Mathius B. 

The last two shots were reported to be closer together than the first and second shots, with some witnesses verbally simulating them ( "Bam......Bam - Bam " )  which would have been closer together than the time the Manlicher could have fired them.

The louder 3rd shot witnesses generally described the shots this way:  "Bam ...... Bam - BOOM!"

Also the clearly seen bullet sized indentation in the top inside part of the windshield frame has always been poorly explained in it's origin and date of occurrence. It's appearance and possible significance regards another shot seems consistently and illogically downplayed even by researchers to me.

I am sure our SS-100-X expert Pamela Brown has her own take on the dent and it would be interesting to hear this again.

Was the JFK head shot bullet still intact enough after exploding JFK's skull apart that it could have continued on to create this inner windshield frame dent?

My suspicious mind however wonders why the SS and the staff who maintained this vehicle could miss this visually ugly and distracting dent if it was created before 11,22,1963.

Imagine the cosmetic lengths that are taken to have any vehicle carrying and showcasing the President of The United States and his wife and maybe other dignitaries in a huge public parade before 10's of thousands of spectators looking perfect? 

Washed, polished and shiny as Marine dress boots for sure.

If I was in charge of this limo duty and saw that deep ugly front window frame dent, I would for sure make note of it and feel it was important enough to fix. Just common sense.

Otherwise...heck...why not just rent The Beverly Hillbillies 1921 Oldsmobile model 43 touring car for such high pomp events?

 

 

I do believe that no more than 4 shots "that could be heard" were fired. Maybe even three.

Any others may have been through silencers.

Many witnesses were recorded saying that the shots "sounded different", at least the last JFK head shot.

The first shot was more often than not described as sounding like a "firecracker" or "back fire" ...from a car or motorcycle?

The second shot, same thing.

But, the third shot ( the JFK head shot ) was described by a fair amount of bystanders as sounding different ( louder and/or more powerful) than the first two.

I always considered this testimony as much more worthy of consideration regards more than one gun used in JFK's shooting.

If all three shots came from the same location and from the same gun, a different sounding 3rd shot is highly unlikely and therefor suspicious.

I would like to add that a louder and more powerful 3rd shot could be from two guns firing at almost exactly the same time.

 

Tom, I was one of the few who actually went to see the film Zardoz when it first came out.

I loved the film.

Connery put on a lot of weight on his already large bone frame for the film and he was always shown half naked with no cosmetic touches to his extensive body hair.  He truly looked like a larger than average Neanderthal. Kind of an Ape/Man.

A serious brute who, while riding a horse, would run down his fellow slave class and rape and slaughter them just to keep the population under control.

However, despite Connery's frightening look and personae, he is endowed with brain power equal to the Eternals who have dominated his kind for centuries.

I highly recommend seeing the film twice, once again right after the first viewing.

You don't see the subtler messages as much when you see the film for the first time.

The visual brutality is too graphic and powerful and it dominates your first impression and contemplations the first viewing.

On 10/12/2017 at 6:31 PM, Tom Hume said:

Hi Michael,

No, T. H. White has never been on my nightstand (nor on my mind much), but I really liked what Disney did with White’s “The Sword in the Stone” in 1963. White died in 1964 - I wonder what he thought of Walt’s rendering?

Why do you ask?

Lately I’ve been reading works that are, or appear to me to be, source material for some of Richard Case Nagell’s stunts. Specifically, (1) Robert Louis Stevenson, the apparent source for two of the ICO group’s aliases, “A. J. Hidell (Strange case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde), and Igor Vladimirs Vaganov’s alias, “John Nicholson” (Stevenson’s “The Misadventures of John Nicholson). Also apparent in Richard Nagell’s puzzle system are works by, (2) L. Frank Baum, author of “The Wizard of Oz” and “The Master Key”.

Tom

 

Tom, in reading T.White's wiki and then your entry here, I had one of those weird coincidental dot connections that just unexpectedly pop up in your brain now and then.

Seemingly meaningless but curious in their origin. Perhaps like hearing a verse in an old poem or musical chord in a melody that triggers a similar connection to something in one's past that you can't even identify.

Crossover zaps in our brain's memory banks?

You mention the connection between Nagell's puzzle including references to Baum's "Wizard Of Oz?"

In the film "Zardoz" ( combined from WiZARD Of OZ ) John Boorman gives his main protagonist ( Sean Connery ) the name of "Zed."

Curiously, this is the name of the young boy T. White professed a love for according to his Wiki biography link.

I have not read the two apocalyptic novels White wrote. Curious if they contain anything even close to the kind of "end of status quo life " apocalyptic story line of the film "Zardoz."

As Connery's "Zed" in the film Zardoz is beginning his journey to end the manipulative control ( much of it through fear )  by the Eternals over the "Brutals" in this film, he is purposely led to Baum's book "The Wizard Of Oz" in an Eternal's library, which helps him understand who the secret rulers behind the "Great and Powerful Oz" curtain really are and their selfish corruption and weaknesses as something less than Gods. 

Kind of makes me wonder who the "Brutals" were in 1963 who savagely slaughtered JFK and who their true manipulators were hiding behind their own cloaking OZ like curtain?

Connery's "Zed" was a purposely created Superman ( mix of Eternal and Brutal ) whose purpose was to end the out-of-balance with nature scheme of things with the corrupt Eternals running everything simply to indulge their pampered, meaningless and ultimately degenerate existence.

Were Jim Garrison and Mark Lane and other like minded person's kind of  "Zeds?" in their self-motivated efforts to discover who was behind the "Great and Powerul Oz" curtain regards the JFK event of 11,22,1963.

Just some curious meanderings triggered by your take on Richard Case Nagel.

 

 

 

Here is a Dorothy Kilgallen tid-bit that presents something just a little odd IMO.

The Mystery Guest on this episode is Raymond Burr of "Perry Mason" fame.

After Burr is identified ( the very end of the show) and there is some light banter between Burr and show host John Daly, Burr cites two past meet-ups with Bennett Cerf and Kilgallen.

Burr reminded Cerf of the time he ( Cerf ) was invited into Burr's office in the ...  "Pentagon." ???

Burr even mentions the Secretary Of Defense being present. ??? What the heck?

Burr with an office in the Pentagon? Cerf hanging around there and seeing the Secretary Of Defense? Mockingbird?

Burr then reminds Kilgallen that he once caught her looking through a keyhole.    ???

Burr and Kilgallen where in Rome at the time. Kilgallen seems slightly embarrassed and mentions something about Burr being in a horse drawn carriage there. ???

Watching Kilgallen on reruns of this show is very compelling.  It is in black and white and her presence on this seems almost ghostly. Especially remembering her place ( and suspicious ending ) in the JFK/Oswald/Ruby affair. 

Kilgallen and her whole life story and especially her tragic, suspicious death are so compelling... what is Hollywood waiting for? 

Fame, fortune, intrigue, secret love affairs, high society doings on a daily basis, feuds with other celebrities, the famous, long running and huge audience TV show of which she was a regular, the Sam Sheppard trial and his retrial and release after Kilgallen shares some inappropriate bias dirt on Sheppard's original trial judge, her cloak and dagger Jack Ruby investigation, death threats (including the Mob) FBI surveillance...and on and on and on.

Kilgallen's life story SCREAMS a big screen adaption!

What is the context of this photo of Peter Paul Gregory sitting next to Marina?

Is this after JFK 11,22,1963?

Is that why Marina is being recorded?

What is Peter Paul Gregory's involvement with this photo?

Any chance Peter Paul Gregory has some background with agencies?

Some may cringe at the profiteering of personal Kennedy items by people who somehow received them.

However, no one has ever made anything close to the money the Abraham Zapruder family has made off of their fateful interaction with the JFK event and you never hear a derogatory word mentioned about this huge sum "profiteering."

 

Throw in the assassinations of RFK and MLK in similarly spectacular displays and with continuing disastrous results, a near mortal wounding of the body politic. I find myself unable to avoid connecting those dots, and so I look for clues rather than proofs, argue against those who demand written evidence of my basic supposition, and stand guard when theories are put forth that don't account for this continuum of events which undermined our attempts to move away from Cold and Hot wars, and instead strengthened the hand of profiteers and warmongers who continue to thwart the will of ordinary citizens. 

Paul, yes, a "near mortal wounding of the body politic" after those three killings is one of the most concise and coherent propositions I have read.

Our collective political trust mind set went dark through and after those tragic killings.

We've never been the same since.  Very tentative trusting - that's for sure.

Paul, many would classify Trump as the ultimate "profiteer."  Do you agree?

For those who can't even handle thinking about the possibility of JFK and possibly RFK and MLK being taken out by domestic forces, you want to ask them if they are aware of the assassinations of other top political leaders in history by competing elements in these leader's own societies and countries, and if they can accept those events as reality, why not JFK's...or RFK's or MLK's?

Abraham Lincoln's assassination was like JFK's.  Done in a public place in front of many others.

There have always been legitimate questions and suspicions that others were involved in Lincoln's death besides the ones we have been told were responsible.  In the least by providing funding and most importantly, perhaps perpetrated by insiders, providing logistics and a lack of adequate security for Lincoln when talk of his killing was so real and rampant at that time.

Planning deniability and keeping the actual killing action and set-up perps separated from the real powers who made it happen is a craft finally honed well before Lincoln.

We all know the Mafia ( fourth or fifth most powerful group in America in 1963) could and would take out an adversarial sitting president without blinking if they thought they could get away with it.  Join them with other equally powerful groups with the same sentiments ... and you might have the real makings of the unspeakable.

According to May Newman ( Murchison family seamstress and companion the day JFK was shot) the Murchison family celebrated JFK's slaughter with "champagne and caviar flowed for like a week after."  I believe Newman's account. It shows that very powerful oil men ( world's richest at the time) and who considered JFK a serious threat to their personal wealth interests,  were not just unmoved by JFK's brutal slaying in his wife's face, they celebrated it!  As I am sure many other JFK hating people in powerful positions of our society and government did also.

This JFK hating multi-power group sentiment and means to violently remove JFK was indeed real. No disputing or arguing against that reality.

However, did this potential become reality?  That is the ultimate question. 

If it wasn't the reality, then I suppose we should all just move on and start looking to find more fun and joy and trust in our lives and our children's and grandkid's lives. 

If it "was" the reality of who killed JFK...and somehow, someday we discover this to be the truth...our entire nation will have to go through a very gut wrenching period of tough reckoning. 

 

 

The idea of even considering certain competing power groups and individuals in our own political, military and agency government being a party to the JFK event ( and perhaps the RFK and MLK ones ) is a psychological line most Americans find so disturbing and unsettling to cross, I think that generally, most simply avoid the whole contemplation.  

Dulles, Hoover, LBJ, Cord Meyer, Angleton and top generals and others, all agreeing to the violent removal of a sitting President in broad daylight and in front of large crowds of bystanders? Exploding JFK's head into a shower of blood, brains and bones within inches of his wife's face?

No...No.  That would be a psychological and reality paradigm shift simply too frightening to accept and "having to deal with."

How could or would we as a nation handle such a scenario if it were true?  Would we have to declare a kind of Marshall Law where new military and political leaders would be instantly appointed by Congress to take control and suspend our regular government and arrest all of those high ranking people and deal with their perhaps violent loyalists? This would make Watergate seem like kids play.

Even today, to imagine that many top American government leaders may have had prior knowledge of and, in the least through non-preventative action, allowed the violent removal of a sitting president is still too much to contemplate for most.

But, what keeps this almost unbelievable yet nagging suspicion from disappearing completely are the frightening but true realities that we have had covert agendas that were carried out that included eliminating leaders of other countries ( even democratically elected ones ) who these same leaders in our country considered serious threats to our own national interests. And throw in domestic threat individuals like Malcom X as well.

We can accept the reality of these killings being planned, ordered and implemented, but going so far as our own president?  No...can't go there.

To me, Nixon's cryptic reference to LBJ  not being willing to accept being "number two" to a degree that Nixon left suggestively open ( we know what he was implying) just adds to my believe that LBJ "was" a person capable of encouraging the unspeakable.

And when you have mad dogs with means available who had convinced themselves that JFK was "scum" and a traitor to his country and that Mafia characters like Johnny Roselli were more patriotic than JFK and more worthy of respect, the unspeakable becomes just that more believable...IMO.

My pleasure Doug C.

Late here now but will listen to this radio broadcast first thing tomorrow morning.

Watched this show tonight Doug Caddy. 

As you know I am interested in all the topics mentioned.

You looked great and your sharings, including your recounting of your last one-on-one meeting with E.Howard Hunt, were compelling.

Being featured ( along with other well known persons in this field ) on a nationally broadcast, prime time, widely viewed program is quite the exposure.

 

Ms. Brown, I just visited and perused your web site.

Did I miss a sharing regards Whitaker's story being a hoax there?

Sorry, if I did.

Thanks for providing me the link. 

Looks like the Nixon, Lodge, Lansdale connection was a strong one and for a good amount of time going back into the 50's.

The Whitaker Hoax?

Could someone send me the title of ( or link to ) the thread or separate essay which credibly explains and reveals Ford Motor employee George Whitaker's interview with Doug Weldon and Whitaker's " bullet through the windshield front to back" written memoir repeating this claim 8 years later soon after his death regards the glass of JFK's limo as a "hoax?"

I'll read this with an open mind.

However, I always felt Whitaker's story was an honest one...partly because I could see no financial gain by anyone in it's public exposure.

 

23 minutes ago, Michael Walton said:

So when Ruby was asked, coming out of the court house years later, who was involved, he said something like if Adlai Stevenson had been VP, we'd have never had the assassination? And I guess we're expected to believe that he just made that up out of thin air? It was an interesting statement he made and could be sheer hyperbole but if he was a total babe in the woods, I'd hardly think he would have just made that statement up.

Michael Walton...I agree.

I believe Oswald was supposed to have been killed on the same day JFK was.

Jack Ruby was in the Dallas PD building Friday night armed and supposedly bent on killing Oswald that evening if he could have gotten the chance. He reportedly told another reporter or policeman later on that the reason he didn't try was because too many policemen ( or reporters? ) were between him and Oswald and he didn't want to hit "one of you guys."

Here is another stupid Ruby lie/contradiction.

On 11,22,1963 Ruby stayed in the offices of the Dallas Morning News in their ad department from mid-to late morning until 12:30 PM and all during JFK and JACKIE's limo driving by just outside their entrance until shots rang out and Ruby finally left.

For a man claiming to be so enamored by "classy" Jackie Kennedy and also supposedly liking JFK and being a person who always had to be where the action is...Ruby holes up in this DMN office area the entire time while over half of Dallas is in the streets to see the president and his beautiful wife in person?

In his WC testimony Ruby said he did this because he didn't like crowds.???

His fear or dislike of crowds sure didn't prevent him from rushing to and through one Sunday morning to get into the Dallas PD building basement.

Of course I listened to Don's interview on Coast To Coast AM last night.

Over-all, even in that somewhat distracting every 15 minutes commercial interruption format, I found it to be a good interview.

But as the moderator knew, this is a subject that truly deserves hours of uninterrupted interview time versus maybe one hour as C2C offers.

If I called in to the C2C show last night, I would have shared an observation with Don regards JFK's motorcade through Dallas and specifically Dealey Plaza.

I've heard Clint Hill talk many times in his publicly broadcast interviews about the fact that his agency was simply unable to monitor and manpower address the open window security situation of multiple story buildings along presidential motorcade routes ( including Dallas ) any more than they did.

You could tell that Hill is definitely insecure about this subject ( because he always brings it up and spends more defending time on it than is asked by his audiences ) and which of course he knows was a huge flaw that led to the failure of JFK's security on 11,22,1963.

It is a subject I wish I could personally confront Hill about because I feel it is a more important subject that needs more explanation and exploring than what we get from Hill.

How in the world could all the combined security forces supposedly on duty that day in Dallas ( one of the most JFK hating areas of the country)  and with several serious death threats including scenario's of high rise shooting MOs being reported in two other motorcade cities JFK recently visited,  not do this "one basic security protocol" which is to have spotters on the ground or in buildings using binoculars to monitor any open windows in multi-story buildings along a motorcade route, specifically and at least when JFK's open top limo is "passing underneath them?"

You wouldn't need security men in every building. That one specific security task could be carried out with maybe 20 men placed in the high rise area of the motorcade. And they could leave as soon as JFK"s limo was far enough away from these buildings. Not a gargantuan cost and manpower effort.   

There were half a dozen "bystanders" on the ground in Dealey Plaza on 11,22,1963 ( that came forward, maybe more who didn't ) who spotted a man with a gun or men with guns on the upper floors of the Texas School Book Depository building up to 5 or more minutes "before" JFK's limo arrived underneath.

These bystanders were not trained or instructed to look for something so threatening. They had no binoculars. They noticed this just by "casual random looking around" while waiting for JFK's motorcade.

Imagine if Dealey Plaza had even ONE trained high rise open window observer that day just before and during JFK's limo passed underneath?

That security need is such a "no brainer" I can't accept "simple negligence" as an answer for it's lapse.

Also, how in the world could JFK's follow up car SS security team not be trained to react to "the first sound of gunshot or anything resembling a gun shot"  by immediately running to and jumping onto JFK's limo back stands? Why wait for a second one?

What always turns my stomach is viewing the Ike Altgen's photos depicting almost every SS team member on the follow up car simply turning around versus any other defensive action when the first gun shot rang out in Dealey Plaza.

There was a significant pause between the first and second shots which would have been enough time for the agents to have ran to JFK's limo if they had reacted to that first shot as one would expect them to do.

It was only when the second shot rang out that any of them reacted and only one - Clint Hill - realized that he should leave the SS car and run to JFK's limo to use his body as a shield.

It's more rational than not to feel great doubt and suspicion seeing all these security let downs and broken protocols ( two 90% turns on a motorcade route?) regards JFK's security that day in Dallas and specifically in Dealey Plaza.

Not to mention Roy Kellerman's total lack of any physical protection action ( contrarily Rufus Youngblood threw himself on LBJ after just the second shot) during the three shot attack. And Bill Greer simply turning 180 degrees around and slowing or almost stopping the car just as JFK's head is blown apart.

Factual points worth knowing for those who are interested in the JFK event I believe.

 

 

Does anyone else see what I see here?

Looking at the pictures of Webster and Oswald side by side and comparing that Oswald photo to the one of Oswald being paraded around in the Dallas PD in his T-shirt , the Oswald in custody picture shows a much longer space between Oswald's lower lip to the bottom of his chin than the side-by-side Webster/Oswald photo of Oswald IMO.

Of course the Webster/Oswald photo of Oswald taken years earlier than the Dallas PD one would show a fuller/fatter and smoother feature younger face, as Oswald would have a few years older face in the Dallas PD photo. But still, there is something different about these two faces.

Hard to describe.  Just a gut feeling. But the lower lip to bottom of chin distance definitely looks different to me.

Seldom get into this thread as I haven't spent enough informed time reading the subject proposition or the contrary debate takes.

But, it's hard to totally dismiss the two Oswald theory out of hand. There are enough Albert Guy Bogard type Oswald sightings and even interacting stories that seem to have legs that are intriguing.

Jim, if we e-mail PBS and ask for equal time, may we also send them a copy of your review/critique or in the least a link to it?

Your essays express the justification so concisely, credibly and coherently I can't think of any better way to convey this request.

Sorry, but I don't see what you describe regards JFK's face and hands.

I don't see JFK grimacing or his hands flailing.

The entire picture is out of focus and all four faces ( Connally, his wife, JFK and even Jackie ) are blurred to fairly high degrees.

I do agree that there seems to be something weird regards the Babushka Lady in separate photos.

The shot taken behind her when she is on the grass facing JFK's limo before and during the shooting to me shows a woman with heavier than normal lower legs and ankles. A healthy big boned person with however, younger, smoother legs and ankles, not older ones in my opinion. 

I could see this being big boned Beverly Oliver.

But the later still shot of this supposedly same hooded woman running up the grassy knoll shows a much older woman's face which to me doesn't correlate with the younger, smoother, stronger and younger person looking legs and ankles in the earlier Babushka Lady backside shot.

Amazing documentation info on Cain.

Much to ponder here.

One thing that always strikes me when reading about the backgrounds of so many of these JFK/RFK era covert operation characters (in this case Cain ) is the reality of how extensive and widespread corruption was in our entire country in the 20th century and specifically on 11,22,1963.

I have always maintained that to this day, we have never come to grips with this fact. Not even close.

When one reads about how extensive and long term the Mafia payoff/bribery system was regards just the Chicago PD ( including many higher level positions) and we all know that this same system included judges, politicians ( all the way to the governor's office ) and who knows who else that the entire political and policing system in that city and state was more singularly influenced by the Mafia than any other separate entity including the voting citizens. 

And just multiply this corruption by 50 or even 100 when you accept that almost every major city in this country was corrupted in the same Mafia way.  New York, Philadelphia, Newark, Detroit, Kansas City, Miami, Tampa, New Orleans, Cleveland and on and on ... and throw in Dallas in 1963.

Not hard to come to the conclusion that the payoff system had to be in place in Dallas in 1963 due to the proliferation of organized crime controlled gambling and prostitution there.

Tying this all into the JFK event -

During WWII we allowed ourselves to become bedmates with Italian organized crime.

This legitimized them to a degree and we never really let go of this devil's pact alliance.

And it was never stronger than during the late 50's and early sixties with our mutually beneficial  "Get Castro" thing.

William Harvey's ties to the higher echelons of organized crime was so tight he and his wife considered Mafioso Johnny Rosselli a better and more worthy person and patriot than JFK!  

Doesn't that say it all?  How pervasive and perverse this organized crime influence was?

And throw in J.Edgar Hoover's downplaying organized crime and it's influence and not dealing with it and no wonder they proliferated to be one of the top three influential power groups in this country for decades.

Colonel Dan Marvin mentioned in the documentary "The Men Who Killed Kennedy" that when our agencies wanted to get rid of someone here in the states, on our own soil ( which was against their initial charter granted authority ) they would simply contract this out to organized crime. That is a mind blowing, reality altering statement.

If Marvin's claim is true, and that doesn't shake one's sense of corrupt government bedmates reality to the bone, what would?

I believe Nixon and LBJ were beholden parties to this massive organized crime network as both never made serious attempts to confront it.

And who can forget sitting Vice President and former Maryland governor Spiro Agnew being run out of that office for his corrupt doings and ties to "guess who?" The man was one succession step away from being our president!

I believe it wasn't until Jimmy Carter that there was ever any real effort to confront organized crime and hugely corrupted major city police departments. Carter made New York police corruption ( and Las Vegas ) a priority in his term.  

One could easily see organized crime being pulled into the JFK event in several capacities. In the least getting rid of inconvenient witnesses or investigators? Like Dorothy Kilgallen?

Lastly, can you imagine how much less of a perfect patsy Lee Harvey Oswald would have been without his NO Fair Play For Cuba activities just months before 11,22,1963?

To have many clear shot still photos and minutes of focused film footage of Oswald passing out his Castro defending literature in busy downtown NEW ORLEANS and getting into it with Bringuier and then being arrested so all this could be published and broadcast in the press and then have Oswald actually on radio and even TV defending this phony political ideology ...what a great indicting image creation this all was!  

Like it was put together by experienced film makers.

Certainly Oswald alone could not have come up with and created this perfectly indicting almost documentary like production.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I don't think the radial right could have done the deed themselves. 

However, Milteer could have easily been informed of something "in the workings" regards JFK by any number of people.

Wasn't Guy Bannister a person who crossed-over into many different areas of political intrigue from radical right to the lettered agencies?

I could see Bannister being in radical racist circles where Milteer may have been a player, and who may have had dialogue with Bannister.

When it came to killing Kennedy, talk about strange bedfellows.

But regardless, I agree with Steve Thomas.  This was a cold, impersonal killing. Military precision and planning.

Predictions of Joseph Milteer

Thirteen days before Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, a man named Joseph Milteer was tape recorded telling Miami police informant William Somersett that the murder of Kennedy was "in the working," that the best means of killing Kennedy was "from an office building with a high-powered rifle," and that "they will pick up somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off."

Foreknowledge of the assassination, or just a lucky guess coupled with an uncanny understanding of how such things work?

Miami Police notified the Secret Service, and there are indications that an unannounced motorcade in Miami scheduled for later that month was cancelled. After the Kennedy assassination, informant Somersett spoke to Milteer on the phone. Police and FBI interviews with Somersett revealed that Milteer was jubilant, and said that "everything ran true to form. I guess you thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high-powered rifle."

The Warren Commission never learned the full truth of Milteer's statements, receiving just a cursory interview report in December 1963 and a somewhat more detailed one in July 1964, late in the Commission's term. But even the later report failed to discuss the recorded statements which the Secret Service received. A more complete version of the story finally reached the public in 1967 in a newspaper article.

The HSCA investiged whether a man photographed standing in the crowd in Dealey Plaza was Milteer - the resemblance is certainly strong. the HSCA's photographic panel determined, based on height calculations, that the man was not Milteer.

Who was Joseph Milteer? He was an organizer for the racist National States Rights Party and the Constitution Party. The latter organization's membership included retired Marine General Pedro del Valle, about whom Drew Pearson wrote in 1961 that del Valle came close to "urging armed insurrection." If Milteer's predictions were indeed based on foreknowledge, then the path to Kennedy's real killers would lead to right-wing segregationists and military extremists, categories which included some very powerful people.

Just 13 days before JFK is taken out in Dealey Plaza, Joseph MiIteer is on secretly hidden tape describing to Miami Police informant Willie Somersett "exact specifics" as to the weapon-used-and-shooting-location and how a single patsy would be caught, arrested and blamed ( within hours) in regards to the JFK ass.   

And when Somersett presents this question to Milteer ... "are they really gonna try and kill him?(JFK ) ", Milteer responds "Oh yeah - it's in the workings."  

How can anyone hear this Joseph Milteer exact details JFK killing prediction tape ( especially so close in dates to the actual event ) and not take it more seriously than meaningless or just an incredible coincidence? 

For the Miami police to commit that amount of serious covert surveillance activity to get Milteer on tape with Somersett directing the conversation between Milteer and himself to the JFK  threat subject...just shouts the obvious. They considered this man that dangerous in regards to JFK's personal security.  

Just read about Milteer. Well off financially. A racist obsessed with hate of JFK primarily because of JFK's stance on that issue.

Below is the entire tape transcript. Fascinating read.

Transcript of Milteer-Somersett Tape

Note: This is a transcript of a tape recorded on 9 Nov 1963 by Miami Police informant William Somersett, recording a conversion with right-wing extremist Joseph Milteer. The transcript is taken from Harold Weisberg's essay The Milteer Documents in the book The Assassinations: Dallas and Beyond (in this version, INFORMANT has been replaced with SOMERSETT, and SUBJECT with MILTEER). Portions referring to Kennedy are in bold.

SOMERSETT: Now we are going to, you are going to have to take, Kenney, what do you call his last name?

MILTEER: Kenneth Adams.

SOMERSETT: Yeah, you are going to take him in, he is supposed to be one of the hard-core of the underground, are you going to invite him into that, too? What about Brown, now, are you going to invite Brown in? You are going to have Brown in it?

MILTEER: Yeah.

SOMERSETT: Now, I will tell you between me and you, because we are talking, we aren't going to talk to everybody like we are talking here. Now, you know this, I like Brown, he is a good fellow, you know him, now here is something, when we was in his house, now, he knows me and you, but he didn't know Lee McCloud, well I think he done too much talking in front of a man he didn't know. Brown trusts a lot of people, he figures everybody is good.

MILTEER: Yeah.

SOMERSETT: And you know when he was telling her [or him, not legible] about blowing up all those churches and, you know, I don't think he should have said all that in front of McCloud.

MILTEER: That is exactly the way I feel about it, too. And I didn't talk about it any more after we left there.

SOMERSETT: No, I see you didn't, you see, these things come to my mind, I don't know McCloud well, and Brown never seen him before in his life, that I know of, now you seen this boy, Jackie, didn't open his mouth, he just sit there and listened. Jack Caulk [phonetic] he is a very quiet boy, Brown it just seems, well, he, I guess he has gotten by with so much he just don't care. He come out with all that about going over to Atlanta carrying that stuff, and showing them how to operate, I didn't want to say anything to him, but I don't think it is a good idea for people to discuss things like that in front of strangers. What do you think about it?

MILTEER: No, I - He should operate that, the same as he does the rest of it.

SOMERSETT: That's right, damn right that is right. Now you take like the Birmingham ... [Milteer breaks in]

MILTEER: Any conclusion they come up with, that's them, not him.

SOMERSETT: That is true.

MILTEER: He didn't give them anything.

SOMERSETT: Well, he didn't give them nothing.

MILTEER: Just like me at home there folks want to know, "Joe, where do you get all of your information?" "Well, I get it, that is all you are interested in," and that is as far as it goes, see. And the same guy will turn around and give me some information, but he doesn't know where I am getting my information. The same guy who asks me where I get my information, will turn around and give me information.

SOMERSETT: Well, sure, of course, I realize that.

MILTEER: That is the way you have got to operate.

SOMERSETT: Well, that is what I say, if you are going to take Brown in, and Brown is going to be one of the head men, the man behind you, then you have got to talk to Brown a little bit, and tell him, you know, "You have got to be a little more conscientious, especially on these bombings, and killings," after all he comes right out with it.

MILTEER: We have got to let him understand, that, that is his operation, and not ours.

SOMERSETT: Yeah, that is true. We don't care, if he wants to go to Birmingham and blow up a church, let him.

MILTEER: If he wants to blow up the National Capital, that is alright with me. I will go with him, but not as a party though, as an individual.

SOMERSETT: Well, if you want to go with him and help him blow it up, that is not the party, it is an individual, you are going to have to make him understand that.

MILTEER: There is a party movement, and there is also an individual movement.

SOMERSETT: Yeah, that is right.

MILTEER: And they are distinct and separate.

SOMERSETT: Well, you are going to have to make him understand that, right there, he didn't exactly admit it, but Jesus Christ, he intimated, he indicated right there, he backed the bombings of killing the negroes in Birmingham, well, you know damn well we don't want anybody talking like that.

MILTEER: Can't afford it.

SOMERSETT: Well, you damn well that is bad talk especially to somebody he don't know. He could have said that to me, and you would have been alright, it would have been between you and me then.

MILTEER: That is true.

SOMERSETT: But to go ahead and say it in front of Lee McCloud, what that [sic] hell ... [Milteer breaks in]

MILTEER: Well, I think he thought that he would [not] have been with us, if he had not been alright. But that is still not enough.

SOMERSETT: No, hell no, that is no good, at least before he made all those statements, he should have called you outside, or consulted about this man a little bit.

MILTEER: You have to have reservations, you know.

SOMERSETT: That is right. Hell, he didn't say these things in any way to try to get us into trouble, because the only one who could be in trouble would be him, he was confessing on his damn self, he wasn't confessing on us, because we hadn't done a damn thing.

MILTEER: You and I would not get up there on the stand and say that he told us a cotton picking thing either.

SOMERSETT: Well, he knows that, but how about the other man.

MILTEER: Well, that is what I say.

SOMERSETT: Yeah, hell yes. I tell you something, you take Kenneth Adams over there, he is a mean damn man, like Brown was saying, the guy he was sending him to, well Kenneth is real mean, and the way Brown indicated they [not legible] the negroes, well, we don't care anything about that. I would rather he wouldn't tell us those stories.

MILTEER: You sure can't repeat them.

SOMERSETT: Yeah. That is the set-up we are in now, I mean, we have to work with them, but let them operate their grollings [phonetic], like you say, if you want to go with them, that is your opinion, you go with him up to Washington and blow with him, if you want to go ... [Milteer breaks in]

MILTEER: I have a man who is the head of his underground of his own up there in Delaware, and since I worked on the Supreme Court, he wanted me to give him the lay-out there so they could go over there and do some things there, you know. But he called it off, I don't know why, I didn't even ask him why. That was his affair, but he called it off. But I was ready to go with him. I gave him the damn information he wanted.

SOMERSETT: You worked on the Supreme Court.

MILTEER: Yeah, three and a half years.

SOMERSETT: Well, that is why he wanted you to go, then, well, them things have got to be done, but outside the Party, we have got to be mighty careful who the hell we let know anything. Now, here is one thing you have got to realize, transporting dynamite across the state line is a federal offense, well you better let them know that.

MILTEER: Well, there is a way to beat that, you know. All you have to do is pull up to the state line, unload it there, slide it across the line, get in the car and load it again, and they can't accuse you of transporting it then, because you didn't do it. I have done the same thing with a woman. I had one, then I had a woman frame me on it. I got to the state line, and I said, "Listen, Toots, this is the state line, get out, and I will meet you over there," she got out, walked across the line, got in my car in the other state, I didn't transport her, there wasn't a xxxxing thing she could do about it, I had her ass for a long time.

SOMERSETT: I was talking to a boy yesterday, and he was in Athens, Georgia, and he told me, that they had two colored people working in that drug store, and that them, uh, they went into the basement, and tapped them small pipes, I guess that they are copper together, and let that thing accumulate, and blowed the drug store up. He told me that yesterday, do you think that is right?

MILTEER: It could have happened that way.

SOMERSETT: Well, that is what he told me, and he is in town right now.

MILTEER: Does he know who did it? Do they think these negroes did it?

SOMERSETT: Oh, no, they killed the negroes, because they had two negroes working in the place, that is what he told me. He is in town now, he is from Chattanooga. He knows Brown, he knows all of them, his uncle is in the Klan there. He is a young boy, he has been in the Marines, and he really knows his business. He went there, he went down and looked, and he told me that is what happened. So he has been involved in quite a little bit of stuff, according to his story about Nashville, Chattanooga, and Georgia. I have no reason not to believe him, because he told me too much about Brown's operation, that is the reason I [not legible].

MILTEER: Yeah. You take this boy, Connor McGintis [phonetic], boy up there in Union, N.J., of course he doesn't go to anything like that, but he is on our side, he is the one that puts out that Common Sense. He is an ex-Marine. He is all man, too.

SOMERSETT: Now, you see, we will talk to these other people, you have made up your mind that you are going to use the Constitutional Party as a front.

MILTEER: Yeah, Constitutional Party States Rights.

SOMERSETT: Yeah, and it will be strictly secret, and nobody will be exposed except you.

MILTEER: Yeah.

SOMERSETT: Because when we talk to them today, you want to know exactly what to tell them, how it operates.

MILTEER: Yeah, and we have got to set up a little fund there to get it operating.

SOMERSETT: Oh, yeah, sure.

MILTEER: And I am going to devote my time to it, I don't have any idea of getting elected to that City Commission, but I am just making it cost them bastards it cost them as it is, cost them between $1,500 and $2,000 to beat me before, so I want to make it cost them another couple of thousand dollars. If they want to get rid of me, they can buy my xxxxing property, and I will get out of the damn town. In other words, they will save me money. I am going to put that out in one of the damn bulletins there, see. We put, the way I operate, put out these little bulletins, like a typewriter page, eight and a half by eleven, and brother don't you think they ain't waiting for them, when I don't put them out, "Joe, where is the bulletin?" Bill, that could go all over the country the same way. That was just a trial proposition, if it will work in a little stinking town like that, it will work anywhere.

SOMERSETT: I don't know, I think Kennedy is coming here on the 18th, or something like that to make some kind of speech, I don't know what it is, but I imagine it will be on the TV, and you can be on the look for that, I think it is the 18th that he is suppose to be here. I don't know what it is suppose to be about.

MILTEER: You can bet your bottom dollar he is going to have a lot to say about the Cubans, there are so many of them here.

SOMERSETT: Yeah, well he will have a thousand bodyguards, don't worry about that.

MILTEER: The more bodyguards he has, the easier it is to get him.

SOMERSETT: What?

MILTEER: The more bodyguards he has the more easier it is to get him.

SOMERSETT: Well how in the hell do you figure would be the best way to get him?

MILTEER: From an office building with a high-powered rifle, how many people [room noise--tape not legible] does he have going around who look just like him? Do you know about that?

SOMERSETT: No, I never heard that he had anybody.

MILTEER: He has got them.

SOMERSETT: He has?

MILTEER: He has about fifteen. Whenever he goes any place they [not legible] he knows he is a marked man.

SOMERSETT: You think he knows he is a marked man?

MILTEER: Sure he does.

SOMERSETT: They are really going to try to kill him?

MILTEER: Oh, yeah, it is in the working, Brown himself, Brown is just as likely to get him as anybody. He hasn't said so, but he tried to get Martin Luther King.

SOMERSETT: He did.

MILTEER: Oh yes, he followed him for miles and miles, and couldn't get close enough to him.

SOMERSETT: You know exactly where he is in Atlanta don't you.

MILTEER: Martin Luther King, yeah.

SOMERSETT: Bustus Street [phonetic].

MILTEER: Yeah 530.

SOMERSETT: Oh Brown tried to get him huh?

MILTEER: Yeah.

SOMERSETT: Well, he will damn sure do it, I will tell you that. Well, that is why, look, you see, well, that is why we have to be so careful, you know that Brown is operating strong.

MILTEER: He ain't going to play you know.

SOMERSETT: That is right.

MILTEER: He is going for broke.

SOMERSETT: I never asked Brown about his business or anything, you know just what he told me, told us, you know. But after the conversation, and the way he talked to us, there is no question in my mind about who knocked the church off in Birmingham, you can believe that, that is the way I figured it.

MILTEER: That is right, it is about the ony way you can figure it.

SOMERSETT: That is right.

MILTEER: Not being there, not knowing anything.

SOMERSETT: But just from his conversation, as you and me know him, but if they did, it is their business, like you say [Milteer breaks in].

MILTEER: It is up to the individual.

SOMERSETT: That is right. They are individual operators, we don't want that within the party. Hitting this Kennedy is going to be a hard proposition, I tell you, I believe, you may have figured out a way to get him, you may have figured out the office building, and all that. I don't know how them Secret Service agents cover all them office buildings, or anywhere he is going, do you know whether they do that or not?

MILTEER: Well, if they have any suspicion they do that of course. But without suspicion chances are that they wouldn't. You take there in Washington, of course it is the wrong time of the year, but you take pleasant weather, he comes out on the veranda, and somebody could be in a hotel room across the way there, and pick him off just like [fades out].

SOMERSETT: Is that right?

MILTEER: Sure, disassemble a gun, you don't have to take a gun up there, you can take it up in pieces, all those guns come knock down, you can take them apart.

SOMERSETT: They have got a damn, this boy was telling me yesterday about, they have got an explosive that you get out of the army, it is suppose to be like putty or something, you stick it up, and use a small fuse, you just stick it like that, he told me, and I think that is what happened in the church in Birmingham, they stuck this stuff, somebody stuck it under the steps with a short fuse, and went on home. This boy is pretty smart, demolition is that what you call it?

MILTEER: Demolition, that is right.

SOMERSETT: I am going to talk with him some more.

MILTEER: Yeah I would.

SOMERSETT: I am going to talk with him some more, and find out a lot more about his operation, because he knows a hell of a lot.

MILTEER: You need a guy like that around, too. Where we can put our finger on him, when we want him.

SOMERSETT: Yeah. Well, you have got somebody up there in that country now, if you need him.

MILTEER: Well, we are going to have to get nasty first [not legible].

SOMERSETT: Yeah, get nasty.

MILTEER: We have got to be ready, we have got to be sitting on go, too.

SOMERSETT: Yeah, that is right.

MILTEER: There ain't any count down to it, we have just got to be sitting on go. Count down they can move in on you, and on go they can't. Count down is alright for a slow prepared operation, but in an emergency operation, you have got to be sitting on go.

SOMERSETT: Boy, if that Kennedy gets shot, we have got to know where we are at. Because you know that will be a real shake, if they do that.

MILTEER: They wouldn't leave any stone unturned there no way. They will pick up somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off.

SOMERSETT: Oh, somebody is going to have to go to jail, if he gets killed.

MILTEER: Just like that Bruno Hauptmann in the Lindbergh case you know [Dials telephone].

SOMERSETT: "Hello, is Jim there?" "Has he gone to the office?" "Uh, huh, well, is he coming back home?" "Alright, I will do that, thank you." He has gone out to one of those apartment houses, and he will be back later. We will go see whatamacallit, he closes at 1:00 o'clock. We will go up and see Andrew, and we will double back to Jim's [room noise].

MILTEER: Actually the only man we are interested in up at that place [room noise - not legible - door closes].

 

 

 

Looking back, it was clearly the poorest kids from our middle California area that made up the huge majority of ones that couldn't get out of the Viet Nam war draft or went in the military voluntarily because they knew they couldn't get deferments - for post secondary schooling or otherwise.

Conversely, almost every better off kid I knew in school never had to go into the military, especially during Viet Nam times...for various reasons, most of which seemed very vague to me. But I felt back then and still to this day that the Viet Nam war was a blatant exercise in economic discrimination in this way. Just another of it's tragic flaws.