Ron Ecker

If someone can refresh my memory (and this may be irrelevant), who was the guy in Dallas with the Russian-sounding name who someone at some point tried to include among the suspects? I think his last name started with a V but that's all I can remember.

I still want an answer. Can't you understand that I don't agree with yours?

Please elaborate. I thought that Ruby's girlfriend (actually his wife) was a dog named Sheba.

I didn't stop reading. I simply had nothing to say till you kept addressing your posts to me.

I can tell you where the idea comes from as far as I'm concerned. I simply don't believe, after all the planning that had to go into the assassination, including months of sheep-dipping Oswald, that the shooter of JFK was a last-minute decision made by some squabbling gangsters.

Wasn't it next door to or close to the Adolphus Hotel? I remember reading years ago that someone (I forget who) claimed that the assassination command post was in the Adolphus Hotel. FWIW.

George, You don't need to keep addressing me on James Files, since I have no interest in him at all.

I guess I missed it, but if the CIA had foreknowledge and went to Dallas to try to abort the assassination, why didn't it just tell JFK or the Secret Service and save them all a lot of trouble?

I've heard about Files that the CIA is refusing to release, but I didn't know it was a person. Why doesn't Jefferson Morley try a habeas corpus writ?

So far there are three government investigations going on simultaneously (by the House, Senate, and FBI) into the Russian connection to the Trump campaign/U.S. election. Someone should make a movie, a comedy about all these investigators stumbling over each other, fighting over evidence, and even trying to assassinate each other in order to be the first with the most. And during this they all have to evade assassination attempts by secret Russian agents or secret White House Trumpers. (Remember the White House Plumbers?)How should the movie end? All the investigating and violence should be rendered irrelevant and a waste of time by a nuclear war.

It wouldn't. That's why I asked earlier, why would the CIA want to abort the assassination? If nothing else, it might want to have a few people there to show moral support that day (say Robertson, or Phillips, or Hunt, or Lansdale), just like a former vice president.

Why would it be "too risky" if the CIA would be "the prime suspect" anyway? If my wife thinks I'm cheating, shouldn't I go ahead and cheat? If the CIA did it, what would you need to prove it? Rip Robertson on the corner of Main and Houston? How about a deathbed confession from E. Howard Hunt? Or a CIA agent breaking into a HSCA safe? Or a CIA agent brought out of retirement for the sole purpose of obstructing the HSCA investigation? Sorry, but none of that would prove anything.

How often it is said that some CIA faction or rogue agents were involved in the assassination but not the CIA as an organization. Well, an organization can "compartmentalize" itself until doomsday. The heads of an organization are still accountable for the actions of its employees. Of course the CIA is a criminal organization, so there are criminals in it from top to bottom. A CIA director becomes a criminal the day he's sworn in. So excuses shouldn't be made by blaming some criminal CIA act, such as murdering a president, on a faction or rogue.

Let's assume that Tosh's story is true. Why would the CIA want to abort the assassination?

The same ad is shown for a movie that was released in 2014, coincidentally with the same title and producer. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4226130/?ref_=nv_sr_1 But is there anything not confusing about the JFK assassination?

Doug, Did he really say Barry Kravitz? The producer is Barry Katz. Also, the movie is not "new." It's a 60-minute documentary (about JFK killer James Files) that was released in November 2014.

I have a copy of the Douglass book JFK and the Unspeakable but somehow never got around to reading it. Today I had to have my car serviced, so I took the book along for something to read. I opened it up, and this jumped out at me: "We have no evidence as to who in the military-industrial complex may have given the order to assassinate President Kennedy. That the order was carried out by the Central Intelligence Agency is obvious.The CIA's fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it" (pp. 142-143). I guess the rest of the 510-page book is just the details.

Wasn't there a former CIA director who basically said the same thing? That there are "two CIAs"?

I had to stop reading after not much of the first document. His writing is a hodgepodge (all of his research is from books, or parts of books, and the internet) of errors, assumptions, and factoids. For example, Curtis LeMay was never "chairman of the joint chiefs of staff." Santo Trafficante is referred to as Salvatore Trafficante. He says the limo in Dallas came to a complete stop till the driver knew JFK was mortally wounded. He calls Oswald "a CIA contract agent." And where I stopped reading was when he said JFK's body was flown to DC aboard Air Force 2 while the empty Dallas casket sat "in the hold of Air Force 1." Right, Jackie sat down in the cargo hold with the casket, instead of in the rear compartment where it actually was.

Now about those holes in the clothes...

I believe there was an article about this years ago in one of the JFK publications like The Third Decade. And unfortunately I can't remember anything about it except that there an airport involved, perhaps only incidentally. I don't believe it involved a plot in Grand Rapids but rather someone who was from Grand Rapids, but again I can't remember.

Curtis LeMay was never "chairman of the joint chiefs of staff."

Heh heh heh. He said "reasonable" and "sensible" about the SBT.

I believe that Lipsey stated the reason for the decoy ambulance was not fear of interception of the body, but concern about the mob of people at Bethesda awaiting the body's arrival. He said he was not even sure the chopper he was on could land safely because of the crowd. I would not be surprised, though, if they didn't have their story straight about why the decoy, and I agree the decoy was for nefarious reasons.

It seems almost incredible that they would choose a patsy from a family that was friends with the Bushes, Bush being the obvious beneficiary of the patsy's action. I don't think the plotters would have chosen Hinckley on their own, I have to believe that Bush informed them of Hinckley's existence as a good patsy prospect, so they went ahead and used him (knowing they were going to get away with the operation regardless). But who knows. This country's in good hands, isn't it?