Gerry Simone

Hello David, I was doing some reading about Oscar Contreras, which led me to document 180-10142-10302. In that document, his story begins on section D (page 52 of the report or page 56 of the PDF document), but seems to be incomplete, as the last sentence of the report's final page does not have an end "The following day, July 5, 1967, the Mexico City Station". Where does this report continue with the part about Oscar Contreras? Thanks.

It may seem trite to say Thomas, but here's a quote by Doug Horne. "...No doubt they were given a ‘World War III’ cover story like LBJ used on everyone else in the coming weeks.” http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.ca/2012/03/what-happened-to-jfks-body-cover-up-on.html Cheers (back to the Forum later - gotta get going cuz can't miss my beloved Maple Leafs vs. Washington Capitals).

All valid points Chris but it's hard to make money in a world after global thermonuclear war (if there's a world left).

Here's my take: They tried it before in Chicago but it never got off ground (i.e., there was supposed to be another lone nut as you know). The lone nut scenario and a pre-planned autopsy ensures that an investigation doesn't get out of hand and is contained or controlled. I think the latter was very important to the plotters who many believe were not foreigners (I would hazard to say that that's the consensus of the research community). Without the involvement of the Soviets or Cubans, the plotters' knew that their Communist conspiracy set-up wasn't going to be persuasive, so they needed to control the autopsy, which was done by select, key figures who exploited the chain of command at a military hospital, and nudged the WH in that direction. That was to avoid looking further into Oswald's past and possible connections. They probably knew that the new and ambitious President from the south, wouldn't want to blame the assassination on a Soviet/Cuban conspiracy and start a WW because of the Oswald impostor shenanigan, for one thing. So LBJ didn't have to have foreknowledge or be a mastermind, but he may have been an unwitting accomplice to a cover-up of a domestic conspiracy. In a way, the plotters left LBJ with no choice but to go with the flow or facilitate it. Quote by Jim Garrison seems apropos here: "I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that Fascism will come to America in the name of National Security"

Thank you again. Sorry, I meant for Wesley Frazier. On the landing of the TSBD, his shirt seems light colored but the inset photo and another of him inside the DPD station, it looks like a dark shirt. Any explanation for that? (Did he change his shirt too?) P.S. I just noticed that your posted pic above is a frame capture from the CNN 60s series. Man, you guys in this forum are good.

Ostensibly perhaps, but more to prevent a fuller investigation and/or promote the lone gunman scenario.

My apologies. You're right Tommy. It's supposed to be William Shelley walking down the Elm St. extension. Thank you. However, is there an explanation for what appears to be a difference in the shirt color? (P.S. Looks like I'll have to study my DVD of the Assassination Films by Groden later too).

It's not like there was a letter FROM Kostikov (now THAT would be different). Oswald was made to look like an ambitious Commie wannabe and lapdog of Castro (he was made to look like he was trying to impress him but there's no evidence that he got any direction from him).

Thank you very much for taking the time to reply and with your link.

Tommy, Thank you for spoon-feeding me all this info and the footage (Yes, I'm aware who PM is. Newbie on this forum but not new to the JFK Assassination debate although not an expert on every aspect, if any). I see every person you've meticulously described, including who you think might be BL. I can't say for sure if that's BL but it could be him, even by what Sandy has posted below your post that I've quoted (thank you Sandy) with what may be his white undershirt exposed. But I have a follow-up question. If the red oblong circle supposedly is Frazier (in my earlier posted frame), why is there a difference in the shirt color between the Frazier standing on the landing in that Darnell still frame (not the inset photo) and the Frazier supposedly walking towards the knoll or parking lot on the Elm St. extension? The former is light, the latter is dark (like the shirt worn by Frazier in the inset photo). Maybe that's not Frazier on the Landing? So maybe that's not BL either down below? I think Frazier was wearing this dark shirt on that fateful day, as the pic below.

Me too.

We have the benefit of hindsight, don't we? People believed in their institutions and the "fake news" at the time. Being a communist sympathizer didn't make one a popular or well-liked person. They demonized Oswald.

I think the main objective was to kill Kennedy and not make it look like a conspiracy (frankly, I think the public wouldn't believe that a bunch of commie assassins killed JFK in Dallas but more the opposite, as in a domestic conspiracy). I think Operation Northwoods lost steam, and the interest in Cuba waned a bit, but the hatred by those who were affected by what had happened in Cuba was still there, and they weren't going to allow further changes in foreign policy, and perhaps also seek revenge.

If his Communist credentials were fake, the new President wasn't about to order an invasion of Cuba or otherwise retaliate against the Soviets.

Michael/Thomas, I'm sorry that I don't know the sequence of these "lesser" films and photographs, so I'll have to study them in more detail before I can understand their order and timing, and where they might show some overlap. In any event, in the attached frame with BWF superimposed in the top right corner (presumably this is from Bart Kamp's site?), if that's Frazier standing high on the top step, wouldn't BNL not be far from him? I don't know if that sort of answers your question (I understand about seeing him in two places at the same time if I understand correctly, but we need to 1st establish if that's him in the first place). I do see the lady in black and the lady in white, and somebody is between them and PM. Lovelady? Is there any possibility that the sequence or order and timing of the films is slightly incorrect so that it gives the illusion of one person being in two places at the same time (if that's the nature of the problem)?