-
Posts
3,797 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Jim Hargrove
-
-
10 hours ago, John Butler said:
Oswald Timeline and Oswald and Subic Bay by boat:
October 27, 1957: LHO accidentally shoots himself in the arm with a derringer.
November 15, 1957: LHO is discharged from the hospital at Yokosuka, (He spends 19 days in the hospital). Isn’t that an excessive length of time for a minor wound?
November 20, 1957: LHO’s unit sails for the Philippine Islands.
March 7, 1958: LHO's unit sails for Atsugi.
March 18, 1958: The unit reaches Atsugi.
Roscoe White and Subic Bay:
25 Nov. 57 by boat to Subic Bay- arrives 29 Nov. 57.
15 Mar. 58 by boat to Atsugi- arrives 17 Mar. 58.
Jim,
I notice in the movement orders of White and Oswald there is no paper for Oswald traveling to and from Japan and the Phillipines / Atsugi to Subic Bay.
The timeline says his unit traveled by boat (sailed). It says his unit rather than him. Why is there no paper like White for this? Did he go with them or was he sent later by plane?
This photo found in the military photo sections of his 201 file might suggest traveling by air.
This appears to be an aerial view taken by Oswald since it is in his 201 file. It might be Oswald got to fly around the Subic Bay area. If so then why?
It is a bit strange so I thought I would get your view on it.
John,
This gets complicated because we're talking about two different Oswalds in the Marine Corps. The records were partially, but incompletely, merged. Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald was secretly brought to Japan (where American-born Lee Oswald was already serving), and spent a day or so in the brig to avoid being seen with his counterpart, and then left Japan aboard the the USS Skagit on September 14, 1958 for a trip to the South China Sea and a stay in and around Ping Tung, Taiwan. Here are USMC documents showing when Harvey left on "AKA 105," which was the USS Skagit, and that he was in Taiwan on Oct. 6, 1958.
In the meantime, American-born Lee Oswald remained in Japan where he was rather famously treated for venereal disease. All these treatments happened while Harvey Oswald was aboard the Skagit and in Taiwan.
If you want to look at this in greater detail, start reading roughly halfway down this page:
https://harveyandlee.net/Marines/Marines.html
-
And, to point out the obvious, Mr. Ely’s memorandum about the school days of a Lone Nut® with no particular connections to anyone caused such consternation at the Warren Commission that, less than a month later, Jenner would write to Rankin and say, “... there are details about Mr. Ely’s memoranda which will require material alteration and, in some instances, omission.”
No kidding!
-
13 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
Looking at the notch on the top of the stock behind and below the scope and I noticed something that had fooled me. I thought the distance between the notch and the rear of the slide mechanism was too short, but it turns out the rifle in 133a is cocked. That pushes the slide to the rear about one inch.
To me it looks like there is a shadow just behind the slide that fills in the long gradual line of the stock and makes the notch look extra short and deep. I think taking those two observations together explains the weird looking notch.
There are several points I want to make about the image below. First to Josephs point about the butt of the stock having different angles than 133a, the lower image has an overlay of the two stocks in which you can verify that the angles do not match. The tops match but the bottoms do not. 133a is the smaller stock and fits inside the FBI/WC stock. How the 133a stock is smaller even though the length of the rifles matches maybe due to magnification of the barrel end of the rifle length in 133a. If the barrel is magnified then you would have to decrease the overall length of the rifle when comparing to the FBI photo. That would cause the stock to look smaller than the FBI image.
On John Butlers point about the scopes being at different angles I found that in the FBI photo the scope does point slightly downward when compared to the barrel. Not as much as John found though. Looking at the overlay I made of the stocks it is apparent that the 133a image has a smaller stock making the top rear of the stock slightly lower than the FBI image. So using that point on the stock as a reference resulted in two different angles for 133a and the FBI photo making the difference in the scope angles appear greater than they are. Still the angle of the scope in the FBI photo does appear to angle down very slightly. I wonder if they realigned the scope for the test firing before or after the FBI photo was taken?
The angle of the 133a scope is a different matter. In the magnified image of the 133a scope below it looks to me like the front and middle parts of the scope are aligned with each other. but the rear is not straight. It angles down and does not align with the rest of the scope. I can't find any other Carcano image that does that. It is not rotation or the barrel leaning towards the camera, I can't find anything that would explain it. So I am suspicious that the the rear of the scope may be added in.
Joseph pointed out something Jack White noticed about the white discoloration where the butt meets Oswald's pants. I have seen this many times before on photos that had no reason to be faked. I don't know if it means something was faked in this instance because I have never come across a reason why those white areas happen in the first place.Chris,
But the scope is significantly shorter compared to the rifle in CE 133-A than it is in CE 139, as the comparison photo below shows.
You say, “I am suspicious that the the rear of the scope may be added in,” but how does adding something to the scope make it shorter than the scope of the rifle in evidence?
Anything added to 133-A altering the ratio of the length of the scope to the length of the rifle would have to REMOVE part of the scope.
Not only would part of the scope have to be erased, but parts of “Oswald’s” clothing (and perhaps even his thumb in addition to clothing) would have to be added.
In the days prior to cloning tools in digital photo editors, this would have surely been a difficult task, and one that is difficult to find a motive for.
The dramatic difference between the lengths of the scopes in the two photos below is the most obvious tell that these rifle/scope combinations are different. It seems to me it is now up to a Warren Commission loyalist to prove otherwise. Are we to believe them over our lying eyes?
-
John,
As the following two USMC embarkation slips show, both LEE Harvey Oswald and Roscoe A. White embarked aboard the USS Bexar at San Diego bound for Yokosuka, Japan on Sept. 12, 1957. (See the last line on each document.)
Not only that, but the White embarkation doc shows that he (Roscoe White) left for Okinawa in September and Subic Bay in the Philippines in November. He and LEE Oswald were both stationed at El Toro, both travelled aboard the USS Bexar, and both were stationed in Subic Bay (in late 1957 and early 1958). Both were still there on January 5, 1958, when the Martin Schrand incident (accidental gun shot) occurred.
These guys had ample opportunity to know one another.
-
On 7/5/2019 at 3:08 PM, John Butler said:
Roscoe White is my favorite for the authorship of the BYPs. I believe Oswald knew White in the marines. There is little evidence to say so, but that is my belief. Roscoe White in the marines is in Oswald's 201 file. Why would they do that if there wasn't some connection.
I trust your judgement. Feel free to use what I post in any way you think best.
PS
If you examine the anatomy of the fingers they appear to be faked. I too think the fingers belong to White. That's why I probably said that. A good question might be "Where did Roscoe learn his camera tricks?"
According to John A., Roscoe A. White checked into the Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro, California on July 26, 1957, where American-born LEE Oswald was also stationed. LEE remained there until he left for Japan in late August. At the same time, Russian-speaking HARVEY Oswald was attending Aviation Electronics school in Memphis, Tennessee.
We're in complete agreement on our suspicions of White. The circumstantial evidence against him for the backyard photo framing of LHO is complete and overwhelming.
-
On 6/30/2019 at 7:54 PM, Sandy Larsen said:
Jim,
I found the Encyclopedia Britannica image you mentioned. Here it is:
While the gray scale is excellent, allowing us to make out the scope, the scan resolution is of lower quality than the image you posted.
Nevertheless it does allow us to confirm that the rear end of the scope is shorter than the scope as seen in the DPD photos.
However, when I look at the butt plate in the Encyclopedia Britannica photo, I'm left with the impression that it isn't very curved, but looks curved because of a shadow the butt casts on Oswald's trousers. Your photo is more clear and so I want to conclude that it indeed shows a curved butt plate. But the Encyclopedia Britannica image makes me hesitate in accepting that as fact.
Still, I think there is no question that the rear of the scope is too short. I'm not convinced that the Encyclopedia Britannica image is the source for yours, and so I believe it corroborates yours.
Sandy,
Apologies, but I forgot to answer your post. So if you happen to see this....
The Britannica image you printed has, as you say, a lower resolution than the one I used. However, I was acutely aware that the source I used for the photo might well be an issue, and so I was careful at the time to note that, according to Google Images, the source was Britannica.
I also recall that, when clicking on the “go to the website” link, instead of landing on a Britannica page, I got some more pictures and descriptions from Google Images. My guess, at the time, was that Britannica probably has massive amounts of data behind a paywall, and that the Google spider somehow got through it to pull out that higher-resolution version of the picture. That is just a guess, however.
One thing is certain, though. This image, in varying sizes and resolutions, is all over the net.
-
On 7/2/2019 at 9:24 AM, John Butler said:
Jim,
The orientation of the BYP rifle in relation to the orientation of the WC rifle IMO doesn't matter that much. The two rifles do not need to be parallel in order to show that the WC rifle's scope tilts downward and the BYP rifle tilts slightly upward. Or, is at least the BYP rifle scope is in the same plane as the red line I drew from the butt to the front end of the rifle. You can put the BYP rifle in a vertical position and that would still be the same. The WC rifle's scope points significantly downwards. This differs from the BYP scope suggesting a different mount. You can also see the shirt of the Oswald figure through the BYP scope mount and that indicates a different scope mount. Some may say this is simply light reflecting off the metal of the mount and this may be true. However, that light area has the same quality as light areas on the shirt of the Oswald figure. The front end of the BYP scope is larger as indicated by the sloping line at the bottom of the front part of the scope. If not larger at least shaped differently.
The BYP's bolt handle protrudes lower than the wooden stock of the rifle in comparison to what is shown in the above CE 139 exhibit. One would ordinarily think that this is simply due to camera angle or the orientation of the rifle in the BYP photo. But, the butt stocks seem to be in a vertical position in both photos. Mean while the front of the BYP rifle seems to be orientated slightly towards the back of the photo. If you look at the front part of the rifle, particularly the barrel, you will notice that the outline is rough and jagged indicating the rifle is a cut and paste item.
The Oswald figure's long spidery fingers do not appear to be natural either. The bolt handle appears to be painted on when compared to the WC rifle, CE 139. It is not perfectly symmetrical as the bolt handle in the WC rifle photo. In the BYP photo the trigger, trigger guard, and magazine do not appear to be there. But, on lightening the photo they are there.
John,
Thanks again for those fine comparison lines at the top of your post. There appear to be a number of differences between the two rifle images, but the length of the scopes is the most dramatic and obvious, made even more obvious by your thin lines which obstruct little in either image.
After more study, I’m beginning to see what you mean about the scope tilt. If I’d been able to better align the two images, it would probably be more obvious. QUESTION: Shouldn’t the tilt be the same in such similar rifles, and, if it isn’t, wouldn’t at least one of the scopes have to be improperly aimed?
As for the “spidery fingers,” not sure if that is an issue or just an optical oddity, but we do think the fingers belong to Roscoe White, along with the body and wide chin. Roscoe White is shown at left in the photos below.
As John wrote, “Roscoe White worked in the photographic department of the Dallas Police Department. Roscoe and his wife, Geneva, moved to Dallas in 1963. White began working at the Dallas Police Department on October 7, 1963 (likely hired by Capt. Westbrook, who was in charge of the personnel department), while his wife worked for Jack Ruby in the Carousel Club…. Roscoe White continued working for the Dallas Police until Sept. 18, 1965, when he resigned, and died in an explosion six years later at age 35.”
Above is a well-known picture of Geneva White posing for Ruby.
About 5 years after Roscoe White’s death, his widow, now named Geneva Dees, supplied the HSCA with an 8 x 10 print of a Backyard Photo that was just slightly different from CE 133-A. John wrote, “According to Mrs. Dees the photo had been acquired by her former husband, Roscoe White (deceased) while employed with the Dallas Police at the time of the assassination. The HSCA designated this photograph as 133-C (Dees). Mrs. Dees told the HSCA that following the assassination her husband was "sent to the Oswald home in his capacity as a plainclothes detective for the photography division." She said that her husband was skilled in trick photography and had once made composite photographs of their boys which showed they were flying around a room. Significantly, the pose in the photo found among Roscoe White's possessions was similar to the pose in one of the "cut-outs" found in DPD files, and was the same pose used by the Dallas Police in re-enacting the backyard photos for the Warren Commission (Jesse Curry's book, JFK: Assassination File, p. 87)”
-
Len Osanic’s Black Op Radio interview of John Armstrong about his revelations on the Back Yard Photos will air tonight starting at 6 pm PST. It should be archived as Show # 946 soon after it airs.
-
John,
Not all of the images in these collections are claimed to have been among Classic Oswald’s® possessions, at least I don’t think so. John A. was the only person I know of who sat at the National Archives and looked at every photo—front and back—in the so-called Oswald’s possessions collection. He said, from memory, that there were probably fewer than 30 or 50 in total.
Some were what you would expect, including the Bronx Zoo and New Orleans, and some from the Far East, and a number of pictures were in the distinctive Minox camera format. He also said there were some that made no sense, such as photos of the Roman Colosseum and from London.
-
17 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:
The Identification Bureau at Dallas Police HQ wrote a receipt at 4 PM 11/23/63 listing two negatives of Oswald holding rifle.
https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338992/
I am not aware of any official document generated in 1963-64 referring to the third Backyard photo.
Thanks, Jeff!
Mr. BALL. Did you find some pictures?
Mr. ROSE. Yes; I found two negatives first that showed Lee Oswald holding a rifle in his hand, wearing a pistol at his hip, and right with those negatives I found a developed picture--I don't know what you call it, but anyway a picture that had been developed from the negative of him holding this rifle, and Detective McCabe was standing there and he found the other picture--of Oswald holding the rifle.Assuming Rose (and Hicks for the receipt) are telling the truth, my bet is the FBI "lost" one of the negatives. Why?
-
15 hours ago, John Butler said:
The WC scope appears to be significantly larger than a difference produced by camera angles or distance of the rifle photographed. The WC scope protrudes beyond the bolt assembly by a greater distance than the BYP scope. Both scopes protrude beyond the scope mount at about the same distance to the front.
The WC scope is tilted downward at a greater degree than the BYP scope which is tilted upwards. This may well indicate that the two scope mounts are different.
The rifle stocks appear to be different due to the sculpting of the stock of the BYP rifle has greater curves than the WC stock.
The bolt grip or handle seems to be different in the two rifles according to the red lines drawn from the top of the butt stock to the top of the rifle's end.
John,
Thank you for these clear lines of comparison. The only point you make that I disagree with is the tilting of the scope. That may be caused, at least in my opinion, by a not quite preceise rotation of the Backyard photo rifle. I did my best, but I can see from your lines that it is not quite perfectly parallel with CE 139. Thanks again.
-
8 hours ago, Jeff Carter said:
LIFE Magazine described what was in their possession as a "copy negative".
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1138#relPageId=475&tab=page
The Dallas Police reports from 11/23/63 described finding two negatives at Ruth Paine's (133-A & 133-B), and two negatives are listed as received at police headquarters shortly thereafter. Oswald was shown a print of 133-A later that day, presumably created from the negative. How, why, or when this negative disappeared has never been determined.
The FBI determined that all existing prints beyond those initially discovered (the "drugstore prints" of 133-A and 133-B), were created at Dallas Police HDQ, and that would include the one in possession of James Martin. The "drugstore prints" were not of inferior quality, but were quite small (3"x3").
A good research project - and perhaps some resources could be pooled to facilitate this, if it is feasible - would involve creating hi-res scans of the best versions available at National Archives. The reliance now is on copies of copies, some of which had been subject to photo enhancement by outlets such as LIFE.
5 hours ago, Pat Speer said:I looked into this a bit at one point and made a few discoveries. The HSCA photo panel claimed the enlargement from 133a created on the 23rd and the multiple versions of 133c they retrieved from White, Studebaker and Stovall all came from the original negatives. This means that, in the eyes of the HSCA, the DPD had ALL THREE negatives but only turned the negative to 133b over to the Warren Commission. The location of the other two remains a mystery.
Now, to be fair, Studebaker tried to deal with this in his HSCA testimony. He claimed the copies he handed out were made from photos, and not negatives. So...there's a divide...which made Gary Mack's mind spin when I first pointed it out. If one trusts the photo panel than one is forced to conclude the DPD stole not one but two of the three negatives they'd recovered. If one trusts the DPD, on the other hand, then the photo panel was wrong, and couldn't tell a copy of a copy from a first generation print.
John A. described this sorry situation this way in the new article that prompted this thread:
The search of the Paine's home was conducted by Detectives Gus Rose, H.M. Moore, R.H. Stovall, and John P. Adamcik. Rose said they found two sea bags, three suit cases, and two cardboard boxes, which contained numerous items of evidence that belonged to Oswald. Rose said he found two negatives and one snapshot of Oswald holding a rifle, while Irving Police Officer John McCabe said he found a second "backyard photograph" in an off-white colored sea bag. Detective Adamcik, however, disagreed with both Rose and McCabe. Adamcik said that he found 2 "backyard photos" in a packet of 47 photographs and initialed each photograph. Two hours after they arrived at the Paine home the detectives took three backyard photos, which were initialed and dated, and one negative (133-B), to DPD headquarters (Rose, WC Vol. VII, p. 231). These three photos, shown below, are the only "backyard photos" found by the Dallas Police. The negatives for 133-A and 133-C were never found.
Pat Speer is correct that only the negative for 133-B was ever acquired by the Warren Commission. In the original typed DPD lists of Oswald’s possessions, before the FBI got involved and produced a vastly expanded and falsified list, only Stovall Exhibit B lists anything about negatives.
The article, for those entering this thread in the middle, is here:
https://harveyandlee.net/Ryder/Ryder.html
-
13 hours ago, Michael Clark said:
To be sure, all scopes I have used slide forward and back in the mounting rings. If you had to remove a scope for transport or storage, or to use a scope on several guns, you would remove the scope from the mount, not the mount from the gun. While MC might be different in ease of mount removal, the scope would still, probably, slide within the mount.
Michael,
I’m pretty certain John told me that the scope on the Mannlicher Carcano he owns does not slide back and forth in the mount, but I’ll try to remember to confirm that with him, at least for his scope. But it strikes me as ultimately irrelevant in this case whether the scope slides in the mount or not.
Take another look at the comparison image above. Note how closely the ends (away from the shooter’s eye) of both scopes align, while the fronts (toward the eye) clearly do not align. The backyard photo scope is simply shorter than the scope of the rifle in evidence. Just measure them on your monitor. It shouldn’t matter whether it was mounted differently or not.
And I don’t see how this could be explained by camera angles. If the images of the rifles are reproduced at the same length, then the attached scopes should also be the same length, regardless of how perpendicularly the subjects are aligned to the camera’s view, no?
-
2 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
Jim, yes I agree with your premise about the rear half of the scope. The perspective can account for the overall length differences of the rifle and to some degree the size of separate parts. But the rear of the scope is too long compared with the front of the scope.
The only problem I question now is about the source of the backyard photo. I have studied 133a and spent a lot of time searching for the best contrast of Oswald's right hip. I have never found any image that showed the end of the scope clearly. There are some enhanced or shopped version of 133a that show the butt and rear of the scope and Life Magazine has said they shopped their image a bit to make the butt and scope clearer. I will look at the encyclopedia copy.Chris,
According to Google Images, the photo I captured, rotated and cropped was from Britannica. I selected it because the image seemed clear and had extended grey tones bringing out additional details.
To see a Google Image search based on the Britannica image, CLICK HERE.
There appear to be scores of identical images all over the world.
As I understand it, based on John A’s research, ALL the backyard photos officially entered into evidence (CE 133-A, B, and C) are so poor that a scope can’t even be seen against the dark clothing worn by who we suspect was Roscoe White with Oswald's head. John wrote,
Life Magazine allegedly obtained a copy of 133-A (below) from FBI agent James Martin, who was entrusted with the care and protection of Marina Oswald. This photo, however, was an enhanced version of 133-A that was found by the Dallas Police. It showed more detail and now a scope could be seen on Oswald's rifle. THIS PHOTO WAS NOT FOUND BY DALLAS POLICE, and the origin and source of this photo (below) remain unknown. FBI Agent Martin should have been asked who gave him this photo.
Enhanced version of 133-A. THIS PHOTO WAS NOT FOUND BY THE DALLAS POLICE.
On February 21, 1964 Life Magazine published a 3rd version of CE 133-A that was retouched and showed even more details of the rifle and scope.
The biggest problem we have, as I see it, is that it was never explained how LIFE magazine obtained such an enhanced copy of CE-133A. In my opinion, it looks like the magazine editors had access to a negative, which was not supposed to exist.
-
13 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
David it simply shows how the proportions of a rifle can be greatly distorted by a small change in the angle of the rifle to the camera. I believe this is the reason behind the different sizes of Carcano images from Dallas pd, FBI and others.
I don’t think so, Chris.
Regardless of the angle of the rifles to the camera, even a brief observation of the above shows that the two scopes by themselves are different. Note that in the top photo, the Carcano rifle placed in evidence as CE 139, the part of the scope extending behind the mount (toward the eye of the shooter) is significantly longer than the portion extending forward from the mount (in the direction of bullet travel).
But in the bottom image, showing the rifle Oswald was framed with from the “backyard photos,” the same two parts of the scope are essentially equal in length. For each of the two different scopes, viewed individually, these PROPORTIONS SHOULD NOT CHANGE, regardless of the angle the of the rifle to the camera.
To me, at least, it seems quite obvious. Do you disagree?
-
11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:
Jim,
Do you have the source image from which the bottom photo (of the two above) was taken? I know you didn't take that from your Life magazine cover because that one doesn't show a curved rifle butt, and the back end of the scope cannot be made out in it.
I searched and searched online for a backyard photo showing those things and other details as seen in your photo and could find none. I'm left wondering if you are the victim of someone else's touching up.
Sandy,
I did a Google image search for the backyard photo with the clearest view of the dark rifle and scope against the dark clothing worn by who we think was Roscoe White. According to Google, the one I selected was from ENCYCLOPEDIA BRITANNICA and seemed to have the the most complete grey scale and thus the most observable detail.
-
I never noticed the head size before, but you make an interesting point, Joe. A bit of quick research found an online page for comic book artists called “Understanding Basic Proportion of the Human Figure.”
This page suggests that, in an adult male, the head should be about one-eighth as long as the the entire body, from head to toe, which is called “The 8-Head Count.” Rough measurements of the so-called picture of "Oswald" above indicate that the head is between a fifth and a sixth of the body height, much larger than it should be. You might be on to something here....
-
Here, of course, is the infamous pose as it appeared on the cover of the February 21, 1964 edition of LIFE magazine. This is a print of the full image I used for the crop in the comparison above.
-
To cut to the chase, here is a visual comparison of the “backyard photo” rifle and scope (CE-133-A) with CE 139, the rifle and scope placed in evidence by the Dallas Police and the Warren Commission.
At John A’s suggestion, I created the graphic above by rotating a “backyard photo,” cropping out just the rifle, and positioning it directly below the WC image of CE 139. The differences, including the scope’s relation of the rifle, seem quite obvious. Note also the color of the sling and the curvature of the end of the rifle butt. John added the the pointers below to show the differences in the scope.
Below is a link to John’s soon to be released article on my website discussing this new development. In short, the piece explains that the so called “Backyard photos” were being processed by Robert and Patricia Hester at the National Photography Laboratory in Oak Cliff long before they were officially “discovered,” and that the composite picture in the photo(s) is most likely Russian-speaking Harvey Oswald’s head placed on Roscoe White’s body, and that the whole Dial Ryder story was invented because initial prints of the backyard photos did not appear to show a scope mounted on the rifle.
This piece may not be in its final form yet. I just finished uploading it to the server an hour or two ago, but it is already a kick-ass read!
-
39 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said:
Cliff - what’s your explanation for why we never invaded Cuba? Are you saying the plotters changed their minds? Or perhaps, as I believe, it was never their actual goal.
Paul,
I think LBJ put the kibosh on a Cuban invasion when he ordered the cover-up. If the plotters didn’t want to invade Cuba, what was the point of the whole FPCC charade in New Orleans? How do you explain all those lies by David Atlee Phillips immediately after the hit? And why to this day do so many “Kennedy assassination researchers,” at least the ones allowed to pontificate in main stream news outlets (Philip Shenon comes to mind) still try to blame Castro for the hit?
If it wasn't to provoke an invasion of Cuba, what do you think was the actual goal of the plotters?
-
Ron,
The article you cite was published on Jan 23, 1978, just one week before Henry Gonzalez replaced Thomas Downing as chairman of the nascent HSCA. Gonzalez immediately tried to fire Richard Sprague as chief council. In the squabble that followed, Louis Stokes replaced Gonzalez and, on March 29, Stokes replaced Sprague with G. Robert Blakey.
In an old post on this forum, John Simkin added:
Sprague later told Gaeton Fonzi that the real reason he was removed as chief counsel was because he insisted on asking questions about the CIA operations in Mexico. Fonzi argued that "Sprague... wanted complete information about the CIA's operation in Mexico City and total access to all its employees who may have had anything to do with the photographs, tape recordings and transcripts. The Agency balked. Sprague pushed harder. Finally the Agency agreed that Sprague could have access to the information if he agreed to sign a CIA Secrecy Agreement. Sprague refused.... "How," he asked, "can I possible sign an agreement with an agency I'm supposed to be investigating?"
As you probably know, Blakey was a specialist in Organized Crime and refocused HSCA investigations away from the CIA. The article you cite is skeptical of Ruby’s claim to prison Dr. Warner Teutor that he (Ruby) “had been part of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy that involved ‘high government agencies.’” Nice timing.
-
That’s reasonable speculation, but the evidence shows that, on the day of the assassination, Jack Ruby called KLIF radio founder Gordon McClendon’s unlisted private phone number. McLendon was a former Naval Intelligence officer who was a close friend and confidant of CIA officer David Atlee Phillips. McClendon and Phillips had been friends since both attended school in Fort Worth and in 1975 McClendon joined Phillips in forming the Association of Former Intelligence Agents.
The night of the assassination, Ruby accompanied KLIF announcer Russ Knight in Dallas Police headquarters where the men talked to D.A. Henry Wade and Dallas Police Lieutenant James Gilmore. Ruby told Gilmore that he was going to McClendon’s radio station, KLIF, to pass out sandwiches. He arrived there about 1:30am on 11/23.
This is a likely a connection between Ruby and Phillips, with McClendon as the cut-out.
-
5 hours ago, Ron Bulman said:
I was wrong about Warren Commission testimony. It was to the HSCA.
Ron,
Thank you for the link. I skimmed through Campisi’s HSCA testimony for the second time (the first time was many years ago) and didn’t see anything close to a smoking gun regarding Ruby’s so-called Mob ties... other than the fact that Campisi claimed he knew him. Did I miss something?
I can show you any number of FBI reports indicating that close Ruby friends, associates and law enforcement investigators were unaware of any real ties between Ruby and the mob. But, of course, that’s what we’d expect the FBI to show us, just as we’d expect G. Robert (“the Mob did it”) Blakey’s HSCA to find otherwise.
From Wikipedia:
George Robert Blakey (born January 7, 1936, in Burlington, North Carolina) is an American[3] attorney and law professor. He is best known for his work in connection with drafting the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and for scholarship on that subject.... Blakey drafted the "RICO Act," Title IX of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, signed into law by Richard M. Nixon.[1]....”
Blakey was all about Organized Crime investigations, just as the HSCA's recently ousted Richard Sprague was all about investigating the CIA. The fact that Blakey couldn't pin Ruby on the Mob speaks volumes.
-
Do you think CIA's Frank Sturgis (real name Frank Fiorini) was friendlier than a Mafia hit man? Somewhere there is a picture of him posed with a gun on a bunch of human skeletons.
NEW! Drop-dead visual proof that the rifle and scope in the “Backyard photos” (CE-133-A, B, C) is different from “Oswald’s” so-called rifle and scope (CE 139)
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
Anything is possible, I suppose, but despite all the speculation and conjecture, what is obvious now is that the famous rifle and scope from the BYPs does not appear to be the same rifle and scope put into evidence by the Dallas Police and the WC. Anyone who wants to say the rifles/scopes were the same must now prove why they appear so different.