Larry Hancock

That would be great Doug, I will watch for it. I'm excited to talk with him and possibly his brother about the Independence because that is a part of the story that has largely escaped notice....and its of great interest to me.

Burke was far more involved in the Navy operations than JFK understood and had ordered measures JFK appears to have been unaware of, measures far beyond the presidents directive for the operation. He had also pushed for much stronger rules of engagement than JFK was willing to accept. During the actual landings he pressed the President for authority to conduct ground strikes with Navy aircraft against Cuban forces and was agitated that JFK only authorized that to a limited extent. Burke clearly wished to fully engage the Cuban military, which would have been an act of war and totally illegal. That's a story in itself. He and others also appear to have totally failed to prepare a contingency plan that JFK had ordered. But perhaps most depressing, is that when JFK did authorize Navy air, Burke and the commander on the Essex totally blew it and covered up their mistakes....the CIA Historians report goes into that in great detail. Aside that, Burke's own oral Navy history is fascinating and he himself admits that he had seriously problems communicating with and understanding JFK during that period of time.

I do cover the Essex story in considerable detail including the loading of very special ground attack munitions - not nuclear weapons. During my research I reviewed remarks from many of the ship's personnel, including his story - which you had written about earlier. Some of that information was included, some was not, based on what I could corroborate. I'll leave it at that for the present - my goal in replying to Ron on this thread was simply to point out that I don't feel a lot of confidence can be placed in much of what has previously appeared in the histories of the event. As Jim pointed out, the book should be discussed in a separate section, once it is in print and available. No doubt that discussion will be lively. If you are in touch with Mr. Rothstein and he wants to discuss his experience privately I'd welcome his email at larryjoe@westok.net

It was that Jim but I'm not at all bashful about the new book....so much crap has been written about this that its time to dig in and bring out the real history. If there are any objections I'll stop posting about it here but of course the point is it can't be discussed until someone know its exists and actually reads it. Besides, it will give everyone a few new villains, including Richard Bissell and two Navy Admirals - all of whom lied to JFK. I'll go even a step beyond that, In Denial is also going to be important as background and context to understand the full nature and range of the assassination projects against Castro including the personnel that were most likely the ones turned against JFK in Dallas....how about that for a teaser. The good news on that is nobody will have to pay for those new studies - they it will be freely available in the Wheaton Names White Paper that David Boylan and I will publish, and in my Thesis paper on the assassination. Both of which I hope will be done and posted by the end of this summer.

Its way, way more complex than that Ron, actually JFK authorized both subsequent air strikes in B-26's flown by American pilots, as well as Navy air cover for ground attacks.....all I can tell you is that the story is far more complex than anything you have seen in print so far, far more convoluted. And it covers over a year in time, with the actual Cuba Project as approved by Eisenhower totally failing as of October, 1960 - what the CIA executed at the Bay of Pigs was not what either Ike or JFK has authorized with presidential directives. Of course the initial CIA IG report caught a good deal the CIA failures which is why it was suppressed, but none of the official inquires were privy to the information we have now - a good bit of which was totally undocumented. About all I can do at this point is to say that I think I finally have it all covered in my upcoming book and I'm really looking forward to discussing the whole story as we can now see it - which I assure you is far different than anything in the history books (or the JFK books so far). Including the Navy's role and their side games with Bissell which nobody wanted to talk about. The book will be out on April 17, in Print and Kindle.... https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B082MTQS2G/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_bibl_vppi_i8

Steve, I certainly believe the Harlandale house has something to do with all this but I've come to find that it used by a variety of Cuban exiles, some of whom were Alpha 66 members and some DRE and others belonging to both groups. The DRE was far more active at that point of time (Alpha 66 was doing nothing much more then recruiting and fund raising), involved in efforts to buy weapons and being investigated locally in regard to that in a joint military intelligence / FBI sting. Its not unlikely members of the group were under observation, the house may well have been as well. And that is very possibly the association that Hosty was referring to in his remark. The observation may have occurred at the house, or elsewhere. Of course by that time Oswald was known by the general exile community as being supportive of the FPCC and Castro so he had to be manipulated in a very limited and probably convoluted fashion - and likely not more that doing something to position him and keep him in play, available as a patsy (with a new baby and his marital situation what it was he was way to unpredictable to have as a major part of any plan). As an example, he was looking for work elsewhere while at the TSBD, no doubt they wanted to keep him there. As to planting a rifle that could be connected to him, easily done in a number of ways - certainly not in a fashion so that he would know it was in the building; that would have set him off immediately and he was way to calm for that. As to the car and the DCM, well it did happen, that is for certain. But I can't think of anything more risky and stupid than to plan a pick up on Elm Street after the shooting so whatever that was it must have been somewhat by chance - I've worked on blow ups of the photo showing the guy coming down the hill and it appears to actually be two people together for a time. Its more than a little suspicious but I really am not sure what it means at this point. Perhaps whoever it was had been inserted for overwatch on Oswald, or to contact him and lead him away and that failed. I'm open to ideas but as with a lot else after the shooting, it is really unclear to me at present, but it appears to me clear that something went off track pretty quickly and Oswald was certainly not intended to be left alive, much less in custody.

I'm in agreement Andrej, with one tweak (grin). As far as the conspiracy goes I think the frame was fairly minimal, certainly the parts we see - although there may have been more which did not come into play with Oswald being taken into custody, alive, so quickly. Given his past media exposure, connecting him to the shooting was certainly enough as far as bringing Castro and Cuba into the equation. And I don't think the conspiracy involved a scenario of Oswald as a lone nut, in fact just the opposite. However after the fact, it became necessary to make him a lone nut, to wipe out all traces of his association with others, of multiple shooters, of an actual conspiracy. That was a nightmare, it had to be done as quickly as possible, both with the evidence and with the autopsy and as I've said before it was "iterative", things kept being added, loose ends were left all over the place and a great many things which did go into evidence an the official story would never have survived in a competent legal process or trial (which of course probably would not have happened in Dallas regardless). I'll be happy to discuss my thesis paper here when it is done, it will go up on MFF and on my WEB site. But it will of course be strictly my take on the conspiracy and will certainly not be "bullet proof" ....still, as my guru Ricky Nelson once sang, "you can't please everybody so you might as well please yourself".

Andrej, I tend to lean towards a variant of your last edit comment, modified by the fact that Oswald was having some dealings with individuals who were under observation by the FBI in Dallas....as per Hosty's comment about his being observed with subversives only a short while before the assassination. While I think he was being manipulated by those same people, actually a subset of them, it was something that might have made him nervous at first and much more so later - but not guilty, even as an accessory when he was making the comments in the previous post. In terms of framing him, its really important to separate the massive amount of questionable "evidence" that was introduced in the days and weeks after the assassination from the actual crime scene evidence pointing to him, which I feel was minimal. Any professional operation worth its salt could produce better stuff than the material we continue to debates..even better pocket litter. All without a ton of people being involved. I'll be dealing with my own opinions on Oswald in my thesis paper which should be out by summer, hopefully I can do a better job setting a context there than in these sorts of threads. I would say that your New Orleans comment is right on, bottom line is that he was a perfect patsy for pointing towards Castro and Cuba based on New Orleans, to sell that story nothing much more was needed in Dallas, in fact it was better to have him with a low profile - that earlier letter to CPUSA about "going underground' should have sealed the deal - but of course that was the last thing the conspiracy cover up wanted so it didn't appear in LIFE magazine along with the photo of him with a rifle, a pistol and newspaper.

Its not much of a contribution but we do know that Oswald was thinking about shoes for his daughter; it has always amazed me that it was a concern he expressed even after he was charged and being held for murder. That he would talk about something like that at that point in time has always blown me away but it might indicate that he truly had little clue about what was going on, that he had not done anything that he was guilty of and he suspected that it was all a bogus and he had been arrested simply because he had been in Russia as he said to the press - and that he was confident no charges would stick and he would be released or certainly not convicted. That is nothing but pure speculation of course but talking about shoes for your child while being held for the murder of the president is pretty darn strange for someone who knows he has just committed two murders. https://ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LHO.html (To his Wife.) "Oh, no, they have not been beating me. They are treating me fine. . . . You're not to worry about that. Did you bring June and Rachel? . . . Of course we can speak about absolutely anything at all. . . . It's a mistake. I'm not guilty. There are people who will help me. There is a lawyer in New York on whom I am counting for help. . . . Don't cry. There is nothing to cry about. Try not to think about it. . . . Everything is going to be all right. If they ask you anything, you have a right not to answer. You have a right to refuse. Do you understand? . . . You are not to worry. You have friends. They'll help you. If it comes to that, you can ask the Red Cross for help. You mustn't worry about me. Kiss Junie and Rachel for me. I love you. . . . Be sure to buy shoes for June." ......sure doesn't sound like a raging political assassin does he; would have been interesting to see this printed in LIFE

Just for reference - for anyone else catching up on this as I am: WC exhibits with REA paperwork https://books.google.com/books?id=2Gx3AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA174&lpg=PA174&dq=seaport+traders+inc&source=bl&ots=Nksb2KG38P&sig=ACfU3U2NtlD4o2W8ntYvEVihYG6lMWJVQw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU7pD-xPfnAhVEHqwKHdXAAg4Q6AEwBnoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q=seaport traders inc&f=false

All I can say about that document is that it is far from the full story of what was authorized, what was directed, and what was understood to be in play by the CI officers directly off the beachhead who were directly in communications with the Navy command ship...that the full and un-sanitized story will be in my upcoming book out in April - its title ("In Denial" is actually a good characterization of the document posted by Bart. As a side note, even the CIA historian would later harshly condemn the Navy for its failures in support of the operation. Not something the Navy or its JCS representative would admit to under any circumstances (but sort of given away by the destruction of all operational materials on board the aircraft carrier before the Navy command ship even left the area).

So this is a used weapon then, not just war surplus of some sort? Surplus stocks normally don't show wear and tear, possibly just some preservative but not actual wear based on those I've seen. Good point on the barrel, I'll be interested in David's comment on that. As long as I'm bouncing between posts...could I get your view on the shipment of the pistol and where it was picked up e.g. was it mailed via Post Office or via REA or a combination of both and where was it actually physically picked up. Ditto for the rifle. I realize its redundant but maybe there is someone lurking who will find that useful as well as myself.

I know I'm sounding dense David but all the discussion I have heard over the years had been with the issue of Oswald receiving a rifle from Postal service and the handling of paper work for that, missing documents etc. I don't recall REA ever even being mentioned in those discussions. If was all about receiving the weapons at the Post Office and Post Office protocols. I can tell you that REA was not just another option as it is now...there were postal restrictions on both size and weight. Beyond a certain size and weight it had to go REA..... You have all this worked out for yourself I'm sure, just trying to follow along step by step and match it to other discussions over the years. I guess I just need to read your article again rather than trying to follow on in a complex discussion via separate posts on threads that is always challenging for me.

Not trying to be confusing but this is making me think about something new. What were the shipping guidelines - weight and size which required something to go by REA? What I was trying to get out was that when we received packages shipped vea REA, we were notified by mail with a notice sent via the post office - but we had to pick up the package at the REA office...and if shipping or other charges were due that was handled at the REA office as well, not the Post Office. The only delivered the notice, as a piece of regular mail. How does this fit with both the pistol and rifle in Owalds case....I've been away from these sorts of details for a very long time. Also, talk about wear, looks like somebody was using the butt of that pistol as a hammer...how old is that thing..

I recall ordering from catalogs and receiving packages from REA, you had to pick them up the REA office. REA notified you of the package arrival with a post card. The PO did not have an agreement with them as with today's shipping companies - at least not where I live. Did they in Dallas - do we know for sure? In looking at the pistol photo, I happen to have a .38 rather similar to that, have for a couple of years....looking at the pistol grip and the pistol itself it appears to have a great deal of wear, the sort you would get from carrying it all the time and banging the holster around a bit while you are doing so. Its sort of hard for me to imagine a pistol owned by Oswald looking like that even if it was routinely stored in a holster.

I'll be detailing the view I've reached on Ruby in the Thesis paper (almost book length) that I intend to publish via MFF and my own web site this summer. The points you picked out are key to my thinking that Ruby was "used" as he said, but initially in a largely unknowing role (as far as understanding the president would be killed) much as he had been earlier in acting as a courier for McWillie in assisting the effort to release Trafficante from jail in Cuba...long story. He was on Elm Street just briefly to watch the president - and Jackie - pass, not as part of the assassination. He did not anticipate what happened and as he learned about he became shocked and literally sick to his stomach over the implications. The call to Gruber (which we know about) and other files using payphones and other phones that were not investigated turned his whole involvement in another direction (and depending on the exact timing contributed to his physical problem and to an intense and sudden depression - a change easily noted from the various folks who interacted with him during the course of the afternoon). By late afternoon his role began to dramatically change (he had no choice; he knew the rules and he did love his sister). That change and his very suspicions activities had to be ignored by the WC...and it was necessary to let the two investigators they had looking into him in Dallas go (their only two real field investigators) as what they might have found (and what Jim Kothe liked did) very dangerous to the official story.

Sorry David, I seem not to be seeing the link - familiar with the Canada origin concept but need to understand the time line for both...thanks for taking the time (when you have it...grin).

OK, back to the pistol (and the rifle for that matter). So were all the documents and statements for their purchase created after the fact - or was there a Hidell persona in play earlier, for some other purpose? Does that mean Lee Oswald never had either a pistol or rifle in his possession - and yes I know this is all old stuff, just interested in what scenarios Ed and David individually see in play. As I said before if you throw something away I can follow it more easily if you a) present it as a pure after the fact frame (as with the theater scenario in this thread) or b) part of an alternative scenario already in play before the assassination.

Jim, on a side note, actually there were senior American military officers who also opposed sending in conventional forces. One of them, a Major General, actually send Westmoreland a letter upon his appointment by Johnson, pointing out that conventional forces were not the solution and it would be insane to think about ground sweeps with large ground formations. Unfortunately we know from Westmoreland's own writing that before he even got in country he had set his mind on large scale conventional warfare including saturation artillery - since that was what he knew. Even Johnson was shocked by the size of his first major troop request. Lewis Sorley's book on Westmoreland is a must read in regard to Vietnam, so is Seth Jacobs Cold War Mandarin on Diem.

Good stuff on the pistol guys, thanks! And the distinction between "living there" and "staying there" is a good one; I'd really like to see you elaborate on that. Is it possible Oswald himself was using the Beckley address as a type of cover in the same way he sometimes used multiple mailboxes. If so any idea on where he was actually spending most of his time? To that point Ed, do you see him going back towards the Beckley address at all that afternoon, or was something very different going on....very interested in your view on that as it relates to his movements into and around Oak Cliff. -- thanks, Larry

I certainly agree that the Second Floor encounter is a good (or great) illustration of a point raised even by first generation researchers that took decades of work in the trenches to really solidify. That also illustrates the value of very early, first day, statements before anyone has a chance to turn on “auto correct”. And I’ve pretty well come to the same conclusion about the Tippett shooting, which of course had pretty obvious holes early on, alternatives (much like those in regard to the second floor encounter) have now been proposed for that and that is real progress. It may be just me, but I think in these cases its very helpful for those most into a particular area of research to lay out all the alternatives to the official story on a given issue – and then let the give and take proceed, not just forging ahead to pick one solution and campaign for it. That can come from the process. I would find that very helpful for the issues you listed in your post Ed, not that you have not dealt with them before but having a topical post offering alternatives to each helps bring us all up to speed. As part of that calling out exactly when and if possible how the false evidence gets into the record is helpful as part of that exposition. And the point for introducing the false information. For example if Oswald was never at Beckley, when and why does somebody go to all the trouble of creating it from scratch – and so apparently quickly (this from an obsessive time line person). Enough pontificating from me, but here are two things in your post that I’m confused about (well I'm confused about many tings but): a) “I say he went to Beckley did not like what he saw and went to Bledsoe's” - so why did he go to Beckley if Beckley was not real for him (totally lost here). b) The pistol as a dropped item; I know that is a thing now, not sure it was in 1963 but more importantly, are all of the remarks from Oswald about owning and taking a pistol to the theater also false (again, totally lost).

I've got no problems with outing "disinformation and gaping holes", I think it was about twenty years ago when I started opening presentations with the statement that I had found so much of the crime scene evidence and DPD material unreliable and with so many broken chains of possession that I had to give up on the naive hope that you could get someplace with it. Being naturally slow it only took me a decade to get to that point. I do have to say that Oswald and a Beckley presence are not throw a ways in regard to many of the Oak Cliff subjects that routinely get discussed here and elsewhere (in the same form as throwing away Oswald in Mexico City) - at least in terms of studying what supposedly happened in Oak Cliff after the assassination on November 22. That includes topics from Tippett to Olson to the pistol to the mysterious police car, the wallet. The obvious problem is that if you go with the thesis that all evidence is manufactured or planted (apparently after the fact) then you literally have no data at all. So does that mean we throw away Oak Cliff entirely? Or does Oswald just go the Oak Cliff and the Eight Street area because of the Texas School Book Depository and nothing else? Or possibly none of that is relevant at all and he went directly to the Theater. Perhaps so if he was never at Becklay at all...but if not where did he pick up the pistol...or did he have it with him at the TSBD.. Are there alternatives that we can consider. At least with Oswald's movements inside the TSBD there are alternatives and everyone can make their call on first floor, second floor, sixth floor, front inside, front door outside. I'm be more than interested to hear thoughts for alternatives to Oswald at Beckley and in Oak Cliff beyond being in the Texas Theater. No problem here with throwing away things, just looking for alternatives once they get pitched.

If this place is now just about "ass kicking" its a long way from the forum I used to know and respect....you could just post your facts and analysis and let the reader decide. Or stick with name calling and chest thumping,, that seems to be the norm in contemporary culture (or a Trump press conference on just abut anything) so why not here too.

When looking at Ruby and looking at Tippett, its always interesting to remember Harry Olson. Did he really have a broken kneecap, what was really going on with guarding an "estate" off eight street with 24 hour security. Penn Jones pointed out that from Olson's location if nothing else he could have watch the route Oswald took across Eight Street. Did he really walk five blocks to his girlfriends on crutches that night. And there is a good chance his motorcycle roommate who was in the motorcade might have been the other security person. Ruby may simply have been "used" as he said, but he was in a position to do some really useful things he might have seriously begun to regret just about the time he hit his sisters bathroom that afternoon, sick to his stomach.

Ron, if you have SWHT I go through the changes in Ruby's mood in considerable detail over that afternoon and the rest of the weekend. Basically it starts with Ruby being interested in the motorcade, watching it pass with his friend there on Main and going back to the DMN. However from that point on, as he begins to hear of the attack, of president being injured and then his death he ends up tossing his cookies at his sisters, only to talk with Gruber in LA and then move into a totally different mood and role. Its another one of those situational things where a look at just one incident during one time slice can actually be misleading in light of the overall story.