Ron Ecker

Jack, I have Armstrong's book and hope to find time to read it before long. But whether there were two Oswalds or one, the Russian-speaking Oswald has to be explained, and the explanation is that he was in U.S. intelligence, either as someone who had a Russian-speaking background (per Armstrong's theory) or was taught Russian by the U.S. military. I just checked the book's index and found nothing on Monterey CA, the language school, or Russian language. Does Armstrong offer an explanation of why the Russian-speaking Oswald would need to go to the Monterey school, as the WC's Rankin indicates that he did? Ron

Oswald's U.S. intelligence background is obvious in that someone had to teach him the Russian language in a hurry. (The idea that he learned Russian so well from playing records in his Marine barracks, when he had time to do so, is ridiculous.) This would have logically been done at the Defense Language Institute in Monterrey CA, which is still the place where U.S. military and intelligence personnel go to learn a foreign language in a hurry. And indeed we know that he went there thanks to the WC executive session of 1/27/64, in which chief counsel Rankin refers to the WC's efforts "to find out what he (Oswald) studied at the Monterey School of the Army in the way of languages." What they found out (as if they couldn't guess) somehow did not find its way into the WC Report. Ron

Jack, I did a Google on moon landing hoax, and the first two sites I've looked at do not cover the question of no rover tracks shown in photos. It's an interesting question that they are apparently unaware of or else have avoided. That said, it seems to me the strongest evidence that we did land on the moon are the moon rocks that were brought back. The site linked below quotes this email from "geologist Callum MacAlister" (I also did a search on MacAlister; he studied geology in England but apparently does not have a degree. He sounds knowledgeable enough.) "Moon rocks are certainly non-terrestrial basalt in origin, and do not match in composition any other extraterrestrial rocks (i.e. meteorites). I could go on at great and boring length about QAPF diagrams, intergrown feldspars, oxygen-depleted micas and the like. But I won't. "So, my point? I KNOW man went to the moon. There's no other way moon rocks could have come here. If they had fallen as meteorites, the atmosphere would have oxidized them in a most obvious way. These rocks are genuine, and have spent, oh, the last 5 billion years or so in an oxygen-poor, radiation-bombarded environment (fusion trails...ask me later)." http://www.redzero.demon.co.uk/moonhoax/Rocks.htm Also, if the Apollo moon landings were faked, what was the near-disastrous Apollo 13 mission all about? Do you feel that they had to fake some sort of failed mission or it would all look too perfect? Ron

Jack, I left this out of the article because Ferrell's relationship with Novel, the lie detector test he was given etc., is all news to me. Is all this in Cutler's book(s)? I believe Cutler wrote a book about the Umbrella Man which I have tried before to find, but I never found even a used copy available. Any other published source(s) on this? Ron

Rose Cheramie told Francis Fruge of the Louisiana State Police that she had worked for Ruby at his night club in Dallas and that Ruby and Oswald "had been shacking up for years." Fruge called Capt. Fritz of DPD with this information, but Fritz wasn't interested. (From report on Cheramie, HSCA 10:199-205)

I've rewritten my online article on the Umbrella Man, as my view has changed on who he might have been. For those interested, here's the link: http://www.hobrad.com/acreumbr.htm Ron

Happy New Year to all. I would love to see interviews of J.W. Foster and J.C. White, the two DPD officers who were stationed over Elm on the triple overpass, Foster on the east side and White on the west side. (As of 1998, Foster resided in Cedar Hill, Texas.) White is the lone individual who testified that a long noisy freight train was moving on the overpass at the time of the assassination, blocking his view of the event and the sound of the shots. Mr. BALL. Did you see the President's car come into sight? Mr. WHITE. No, sir; first time I saw it it has passed, passed under the triple underpass. Mr. BALL. You were too far away to see it, were you? Mr. WHITE. There was a freight train traveling. There was a train passing between the location I was standing and the area from which the procession was traveling, and--a big long freight train, and I did not see it. Mr. BALL. You didn't see the procession? Mr. WHITE. No, sir. - - - - - - Mr. BALL. Did you hear any shots? Mr. WHITE. No, sir. Mr. BALL. Didn't? Mr. WHITE. No, sir. Mr. BALL. First time you saw the President's car it was going underneath? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. ---------- Mr. BALL. All right, now, you heard no sound of no rifle fire or anything? Mr. WHITE. No, sir. Mr. BALL. Freight train was going through at the time? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir. Mr. BALL. Making noise? Mr. WHITE. Yes, sir; noisy train. Foster did not mention such a train in his testimony, and Ball never asked him about a train. But here’s what Foster told Larry Sneed (in Sneed’s book “No More Silence”) over 30 years later: “Just prior to the shots, a three engine locomotive went by, so there wasn’t a lot that you could see or hear from up there even though the locomotive had already passed and just the boxcars were going by at the time the motorcade passed through.” Yet he tells Sneed “I heard three distinct, evenly spaced shots . . . they all sounded about the same, and they came from back toward Elm and Houston Streets. None of them came from the grassy knoll.” Ron

I looked up "Executive Action" in a movie database, and was surprised to learn that Dalton Trumbo wrote the screenplay. As I recall, Trumbo was one of the blacklisted Hollywood writers until Kirk Douglas had the courage to give him the job of writing the script, using his real name, for "Spartacus." That pretty well ended the Hollywood blacklist. "Executive Action" has to be considered one of Trumbo's lesser works. Ron

Jack, I’ve gone through the docs on John’s Harvey and Lee CD relative to Oswald in custody. The only doc I found on the interrogations was Nov 22-23-52, which is page 9 of Fritz’s narrative, describing the interrogation of 10:35 am, 11/23. Fritz states: “Both Mr. Bookhout, of the FBI, and Mr. Kelley, and the Marshall asked Oswald some questions during this interview. “Oswald was placed back in jail at 11:33 am. At 12:35 pm Oswald was brought to the office for another interview with Inspector Kelley and some of the other officers and myself.” Fritz goes on to ask Oswald about the backyard photograph of him holding a rifle. This doc is cited in the book’s text as a source on Fritz asking Oswald about the backyard photograph. Did John simply confuse the two dates in placing Kelley there on 11/22? The reproduced doc (Fritz's page 9) on the CD is undated, so only the times of day given indicate which day is being referred to. At a glance it would be easy to make a mistake on which day Fritz is talking about. You say that John has other docs, which indicates there was no mistake. I can’t comment on any docs not on the CD. But I would like to say that if I wrote an almost 1,000-page book, as fully documented as John’s, I hate to think about how many mistakes I would make. I suspect that it’s humanly possible not to make some mistakes in such a massive work. But I would certainly like to see any docs that state that Kelley was there during the day on 11/22, because he testified he was not. Ron

I don't recall Clinton ever mentioning Files. The only convicts I recall him talking about were Webster Hubbell and the McDougals. It seems like Clinton only talked about convicts whom he knew and worked with. And the only ones who came out of prison alive (Webster and Susan) were the ones who wouldn't talk. There may be some convicts that I've left out, but those are the FOBs I remember.

In his WC testimony, SS agent Roy Kellerman stated that JFK had four wounds. In doing so, he answers the question about the location of an entry wound in the back of the head. It was in the hairline below the large exit wound. Could a bullet entering at the hairline have exited the throat, without leaving a large exit wound, and thus account for the origin of the throat wound? Mr. SPECTER. I would like to develop your understanding and your observations of the four wounds on President Kennedy. Mr. KELLERMAN. OK. This all transpired in the morgue of the Naval Hospital in Bethesda, sir. He had a large wound this size. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating a circle with your finger of the diameter of 5 inches; would that be approximately correct? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, circular; yes, on this part of the head. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the rear portion of the head. Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes. Mr. SPECTER. More to the right side of the head? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. This was removed. Mr. SPECTER. When you say, "This was removed," what do you mean by this? Mr. KELLERMAN. The skull part was removed. Mr. SPECTER. All right. Representative FORD. Above the ear and back? Mr. KELLERMAN. To the left of the ear, sir, and a little high; yes. About right in here. Mr. SPECTER. When you say "removed," by that do you mean that it was absent when you saw him, or taken off by the doctor? Mr. KELLERMAN. It was absent when I saw him. Mr. SPECTER. Fine. Proceed. Mr. KELLERMAN. Entry into this man's head was right below that wound, right here. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the bottom of the hairline immediately to the right of the ear about the lower third of the ear? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. But it was in the hairline, sir. Mr. SPECTER. In his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. Near the end of his hairline? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that aperture? Mr. KELLERMAN. The little finger. Mr. SPECTER. Indicating the diameter of the little finger. Mr. KELLERMAN. Right. Mr. SPECTER. Now, what was the position of that opening with respect to the portion of the skull which you have described as being removed or absent? Mr. KELLERMAN. Well, I am going to have to describe it similar to this. Let's say part of your skull is removed here; this is below. Mr. SPECTER. You have described a distance of approximately an inch and a half, 2 inches, below. Mr. KELLERMAN. That is correct; about that, sir. Mr. SPECTER. All right. What other wounds, if any, did you notice on the President? Mr. KELLERMAN. The other wound that I noticed was on his shoulder. Mr. SPECTER. Which shoulder. Mr. KELLERMAN. Right shoulder. Mr. SPECTER. And was it--what was its general position with respect to the breadth of the back? Mr. KELLERMAN. Right straight. Mr. SPECTER. No. Upper shoulder, lower shoulder; how far below the lower neckline would you say? Mr. KELLERMAN. The upper neckline, sir, in that large muscle between the shoulder and the neck, just below it. Mr. SPECTER. What was the size of that opening? Mr. KELLERMAN. Again about the size of a little finger. Mr. SPECTER. Now, have you described three wounds which you have observed? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is three. The fourth one I will have to collaborate with--the medical people in Dallas said that he had entry in the throat or an exit.

It is apparent from the WC testimony of SS agent Roy Kellerman that the damaged windshield was switched, not once but at least twice, between the shooting and the time that a windshield was brought into the WC hearing for Kellerman to examine. It should be noted, to begin with, that Kellerman believed there was a conspiracy, as is evident from his testimony that there had to be more than three shots. (And Senator Cooper obviously couldn’t believe what he heard.) I think that this would eliminate Kellerman as a conspirator. Mr. KELLERMAN. I am going to say that I have, from the firecracker report and the two other shots that I know, those were three shots. But, Mr. Specter, if President Kennedy had from all reports four wounds, Governor Connally three, there have got to be more than three shots, gentlemen. Senator COOPER. What is that answer? What did he say? Mr. SPECTER. Will you repeat that, Mr. Kellerman? Mr. KELLERMAN. President Kennedy had four wounds, two in the head and shoulder and the neck. Governor Connally, from our reports, had three. There have got to be more than three shots. Representative FORD. Is that why you have described-- Mr. KELLERMAN. The flurry. Representative FORD. The noise as a flurry? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right, sir. Arlen Specter then gets Kellerman to admit that he didn’t actually remember hearing more than three shots. On to the windshield: Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the outside of the windshield? Mr. KELLERMAN. I did on that day; yes, sir. (“That day” refers to Nov. 27, in the White House garage, the first time Kellerman noted the damage.) Mr. SPECTER. What did you feel, if anything? Mr. KELLERMAN. Not a thing; it was real smooth. Mr. SPECTER. Did you have occasion to feel the inside of the windshield? Mr. KELLERMAN. I did. Mr. SPECTER. How did that feel to you? Mr. KELLERMAN. My comparison was that the broken glass, broken windshield, there was enough little roughness in there from the cracks and split that I was positive, or it was my belief, that whatever hit it came into the inside of the car. Several witnesses saw a through hole in the windshield. This is discussed in detail by Weldon in "Murder in Dealey Plaza." The windshield with no hole that Kellerman saw in the White House garage and described to the WC was therefore not the original windshield, but a replacement windshield that had been damaged by hitting it with something on the inside, making no hole and leaving the outside smooth. After the windshield is admitted into evidence: Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Kellerman. I would like for you at this time to actually touch the outside (of the windshield) and tell me, first of all, if it is the same or if it differs in any way from the sense of feel which you noted when you touched it on or about November 27? Mr. KELLERMAN. As I touch the outside on the impact, it would be the same as I noticed on the 27th of November. Mr. SPECTER. What do you notice, if anything? Mr. KELLERMAN. It is a smooth surface without any-- Mr. SPECTER. Without any--finish your answer. Mr. KELLERMAN. On the inside. Mr. SPECTER. No; before. It is a smooth surface without any what? Mr. KELLERMAN. Without any crack lines. Mr. SPECTER. On the outside? Mr. KELLERMAN. That can be felt. Mr. SPECTER. On the outside? Mr. KELLERMAN. That is right; on the outside of the windshield. But now Specter makes a mistake similar to the one the prosecution made in the O.J. trial by having O.J. try on the glove (it didn’t fit!): Mr. SPECTER. Feel the inside and tell us, first of all, whether it is the same or different from the way you touched it on November 27? Mr. KELLERMAN. On November 27, when I felt the inside of this impact area, I was convinced that I could - that I felt an opening in one of these lines, which was indicative to me that the blow was struck from the inside of the car on this windshield. Mr. SPECTER. Does it feel the same to you today as it did on or about November 27? Mr. KELLERMAN. As a matter of fact, it feels rather smooth today. Mr. SPECTER. It feels somewhat differently today than it felt before? Mr. KELLERMAN. Yes; it does. Kellerman had to know at that moment that the windshield had been switched. And this was the second switch (at least) that had been made. (Having gotten rid of the hole with the first switch, why was a second switch made, to have both sides of the windshield smooth? I don’t have a clue.) Ron

I finally got to see the movie "Executive Action" several years ago. I found it to be a very bad film, stilted dialogue and wooden acting, with Burt Lancaster seeming to phone in his lines. It was fascinating to watch only because of my interest in the assassination. Otherwise I could see why it bombed at the box office. This was very unfortunate, because Stone's JFK proved what an impact a really good movie about this national crime can have. The way the plot unfolded in the movie seemed believable as I recall, but the one scene I most remember, still with a chuckle, is when Lancaster is going over the plan with a big blow-up of Dealey Plaza, pointing out where the shooters will be, and he says, "And one will be here on the grassy knoll." That term, of course, was not invented until sometime after the assassination. A small point, but it was one of many lines of dialogue in the film that made me cringe. Ron

Al, Yes, now I remember the windshield issue. I believe you have argued that a south knoll shooter fired through the windshield, inflicting the throat wound, and then fired the fatal shot just over the windshield. And the problem with that, as I believe Bill Miller has argued based on Altgens 6, is that there is no visible windshield damage in that photo right after the throat wound. Therefore the windshield damage came later, Bill has argued, and the throat wound had to come from somewhere else. Because of Altgens 6 I'm inclined to believe that the throat shot came from the north knoll, with some subsequent bullet or fragment damaging the windshield. If it were a north knoll shot, can you think of any reason why the bullet did not go through the neck and exit? Is a pistol shot a possibility as an explanation for non-exit, and might a pistol have been logically chosen from that distance rather than a rifle? Ron

James, It looks like Witt. You don't know where the photo was taken? Ron

Tim, The HSCA photo is a frontal shot of him, without glasses. The hair looks similar. I see no reason to assume it's not the same person. There should be more than one photo of him from the HSCA hearings, but this is the only one that I know of. Ron

John, Who controlled Jack Ruby and ordered him to eliminate Oswald? Also why was Ruby making unusual phone calls to henchmen or associates of Marcello and Hoffa in the days before the assassination? Ron

Consider this display on Louie Steven Witt and UM by Jerry Organ: In looking at the blow-up of the Grant photo, I have to admit that UM could have well been Witt, as Witt claimed. The Bronson image is also consistent with Witt. It is the Bothun photo in which UM in profile seems to look remarkably like Gordon Novel. But bear in mind how blurred the Bothun image is, and the fact that UM in Bothun does not seem to resemble UM in Grant. Which is the clearer and therefore more dependable image? UM in Bothun also seems to have a cowlick just like the one in Novel’s profile photo. But I’m not sure that the “cowlick” in Bothun is really a cowlick or part of the blurred background, i.e. an optical illusion. In short, based particularly on the Grant image, I’m willing to accept UM as Witt, a non-conspirator. And if it was Witt, by association it is therefore probable, IMO, that DCM was also a non-conspirator, i.e. a local black man and not necessarily Latino. They simply sat down together. They were not, after all, the only ones sitting or lying down at the time. The main problem with Witt being UM is Witt’s HSCA testimony, which is inconsistent with the photographic evidence in terms of UM’s actions. This is indeed problematic. FWIW here is how Organ has attempted to explain this: "Critics note Witt said he didn't see 'the President shot or his movements' because Witt was preoccupied walking towards the sidewalk and raising up the umbrella. Photographs show the Umbrella Man was already stationed on the sidewalk with a raised umbrella, and thus a clear view of the approaching motorcade. But consider the dynamics of the moment, such as the possibility that the first and second loud reports diverted Witt's attention towards the Depository as the President neared. "Recall that Witt was in the Plaza to protest against the President — at the last moment, Witt could have seen the Secret Service agents and Mrs. Kennedy, realized the absurdity of his silly protest, and just couldn't face the President. Years later, he would not be able to recall the exact sequence." http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/organ3.htm Ron

Jack, What makes you think there was a soldier there with a camera, but it wasn't Arnold? If you're going to have a soldier there, why not make it Arnold, who was a soldier? This reminds me of the old folk song about "Where have all the soldiers gone?". Ron

Alan, Thanks. I might find a used copy. I'm a fan of "Best Evidence," but not of film alteration theory. The latter reminds me of creationism. The Zapruder film was intelligently designed by the CIA. There's no way to prove it, it's a matter of faith, based on seeming miracles (shoes changing color, the car not stopping, etc.). Ron

Al, I'm sure you dismiss UM as a possible accomplice, just as you dismiss DCM. You therefore dismiss the fletchette theory regarding the throat wound. So I want to ask you about that wound. (I still consider the umbrella gun a possibility, but only that.) I'm sure you've probably answered this before on Lancer, but I don't recall it. What do you think happened to the bullet that entered JFK's throat? Ron

James, I have also heard the story about Hunt having ear surgery. However, in this recent photo of him, his ears look about as Vulcan as ever.

I will confess my ignorance. Can someone tell me what Pig on a Leash is? As best I can determine from the link provided by Denis, Pig on a Leash is the title of a chapter written by Lifton for someone's book. If so, what is the book title? Ron

IMO it was known before the break of dawn that day, indeed before the whole covert operation was set into motion, that there would be no "true immediate investigation." The absence of such an investigation was built into the conspiracy. Again your question assumes the possibility of a "true immediate investigation." There was never going to be one. As you know, Braden was released soon after his arrest to go back to the Cabana, from whence his cohort Morgan Brown had already skipped town. As for Braden remaining silent in any case, I believe mobsters are pretty good at that, when they know that talking can get you five or six bullets in the mouth (a la Sam Giancana) or dismembered and stuffed in an oil drum (a la Johnny Roselli). With regard to DCM, what is suspicious about him is not merely that he was a Latino, but his behavior, not just in whatever he was doing with his hand raised at the curbside within a few feet of JFK, but in then sitting calmly down on the curb, beside another suspicious individual and with chaos all around them, as if taking a work break. The same goes for Braden. He was arrested not for his organized-crime background, which no one could know just by looking at him, but because of suspicious behavior. (Why was he even arrested? Because a couple of honest Dallas cops were doing their job, like many of them did that weekend, all for nothing.) Fair enough, but it looks like I read too much into a passage in your thread “How Intelligence and Military Interact” about the manual for covert operations in Central America and how this might relate to Dealey Plaza: “(The manual) referred to both true operational and false operational cover procedures. Elements of indigenous personnel were to be utilized for access to targets and for blame of operational success and failure as a hands-on participant, when they were not. Organized crime would be utilized for financing and money laundering of such operations and could also be utilized to blame for such operations.” In viewing Dallas as an intelligence/military covert operation, it seemed obvious to me in reading the above passage that the term “indigenous personnel” could be substituted with Oswald, Alpha 66, Interpen, DPD, Ruby, or fill in the blank, and that the term “organized crime” is self-explanatory, with respect to patsies or false sponsors to be “utilized to blame” if need be. Ron

John, This kind of info serves to remind us how big the conspiracy probably was. In his own country JFK had many powerful enemies, all of whom had their reasons to wish he were gone. What we should bear in mind is that there was one central figure who could bring them all together: the Vice President. The unbelievably corrupt LBJ, who had his own desperate reasons to get rid of JFK, knew the generals, he knew the contractors and oil men, he knew the intelligence agents, he knew gangsters, and he was a friend and neighbor of an FBI director without one redeeming quality. Who and what more were needed to pull off a completely safe coup d'etat? Ron