Jon G. Tidd

Tommy, I have no dog in this fight. But I applaud your use of the possessive before the gerund. Congrats on good writing. That's writing.

The Paines, like everyone else who got on board with the Oswald-did-it-alone story, did OK in subsequent years. Not great but OK. Unlike some who departed from the Official Version. Lovelady wound up doing well financially, as I understand. Roger what's-his-name, the Dallas cop who saw..., he shot himself in the head, right? Ruth is a good Christian lady. Check. She's charitable. Check. She's trusted by the Secret Service, the group in Central America, JFK researchers. No check.

I neglected to mention the effect of the cover-up on the mainstream press. The mainstream press swallowed whole the Oswald-did-it-alone story. By the late 1960s, CBS was a major public supporter of the Warren report, even though by the late 1960s a clear majority of the U.S. public came to doubt the report's conclusion that there was no conspiracy. This was while a clear majority of the U.S. public supported the war; and in my estimation would have supported Operation Mockingbird. The press shot itself in the foot over the Warren Report. When "All the President's Men" came out in the mid-1970s, it caused lots of youngsters to want to become Woodward & Bernstein. That movie was great for journalism schools. It took Jim Hougan's "Secret Agenda" to dispel the holy myth of Robert Woodward and the Washington Post. Today, name ten persons who believe in the truthfulness of the mainstream media, and if you can, award yourself a treat; maybe a piece of cheesecake, because you will have named the last ten individuals in the U.S. whose thinking resembles that of Americans circa November 1, 1963.

I don't believe enough attention has been paid to anonymous telephone calls regarding [a] the Hidell PMO, and the Ryder scope ticket. Those calls could have been made only by a person or persons having inside knowledge and a purpose of framing Oswald. Am I to think these calls were initiated by some party not involved in a plot to kill JFK? I lean that way.

I'm inclined to say yes for one reason: in the wake of JFK's murder Americans lost faith in the U.S. Government. But if I examine that argument, I'm forced to admit that it wasn't JFK's murder that caused loss of faith. It was the way the U.S. Government and its officers dealt with the murder. The Government denied the truth to the American people. I came some years ago to believe [a] all elected officials are incompetent and dishonest, and all government bureaucrats are the same, only worse. But I see today that elected officials and government bureaucrats haven't changed since 1963. Hoover has been replaced by some non-entity. Katzenbach has been replaced by some non-entity. McCone, the same. Today's players are faceless and nameless, so to speak. They're less colorful than the players in 1963, but they play by the same rules. JFK's murder caused some ripples in time and space. No ripple really dies, in the sense that there's conservation of energy, a deep principle of the universe. But today, what lives on is not JFK's murder -- even though I believe it gave rise to the Viet Nam war and the 1960s as represented by popular culture. What lives on today, in panoramic color for all to see, is the cover-up. Sandy Larsen, I believe, and Sandy please forgive me if I'm wrong, or someone else, has written that to understand the cover-up one must understand the crime. I don't think that's necessary. I think today, 6 February 2016, the cover-up had its genesis in the crime but acquired a life of its own very quickly. And I think it's the cover-up that fuels the debates over the assassination. When one is in the trenches, one can't see the big picture, only the features of the battlefield immediately ahead. I've studied the features of the battlefield a bit. Not as much as the experts here. I don't think one can understand the battlefield without taking a wide, overhead view.

If I'm wearing a shirt and tie and have tilted my head down, my adam's apple is below the top edge of my shirt collar. If I'm standing looking straight ahead, the top edge crosses my adam's apple. If I twist my head to the side or tilt my head upward, the top edge can cross under my adam's apple. JFK was not static like a dummy. He was waving and turning to look at the crowd. I believe, therefore, it's possible a bullet fired from somewhere to JFK's front cleared his collar and entered just below his thyroid cartilage. Possible.

Thanks, Paul Trejo. BTW, we aren't adversaries. I want only the truth.

No one here has proved Ruth Paine was a xxxx and deceiver. I think she was. But I can't prove it. I dislike Ruth Paine viscerally. Maybe, as Paul Trejo maintains, she is an honest person. I know one thing: if Ruth wanted to clear the air, she would come forward openly and answer all questions to the best of her knowledge.

Harry Dean, Please tell your intelligence recruitment and training. That is, tell about how you were recruited to do intelligence work. And how, when, and by whom you were trained to do such work. And also, if I may, who (without naming names necessarily) instructed and handled you. Thanks.

The only point of John Armstrong's article with which I disagree is John's statement that Klein's could not have been paid by First National Bank of Chicago ("First") in the absence of First's stamp on the PMO. All that was necessary for Klein's to be paid (credited) was Klein's endorsement. The problem here was for First. If it didn't stamp the PMO, it would not have been credited by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago. The Klein's deposit slip, BTW, is no proof whatsoever Klein's got paid (credited) by First. In case of doubt, make out your own deposit slip, and tell me whether the deposit slip by itself is proof your account has been credited by your bank. The only proof of crediting is a bank statement. Let's see Klein's bank statement(s) for the period in question. Let's see First's statement(s) for the period in question. Show me a Klein's bank statement showing Klein's got paid for the A. Hidell PMO, and I'll shut up. Show me a First bank statement showing that First got credited by the FRB of Chicago for the Hidell PMO, and I'll shut up. Yeah, it's that serious, that important.

Ron, In my opinion, the time and the place of the assassination were critical. Dallas was perfect. LBJ did not have to kill JFK. He was going to be a suspect in any event. Witness "Macbird". LBJ was pinned to the ropes. Don't fall for the obvious.

Paul B., I agree. I don't believe Ruth Paine had anything to do with the cover-up. Hoover found her a pest. As for the framing of Oswald, I've got an open mind. Ruth is hard to read pre-assassination and post-assassination. Pre-assassination, she appears to want to be close to Marina. And she she appears (driving lessons, etc.) not to be hostile to Lee. Post-assassination it's another matter. She has nothing good to say about Lee. Truth is, if I had my way, I'd examine Ruth under oath. But that would be pointless. She's old and fragile.

The autopsy photos are worthless except that they contradict the Dox and Rydberg drawings, statements of many medically-trained observers, and IMO the right lateral x-ray.

David Andrews, Arrows of suspicion from different directions point at such members of the Eastern Establishment as far as I'm concerned. My guess is that they orchestrated the hit and Oswald's framing; and left the dirty work of the cover-up largely to the FBI. My further guess is that both LBJ and Hoover could see what had happened and what was happening.

A key question is, why did the FBI fabricate so many documents, as John Armstrong alleges? I believe Armstrong's allegations are correct. I don't believe any FBI employee had a hand in killing JFK. The cover-up is another matter. So why did FBI agents fabricate those documents? I believe Hoover didn't want any official conclusion other than that LHO killed JFK acting alone. No one in any position of power in the U.S. government wanted any other conclusion. I believe the plotters anticipated this unfolding of events; which tells me the plotters had an unerring take on D.C. power politics. That narrows the field for me.

Paul Trejo, Are you certain you can describe in detail the nature of Ruth Paine's relationship with Marina's husband? I can't. And I wonder what they thought about each other while both were living.

Thanks, Jim Hargrove.

Paul, I ask, who were Bundy's patrons or sponsors? I believe they were members of the Eastern Establishment who had reasons to want JFK gone.

I believe this whole matter is a distraction. For years, many researchers and other critics assumed there was an assassination-related wound in JFK's throat and that it was a wound of entrance. There was much beating of the drums over this. And what was the outcome? A yawn from the press. The U.S. Government didn't even yawn. Now there are questions as to whether the wound was assassination-related (A.G.), as to whether the wound was a wound entrance or a wound of exit, and whether if it was a wound of exit it was caused by bone or metal. There is no resolution, no finality, here; only endless debate that has no winner; and even if it has a winner, the winner's prize is a yawn from the press and a no-reaction from the U.S. Government. I urge all the knowledge and talent here to focus on the cover-up. If the cover-up can be understood, everyone is one clear step further toward understanding the assassination. The cover-up is understandable, I believe.

Further thoughts on the cover-up: The cover-up, if there was one, appears to have begun early on the afternoon of the assassination. Not with the framing of Oswald, IMO. The frame job, I believe, was part of the assassination planning. The cover-up, in my view, began when the Establishment seized upon the idea was the sole assassin; perhaps began when McGeorge Bundy stated that there was no conspiracy. It's difficult to think clearly about the cover-up, because at each turn one is confronted with the question "why?". Why did Humes burn his notes, burn his first draft, lie, and commit other wrongs? Because he was ordered to do so? Because he was coerced to do so? Because he was incompetent and bumbling? I believe one has to rule out that he was part of a plot to kill JFK. And what about McCone, whom I believe received two sets of briefing boards by the morning of Monday, November 25. Was he part of a plot to kill JFK? I don't think so. But he appears to be key to the early cover-up. I don't think anyone was in a position to coerce McCone. So his reason(s) for covering up likely differ from Hume's. It seems to me the key to understanding the very first hours of the cover-up is to focus on the key players -- Bundy, Hoover, Humes, LBJ, McCone, possibly others -- and to see if they have any common nexus. I'm most suspicious of Bundy, because he spoke early and unequivocally as a high-ranking officer of the Executive Branch. Hoover, Humes, and McCone all worked farther down the Executive Branch food chain.

Kathleen Collins, I've always thought the alleged RFK statement -- "It doesn't look like him." -- to be significant. The conspirators, IMO, were playing two tracks. One track was for the American People. The second track was for the Kennedy Family. The track for the American People was seized by the press. The track for the Kennedy Family was seized by that family. The message was, you want to investigate JFK's death, be prepared for all the dirt.

Paul, IMO, post-Stalin USSR did need to be America's enemy from a practical standpoint. The U.S. has needed enemies. Enemies are good for the U.S. economy and also for U.S. politicians. Even JFK said soaringly, "...bear any cost...." What an inspiration to young American males who, facing the draft, might aspire to become Green Berets and bring a better life to the people of Laos. The U.S. suffered a blow when the USSR collapsed in 1989. The void was filled by al qaeda, naturally. Al qaeda aged, and so ISIL (or ISIS) arose. My defense company stocks do well when there's a steady stream of Isis, Boko Haram, and al qaeda events. JFK didn't get on board.

I know nothing about George Bouhe. I do know that if he were controlling Ruth Paine on behalf of an intelligence agency, both he and Ruth would have a pretext for their meetings and communications. That pretext would be a cover story. I also know that Bouhe would have an invisible link to his handler.

I don't know what to think other than that JFK's skull was shot to pieces in a brief space of time. His killer(s) meant to kill him, not merely wound him. The killing was a compact event. Six seconds, maybe longer. To me, this means there were multiple, experienced killers, whose job was to make absolutely sure JFK didn't leave D.P. alive. Many have written that the executioners must have been killed. I don't think that's a given. The assassination, I believe, was a highly skilled, mechanical event. The framing of Oswald and the cover-up are where the fruits of investigation lie.

The discussion here misses the point. Which is, there should be no discussion, no raging debate here. The fact there is debate means one thing: the photographic record (including the autopsy photos, the autopsy x-rays, the various films) are unreliable. Completely.