Ron Ecker

Do you believe it was coincidence that Eugene Hale Brading aka Jim Braden was arrested at Dealey Plaza for acting suspiciously, and that on the night of RFK's murder he was staying in LA not far from the death site?

I think that "national security state" is an established term that is synonymous with military/industrial complex, but is perhaps more descriptive. MIC leaves out "intelligence," which is readily identified with national security. Ike should more properly have said "military/intelligence/industrial complex," but of course that's too much of a mouthful and would have ruined the speech.

Are the details known regarding Harvey's death (the same year so many other potential HSCA witnesses shuffled off this mortal coil)? I would think that "complications from heart surgery" might be easily produced.

I haven't flown in years, but I remember flying somewhere in the 1960s and buying flight insurance before I got on the plane. It was inexpensive and quick, kind of like buying a pack of gum, and a nice windfall for the family if something happened. Indeed it was my impression that it was common practice, as cheap as it was. Maybe not, I wasn't a frequent flyer and didn't like to fly. But I don't see anything puzzling about it.

What the Rosetta Stone says about George W. Bush: http://www.hobrad.com/acrerose.htm

Bill, Thanks. That's an interesting image. But it looks like he's wearing some kind of flat-top hat, unlike what he's wearing in Moorman.

Well, this is the first I have heard of Hat Man being photographed by Willis. Are you talking about Willis #7, taken just before the first shot? Willis #5 was taken while JFK was still on Houston Street. Can you post Willis #7 (or whichever it is) and point out exactly where this man's image is found in it?

An officer (presumably Smith) is shown running up to the fence on page 51 of Killing of a President. His left arm is away from his body and his right arm is close, probably because he's holding his drawn pistol.

How about a review? Without further info I'm not inclined to buy a 93-minute DVD on a subject that it seems to me could be covered in 3 minutes. What are the other 90 minutes? Trailers for other DVDs?

A webpage by Greg Burnham (link below) points out that in their 11/29/63 phone conversation, LBJ and Hoover clearly talk about a shot from the front, intended for JFK, hitting Connally because (so they assume) Connally moved. They don’t actually say “the front,” but there is no other way to interpret their words. Hoover tells LBJ that the first and third shots hit JFK, and the second one would have hit JFK if Connally hadn’t turned and got in the way. Both men are obviously unaware that Connally was shot from behind, and of course the single bullet theory did not yet exist. Hoover tells LBJ that the third bullet was a whole bullet and rolled out of JFK’s head onto the stretcher. This is all said after Hoover informs LBJ that the FBI had proven that one man could have fired all three shots in three seconds. So they are talking in effect about framing Oswald, knowing that there was a shooter in front, which they don't even consider worth discussing except as it relates (they assume) to Connally getting hit. Here is the part about the shooting from the transcript at History Matters: LBJ: How many . . . how many shots were fired? JEH: Three. LBJ: Any of them fired at me? JEH: No. All three at the President . . . (snip) . . . he was hit by the first and the third . . . second hit the Governor. The third shot is a complete bullet, and that rolled out of the President’s head . . . (snip) LBJ: Were they aiming at the President? (Note “they”) JEH: They were aiming directly at the President. . . . (snip) LBJ: How did it happen they hit Connally. JEH: Connally turned . . . to the President, when the first shot was fired . . . and I think in that turning . . . it was where he got hit. LBJ: If he hadn’t turned, he probably wouldn’t have got hit? JEH: I think that is very likely. LBJ: Would the President’ve got hit the second one? JEH: No, the President wasn’t hit with the second one . . . LBJ: I say, if Connally hadn’t been in his way? JEH: Oh, yes . . . yes . . . the President would no doubt have been hit. LBJ: He would have been hit three times . . . JEH: He would have been hit three times. . . . http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk...-1963_0239a.htm As if that’s not enough, Hoover wrote a memo later that day summarizing the conversation, and again makes clear that there can be only one interpretation of what was said. And this memo was addressed to several top FBI officials, which can only mean that they too were aware of or assumed a conspiracy with no discussion necessary. The text of the memo is included on Burnham’s webpage, and here is the pertinent passage: “The President then asked how it happened that Connally was hit. I explained that Connally turned to the President when the first shot was fired and in that turning he got hit. The President then asked, if Connally had not been in his seat, would the President have been hit by the second shot. I said yes.” http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/park/1097/lbjeh.html This 11/29/63 conversation is proof that LBJ and Hoover both knew of a conspiracy, whether or not they were involved in it from the beginning. They discuss in a casual manner how “they,” more than one man, shot JFK, and how one of them shot Connally because he turned after the first shot and thereby got in the way (of what would have to be a shot from the right front). I don't understand why this has not received more attention. I don't know of any discussion of it besides Burnham's. Why, for example, was it not pointed out in Barr McClellan's book about LBJ being behind the plot, or in "The Guilty Men" video that also tried to implicate LBJ? It would have been one more point for the History Channel's panel of so-called historians to avoid discussing in their attack on the video. LBJ and Hoover both knew, or at least thought they knew, there was a conspiracy, yet proceeded with an "investigation" and commission aimed solely at framing a possibly innocent man as a lone gunman. The 11/29/63 phone conversation damns them both in their own words.

Here's another article on Rodriquez, which includes Castillo's views of him: http://www.newtimesbpb.com/issues/2004-09-...ews/norman.html

I think McCord was telling the truth about the burglary not being a CIA operation. But I think the CIA had foreknowledge of it, and used McCord to make sure that the burglars would be caught (through McCord's "incompetence" such as taping a door the wrong way, leaving the tape clearly visible to security) and that Nixon would therefore fall. That's why, I believe, McCord told Sirica his motives were different from the others. His job was to see they got busted. He may have wanted to talk to Sirica in private after sentencing to let the judge know he was a CIA agent doing his job for the usual "national security," thus hoping perhaps for early release. I doubt that he wanted to tell the judge anything he may have known about Dallas.

Interesting Salon article on WC report, RFK, etc. Includes some things about Bobby I hadn't read before. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/...n/index_np.html (To read the article, you have to subscribe or else get a "free pass" by watching an ad. Also, if you want to print the article, you may want to cut and paste to Word, because when I tried to print the Salon page it kept freezing up my computer.)

Does it make sense that McCone would put this information in writing to Rowley at the SS or anyone else? Does it make sense that he would tell Rowley let's not give this to the Warren Commision, unless they make a "specific request," and then here it is, Oswald worked for the CIA? Does it make sense that McCone and Rowley, with this official government memo in both of their files and who knows where else, would turn around and commit blatant perjury before the commission? Would direct questions under oath about Oswald working for any agency not fall under the category of a "specific request" for info, upon which McCone said in writing let's tell them what they want to know? It is worth looking at the testimony of both men, while considering how lame-brained it would be for either of them to put info such as this in writing. It is also worth noting in Rowley's testimony that the SS didn't do any investigation of Oswald or anyone else after the FBI was given jurisdiction over the investigation, which was almost immediately. Why would Rowley then ask for this info on Oswald from the CIA, and why would the CIA provide it? I don't believe for a minute that this document is genuine. Mr. RANKIN. Are you familiar with the records and how they are kept by the Central Intelligence Agency as to whether a man is acting as an informer, agent, employee, or in any other capacity for that Agency? Mr. McCONE. Yes; I am generally familiar with the procedures and the records that are maintained by the Central Intelligence Agency. Quite naturally, I am not familiar with all of the records because they are very extensive. Mr. RANKIN. Have you determined whether or not Lee Harvey Oswald, the suspect in connection with the assassination of President Kennedy, had any connection with the Central Intelligence Agency, informer or indirectly as an employee, or any other capacity? Mr. McCONE. Yes; I have determined to my satisfaction that he had no such connection, and I would like to read for the record---- Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us briefly the extent of your inquiry? Mr. McCONE. In a form of affidavit, I have gone into the matter in considerable detail personally, in my inquiry with the appropriate people within the Agency, examined all records in our files relating to Lee Harvey Oswald. We had knowledge of him, of course, because of his having gone to the Soviet Union, as he did, putting him in a situation where his name would appear in our name file. However, my examination has resulted in the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald was not an agent, employee, or informant of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Agency never contacted him, interviewed him, talked with him, or received or solicited any reports or information from him, or communicated with him directly or in any other manner. The Agency never furnished him with any funds or money or compensated him directly or indirectly in any fashion, and Lee Harvey Oswald was never associated or connected directly or indirectly in any way whatsoever with the Agency. When I use the term "Agency," I mean the Central Intelligence Agency, of course. Representative FORD. Does that include whether or not he was in the United States, in the Soviet Union, or anyplace? Mr. McCONE. Anyplace; the United States, Soviet Union, or anyplace. Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McCone, is that the affidavit you are going to supply the Commission in connection with our request for it? Mr. McCONE. Yes; this is the substance of the affidavit which I will supply to you. Mr. RANKIN. In connection with the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, have you personally participated in working with regard to that, in supervision of that investigation? Mr. ROWLEY. In the early stages when we assigned our men to inquire into the background of Oswald and all. But then eventually, when the President authorized the FBI to conduct the investigation, we pulled out and only continued and finished up those reports that we initiated. Mr. RANKIN. And since that time. after the FBI was given the authority to proceed with the investigation, you have cooperated with the Commission the staff, your staff, in helping with various items of information from time time. Is that right? Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct. Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you have any information of a credible nature that would suggest to you that Oswald was or could have been an agent or informal of any Federal agency? Mr. ROWLEY. I have no credible information of that kind; no, sir.

Good for Fetzer. Whether he's right or wrong, I'm glad somebody at least decided to look into it. Foul play? How shocking! Who would have guessed? http://www.freezerbox.com/archive/article.asp?id=309

What we need is a Congressional investigation to look into all the questions not answered (not even asked) by the Kissinger/Kean Commission. Let's see, we had the HSCA "investigation" 15 years after the WC Report. So we should have the 9/11 equivalent of the HSCA about 12 years from now, or in 2016. Of course, like the HSCA, it will be an "investigation," not an investigation. We're in good hands, folks.

Here's a piece I just wrote on Ruby, Carlin, etc. http://www.hobrad.com/acrejack.htm

One thing I have trouble with, if George H.W. Bush was CIA in 1963 (which I have no reason to doubt), is that he was working undercover, his oil company being a front, and he was running for Congress the following year. I question whether Hoover would knowingly identify a CIA undercover agent by name in a memo, even to another (rival) intelligence agency. It's possible, but seems inappropriate to this outsider.

Both George Bushes have denied being George Bush, so it's a matter of which one is lying. George H.W. Bush is a known xxxx, but that doesn't mean he's lying in this case. The trouble with a xxxx is that you can't believe he says. The other George Bush worked the night shift at CIA and thus could have received the Forsyth briefing despite his "low level position." As to why he would deny it, his specialty was maps and coastlines, so it's conceivable that there was a plan to invade Cuba soon after the assassination, a plan in which he was involved, and which got shelved like the whole blame-Castro plan as a result of the Oswald screw-up. So naturally he wouldn't want to go into that. But who knows?

Wim, The information was orally furnished to Bush and Edwards "by V.T. Forsyth" of the FBI. My impression from the memo is that Hoover wasn't present. And I would imagine in this case orally means by phone, since Bush was to return home to Houston from Dallas that day, whereas Edwards of the DIA I assume would be elsewhere. That's assuming it's the George Bush of Texas referred to. I'm inclined to believe it was the other George Bush, in which case he and Edwards were probably both in DC and could have met personally with Forsyth.

While that particular Holt photo was obviously posed to match the tramp photo as closely as possible, there is indeed a strong resemblance. (I think this pose also explains another Holt photo, apparently taken at the same time, in which Holt has his mouth hanging open like an idiot, to match another of the tramp photos.) But this photo does not look like Holt did in 1963 (according to an existing photo taken at that time). The Holt here looks 10 or 20 years older (indeed this photo must have been taken in the late 1980s or whenever Holt came out with his story), so the comparison is rather misleading.

It is immediately noticeable that Rogers has a longer face or head, with higher forehead and more pointed chin. What record did she set, most ridiculous IDs? In The Man on the Grassy Knoll, there is a photo of a sculpture by Gibson purportedly showing what Rogers would look like in 1992. Not only does he still not look like the tramp, but his forehead is as long as the rest of the face, it looks like one head set on top of the other. The short tramp's head looks like it's been crushed in comparison.

It can mean either one. Orally means spoken, but perhaps a better word with respect to a phone conversation would be verbally, as in a verbal contract, which can be done over the phone.

It's the facial structure and features that convince me that the short tramp is not Rogers. No, I didn't know that, and it doesn't change my mind. On the photos and your argument, Wim, you might as well quote Richard Pryor: "Who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?" I have the book, which contains the Rogers photos. They are not photos of the tramp at any age.

There is no resemblance at all between the short tramp and Charles Rogers. If I had the photo comparison handy I would post it, but there is no resemblance. Lois Gibson's ID of the short tramp as Rogers reduces her credibility as an "expert" to zero. It also tends to discredit Holt's story, as he claimed to have known the short tramp as Montoya, an alias used by Rogers. Thus Holt would also lead us to believe that the short tramp was Rogers, which is ridiculous.