Jump to content
The Education Forum

Ron Ecker

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    6,381

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by Ron Ecker

  1. Ron Ecker
    Here’s a link to an interesting article by Erneido Oliva, the second in command in the Bay of Pigs invasion, and the man who presented JFK with the brigade flag at the Orange Bowl. (Photos below.) Oliva was one of the BOP veterans who joined the U.S. Army. He became a major general and is now retired. His article briefly covers Oliva’s and Artime’s relationship with RFK, Oliva’s work with Alexander Haig (then working under Secretary of the Army Cyrus Vance) in the planning of raids into Cuba, and LBJ personally telling Oliva in January 1964 that operations against Castro were over. http://www.camcocuba.org/2004-05/BRIGADEFLAG.html Ron
  2. Ron Ecker
    Mr. Hemming, At the 1996 November in Dallas Conference, you named some people whom you said should have been arrested in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. You named yourself, Conein, WerBell, and "Goodell" (phonetic), by which I assume you meant Senator Charles Goodell of New York. Could you tell us what role Goodell had in the assassination? No motive on his part is readily apparent, and I have never seen his name mentioned elsewhere with regard to the JFK murder. Thanks, Ron Ecker
  3. Ron Ecker
    From Mary Ferrell Database: BRAY EDWARD FRANK 2606 N.E. 12th Ave., Portland, OR CD 913 (67-9); CD 1484 (8-10); National Enquirer 8/23/64 DOB: 4/9/07 POB: Bokoshe, Okla. Formerly employed by Bendix Co. at Navy Torpedo Station, Keypost, WA. In April 1963, allegedly warned Connally that persons connected with Thresher (nuclear submarine that sank 4/10/63) might try to assassinate him. Ron
  4. Ron Ecker
    If the CIA is paying people to spread JFK disinformation, where do I apply for the job? I might as well get paid for being wrong. Ron
  5. Ron Ecker
    I’ve gone back and looked up Anderson’s references to Drecher (through Amazon.com’s Search Inside the Book). According to his book, Castro agreed to meet with CIA official “Garry Drecher, a German-American émigré who used the alias of Frank Bender,” during Castro’s visit to New York City. They met privately for over three hours on April 21, and after the meeting Drecher told Lopez Fresquet, the Cuban official who had arranged the meeting, that he was convinced that Castro was an anti-Communist, and they had agreed to exchange information about Communist activities in Cuba. Anderson expresses the opinion that Castro was just saying what his audience wanted to hear. A month later in Havana, Lopez Fresquet was contacted by an American official with a message from “Mr. Bender” for Fidel. Lopez Fresquet gave Castro “the intelligence,” but Castro didn’t answer him and gave him no information to pass on to Bender. Lopez Fresquet was eventually to resign his post and go into exile. (p. 417) Later, Anderson says that “Garry Drecher (aka Frank Bender), the CIA’s Latin American Communist specialist,” was sent to Miami to recruit Cuban fighters among the exiles for the BOP invasion. (p. 467) Those are the only references to Drecher in the text. As noted, I found these through the Amazon.com page on the book. I’m unable to check Anderson’s notes on sources without a copy of the book (still in print). Ron
  6. Ron Ecker
    John, According to researcher Anthony Marsh, Bender was also known as Felix Drecher. Apparently Marsh has even claimed that Bender/Drecher was one of the shooters: http://karws.gso.uri.edu/Marsh/Jfk-conspiracy/LIBEL.REP Felix Drecher is listed on the Cuban JFK Archives site, but apparently as someone other than Bender aka Droller: http://cuban-exile.com/doc_051-075/doc0068.html In a book The Great Heroin Coup, the alias Droller is mentioned, as well as a claim that Bender’s real name was Fritz Swend: http://www.mail-archive.com/ctrl@listserv....m/msg29601.html In his book Che Guevara: A Revolutionary Life (Grove/Atlantic, 1998), Jon Lee Anderson refers to “Garry Drecher (aka Frank Bender)” (p. 467). Ron
  7. Ron Ecker
    I don't know if it has been suggested before, but I see Artime as one possibility for the Umbrella Man. (JFK would have recognized him at the last, which of course would have been the intent, aside from possibly signaling for shooters too.) Ron
  8. Ron Ecker
    Several sheriff's deputies in suits were standing in front of the sheriff's office to watch the motorcade. When the shooting occurred, they all ran over to Elm Street. I think you're referring to Jim Hicks. His story might make a good tragicomical novel or movie, but wouldn't do much to solve the JFK case. Hicks was supposed to testify as an assassination witness in the Garrison investigation, but apparently Garrison wasn't too impressed with him. The most exciting thing that happened to Hicks in New Orleans was being thrown through a plate glass window by two guys who he met in a bar. Hicks spent some time in a mental hospital, and was eventually found beaten to death by a railroad track. Ron
  9. Ron Ecker
    LNers like to argue that the way Oswald got a job at the TSBD is further proof of no conspiracy. Oswald wouldn’t have been working there, we are supposed to believe, if Mrs. Randle had not mentioned to Ruth Paine that Oswald might get a job there. Let’s suppose for a moment that Ruth Paine wanted an excuse to refer Oswald to the TSBD. Someone could have told her, for example, to get Oswald a job at the TSBD, but to make it look like it wasn’t her idea, it was someone else’s and thus purely coincidental to the subsequent turn of events. All Ruth Paine had to do in such a case was get in a conversation with Mrs. Randle and the others about where Oswald might find work. They gave her a list of places, and the TSBD was bound to be included sooner or later, particularly since Mrs. Randle knew that Wesley Frazier had recently been hired there. (Ruth Paine even put a restriction on which places could be mentioned, as it couldn't be a place that would require Oswald driving to work.) All Ruth Paine had to do was sit there until the TSBD was mentioned, and her mission was accomplished. It is also worth noting that Ruth Paine in her WC testimony misrepresented what Mrs. Randle actually said: Mrs. PAINE - And the subject of his looking for work and that he hadn't found work for a week, came up while we were having coffee, the four young mothers at Mrs. Roberts' house, and Mrs. Randle mentioned that her younger brother, Wesley Frazier thought they needed another person at the Texas School Book Depository where Wesley worked. Mrs. Randle in her WC testimony is emphatic that she did not know if there was a job available at the TSBD or not. It’s almost as if she wants the WC to know that Paine was lying. Here’s the exchange: Mrs. RANDLE. Well, we didn't say that he might get a job, because I didn't know there was a job open. The reason that we were being helpful, Wesley had just looked for a job, and I had helped him to try to find one. We listed several places that he might go to look for work. . . . Mr. BALL. And then you also mentioned the Texas Book Depository? Mrs. RANDLE. Well, I didn't know there was a job opening over there. Mr. BALL. But did you mention it? Mrs. RANDLE. But we said he might try over there. There might be work over there because it was the busy season but I didn't have any previous knowledge that there was any job opening. Note that Mr. Ball twice asks Mrs. Randle if she mentioned the TSBD, and both times Randle doesn’t answer the question. It’s quite possible that Ruth Paine mentioned it first, e.g. “What about the Texas School Book Depository?” In any case, the argument that Ruth Paine supposedly got the idea of Oswald applying at the TSBD from Mrs. Randle proves nothing at all, as it could have been totally an act of manipulation by Paine, with Paine going so far as to misrepresent under oath what was said. Ron
  10. Ron Ecker
    I think this was a "modified limited hangout" on Blakey and Billings's part, the HSCA having reluctantly concluded there was a conspiracy. Marcello was one of the people involved. (He was ultimately Jack Ruby's boss.) Ron
  11. Ron Ecker
    I forgot that on Denis's site there is also an HSCA report of an interview of Weitzman himself: http://iquebec.ifrance.com/Assassinat/Misc...0088-10083.html Ron
  12. Ron Ecker
    I suspect that Weitzman is no longer with us. In a 25-page HSCA deposition in 1978 Dr. Charles Laburda described the hospitalized Weitzman as a chronic schizophrenic. He also suggested that Weitzman identified the Barker photo so that the person with the photo would be happy and go away. The report is on Denis's website: http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senat...0208_Part1.html Ron
  13. Ron Ecker
    I understand that Arnold is not casting a shadow. He is standing in a shadow. My point is, a shadow on a person standing where Arnold is standing can only be as small or as large as the person is. That is the only visible shadow, the rest of the shade will be on the ground, as there is nothing directly behind him to catch and extend the shadow we see on him. So the only shadow we see is what is on Arnold, it is the same width as Arnold, and IMO this shadow is too wide to be Arnold or any normal-sized person. I have no answer for that, as I know nothing about lenses. I'm only judging by what I see in the photo. Are other objects in the photo also widened accordingly? Ron
  14. Ron Ecker
    They move into that position before Betzner took his photo. It could be just the woman, and the man stayed on the bench, as if he didn't care. I don't know. I haven't seen Rosemary Willis's statement. Can you tell me where it's found? Yarborough later said that the man he saw dive to the ground could not have been up on the knoll. There is thus confusion about whom Yarborough saw. Several people hit the ground in the plaza. This was previously discussed on Lancer. I am simply unable to see what you see in the overlay/shadow, which is certainly not to say that it isn't there. I just can't see it. But it certainly seems to me that no young soldier such as Arnold would be so wide around the middle as to produce a shadow as wide as the BDM shadow at its base (which would be Arnold's middle) in Betzner or Willis. The shadow is simply too wide, or else Arnold got out of shape in a hurry, IMO. Ron
  15. Ron Ecker
    Alan, It occurred to me that BDM could be wearing a state trooper's hat. But I checked the Texas Dept of Public Safety website, and Texas state troopers wear white hats. At least they do now. Could they have worn dark hats and uniforms in 1963? No theory about BDM is entirely satisfactory. If it's a shooter and the photo shows a muzzle flash, how is it that we also see a muzzle flash associated with Badge Man? How is it possible that momentary muzzle flashes were being caught around the Grassy Knoll using still cameras? I'll buy one muzzle flash, but not two of them caught back to back. Of course BDM could still be a shooter, and what we see is not a muzzle flash. Would a shooter suddenly appear at the wall and then make a quick getaway, hopefully unnoticed, while all the while wearing a distinctive hat? Would he not be dressed as inconspicuously as possible? He could be in a cop's dark uniform, but cops don't wear hats like that. My feeling is that the most likely explanation of BDM is the simplest. (Imagine that.) We know from interviews of Zapruder's secretary Marilyn Sitzman that a young black couple who had been eating lunch was behind the wall at the time of the shooting. I see no reason for Sitzman to invent this couple. And a paper bag and food wrappers were indeed found on the bench where Sitzman said the couple sat, and one of their bottles was found on the wall. It makes sense that this couple would have moved to the front end of the wall as the president approached. What we see in BDM is probably both of them, perhaps the woman leaning forward on the wall and the man standing above and behind her, blended together in the blur of the photo. And they ran away when shots were fired, very possibly when a shot from the knoll came right past them from behind. Sitzman said she thought they were still sitting on the bench at the time of the head shot and ran away after smashing a Coke bottle. When Thompson asked her if they had moved to the front of the wall, she said she didn't think so but that it was possible. I'm sure they would have moved to the front, as it was simply not natural for anyone to stay seated on the bench while the president was coming by, instead of getting up and moving forward (they had the whole wall to themselves) for a better view if not out of simple respect. And the couple quickly disappeared out of panic. Ron
  16. Ron Ecker
    "Hard Hat Man" was construction worker A.J. Millican (who said that he heard 7 shots, and of course was never called to testify). It could not have been Conein, since Conein was standing at the corner of Main and Houston at the time. The theory that a vengeful Madame Ngo was behind the assassination is considerably weakened by the fact that a plot to assassinate JFK was already in place in Chicago, set for November 2, only one day after Diem's assassination in Vietnam. This also makes it seem unlikely that the CIA or U.S. military intended for Diem to be assassinated in addition to JFK. Killing both leaders in the space of two days would surely have aroused suspicion that someone was trying hard to influence the Vietnam situation, and it wouldn't have been Lee Harvey Oswald or Castro Ron
  17. Ron Ecker
    http://www.jfklancer.com/3Patients.html Ron
  18. Ron Ecker
    Here is a link to Willis 5. Both men who were standing on the steps with Hudson are seen in the photo. Interestingly, Hudson himself is not. Presumably he is behind the man standing highest on the steps, yet no part of Hudson is visible. http://www.geocities.com/quaneeri2/5700.jpg Why would Hudson be standing with the man on his right completely blocking his view of the president? Wouldn't Hudson at least stick his head forward into view, or take a step backward or forward, to try to get a look? It is tempting to suggest that Hudson was BDM, having gone up the steps for some reason (he was, after all, the groundskeeper - maybe he even picked up a Coke bottle off the sidewalk and set it on the wall) and was about to come back down when the photo was taken. But Hudson was wearing a white cap and shirt. He also testified that he sat on the steps by the man on his right till the motorcade turned onto Elm, and then they stood up. No mention of going up and down the steps. Ron
  19. Ron Ecker
    Alan, I get a "Forbidden" message when I try the above link, but I went back and looked at the attachment in your earlier post, and yes there are horizontal lines in the TKOAP enlargement, so it's from the same photo. That's why I said that a line in the photo seemed to blend in with the hat brim and made it look wider than it was. I found a print copy of the Costella scan, and it does look like the brim is too wide to be a fedora, plus the top of the hat looks flatter. It strikes me as odd than anyone who would take that exposed position at the wall for a sinister purpose would wear some distinctive kind of hat while doing so, as if hoping for attention. In any case, the only "distinctive hat" I've noticed in DP photos is that of the man (misidentified as Jim Braden IMO) with the x's on his hat band. But he is not in dark clothing. The face that I thought could be discerned in the Groden enlargement is gone both in your blow-up and in the Costella scan. The bright spot was too much to the side of this "face" to be a muzzle flash, but if it's not really the man's face seen in the dark area then I think the possibility that the spot is a muzzle flash still exists. Ron
  20. Ron Ecker
    Alan, Thanks for the BDM images. I don't see the "face" in them that seems faintly discernible in the Groden enlargement in TKOAP. Do you feel that the "face" in the Groden enlargement is a photographic artifact and not a true part of the image? Also, do you agree that either of the two bright spots on BDM's right side is too off center (given the line of sight to JFK) to be a muzzle flash? Ron
  21. Ron Ecker
    That's one of the two men who were standing on the steps with groundskeeper Emmett Hudson at the time of the shots. This one got down to the ground with Hudson while the other one ran away up the steps. Ron
  22. Ron Ecker
    Eugene, Thanks. If you are referring to the man seen standing on the sidewalk in front of the stopped car, that man is photographer Jim Altgens. He can be seen in the same position in photos on pages 401-403 in the book Pictures of the Pain. On BDM, based partly on my earlier remarks on his appearance, I think it's possible that BDM was Jack Ruby. I base this also on the fact that a man who looks just like Ruby, with fedora and dark suit, is seen approaching the crowd at the north end of the overpass soon after the shots. (It's the photo that includes newsman Robert McNeill, and is on page 405 of POTP and page 49 of TKOAP.) Ron
  23. Ron Ecker
    Eugene, Your attachment comes out too blurry on my computer, so I can't tell much about it. But it doesn't look like part of any Willis photo I've seen, nor do I recall anyone in a photo walking away from the wall right after the shots. Ron
  24. Ron Ecker
    I have just gained what to my mind is a proper perspective of Black Dog Man by studying the enlargement of this person at the top of page 192 in The Killing of a President. I believe it's an enlargement from Betzner (seen on the same page but unidentified as such), though the confusing text indicates it's from Willis. In any case this is the clearest enlargement I've seen of BDM, and for the first time I see his face, which helps put the rest of his image in perspective. Bill refers to the "slanted shade line" that creates the BDM image. This relates to Bill's belief that BDM is shadow seen on Gordon Arnold standing behind the wall. I have not agreed with that view, mainly because BDM is too large to be shadow just on part of Gordon Arnold or anyone else of normal size. BDM is the full upper part of a darkly clothed person or persons. The impression of shadow is created by the fact that BDM is wearing a dark coat and fedora. The top of the fedora is almost as clear in this enlargement as the top of Hat Man's fedora behind the fence in the Moorman photo. I have previously had the impression that the brim of BDM's hat is unusually wide, nothing like a fedora, but I now see that in the background behind him there is a streak in the photo that runs parallel to the hat brim, blending it with it to make the brim look wider than it is. The man is leaning forward on the wall, his left elbow extended on the top of the wall, as his face is looking straight toward JFK. What is puzzling is the bright light or flash, which looks very much like a muzzle flash, just to the lower right (his right) of BDM's face. It's tempting to say it's a muzzle flash, but it can't be, because if he was shooting at JFK in this photo the flash would be in front of his face, on a line with JFK. There is nothing that I know of between BDM and the camera that would interpose this splotch of light on his body. I'm wondering if perhaps BDM is holding a radio up to the side of his face, and the radio is reflecting light. There is another flash-like light right below that one. It's in position to be his left hand as if holding the bottom of the radio in his right hand. But I question whether his hand would brightly reflect light while his face does not. In any case, these two bright spots on his right side, one below the other, are what give BDM's figure a deceptively slanted look. In sum, it seems clear to me, from this enlargement, that the man's face is visible, as he's looking toward JFK, and he's wearing a dark coat and fedora as he's leaning foward on the wall. I don't know what the two brights spots are. Nor do I know why this person seems to have beat a hasty retreat soon after the Betzner and Willis photos were taken, or why no eyewitnesses that we know of actually saw him where he is seen in these photos (though understandably all attention was on the president, and the sound of a shot or shots coming from above and behind him). Ron
  25. Ron Ecker
    Jim, With John B. Hurt and John D. Hurt, it looks like we have a coincidence either way you look at it. So one way to approach it is to ask, which is the more unlikely coincidence. I think it's much more unlikely that Oswald would want to talk to the Japanese linguist John Hurt and mistakenly try to contact another John Hurt in Raleigh who not only had an intelligence background too but also fit the profile of a potential patsy (mentally unstable, taking a mysterious trip in November 1963) just as well as Oswald or Tom Vallee in Chicago. Add to that the fact that Oswald actually had the Raleigh John Hurt's phone number on the night of November 23, and I tend to believe that Oswald was trying to contact the right Hurt, and that Oswald was trying to do so because this Hurt had been involved someway on the fringe of the conspiracy. There is a problem with that too, mainly why John D. Hurt, if he had been used in the conspiracy at least enough to have Oswald trying to call him, was not among the people eliminated before the HSCA had a chance to talk to them, if not long before then. I have no answer for that. Maybe they lost track of who all they needed to kill. I'm more willing to buy that, anyway, than another unlikely coincidence in the JFK case. Ron
×
×
  • Create New...