Greg Wagner

Double post deleted

Thanks for putting these together, Doug. There are other respected researchers who have seen this film also. I have no doubt about its existence. Amazing that it has remained underground in today's digital world where most people will do anything for a buck.... That certainly speaks to its significance.

From the Harold Weisberg Collection.

Didn't Roger Craig later identify Edgar Eugene Bradley to Jim Garrison as the man who claimed to be a Secret Service agent

Hi James… see below.

From Roger Craig’s When They Kill A President:

PG. 1

At approximately 12:40 p.m., Deputy Craig was standing on the south side of Elm Street when he heard a shrill whistle coming from the north side of Elm and turned to see a man—wearing faded blue trousers and a long sleeved work shirt made of some type of grainy material—come running down the grassy knoll from the direction of the TSBD. He saw a light green Rambler station wagon coming slowly west on Elm Street, pull over to the north curb and pick up the man coming down the hill. By this time the traffic was too heavy for him to be able to reach them before the car drove away going west on Elm.

After witnessing the above scene, Deputy Craig ran to the command post at Elm and Houston to report the incident to the authorities. When he got there and asked who was involved in the investigation, a man turned to him and said “I‘m with the Secret Service.” Craig recounted what he had just seen. This “Secret Service” man showed little interest in Craig‘s description of the people leaving, but seemed extremely interested in the description of the Rambler to the degree [that] this was the only part of the recounting that he wrote down. (On 12/22/67, Roger Craig learned from Jim Garrison that this man‘s name was Edgar Eugene Bradley, a right wing preacher from North Hollywood, California and part-time assistant to Carl McIntire, the fundamentalist minister who had founded the American Counsel of Christian Churches. Then-governor Ronald Reagan refused to grant the extradition request from Garrison for the indictment of Bradley during the New Orleans probe.)

PG. 13

I learned nothing of this “Secret Service Agent‘s” identity until December 22, 1967 while we were living in New Orleans. The television was on as I came home from work one night and there on the screen was a picture of this man. I did not know what it was all about until my wife told me that Jim Garrison had charged him with being a part of the assassination plot. I called Jim Garrison then and told him that this was the man I had seen in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Jim then sent one of his investigators to see me with a better picture which I identified. I then learned that this man‘s name was Edgar Eugene Bradley. It was a relief to me to know his name for I had been bothered by the fact that I had failed to get his name when he had told me he was a Secret Service Agent and I had given him my information. On the night of the assassination when I had come home and discussed the day with my wife I had, of course, told her of this encounter and my failure to get his name.

Hi Jean… see below.

From Roger Craig’s When They Kill A President:

PG. 1

At approximately 12:40 p.m., Deputy Craig was standing on the south side of Elm Street when he heard a shrill whistle coming from the north side of Elm and turned to see a man—wearing faded blue trousers and a long sleeved work shirt made of some type of grainy material—come running down the grassy knoll from the direction of the TSBD. He saw a light green Rambler station wagon coming slowly west on Elm Street, pull over to the north curb and pick up the man coming down the hill. By this time the traffic was too heavy for him to be able to reach them before the car drove away going west on Elm.

After witnessing the above scene, Deputy Craig ran to the command post at Elm and Houston to report the incident to the authorities. When he got there and asked who was involved in the investigation, a man turned to him and said “I‘m with the Secret Service.” Craig recounted what he had just seen. This “Secret Service” man showed little interest in Craig‘s description of the people leaving, but seemed extremely interested in the description of the Rambler to the degree [that] this was the only part of the recounting that he wrote down. (On 12/22/67, Roger Craig learned from Jim Garrison that this man‘s name was Edgar Eugene Bradley, a right wing preacher from North Hollywood, California and part-time assistant to Carl McIntire, the fundamentalist minister who had founded the American Counsel of Christian Churches. Then-governor Ronald Reagan refused to grant the extradition request from Garrison for the indictment of Bradley during the New Orleans probe.)

PG. 13

I learned nothing of this “Secret Service Agent‘s” identity until December 22, 1967 while we were living in New Orleans. The television was on as I came home from work one night and there on the screen was a picture of this man. I did not know what it was all about until my wife told me that Jim Garrison had charged him with being a part of the assassination plot. I called Jim Garrison then and told him that this was the man I had seen in Dallas on November 22, 1963. Jim then sent one of his investigators to see me with a better picture which I identified. I then learned that this man‘s name was Edgar Eugene Bradley. It was a relief to me to know his name for I had been bothered by the fact that I had failed to get his name when he had told me he was a Secret Service Agent and I had given him my information. On the night of the assassination when I had come home and discussed the day with my wife I had, of course, told her of this encounter and my failure to get his name.

Ok, we (the CT'rs) believe that many of the LN'rs are shills for somebody. Who? For what purpose? Is their purpose nefarious?

The ones who haunt the forums are possible paid to infiltrate and spread lies. So yes their purpose is nefarious. Last week I was friended on fb by another atty - someone I do not know- and when I made my status about the assassination, he began posting stupid crap. So we got into an IM discussion for a few days, but his reasoning was circular. Warren was a good man, therefore there was no conspiracy. And argued that the media would never cover it up. So there are lots of lone nuts who remain ignorant on purpose. In my thirty years as an attorney I have seen much of this with people who have higher education. They are just so invested in the system and will not read anything that will rock their boat. Frustrating. I could not get this atty to even read an Amazon review of JFKU. It had to be a New York times review. So I gave up communicating with him. Waste of time.

Dawn, I agree with your thought about some being too invested in the system to see beyond it. There are certainly those who are invested in a financial sense, but I think many more are invested in a visceral/emotional way that is integral to their personal identity. Like some warped version of patriotism.

It's like Nietzsche said, "Sometimes people don't want to hear the truth because they don't want their illusions destroyed."

That's a fair point, Paul. When in its history - right up to current day events - has that agency or its operatives ever been held accountable for anything? What exactly would they have to fear? My thoughts on Phillips were not an attempt to absolve him, but merely an effort to understand his role.

Kennedy attempted a measure of accountability and control over CIA by firing Dulles, Bissell and Cabell, along with signing NSAM 55.

Hi David,

That was one of the things I was trying to reconcile with this Phillips business. I always thought that was a strange way to ask the question - being in Dallas vs. being involved in the plans to kill Kennedy. The wording just seems indirect and open to interpretation. I was talking to someone who offered the idea that Phillips was in fact involved in the plot, but at the time he was meeting with Oswald in public places (late Sept) he was not yet part of the operation. Or perhaps he was but the Oswald patsy angle just hadn't been developed at that point. That seems plausible.

Hi guys...thanks for your comments.

Paul, you summed up what I was trying to express very well. Phillips’ level of caution regarding meeting Oswald reflected the relative sensitivity of the meeting, as he saw it. In my opinion, this is more logical than assuming Veciana was mistaken or that Phillips was being stupid.

Tommy, regarding Phillips' level of expertise as a covert operator, I agree that much of his work was in psychological warfare and administrative capacities. My estimation of his tradecraft experience comes largely from Win Scott's assessment: "Phillips worked under Winston Scott, the head of the CIA station in Mexico. In April 1963 Scott wrote that: 'His (Phillips') comprehensive understanding of human beings combined with a thorough knowledge of covert action techniques and his fluent Spanish make him unusually valuable... He is the most outstanding Covert Action officer that this rating officer has ever worked with.' " And also from what Morley writes in Our Man In Mexico, that Phillips was running an anti-Castro covert operation out of the US Embassy in Mexico City. He also spent a couple years undercover in Havana in 1959 and 1960, although I'm not sure what that entailed. I suppose what all this means in terms of his level of expertise running agents, and the tradecraft associated with doing so, is open to debate.

With regard to Morales getting wind of Oswald and what he may have been up to, Simpich mentions in State Secret that Bill Harvey’s Staff D was monitoring Oswald’s activities. Harvey was close to Morales, of like mind on Kennedy and in a perfect spot to have provided such information on Oswald. Just speculation, but it seems logical.

If Phillips did not have prior knowledge of the plot, he likely pieced it together pretty quickly after the shots were fired and Oswald was arrested.

Hi Pat, thanks for weighing in. Those emails sound interesting.

I heard you on a podcast recently. I believe it was Night Fright with Brent Holland. Does that sound right? You did a good job. I need to listen to it again though (takes a lot to absorb info through this thick skull).

I've been thinking through this Phillips/Oswald meeting again. Clearly Phillips played a key role in the misdirection and cover-up following the assassination. And I've long been convinced that he had a role - managing Oswald as the patsy, at a minimum - in the Dealey Plaza operation. But I've recently begun to wonder what this meeting tells us about Phillips and what his relationship might have been with Oswald at that time.

I'd be interested to know what Forum members think of my thoughts below. Perhaps I'm overthinking this whole thing and you can straighten me out.

On March 2, 1976, Antonio Veciana told Gaeton Fonzi that two months before the assassination he rendezvoused with his CIA contact David Atlee Phillips (who used the pseudonym “Maurice Bishop") in the lobby of the Southland building in Dallas late in the summer of 1963. He arrived for a meeting with Phillips fifteen minutes early and found Phillips talking with a young man he later identified as Oswald. Phillips and Oswald talked privately for a while, and then they walked to a nearby coffee shop and Oswald departed, agreeing to meet again with Phillips later on. Veciana attributed this - of his seeing Phillips with Oswald - to his being early and to a slip-up by Phillips.

Hi Larry... thanks for responding. I'm sure if it's not already out there, the chances are slim.

If I recall correctly, Veciana stated that the Phillips/Oswald meeting in the Southland building took place about two months prior to the assassination. That would put the date somewhere in late September 1963. Has he ever offered anything more specific regarding the date of this meeting?

I'm all over the Kindle version as soon as it's out there. Thanks Larry!

Well Jim, that's the beauty of CTKA. You guys wade into that cesspool for us and pull out the volumes worthy of study

Two interesting Arce photo comparisons, courtesy of James Richards' collection.

Thanks for the replies. I'm far from an expert on the vast catalogue of photos relating to the assassination. I just wanted to post what I ran across in case this info was new or of any value.

(Tom Scully Edit: A thread on this same subject was begun just 19 days ago, at this link:

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19182entry254832 )

I'm not sure if this is new info or not, but I stumbled across this:

http://www.dailydot....facebook-share/

Facebook users are sharing a remarkable new photo of an America moments away from tragedy.

It shows John F. Kennedy in his infamous Dallas motorcade, seated next to his wife Jackie and surrounded by thrilled onlookers. In the stark black and white of the photograph, it’s clear everyone (conspiracy theories aside) is oblivious to the looming, shocking tragedy.

It’s posted by photographer Traces of Texas, who says a reader’s aunt took it “moments or minutes before Kennedy was assassinated.” That’s corroborated with a Google image search, which reveals no other instances of the photo.

“Look at the joy on the faces of the crowd....that is the day innocence was lost...” remarked Terry Reeves Roddy.

“What a horrible day for Dallas,” wrote Rick Stone. “I was about 8 blocks away on South Lamar when it happened........ the whole week was so sad.....started raining ...then snowing the day of the funeral........ no one wanted to work, everyone was watching TV every minute all week long.”

Kathy Cather noted the photographer’s proximity to the president, which ironically may have also helped his assassin.

“It is amazing too how CLOSE the spectators were able to GET to them!!!” she noted

Interesting. I know HDG had an infant daughter in 1960. It would be most interesting to know what she, or any family members for that matter, learned/heard/thought in the years following Dallas.

Obviously, any new photos would also be of interest.

This thread on HDG poses a good one: Did HDG die on that Cuesta raid?

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8257&hl=%2Bherminio+%2Bdiaz+%2Bgarcia

James Richards Posted 19 October 2006 - 12:13 AM

I was told some time back that possible Kennedy assassination participant Herminio Diaz Garcia did not die in the Tony Cuesta led raid in 1966. He had indeed gone to Costa Rica and was involved with the drug trade there.

I didn't think much about that until I came across the document attached below. It is dated 1973 and the Herminio Diaz mentioned does indeed have the same 201 file number (201-203040) as the Herminio Diaz Garcia connected to anti-Castro activities of the early 1960's.Diaz Garcia's 201 file was opened in 1957 because of his involvement with Costa Rican revolutionary activities.

The significance of this being two different individuals (IF in fact it is two different individuals) is obvious. There are elements of the comparison photos that are suggestive, but in my opinion the comparison is ultimately inconclusive. That's my opinion on the photos.

There are many past and present members of this forum who have made valuable contributions to the body of knowledge around this case. And there are some of us who read, learn and only post occasionally. For all you've shared, I am in your debt and I am grateful for your time and effort.

But what seems to occupy the foreground more often these days are threads where members allow emotion, agenda and ego to drive them. This is a trap and a mistake. It is a human weakness that should be guarded against and avoided. It wastes time. It interferes with the objective. It undermines this community's credibility.

I certainly don't mean to chastise anyone. On the contrary, I have great admiration and respect for the work and opinions - of both dedicated and casual researchers - being shared here. I certainly don't agree with all of it. But there must be an effort made to navigate this quagmire with an approach that leaves emotion, agenda and ego out of it. This case deserves that.

Bump... this Doug Horne interview is excellent. I highly recommend checking it out.

Tonight's Black Op Radio Show with Len Osanic's interview of Doug Horne is a MUST hear.

It is show #569.

Doug Horne on Black Op Radio

Doug is at his best. His interpretation of the evidence is stellar. His conclusion is very

astute, namely that: Those in government, most notably those in relevant government

positions post 1975 era, are cowards. They know the truth and are simply too petrified

of the ramifications to reveal the truth. Indeed, they are much too petrified to allow the

records themselves (even minus any logical damning conclusions) to be released to

the public.

This dovetails nicely with the sentiments of Colonel L. Fletcher Prouty, who said:

"If these things became widely known...what really happened...the fear is that it could

bring down the entire government. It is primarily for this reason that the cover up is still

perpetuated."

http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/01/24/10222218-secret-tapes-of-jfks-last-days-released

BOSTON -- President John F. Kennedy's library is releasing 45 hours of privately recorded meetings and phone calls, providing a window into the final months of his life.

The tapes include discussions of conflict in Vietnam, Soviet relations and the race to space, plans for the 1964 Democratic Convention and re-election strategy. There also are moments with his children.

On one recording, made days before Kennedy's assassination, he asks staffers to schedule a meeting in a week.

He tells them he's booked for the weekend, with no time to meet with an Indonesian general then.

"I'm going to be up at the Cape on Friday, but I'll see him Tuesday," JFK tells staffers.

The tapes, released on Tuesday by the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum and downloadable in .zip file format from the archive website, are the last of more than 260 hours of recordings of meetings and conversations JFK privately made before his assassination in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.

In the scheduling discussion three days before his killing, JFK also eerily comments on what would become the day of his funeral.

"Monday?" he asks. "Well that's a tough day."

"It's a hell of a day, Mr. President," a staffer replies.

Kennedy kept the recordings a secret from his top aides. He made the last one two days before his death.

Kennedy library archivist Maura Porter said Monday that JFK may have been saving them for a memoir or possibly started them because he was bothered when the military later gave a different overview of a discussion with him about the Bay of Pigs.

The latest batch of recordings captured meetings from the last three months of Kennedy's administration. In a conversation with political advisers about young voters, Kennedy asks, "What is it we have to sell them?"

"We hope we have to sell them prosperity, but for the average guy the prosperity is nil," he says. "He's not unprosperous, but he's not very prosperous. ... And the people who really are well off hate our guts."

Kennedy talks about a disconnect between the political machine and voters.

"We've got so mechanical an operation here in Washington that it doesn't have much identity where these people are concerned," he says.

On another recording, Kennedy questions conflicting reports military and diplomatic advisers bring back from Vietnam, asking the two men: "You both went to the same country?"

He also talks about trying to create films for the 1964 Democratic Convention in color instead of black and white.

"The color is so damn good," he says. "If you do it right."

Porter said the public first heard about the existence of the Kennedy recordings during the Watergate hearings.

In 1983, JFK Library and Museum officials started reviewing tapes without classified materials and releasing recordings to the public. Porter said officials were able to go through all the recordings by 1993, working with government agencies when it came to national security issues and what they could make public.

In all, she said, the JFK Library and Museum has put out about 40 recordings. She said officials excised about 5 to 10 minutes of this last group of recordings due to family discussions and about 30 minutes because of national security concerns.

Porter has supervised the declassification of these White House tapes since 2001, and she said people will have a much better sense of the kind of leader JFK was after hearing them. While some go along with meeting minutes that also are public, she said, listening to JFK's voice makes his personality come alive.

She said he comes across as an intelligent man who had a knack for public relations and was very interested in his public image. But she said the tapes also reveal times when the president became bored or annoyed and moments when he used swear words.

The sound of the president's children, Caroline and John Jr., playing outside the Oval Office is part of a recording on which he introduces them to Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko.

"Hello, hello," Gromyko says as the children come in, telling their father, "They are very popular in our country."

JFK tells the children, mentioning a dog Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev gifted the family: "His chief is the one who sent you Pushinka. You know that? You have the puppies."

JFK Library spokeswoman Rachel Flor said the daughter of the late president has heard many of the recordings, but she wasn't sure if she had heard this batch.

"He'd go from being a president to being a father," Porter said of the recordings. "... And that was really cute."

As Terry mentioned in an earlier post, Adams' stuff seems like a simple re-hash. However, I stumbled upon a podcast where he was interviewed (he basically just tells his story) on something called The Lew Rockwell Show. There were a couple anecdotal items I found interesting. One related to limitations from his superior at the FBI around questioning Milteer and another regarding Hoover's contempt for both Kennedys. I haven't looked into Adams and I have no idea if he's credible, but he apparently was an FBI agent and worked on the periphery of this case. If you have 37 minutes to kill: http://www.lewrockwell.com/lewrockwell-show/2010/11/02/170-lee-harvey-oswald-was-a-patsy/