 1963, and culminated in a flurry of Media events, including police reports, newspaper articles, radio spots and even a TV spot, always in connection with DRE leader Carlos Bringuier and INCA leader Ed Butler.

....the leafleting incident certainly involved Bringuier, both he and Butler and INCA used it for propaganda purposes. Please cite evidence that either man was working with Oswald on the FPCC project you referred to above. We can both speculate what was going on with Oswald in his FPCC efforts but its just speculation, from either you or me.

Film of that same period shows Cuban Exile leaders and personnel from many different groups congregating around the offices of Guy Banister in NOLA.

....Bannister and Ferrie had been involved with exiles earlier, circa 60 /61please cite the date of the film and who was in it. During much of the summer of 1963 Ferrie was working on the Marcello case but not for Bannister...what is your documentation for Bannister exile operations in the summer of 63....

Jim Garrison also found that during the summer of 1963, Operation Mongoose was still operating with its bases in NOLA, and included the offices of Guy Banister in NOLA, again involving the same personnel.

.....please provide citation - and note that Mongoose had been disbanded by December 1963, Harvey reassigned and that the CIA was conducting no operations out of NOLA in 63 although certainly some folks involved in the pre-BOP 60/61 activities still lived there.

During that entire period -- which is MONTHS -- Lee Harvey Oswald, through the cooperation of Banister, Ferrie, Shaw, Bringuier, Butler and their associates created a persona for himself as an Officer of a Fake FPCC in NOLA.

....repetition of point above, Oswald wrote letters, passed out leaflets, hired temporary employees to help pass out leaflets - other than the Bringuier encounter cite the involvement of those you named in Oswald actual FPCC effort

Then, in September 1963, according to Marina Oswald, Lee Harvey Oswald took newspaper clippings of all these Media events with him to Mexico. Then, according to the Edwin Lopez Report, Lee Oswald placed these Fake FPCC clippings on the desk of the Cuban consulate and demanded an instant Visa to Cuba, as foolish as that sounds.

.....it is documented that Oswald produced certain FPCC papers but he had other materials as well, actually more significant materials. Please detail how Marina could have known what Oswald took to Mexico or to the consulate. And actually his visit may not have been at all foolish, especially if he was working any of a variety of other CIA or joint CIA/FBI efforts targeting travel to Cuba....or propaganda efforts against the FPCC....some of which are actually documented.

In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald worked ALL SUMMER to obtain those Fake FPCC credentials, and he gathered them all up in a pile and took them directly to Mexico City, foolishly expecting that the Cuban consulate there would just hand him an "instant" Visa to Cuba -- as if THAT WAS THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF FORGING THOSE FAKE CREDENTIALS IN THE FIRST PLACE.

....pure speculation on your point....he did use some of the FPCC material but also had prepared other bogus ID material on his own......

So, Larry, are you disputing the findings of Jim Garrison and Edwin Lopez? If not, how else do you explain the massive effort made in New Orleans during the summer MONTHS of 1963 to portray Lee Harvey Oswald as a Fake Officer of a Fake FPCC with Guy Banister's office address stamped right on the FPCC fliers, and with CIA funds used (as Garrison found) to pay for those Fake FPCC fliers?

....Citing Garrison as a general source is not relevant, you have to cite specific evidence he produced. You also need to explain all the other evidence you are leaving out which points to Oswald's ongoing contacts with the FBI subversive desk in NO including the games that were played to keep certain agents from offering testimony on that.

Paul, you just need to go ahead and write a book and put your whole theory in print and get it out there rather than just expressing it here - don't hold back, just go to it and let it stand on its own merits with readers and reviewers.

Paul, you seem to be smearing events across a number of years, including things that happened in New Orleans well before Oswald arrived in the spring of 1963 For example, list one anti-Castro military operation that Bannister, Ferrie or Shaw were involved with in 1963 - with any exile group. You also need to show evidence of Oswald "cooperating with Guy Banister for MONTHS, along with David Ferrie, Clay Shaw, Carlos Bringuier and Ed Butler". Exactly what activities did he cooperate on then with, if you make claims like that you really need to fill in some details. Associating with them or even being known by them is far from conducting "operations" with them.

You asked for a scenario in which Oswald could have been associated with Bannister without Bannister personally directing his actions and I gave you one. In response you simply throw out batches of names, of greatly different degrees of reliability, as if they were evidence to your objection. Also, at no point did I say Oswald was spying on Bannister, I said it would be common practice for Bannister's PI business to be used as a domestic cover for Oswald's activities. That practice is no stretch, it was a well documented FBI practice; indeed when the FBI began to work with Shaw's legal defense they following the same practice of channeling contacts through former agent PI groups.

The basic scenario is very simple. Oswald agreed to provide the FBI with information on any foreign or suspect contacts that were made with him...he did so in his first FBI interview in Texas following his return. While basically a populist and advocate of socialist causes he was in no way a Communist (as demonstrated by his complete lack of interest in actually participation in Party activities in either the US or more specifically in Russia). Oswald spoke adamantly against Russian Communism in his manuscript and accused it of controlling its parties and groups overseas for its own nationalist agenda. Yet after doing so in his manuscript he began an ongoing series of communications with both the CPUSA and SWP (if that doesn't convince anyone that he had started cooperating with the FBI as some sort of dangle or provocateur then stop reading at this point). His communications became more and more provocative, by later summer he was writing about actually going underground. Yet we know he actively contacted the subversive desk of the FBI in NO and more specifically a subversive desk agent - by name. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence to show he was an FBI source, and that a NO field office file on him existed. To be a real informant he would have had to work his way inside a targeted organization - which he never did. But in that respect, both the Cuban exile groups were FBI targets (for weapons violations and engaging in missions against Cuba) and so would have been any Cuban agents, especially double agents - and some of those contacting Oswald in NO had been suspected by both CIA and FBI of being Castro double agents.

As to Bannister, his office had been evaluated by the CIA as a cover back in early 1961, we don't know the official results. We do know that the FBI routinely used former agents PI firms as covers without providing them much information. And we also know both FBI and CIA were engaged in joint anti-FPCC and Cuban penetration efforts beginning in late spring 1963. Bannister's office could have been used as a home base (and mailing address) for a number of Oswald's "dangle" activities towards several potential targets with no more than knowledge on Bannister's part that Oswald was not a "commie" and that his actions were on the side of the good guys. Which is really all he told some of his street guys, simply that Oswald was "one of us". Oswald using Bannister's office and address would have been very basic domestic trade-craft for FBI subversive operations which often used PI's and businesses - much as the CIA did both domestically and overseas.

Fine by me Pamela, it just seems one more example of where Judyth introduces the sort of superficial spy like practices that make little sense when you dig a bit deeper into reality.

Best wishes Gary....and here's a thought - print out a draft manuscript and set up a hourly fee based reading room. Might be a real opportunity. We both know how big your manuscripts are, by the time anybody is even half way through you would certainly be fully recovered!

Gary, you better publish something soon or you will have these folks knocking on your door in person!

John, I discuss that and a series of follow on CIA Garrison meetings in SWHT. As it turned out the CIA spent a huge amount of legal effort on figuring out how it would protect its employees from subpoena and also went ballistic about the names of its true assets that Garrison turned over. One of the problems was that it was coming up with names that had been on Cuban infiltration and exfiltration missions and could have revealed a good deal of Agency operational information. They could also have exposed the CIA training base in La used for the BOP preparations. About the only thing worse ffrom and operational standpoint would have been a comparable investigation by a DA in Miami. Of course Angleton also initiated his own CI effort against everybody Garrison was coming up with - clearly a domestic intelligence violation.

Strangely enough though, in the end it was the FBI who worked directly and illegally with Shaw's legal staff, assisted by some of their standard former FBI private investigation companies - always willing to be helpful of course.

My friend Jerry made the following observations:

Eddie Piper was officially the janitor so yes, any message would have gone to Eddie and there is no particular reason Lee would ever hear about it.

The phone Lee would have used himself was located in the back center of the first floor, it was routinely used by the workers, anyone calling it could simply

have asked for Lee and nobody would have thought a thing about it.

Jerry also wondered why any sort of code would be necessary, if a woman calls and asked for Lee somebody yells for him. Not like they would recognize Judyth

from his wife....and nobody is going to tell Oswald strange women are calling him at work. It was not like Marina routinely called him at work either.

Jerry thought the whole idea was as silly as we do...but consistent with the rest of Judyth's stories.

Pamela, I've forwarded the question to Jerry Dealey who probably knows the most about the TSBD including its phone system. I can tell you that some of the individual businesses inside the building had their own small key systems where a secretary could forward calls to extension phones or individuals could use those extensions to call out. I suspect the same was true for the TSBD, if somebody has quick access to a 1963 directory or cross directory you can check the number of lines going to that address and who they are listed for....I'm betting there was only one listed number for the TSBD. Plus there is the other fact that as a business the TSBD was actually located in two buildings and the school book depository location was relatively new. Not sure exactly what offices were in which building. It would be interesting to see what the phone directory really lists in that regard.

I'll let everyone know if Jerry provides any information but my guess is that the TSBD also used a key system, classic operator switchboards with patch panels were pretty uncommon other than in telephone exchanges. If so the system was on a Secretary's desk who would have answered for the company and no doubt asked why somebody was calling the janitor. I can't fathom how Oswald would have heard about the call? Besides, why call him at work. His apartment building had a shared phone. And anyone who was cautious enough to use multiple mailboxes would probably be up to telling her to call a payphone at a given time or better yet call her from a pay phone to keep in touch.

Judyth had a similar conference last year on the 50th.....I suspect she intends to routinely do something similar.

Paul, nobody was saying you could not start as many threads as you wished and have as much content as you wished (at least I wasn't) -

what we were trying to do is give you advice on actually bringing more attention to anything new you have to say.

I think it has been explained very simply and very well, if you don't wish to see that its your issue.

Actually it would even be more effective if Harry had his own thread in order to make his comments stand out...but you probably won't see that either.

Paul, its just this simple.....certainly new information may come out - you have been projecting that it will for some time now. If and when it does it will be more visible in a brand new and specific thread under a new title...not sure why that would not be obvious to you?

On another point, as I've made clear, we have ample documents that the FBI did report Milteers remarks to other agencies including the Secret Service as well as to several of its own field offices. Those offices did investigate the threat, contacting all the individuals Milteer had mentioned. The Secret Service referred the threat to Washington DC since Milteer had mentioned that city in conjunction with the shooting threat. Unfortunately both the FBI and SS totally dropped the ball in a meaningful investigation but in reality they way each group did it was pretty much SOP for them at the time. Adams may not know all this but just because he did not do the follow up does not mean that none was done - however ineffectual it was.

But more to the point, why don't you just wait and start a new thread on Caufields book and his revelations when they appear? This thread has turned into nothing but repetition and constant promotion of your theory with the same information over and over. In your own best interest you would be better served by starting new threads with real new information....otherwise it will very possibly remain obscured by this giant thread. Kathy is trying to help you understand that, and so am I.

Paul, if you did have something really new to contribute it would be far better to put it in a new, specific headlined thread. People are much more likely to read a new thread under a new topic than to keep coming back to this huge one. That's true for virtually any subject. Your opinions and position are very clear in this one. New research or new information should really have a new thread. Kathy may have something else in mind but the logic for new threads seems pretty clear to me.

Best wishes Robert, I think it would be interesting to see an actual narrative from you, basically a story of the attack as you see it. But I understand that sort of writing may not come naturally, if that ever changes and you do something of the sort II will certainly be happy to read it.