Greg Wagner

Good info, Wade. I had not heard that David was now out of prison. That's sort of a good news/bad news scenario re: the letter. If these people were intimidated in some way in order to keep the letter's contents private, that would seem to validate David' story. Or parts of it.

First of all, I'd like to express my condolences to John Simkin- no more fox hunting for you, John. Saw that on the "news" tonight. Oh well, all the more time you can spend with us now! Shanet- Interesting thoughts re: the blood, crossfire, etc. What about Tosh's abort team being the one's who fired at the assassins and drew blood? Is that a possibility? If we accept what Tosh states about the existence of an abort team in DP at the time, and I tend to believe him, could it be possible that they squeezed off a few rounds and hit an assassin or two? The LHO theory works with regard to what he allegedly told Judyth, but didn't they do a parafin test on him after his arrest that determined that he had fired a pistol recently (residue on his hand) but NOT a rifle (none on his cheek)? Of course I have little faith in the "investigation" conducted, but if he had residue on his cheek, that would have been well documented since it would have helped to implicate LHO in the firing of the "murder weapon." Still, I guess he could have fired a pistol at that range, right? I was not aware of the pool of blood near the "Lansdale" sighting. If indeed that was Lansdale, as Prouty insisted and many others have speculated, maybe that explains his presence at that particular location: "One of our guys got hit over there; Check it out; Delegate clean-up/cover-up."

Notice also that we see NO brake lights on the police motorcycles. It's not significant that they were not braking, but it's valuable for comparison purposes. GG 300 WAS braking at that crucial moment- good eye Mr. Clark.

Hi Wade Not to my knowledge. David is still alive, is he not? I wonder if, after that episode of TMWKK aired, David's attorney didn't receive "visitors" suggesting that he surrender the letter. He might be someone interesting to contact. Not that he'd violate David's confidentiality, but it would be interesting to know if he experienced any blowback from his appearance on that show in which he states that he knows "certain things", along with having possession of the letter.

This is one of those things that I waffle on from time to time... because I just don't know. The more that I look at the Altgens photo, the more I'm convinced it's Oswald. But it seems to me that his handler would have made some attempt to keep him out of sight during the time the motorcade passed by the TSBD. The "wait for a phone call at X time in X room" seems to be a very plausible control device in this scenario. But then why would LHO disobey and be standing out front in plain sight? Two questions: 1) Was the motorcade on schedule at the time of the shooting? 2) Has anyone ever tried to ID others in that same Altgens photo for purposes of identifying the potential Oswald figure standing near them?

I was excited and grateful to discover this forum in 2004. Sincere thanks to John Simkin, James Richards, Shanet Clark and the other members who welcomed me into the community and have been so generous with their time and knowledge of this case.

Yep. Brake lights indeed. Now the question is, incompetence or something else? While in my mind there is no doubt of the complicity of the Secret Service leadership (Roberts on up), Rybka and Hill were obviously not in the loop and were not part of the plot, as evidenced by their actions. Also, both Greer and Kellerman have stated that they thought it was a plot and that there were more than three shots fired. Incompetence (Greer hitting the brakes/panic) then? Move over Bill Buckner- there was actually someone who choked in a more tragic and clutch situation than you!

Hi Shanet I agree re: the Altgens photo. Like so many things in this case it's so tantalizingly close and suggestive. If only the photo were a little clearer/closer. I do think the plotters had to have some mechanism in place to keep LHO inside the building and at minimum visibility during the time he was supposed to be firing. Do you know the timing of the Altgens photo showing the possible Oswald out front relative to the gunshots/motorcade?

And so they did. Thank you, Mr. Harvey (you too, Steve).

Hi Jim Help me out here. Are you saying that perhaps the witnesses (Baker, etc.) that claim to have seen LHO in the break room are mistaken? Employing disinformation? You do bring up a good point though, wouldn't this guy be out (or at least at the window somewhere) watching the motorcade? Unless of course he had been instructed to do otherwise. Was there a phone in that break room? Could he have been waiting for a call to receive some type of info or instructions? Perhaps, to avoid having him be seen outside at lunchtime/motorcase time, he was told by his handler to wait in room X for an important call? Just speculating here, but I see your point.

Hi Tim You know I made sure to include that part about laying the blame at Castro’s feet just for you. Of course I have no hard evidence that that is the way it went down (if any of us had sufficient and irrefutable evidence, this board would not exist), but if you are one who thinks Rivele’s assertions about Corsican mechanics are plausible, then this scenario helps explain the presence of the “familiar faces” in DP. When I concentrate on the evidence as you suggest, it precludes the possibility of Fidel being behind the assassination. First and most obvious is the complicity of the Secret Service. Kennedy was absolutely, deliberately stripped of his security in Dallas on 11/22/63. The motorcade route, nearly u-turn and extremely slow speed through a near perfect ambush site, the lack of running boards on the presidential limo, Roberts ordering Rybka (and possibly Hill, though it's tough to see Hill on the LF video) OFF of the presidential limo at Love Field (to his obvious confusion and eliciting his emphatic protest), the fact that the Secret Service then left Rybka (the agent directly assigned to JFK!) standing on the tarmac at LF, their lack of ANY (let alone sufficient) presence on the ground in DP, their failure to secure the windows overlooking DP, their failure to secure the RR bridge, Emory Roberts ORDERING the Secret Service men in the follow-up car not to move after the shots (agent Sam Kinny to Vince Palamara) had started, Hill being the only one to disobey those orders later stating that if there had been better reaction, he (they) could have saved JFK from the head shot. And of course the Secret Service destroying their motorcade records from the incident, as opposed to turning them over to the HSCA when asked for them, is certainly indicative of the fact that there was something more than just gross negligence on their part that day. Vince Palamara and Fletcher Prouty have documented these monumental failures more thoroughly in their work. The vast number of and the alarming degree to which these failures occurred, in the mind of any reasonable person, can simply not be discounted as “Oops, we forgot to do that.” Kennedy was absolutely stripped of his protection that day by the leadership of the Secret Service (Hill reacting against orders, Rybka obviously removed from the detail at the last minute by Roberts despite his protests). And once you understand that, you must logically conclude that this murder took place with sponsorship from the highest levels of the U.S. government. And since I do not believe that pro-Castro agents had infiltrated the Secret Service command structure, I do not believe that The Big Cigar could have eliminated JFK’s protection so very effectively that day. There is also the issue of LHO's activities being monitored very closely by very high officials in the CIA (Thomas Karamessines as proven by Jane Roman's story). Certainly, if LHO was a true defector (which I do not believe), one might expect someone in the gov't to be eyeballing him. But Karamessines? In his position? Monitoring some disgruntled marxist? That makes no sense. Additionally, as I mentioned in a prior post, David Atlee Phillips' public admission, and the reaction (livid, according to eyewitnesses) of his former CIA boss, regarding his statement that the CIA never had any evidence of LHO in Mexico City, is very telling. This means that the CIA was indeed actively engaged in a disinformation campaign regarding LHO. They had some interest in painting him as a communist/marxist and were trying to tie him to Fidel. Karamessines involvement and Phillips admission prove that the CIA was manipulating LHO. They don't prove to what end. But laying the blame at Castro's feet makes perfect sense given their proven agenda of wanting to invade. With regard to Trafficante, if Castro was convinced that whacking JFK provided him with the best chance for survival (a ludicrous assumption, given Kennedy's historcal attitude and actions toward an invasion), then why would Trafficante help him accomplish this? Castro's survival was costing Santos millions. Why help the guy survive? Jean Daniel was Castro's best chance to survive and he knew it. That is until the real prime movers in the anti-Castro agenda, and the anti-Kennedy agenda for that matter, made their move. They ended up going one for two at the plate that day. The Jean Daniel message was then moot. From a common sense standpoint, while Castro was full of bluster about the Kennedy administration’s attempts to kill him, he knew very well that JFK had been and was (until his death) the ONLY person keeping the U.S. from launching an all out invasion of the island. Kennedy refused to do it during the missile crisis and he shut down the plans for a second invasion, both of these decisions made against great internal resistance. Castro, of course, knew this. He knew that the real danger to him from the U.S. was sponsored by the CIA and Pentagon. Of course, how ironic it is that the perpetrators' plan to lay the blame at Fidel's feet worked all to well, and ultimately led to Johnson orchestrating a cover-up that would not allow this to be considered, fearing a nuclear exchange. Of course, he placated those same MICC/CIA/Pentagon cold warriors by reversing JFK's withdrawal policiy and giving them Vietnam.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Ferrie live in the upstairs half of a duplex? That sure would have made things interesting for his downstairs neighbor. I wonder if anyone has attempted to locate the party that lived downstairs. It would be interesting to know what they saw and heard.

I wonder about the circumstances surrounding David's/Nicoli's "fingering" Bocognani and Pironti as gunmen #2 & #3. Since these two allegedly have alibis (I wonder what they are), if David/Nicoli specifically fingered these two, then that calls their/his credibility into question. However, if Rivele took some hints (from something David or Nicoli said or didn't say) and sort of filled in the blanks for himself in order to come up with these two names, then that places the blame on Rivele, leaving David and/or Nicoli's credibility intact. This leaves open the possibility that Rivele's basic assertion about Corsican mechanics could be correct. If those faces in the crowd in DP really are guys like Arce, Santiago or Bosch for DCM, Hargraves for UM, Duran and the other familiar Cubans, InterPen, JM\WAVE, Alpha 66 and No Name Key participants (James has some really interesting composite comparison photos that he's posted on here previously), we have to ask why they were there. Could it be that they were given notice of the assassination and told to show up for front row seats? Maybe DCM and UM were told they were going to play some role as signalmen or whatever, when in actuality it was more like, "hey guys, show up and be very visible in case we need to go to our back-up plan and claim you guys (your group/team) did it." Just like the attempt to place LHO in Mexico City trying to gain access to the Cuban and Soviet embassys and the sheep-dipping of LHO as communist in New Orleans were attempts to lay the blame at Castro's feet, so this contingency plan for the patsy could accomplish similar misdirection. Meanwhile, the actual doers were Corsicans (Rivele still thinks Sarti was one of the shooters), well removed from their U.S. Government sponsors via oceans and intermediaries. Misdirection regarding LHO and same with regard to contingency patsies. For those (me) who subscribe to the theory that this was a domestic coup sponsored by elements of our government (Joint Chiefs/Pentagon/CIA/Exec Branch), it is reasonable to assume that such a plan for Kennedy's removal would be very well organized with all conceivable contingencies planned for. And actual mechanics who, if something breaks down and someone gets caught or shot, would not be easily connected to the real sponsors. Just my attempt to make the puzzle pieces fit. I could certainly be wrong. Any thougts?

I read somewhere recently that the FBI examined the audio tapes and determined that the voice was NOT that of LHO and that the CIA concealed these facts from the HSCA. I'm going to look back through my notes and try to locate the source. Any help on this? Anyone ever heard that?

Nic, Good stuff. The note in Anthony Summers' book, Not In Your Lifetime, page 424, reveals the following: "It was an intercepted phone call between the phone numbers of Ruth Paine and her husband Michael - after the assassination - which picked up the curious remark 'We both know who is responsible' (other than Oswald)." Tim <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Since I don't happen to have a copy, can anyone shed more light on this remark in Summers' book? Who "intercepted" the call? Who made the comment, "We both know who is responsible."? Do we know that they were talking about the assassination? If anyone can shed further light on this passage, I'd be grateful. Thanks.

Out him! If he's attacking members of this forum, we deserve to know exactly who we are up against.

Tim: What did Castro have to lose by killing JFK? One of the very few people in the administration, who just happened to be the president, whose ideas had evolved into a position supporting co-existence. Didn’t JFK shut down the plans for a 2nd invasion? Didn’t he order the FBI to shut down the program and confiscate all their weapons, etc.? That, coupled with his sending of Jean Daniel to explore the idea of peaceful co-existence, suggests that JFK’s position on how he was going to deal with Castro and Cuba had evolved. This obviously put quite a bee in the bonnets of the CIA men who were so heavily invested (ideologically, career-wise, and even emotionally) in invading Cuba and taking out Castro as a prelude to an invasion. I certainly have no evidence of what Castro knew or did not know, but the primary reason JFK and Krushchev engaged in their back channel negotiations was because they didn’t trust the hard-liners in their own governments. They were both very fearful that these groups could push events toward conflict to the degree that they themselves (JFK/NK) would be powerless to stop it. I’ll check on the source, but I think that info comes from either RFK’s Thirteen Days or One Hell of a Gamble. Perhaps both. Based on Castro’s relationship with Krushchev and based on Castro’s own intelligence apparatus, I think it’s reasonable to assume that Castro understood who posed the real danger to him in those final months leading up to Kennedy’s death. And of course based on Kennedy’s own actions- shutting down 2nd invasion plans and sending Daniel. I believe that Castro, like Krushchev, was too savvy not to fully understand that his chances were considerably more favorable dealing with Kennedy than they would be dealing with the hard-liners that he was keeping at bay. That’s what Castro had to lose. Which leads directly to your other valid question. Tim: If all this is true, then why is Castro still alive? If the above is true, then it doesn’t make a lot of sense that Castro is still alive unless you understand that the CIA’s attempt to lay the blame at Castro’s feet backfired. More clearly stated, it worked too well. The sheep dipping of LHO as a communist, the Mexico City story, and of course the framing of LHO as the assassin all pointed the finger at Castro and/or Krushchev. And that is PRECISELY why the cover-up HAD to be executed so swiftly and decisively from the top. Without the official story of "LHO acting alone” and LBJ getting the WC to understand that they must conclude that LHO did it alone and would have been convicted as such had the case gone to trial (was that the Katzenbach memo?), they feared that the people’s next logical assumption would be that LHO was acting on behalf of Castro and/or NK. Exactly as the CIA hoped. But the perpetrators of the cover-up quickly recognized this danger and directed the cover-up accordingly. The CIA and Pentagon hawks had convinced LBJ, Hoover, Dillon, and the other important executive members of JFK’s incapacity and of the need for removal. The deed was done, but LBJ and perhaps others recognized the potential of 40 million people dying (LBJ's reference to this can be found in The Kennedy Assassination Tapes) in a nuclear exchange with the USSR if they didn’t put the brakes on this thing. And so they did. And the CIA, knowing that they had just executed their president, and seeing that the new administration was not on board with risking war with Cuba (the nature of the cover-up illustrates this), had no choice but to cool their heels. After all, they couldn’t then simply execute Johnson. But then maybe they did not need or want to. After all, LBJ gave them Vietnam. Tim: Why do you think Castro scheduled his interview with Jean Daniel to coincide with the death in Dallas? Just another coincidence, I guess. I might be missing your point here, but assuming you are correct and Castro is behind the whole thing, what difference does it make what time he met with Daniel? He was about to pull off the most risky, daring feat of his life. Wouldn’t the Daniel meeting be irrelevant since Castro would know that JFK would be dead that day anyway? Good stuff as always, Tim. Of course the above is just my opinion- at least until Castro grants me a sit-down. And as you say, I could be wrong. I’m going to be tied up for a couple of days. I’ll try and check back later in the week. Take care.

I find Section 4 to be most intersting. Especially in its vagueness. What exactly are the "principal officers of the executive departments?" What would be a definitive list of the executive departments? Is that as potentially subjective as it sounds to me? Or am I reading too much into that?

Hi Shanet- Agreed on Oswald. His profile was way too high for me to think he was some kind of trusted agent, or double agent, etc. When you read his story, it feels too much like he's been packaged up and sent out on stage for all to see. Good analogy above regarding the Castro angle. It would be like a cop killer surrounded by a dozen angry cops, save one who insists that they simply arrest the man. And the man then shoots THAT cop. As you said: "Not smart." Or it would be like if OJ took a knife and... (Oh, nevermind. Bad example.)

Hi Tim- I don't think you are a CIA apologist. I think you have some intelligent lines of inquiry and have a belief in a certain version of the events surrounding 11/22/63. That's cool. I don't think I share all those beliefs, but I too, could certainly be wrong. With regard to your points, I think #3 is somewhat intriquing. In a nutshell though, if you view the Roberts/Rybka video from Love Field, and read Palamara's accounts of interviews with the Secret Service personnel, their complicity is, in my mind at least, proven. And the orders came from the top (Boring, and presumably Dillon). That, to me, strongly suggests a domestic coup (is "domestic coup" redundant?). Also, if you consider JFK's attitude toward the USSR (back channel discussions with NK), his refusal to invade Cuba during the Missile Crisis despite overwhelming pressure to do so (see RFK's, Thirteen Days), and his proposed withdrawal from Vietnam (see NSM 263 from 10/1963), it appears obvious that Kennedy had a VERY different agenda- in fact, opposite- than that of the CIA and the other hawks (Pentagon/Joint Chiefs) at high levels in the U.S. government. And since JFK was the president, his policies were the ones that were implemented. Until 11/22/63, that is. Finally, I must say that Shanet's theory regarding the 25th amendment as ex-poste facto legislation justifying JFK's removal due to incapacity (Romesch, Campbell, drug usage, orgies, perceived "softness" on communism at the height of the Cold War and on the heels of the McCarthy hearings) makes way too much sense to me. I'm off to shovel snow. Good day to all.

Very interesting, Greg. I am of the firm belief that LHO visited Sylvia Odio in late September of 1963. I guess the question is could Oswald have been in both places? Back to Nagell, I seem to remember that he told Dick Russell that Oswald was indeed in both locations. I'm not sure how that goes with the timing of known events but the Phillips information may be very important. James <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Greetings James- I too am a believer in the Odio meeting. But I don't think it is necessary to try and determine if LHO could have also visited Mexico City during that time. With all due respect to Tim, I believe that it's (thanks Tim) a mistake to believe that the Mexico City event was anything more than an attempt by those behind the coup to lay the blame at Castro's feet. Castro may have had motive (that's a long list) based on our government's (both the CIA and RFK) attempts to kill him, but to me, that's where it ends. IMHO, the Castro and Krushchev (since it is alleged that LHO visited/attempted to visit the Soviet embassy also) "did it" scenarios don't quite add up. I feel that a simple cost-benefit analysis renders Castro very unlikely. Assuming he could even pull it off in DP with such precision (a fact of which I am not convinced), he quite frankly had too much to lose. He had to know, especially given the influence of the hawks and cold warriors in our gov't at the time, that the end result would unquestionably be an all-out invasion of Cuba. Kennedy was the ONLY reason we hadn't invaded Cuba already (see The Cuban Missile Crisis- the Kennedys were practically the only ones who weren't chomping at the bit to invade. And there were plenty of powerful men pissed-off that he opted for a blockade). General Curtis LeMay, head of the Air Force, was an outspoken advocate of a first-strike when it came to the USSR. In light of the back channel communications between JFK and NK (can anyone recommend a good book on this?), I believe they both realized the dangers the hard-liners in their respective governments posed. I just don't think NK viewed JFK as a threat. But rather as the only guy holding off the dogs (hawks). I think he preferred JFK right where he was. Additionally, and most compelling regarding Shanet's theory, is the obvious complicity of the Secret Service. Neither NK nor Castro could have arranged this. Vince Palamara's stuff is particularly valuable in illustrating this. In my (some would say troubled) mind, this is absolutely indicative of a plot organized by officials high-up in our government (see Shanet's piece on the 25th amendment and C Douglas Dillon). David Phillips public admission in 1977 with regard to the LHO/Mexico City event tells me that they were actively trying to lay the blame at Castro's feet. I think this piece of information is key, because if true (and I see no motivation for Phillips to lie in order to implicate himself and the Agency) it throws events like the Cubela affair and any other info linking Castro to the events in DP into serious question. In light of Phillips' statement (pg.82 of Lane's Plausible Denial), ANY "evidence" suggesting that Castro or Krushchev were behind the assassination must be viewed with a great deal of skepticism. Finally, I believe that when Fitzgerald met with Cubela in Paris, he was probably representing the Agency, not RKF. It makes no sense for RFK to be arranging Castro's murder at the same point in time that his brother, the president, was sending an emmisary to meet with Castro about the possibility of normalizing relations. Sorry if I got a little off-topic (Alberto Gallego), but I felt compelled to explain why I don't think it's necessary to try and figure out if LHO could have visited Sylvia Odio and also MC. LHO/MC was a CIA fabrication. If the ridiculous photos, the fact that the CIA lied to the HSCA about having destroyed the LHO/MC audio tapes (in order to conceal the fact that the FBI had evaluated them and determined that the voice was NOT Oswald's), and David Phillips' public admission (which statement, according to eyewitnesses, infuriated Colby) are not evidence enough that the CIA fabricated the LHO/MC event, then well, I guess we will have to just agree to disagree on this one. Thanks everyone for your contributions. Please understand that when I dissent from certain viewpoints, such as above, I mean no disrepect to those who view events differently. I appreciate hearing the diversity of thoughts and opinions. Even in instances where I don't necessarily agree, I tend to learn something or at least gain a better understanding of the different perspectives. BTW, anyone know what this little emoticon guy is supposed to be? I don't know, but I think he looks cool. Very clandestine (James, I'm borrowing your line- thanks.) Cheers

Hi Tim- With regard to LHO in Mexico City, David Atlee Phillips publicly stated, during a debate with Mark Lane at USC in 1977: "...but I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. We will find out that Lee Harvey Oswald never visited, let me put it, that is a catagorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all there was no proof of that. Second, there is no proof that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet embassy." Lane also states that Colby was "livid" with Phillips that night at the post debate dinner. Now, I'm not sure that I would trust anything David Phillips said, but what would his motivatin be to make that statement if it were not true? Especially when this statement directly contradicts the CIA report claimimg the guy in those photos is Oswald. IMHO, the Mexico City event was originally a CIA attempt to implicate Castro via Oswald.

Hi Mike- Absolutely! There is "weird" and misguided info everywhere in this case- on both sides. If I were teaching 9th graders, I'd try to teach them logic and critical thinking skills. Encourage them to gather information from various sources (on whatever topic), evaluate using these skills- using their brain- and make their own choices about what they believe. There are agendas and misinformation on both sides of almost any important issue. Discourage them from being sheep.

I guess maybe my point got lost in all of my carrying-on above, but let me get right to the point. I think the Camelot myth predominantly has two effects: 1) It gets people fascinated with the Kennedys and JFK in particular, which spurs their interest in the case (positive). 2) It can skew perspective, encourage bias, and generally serve to "take one's eye off of the ball" in terms of this case and what it's really all about (negative). I have to admit that I was, at least in some ways, drawn to start reading about this case years ago by that myth. However, when you start to realize the magnitude of this thing and its implications, you must begin to take a more serious and critical approach. Check the starry-eyed hero worship at the door. That's why I think Hersh's The Dark Side of Camelot and other books like it, despite not always fully grasping or dealing with the larger issues surrounding JFK's presidency, should have a place on one's bookshelf. Just my two cents.

The media's potrayal of people like us is simply a tactic in line with their other propaganda regarding this case: LHO did it. The WC got it right. Make any attempts (or people) to suggest otherwise look foolish or out of touch with reality. However, with regard to my interest in this case (and probably other things), you wouldn't have to look far to get someone to tell you I'm weird. Heck, most of my friends would say that about me. I might be weird, but I also think I'm right.