Jon G. Tidd

Maybe I should know this, but what is Plumlee's provable claim to fame? By provable I mean verifiable. I'm skeptical of the FB post. The second "sentence" is largely incomprehensible. The first sentence is a mere assertion. What's the backing for the proposition ONI sent LHO to Russia? What was Oswald's mission in the USSR? Did Oswald work for ONI for free? The only ONI operative I've come across was a Naval Intelligence Liaison Officer (NILO) in Viet Nam. He dressed in civilian garb, was an Academy grad, spoke Vietnamese, and operated on his own gathering information of possible use to the U.S. Navy in its inland waterways operations. Came across him late one October afternoon in 1971 at a MACV O-club just prior to a daily CIA briefing. Oswald couldn't have had this NILO's training. I'll grant merely that Marina said she thought Oswald was a native Russian speaker from the Baltic region.

I think PDS gets some things right. In particular, the central position of illegal drug trade in deep state politics; and the natural alignment of various interest groups. As to the latter, as has been discussed many times, the MIC, the Federal Reserve, the mafia, and certain other groups were presumably aligned in wanting JFK out of the way. To observe this fact, however, is to do no more than state the obvious. Today many groups with disparate goals are aligned in opposition to President Obama. As a 70-year-old American, I think, so what? And I'm not a huge fan of Mr. Obama. It's easy for me to believe a bomb-them-to-hell Air Force General rejoiced at the idea his buddies in the CIA killed JFK. Or that a big mafia guy in U.S. City A was convinced a big mafia guy in U.S. City B did the deed. Truth is, many, many powerful and dangerous individuals were doubtless overjoyed at JFK's murder. JFK was not killed because powerful individuals hated him. I say this, because no president would have survived his presidency if that were the case. JFK was killed for a practical reason, not an emotional reason. Emotion simply bought into and rejoiced at the killing. Specter and Humes weren't emotional guys. They had a job to do. They acted practically. They're among the guys focus should be maintained.

John Dolva @ Post #26: It's been clear to me since the early 1960s that war is good for U.S. businesses. In WWII, Grumman, Kaiser, Boeing, and other big corporations made lots of money. In the 1960s, Colt (M-16) made a lot of money. So did Pacific Architect and Engineers (PA&E) in Vietnam. Lady Bird owned stock in PA&E. War is good for U.S. business. U.S. business is good for U.S. politicians.

Tommy, In a trial court, the burden of proof is upon the person offering an item into evidence. DVP, as proponent of the Z-film, would have the burden in court of establishing its genuineness.

Tommy, I can't prove it was forged. I just think it was. DVP, by his post, asserts it is genuine. He may be correct, but he can't prove it. In any event, a film is no substitute for an autopsy.

DVP, Your sense of humor is impressive. A forged film is a substitute for a decent autopsy. You're joking...right?

The central question for me: What was the cause of death? According to the Dallas Death Certificate, the proximate cause was cardiac arrest. The cause of cardiac arrest? "Multiple gunshot wounds" of the head and neck. So what caused death, precisely? I can't blame the Dallas docs or coroner for lack of precision. I can blame Humes, Boswell, and Finck. And with them, the U.S. Government, for whom they worked and from whom they took and followed orders. No dissection of the perceived head, back, and neck wounds says it all. So here's the deal, plain for all to see. We have no better description of the cause of JFK's death other than he got shot, and his heart stopped. That's all we've got for the President of the United States. DVP's problem isn't that he's abandoned this thread. It's that he can't tell us precisely how JFK was killed. And he's got the WC and the HSCA (that's a joke) on his side.

I can't speak to Guardian's pooh-poohing of "conspiracy theories". I want to speak, however, to the use of the term "conspiracy theory". It became clear to me as a university student in the 1960s that the New Left had (and had discovered) a powerful weapon against the Establishment. Contemplating this weapon gave me insight into the nature of conflict; gave me deep belief in the saying "the pen is mightier than the sword." The weapon: control of the English language words used to discuss (or "frame") issues. In the 1960s, the weapon was finely pointed and compact. A student who sided with the campus administration had been "co-opted". All college students understood what co-opted meant. The Establishment lagged the New Left, except that Richard Nixon grasped the situation with his "silent majority". "Conspiracy theory" is a term like "silent majority"; it's loaded with un-uttered meaning. It's a weapon. a compact and efficient weapon. Warren critics have a distinct, out-of-the gate disadvantage against Warren believers. Warren believers are "lone nuts" or "LN-ers". No mainstream consumer of news in the U.S. knows or cares about what "lone nut" means. "Lone nut" is not a compact, efficient weapon; it's a wet noodle. "Conspiracy theorist", however, is a potent, compact weapon. Everyone know what that term means.

Good that you posted this. Two footnotes and a comment. FN 1: A guy from my high school, Charles Heriaud, died 11-17-65 in the Ia Drang Valley. FN 2: The U.S. survivors of the LZ xray battle were ambushed and decimated as they trekked to their departure at LZ Albany. The battle at xray is a tale of courage and good leadership. The tale of LZ xray has been told often. The tale of LZ Albany has been told less often. It is a tale of disaster, poor planning, and poor leadership. COMMENT: JFK would have had to fish or cut bait in Viet Nam if he had been re-elected in 1964. Some here believe he was committed to withdrawing completely from Viet Nam by the end of 1965. The reality is, South Viet Nam would have fallen quickly to the North without the aid of U.S. mainline combat units like the First Cav. In retrospect, that would have saved a lot of lives. At the time, however, any American president would have come under withering attack for allowing "communist aggression" to succeed. My take is JFK would have wanted to avoid such a domestic wave of criticism.

Joe Bundy, I agree with the "dumbing down" you mention. The problem goes deep. For example, some posters here, American or otherwise, have weighed in as to whether a 1963 postal money order needed to be endorsed in order to be negotiated. I'm talking law here and not pulling punches. The answer is a simple yes or no but is not that easy to ascertain. The difficulty is not intellectual; it's factual; it's uncovering the facts. Some say yes, some say no, some say whatever. If I'm a disinformation artist, I want to dismiss the question. I want to challenge any less-than-adequate answer offered. To pooh-pooh any less-than-adequate answer offered. To assert the questioner is a "conspiracy theorist". Hate to say it; that's DVP and Hank. They serve a valuable purpose. They xxxxx pet theories and ask for proof. "Dumbing down", in my opinion, is not just a problem of the mainstream press. The mainstream press starts with a specific argument; looks at the argument; finds flaws in the argument; and declares the argument "conspiracy theory". The best response is to make a fact-based argument. Facts, verifiable facts, are unfortunately absent in the JFK assassination.

So, Chris. Is the exercise here a building constructed on a weak foundation?

"The word "drawn" has me confused. The Hidell money order was "drawn" in favor of Klein's Sporting Goods, was it not? It wasn't "drawn" "in favor of [a] financial organization"." DVP is correct here. "Absence of endorsement" includes a forged endorsement. The rule here is best illustrated by an example: Party A makes a check payable to Party B. Party C steals the check from Party B, endorses Party B's name on the back of the check, writes "pay to First Bank" on the back of the check, and cashes the check at First Bank. First bank writes "pay to Party A's Bank" on the back of the check and submits the check to Party A's Bank for payment. Party A's Bank pays First Bank. Shortly thereafter, Party A demands that Party A's bank replenish his checking account with the amount it (wrongfully) paid to First Bank. Party A's Bank does replenish Party A's account upon receiving proof of the forged endorsement of Party B. Party A's Bank now has a right of recovery from First Bank, under the rule that each endorser guarantees the genuineness of each prior endorsement. This is called endorser liability. Welcome to law school. "Well, in the case of the subject Hidell postal money order, the BANKS certainly aren't the PAYEES. The "payee" is Klein's Sporting Goods of Chicago, Illinois. It was Klein's getting PAID the $21.45, not First National Bank or the Federal Reserve Bank." DVP is partially, but only partially, correct here. Klein's was the original payee. Its endorsement stamp made the Chicago bank the second payee. The basic rule here is that any time a check is transferred (negotiated) by a "pay to" type of endorsement, the transferee is a payee. This whole area of the law, BTW, can be grasped by law students and bar exam takers only by grasping some basic rules. The fact patterns to which the basic rules need to be applied are endless.

Does Gayle Nix Jackson believe the frames posted here are genuine camera originals? I ask because I've thought some government agency got its hands on the Nix film shortly after the assassination.

Hank, The Illinois General Assembly adopted the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) as of midnight, July 1, 1962. Articles III and IV of the UCC govern commercial paper and bank deposits. Although the UCC is "Uniform", it always has been adopted state by state. The purpose of the UCC was to bring the whole body of commercial law (sales, negotiable instruments, bank deposits, financing arrangements, etc.) into the modern world. One of the laws the UCC replaced was the Negotiable Instruments Law, which dated to 1907. Although you may regard what I write in this paragraph as mere assertion, any competent lawyer who studied the UCC in law school (I had three UCC courses) will affirm what I've just written. It's true that postal money orders always have been governed by Title 39 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). It's also true that the UCC is a state law, while the CFR are federal law. The current CFR explicitly require endorsement of postal money orders, just as the UCC requires endorsement of bank money orders. I'm trying to obtain the pertinent CFR Title 39 provisions for 1963. I say "trying" because although it's easy to obtain the current CFR, obtaining archived (specifically, 1963) CFR is a challenge. I expect, however, to be able to report here presently on the 1963 version of CFR Title 39. Thanks for giving me the incentive to do this research.

Checks and money orders are "commercial paper" or "negotiable instruments". A negotiable instrument is transferred from one party to another by [a] a "pay to" or "pay to the order of" direction, written by party 1, and the endorsement of party 2. Klein's, as original payee, endorsed (at least that's what we're led to believe) and then (again we're told) deposited the money order in a Chicago bank. Depositing the M.O. was equivalent of writing "pay to". Because the Chicago bank had to transfer the check farther along the payment chain, it had to endorse the money order and then deposit it with the next bank in the chain. Basic rule here: Any recipient of a negotiable instrument made out "pay to" or "pay to the order of" a specific named party must be endorsed by the recipient in order for the recipient to be able transfer the instrument. This is law. The modern law is the Uniform Commercial Code. The previous law was the Negotiable Instruments Law. The Chicago bank could not have transferred (technically, negotiated) the M.O. and gotten paid for the $21.45 (or whatever) it remitted to Klein's without endorsing the money order. This is not a matter of informed opinion or judgment, like an autopsy report. This is black letter law.

Dr. McClellan said on camera during an interview that Jackie handed him a piece of JFK's brain. That piece obviously was not blasted skyward or forward into the front part of the car. I wish the microscope here would be turned toward the pre-8:00 p.m. activities at Bethesda, as Ray suggests. I also wish the microscope here would be turned toward J.D. Tippit's corpse. Tippit was buried allegedly on November 23 in a closed casket. The reported coup de grace to Tippit's skull is noteworthy and suspicious. It suggests the killer was trying to inflict a specific skull wound. I also wish the alleged Knudsen photographs would be discussed in depth here. Along with Dr. Ebersole's W.C. testimony. All these matters go to the back of the head. Finally, I wish the experts here would address this question, in depth, without bias: Who had the power and the willingness to cause the fudging of JFK's autopsy? I'm talking principals, not mere agents, when I ask "who".

Many thanks, Sandy.

"If a banking institution of some kind didn't punch those holes, then who do you think did?" Wrong threshold question. The correct threshold question is, what do the holes signify? The next question is, at the time in question, which Federal Reserve banks punched their endorsements, as opposed to stamping their endorsements? Assuming the answers to the first two questions don't raise eyebrows, the third question is, could the hole punches have been faked? And if so, by whom? As I understand, the money order in question should have been archived in Kansas City, not Arlington (I believe), Virginia. How did FBI agents on the night of November 22 know to go looking other than at Kansas City? I recall reading several years ago an assertion that the FBI received an anonymous tip on the night of November 22 to look at Arlington(?), Virginia. And yes, Tommy, I believe the whole of the official record is a fake. Why? If you're going to kill the President of the United States and try to cover it up, you're in a position and willing to fake whatever's necessary.

Robert, Your post goes to whether there was there was body alteration or body substitution. Some author, I don't recall his name, maintains J.D. Tippit's body was substituted for JFK's. That strikes me as quite a stretch, although Tippit apparently resembled JFK, and RFK upon looking into the burial casked said the body in the casket didn't look like JFK.

Thanks, Sandy. My question was going to be whether the holes could have been faked.

I'll weigh in, Tommy. The Len Osanic episode in question contains narration by Joan Mellen. I'm struck by how sure she is that, for example, David Ferrie and Clay Shaw were Oswald's CIA handlers. Mellen is unqualifiedly sure. Being unqualifiedly sure about anything makes one god-like. I prefer the fact that uncertainty and error exist in any activity involving human perception.

Tommy, You are a conspiracy theorist. What makes you think I might be "dangle"? I don't believe in the term. "Dangle" means "bait". Tell me, Tommy, what sort of intel organization uses bait.

"Dangle"? I never heard this term in my intelligence training or intelligence work. It's an inviting term. It suggests "bait". So, Marina's husband was sent to the USSR as bait; sent by some U.S. intelligence organization. Think about how ridiculous this is. Marchetti was a B.S. artist who had a brief heydey in the 1970s. He revealed nothing important. What he wrote was misleading. "Dangle" is a term meant to deceive you. It's a term that appears to be infused with meaning. It means nothing. Sure, there were some double agents. So I've heard. Sure, M.I. sought to infiltrate anti-war groups in the 1960s. None of this activity involved "bait". "Bait" is the stuff of fiction, not history.

I wouldn't recognize Bill Shelley if I tripped over him. I do recognize "photo-man's" haircut, however. It was popular among young men in the early 1960s.

Someone, I believe J. Edgar Hoover, likened Ruth Paine to Nancy Drew. Ruth got under J. Edgar's skin. Clearly, Hoover found her an annoyance. Given that Hoover had turf problems with the CIA, it's likely in my opinion that Hoover would have used the fact Ruth Paine was working for the CIA as a club against the CIA if in fact Ruth was playing Nancy Drew for the agency.