13 minutes ago, David Andrews said:

I'm just wondering what Jim and the membership think is the end goal of the predominating bluster among the superpowers

Oligarchy is the aim. I despise Dynastic power, and don't care for Assad for that reason, but it has never been our aim to depose kings and queens. Enemies of the entrenched worldwide Oligarchic power structures are the target; and that included Iran, at 10:06 ET on May 19 2018. Iran could fall into the lovey-dovey arms of the Oligarchs with a simple coup.

Likewise, South Korea is more a problem to the powers that be than North Korea. NK can and will be turned around overnight by appealing to the ruling elite; SK, not so much.

Please reset yourself guys. You are sliding into the game of personal attacks and name calling. I appreciate the presence of both of you immensely.

16 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

I go by material evidence and eye-witness accounts.   Otherwise, I don't offer speculations.   That's the nature of this Forum thread.

That's just flat-out untrue. You write prosaic fiction to suit your CT, every step of the way, everywhere, and you hardly ever provide quotes or documents to support your claims as you go along.

At some point you started using the preface... "In my reading" to obsolve yourself of the responsibility to back up what you are asserting.

Lets go to the beginning of this thread to represent some of your prosaic fiction and the lengths that a member has to go through to present it as false...

On 3/6/2018 at 2:14 PM, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

I'm not making this up -- this comes from Dick Russell in his famous book, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1992).   Dick Russell interviewed two WC witnesses who knew George De Mohrenschildt (DM) very well.  They were Igor and Natasha Voshinin.  They despised the Oswalds, and never had anything to do with them.   If the Oswald's were at a Russian party, the Voshinins would boycott that party.   They knew George DM liked them, but they continued to urge George  to drop them.

After the Walker shooting on Wednesday 10 April 1962, the local Dallas radio and TV stations were full of the buzz, and talking about how Dallas was going downhill.

Anyway, on Easter Sunday 14 April 1963, George DM came to visit them very early in the morning.   They were early risers, so they offered him some coffee.  He was too anxious to accept.    He had to tell them his story.   He and Jeanne worried all week about whether Oswald was Walker's shooter.  Finally, at 10PM on Saturday evening, they hatched a plan.  They would buy an toy Easter bunny at a local drug store, and use this as a ruse to get into the Oswald home, uninvited.    

Then, when George got Lee talking in one room, Jeanne would walk with Marina around the house, and search for clues.   That's just what they did.  They got the Oswald's out of bed with a surprise Easter visit.  The Oswald's invited them in, offered them soft drinks, and sat down to talk with them.   George kept Lee near the balcony, and Jeanne asked Marina to show her around their apartment.   Marina did, and Jeanne opened a closet door to find Lee's rifle, complete with scope.   

"He has a rifle!"  shouted Jeanne from the other room.   George and Lee went to see.   Then George asked Lee:  "Lee, did you take that pot-shot at General Walker?   Lee froze.   Marina froze.  They looked at each other for clues.   Lee could not find a reply in this clumsy moment.   Then George started laughing.   Then Lee laughed.   Then Marina laughed and they all laughed together.   Then the De Mohrenschildt's excused themselves because it was so late.   They left.   They would never see the Oswalds again in their lives.

Natahsa Voshinin urged George DM to call the FBI and tell them his suspicions immediately!   George said, no, he could never do that to a "friend."   (But he had just ratted Lee out to the Voshinins!)    Then George DM left.   Natasha saw her American duty -- she called the Dallas FBI right away, and told them everything that George DM had said.

Notice, Jason, in that letter that I shared from Walker to Senator Church in 1975 -- he says that somebody in authority told him "WITHIN DAYS" that Lee Harvey Oswald had been his shooter.  In my humble opinion (still to be verified), the person who told Walker was really Dallas FBI agent James Hosty.  He was the agent monitoring both Walker and Oswald in Dallas for the FBI.   In my humble opinion, Natasha Voshinin told James Hosty.

So -- Walker knew "WITHIN DAYS" of the Walker shooting that LHO was his shooter.   Dick Russell confirms Walker's own word for it.

All best,
--Paul

Paul Trejo,

You stated that the above comes from Dick Russell, but you quote nothing from Dick Russell, so...... none of it is from Dick Russell. It is all your interpretive fiction. 

I covered how much of this was false, Trejo-interpreted fiction on the first page of this thread. 

Thankfully, the astute members of this forum don't waste their time pointing out how so much of your assertions are worthless. They do good work and it is better that they continue to do so rather than chase you around. Fictitious presentations and disinformation are an allowed and accepted element of maintaining an open forum, as an admin recently noted; so there is little point in following behind you if the goal is to put an end to such "distributions". 

Th link above now has a text copy of this essay....

Listener Essay - I Was Wrong

is a former Mentor at SUNY-Empire State College, current member of the Sarah Lawrence College Writing Institute faculty, and longtime freelancer. His new novel, Loving Violet, will be published by Cohill Press in summer 2017.

I Was Wrong

I am beginning this piece in the early days of the United States’ descent into the Dystrumpian Future. So many among us holding our breaths, preparing for the coming repressions, the planetary insults to reason and civilized behavior, the Armageddon-Sans-Rapture that awaits this great country. And it’s already far worse than many of us feared.

How did this glorious experiment in Democracy come to this stunning, disheartening, inglorious moment?

Well, at the risk of seeming an arrogant elitist bastard, as nearly half the country has come to believe about all liberals, there is this:

It’s 1964 or 65, I’m 18 or 19 and the world is suddenly not making any sense. I’m just realizing that my history books have been telling me shameless lies about the American past, censoring out every hideous thing we’ve done to Native Americans, African Americans, women, Asians, Jews, homosexuals … that is, anyone not white, not Protestant, not male. Yeah, and something is still really really fishy about JFK’s assassination and that phony Warren Commission report. Plus, the new president is lying through his teeth about what’s going on in Vietnam while high school friends are dying in rice paddies thousands of miles away. And closer to home, parents and teachers are perpetrating bald-faced lies about God, country, sex, drugs, rock and roll, and then demanding that we shut up, straighten up and fly right.

But it’s 1964 or 5 and the inebriating rhetoric of the Free Speech Movement is wafting out of Mario Savio’s mouth in Berkeley, crossing the Rockies, blowing like tumbleweed over the Plains and stopping overnight in Madison, Wisconsin, where my friends and I are just waking up to all the shameful hypocrisies perpetrated by our parents’ generation.

So thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions of my generation across the country are crowding fields many times bigger than Yasgur’s farm, standing shoulder to shoulder, marching, chanting, sitting-in, speaking our minds. And when we get dragged off to jail, when we are beaten by cops and rednecks and National Guardsmen, jack-booted thugs with fixed bayonets and night sticks, it doesn’t matter because we are right. We are righteous.

And like all righteous people, we know God is on our side, Abraham and Isaac, the love of Jesus, flowers in our hair. It is the Age of Aquarius.

And we are the moral conscience of the country. The moral arbiters about all things good and evil. The morality police.

“You are materialistic, shallow, and self-serving,” we sneer at our parents.

“Baby killers!” we chant at Vietnam Vets.

“Pigs!” we yell after cops.

All conservatives are heartless, soulless, jackals unfit to walk alongside the

hippie Jesus we have concocted in our own image.

So now trace a line from the fiery anguishes of the Democratic National Convention 1968 through to Woodstock in 1969, the atrocities at Kent State, the bombing of the Army Math Research Building in Madison, Wisconsin, Martin Luther King being mowed down, Bobby Kennedy killed on TV, body bags coming into Dover Air Force Base, when everything—and I mean everything—was falling apart. Then pause for a moment and take note of when Spiro Agnew ignited the Moral Majority in 1972.

Well, we didn’t take note. We didn’t take stock. We didn’t understand the implications of demanding Free Speech out of one side of our mouths while out of the other side telling our enemies there were some things (many things, oh so many things) that they were not allowed to say.

Too enamored with the beauty of our truth, we failed to predict the ugly backlash that would come at us after calling our fellow citizens fascists, racists, misogynists, bullies, fools, morons, liars, killers.

How arrogant were we that we not know that they would hate us for all that? That they might never forgive us for our elitism, our snottiness, our holier-than-thou-ness? That we had turned into social bullies, abusers? Were we so blind that we did not know that in the name of righteousness we would commit our own moral and ethical atrocities?

How could we have failed to predict that they would someday muster enough hate-driven energy that would become the Tea Party, the Alt-Right, and eventually beat the snot out of our deeply flawed Hillary?

And how could we have missed the utterly simple notion that they would some day come to despise us and everything we believe in so much that they would elect a lying, unqualified, unrepentant narcissistic bully as our president to pay us back?

And because so many of us on the left seem to be blaming them for this dismal state of affairs, I speak only for myself when I say I am sorry. I am sorry that I’ve been such an arrogant elitist bastard. I am sorry I have showed no respect for your beliefs, for your fears, for your pain. I was wrong. And I will work every day for the rest of my life to make sure this kind of national horror never happens again.

On 5/18/2018 at 2:24 AM, Jason Ward said:

1. so is it possible that the cops themselves killed Kennedy?  With no big sponsors or overlords other than themselves?

 

Sounds like Conspiracy Theory to me, it just ignores the "High Drama" imbedded in the fact that powerful overlords must have placed Oswald in the TSBD, dimmed the lights on the prior investigate interest in Oswald, manipulated the motorcade route, called-off standard protection procedures for a presidential visit, enabled and enacted the cover-up, compelled the MSM to stick their heads in the sand, murdered witnesses co-conspirators nationwide and caused the JBJ and DOJ opt for a panel of suspect players to convene a farcical inquiry instead of a criminal investigation into the assassination of the president.

Roscoe and Co. we're quite a bit more capable than we think, says Jason.

And.... undercover CIA asset, Mayor of Dallas, and the brother of a former CIA director, Earle Cabell, had nothing to do with it, says Jason?

 

 

On 5/18/2018 at 2:24 AM, Jason Ward said:

2. Why is everyone obsessed with Oswald?   

 

Because the government says he did-it, when we know he did not do it. And.... He was a government agent, and the government denies this. 

Jason, this is not reason enough for you to understand why the truth about Oswald should come to light?

In my reading of the last few posts, I am seeing, again, LHO being groomed as an assassin or patsy, by anti-Catholic powers, as early as 1959. It is a scenario into which I cannot buy.

Thread Post 16

Bern = 15-10

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10134.pdf

 

Thread Post 15

London 15-1

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10405.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10123-10075.pdf

 

 

Thread Post 14

 

http://documents.theblackvault.com/documents/jfk/NARA-Oct2017/2018/104-10163-10019.pdf

P. 7.  15-2  (Madrid?)

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/180-10146-10043.pdf

P.32.  15-2 (redacted) mentioned again

 

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10216-10249.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10102-10165.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10102-10162.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10105-10139.pdf   P.5

15 - 2   Madrid

15 - 4    Paris

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10103-10038.pdf

15 - 2  Apparently Madrid. Yet the location for Madrid is redacted in one instance, yet not in another.

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10161-10276.pdf

15-2

15-26

16-22

20-2

 

 

 

 

Thread Post 14

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/104-10185-10077.pdf

QJWIN

17-10

12-10   not Luxembourg 

 

 

 

 

 

Some interesting goings-on in Helsinki in 1962. Code for Helsink is confusing. It appears to be both 19-1 and 14-1.

On 5/16/2018 at 9:54 PM, Michael Clark said:

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/157-10008-10211.pdf

List of attachments, some missing including 

13. Memo... record... AMLASH 1 meeting, 29 October, 63. Dated 13 November 63.

14. Contact Plan CSAS meeting AMLASH in ****** undated

15. Cover for C/SAS meeting AMLASH 1 ******* undated

16. Scenario for C/SAS meeting with AMLASH -1 in ****** updated

17. Fall back position for AMLASH 1 undated

18. Memo Record plans for AMLASH 1 contact. Dated 19 November 1963

19, Contact report AMLASH 1. 22 Nov. 63 in ******* dated 25. Nov. 63

20 . Director. Dated 18 Dec. 63

21. JMWAVE dated 7 Dec. 1963

-------------

Page 5.   "Here", presumably the location of the "World Youth Festival"  = Helsinki = 14-1

(Also AMWHIP, AMLASH-1)

P. 11. Location Code. 19-1

p. 14.   19-6, 14-6 loc. Codes

-------------

( does this doc dispute the identity of AMLASH, AMWHIP?)

AMWHIP 1 and AMLASH 1

Interestingly, this document is dated to August, 1962.

The Mary Farrell site indicates that AMLASH was recruited in 1963

AMWHIP-1- Carlos Tepedino Gonzalez, a Cuban exile living in the U.S. who was a "long-time friend" of Rolando Cubela (AMLASH). AMWHIP-1 arranged the 1961 meeting between a CIA case officer and Cubela, who was recruited to attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro. 

AMLASH.   Rolando Cubela Secades, a Cuban doctor and official who was recruited in 1963 for an assassination attempt on Castro. Cubela stated that Castro had to be eliminated before any coup could succeed and had initially requested a high powered rifle from the CIA. The CIA balked at that and Cubela was being given a CIA poison pen on Nov 22 when news of JFK's death broke. Suspicion remains that Cubela may have been acting as a dangle to the CIA by Castro; that is fueled by his lenient treatment after being exposed and convicted of treason. 

Why is there a note in the margins of page 10, asking where LHO stayed on July 30, of 1962, while discussing a meeting betweem AMLASh- 1 and AMWHIP-1 in Helsinki?

p. 11. Location Code. 19-1

 

 

 

Please allow me tplay with my iPad voice translator as I reproduce the opening paragraph.

 

This is the third volume of the official history of "The Bay of Pigs Operation" and focuses on the problems of establishing a policy for the United States government as Fidel Castro and his cohorts came to power in Cuba. The policy decided on by the US government in March 1960  called for the displacement of Fito Castro, and it was by no means a unilateral decision promoted by the Central intelligence agency – although he is demonstrable that the agency was far more precious perceptive than the policymaking bodies in recognizing the threat to the western hemisphere posed by Castro's communist affiliation.  Because the policymakers feared censure by the United Nations and or the organization of American states, the myth of "plausible deniability" was the caveat that determined the CIA would be the principal implementing arm for this anti-Castro effort. From inception to termination "deniability" would be the albatross around the necks of the agency planners; and from D day -2, it became the strangling cord insuring the failure of the effort at the Bay of Pigs...

 

29 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Phooey.  It wouldn't load.  Tried twice, little blue line never moved after couple of minutes each time.  Slow internet speeds out here in the country sometimes.  Though everything else seems to be working ok and I've read Black Vault articles from here before.  I'll try again later.  Just frustrating. 

It's 409 pages. It took a few minutes but finally loaded.

Wesley J. Liebler

September 6, 1964

 

Memorandum re the galley proofs of chapter 4 of the report.

I set forth below comments on the galley proofs of chapter 4 of the report, a report of which I obtained from Mr. Reidlich on September 4, 1964. Other comments and suggestions are set forth in the margin of the galley itself.

Purchase of the rifle by Oswald

1. On galley page 30, query if the name hi Dell was stamped on the membership application blanks of the New Orleans branch FPCC.

2. The text near the top of page 30 gives the impression that the name Hydell was stamped on all of the New Orleans chapters printed literature. It was not. Oswald stamped his own name on some of it.

Oswald palm print on the rifle barrel

1. Wary if the palm print provides additional evidence of ownership of the rifle as is stated. The most it does is show that Oswald had possession of the rifle at sometime it does not show that he owned it.

2. Second paragraph states that Lieutenant Day determined the wooden stock was too rough to take prints "from visual examination". Day does not say that in his testimony. While it is a minor point he just said that he noted it was too rough.  For all I know he may have reached that conclusion by feeling the stock. 

3.  It may be noted hear that the conclusion for the section on rifle ownership, that appears on Callie page 32, states that the presence of the palm print on the rifle so is that Oswald "had disassembled it". That conclusion is not warranted from the existence of the palm print on the rifle. The conclusion that Oswald handled the rifle while it was disassembled is justified.

4. The palm print section must be changed to reflect the latest findings of the FBI that the palmprint had to have been lifted from the barrel because of the marks that appear on the lift that correspond to those on the rifle barrel itself.

 Fibers on the rifle 

1.I think this section is written a little too strongly considering directly record. For example, there is no footnote after the statement that the commission found no credible evidence that Oswald used the rifle between  September 23 and the assassination. Furthermore, even if he did not "use" it he might very well have handled it at some point during that period. Also, Stombaugh was not able to estimate the period of time within which the fibers were placed on the rifle, but much of the language in the section is designed to bring one to the conclusion that they were put there on the day of the assassination, even though that is not said.

2.  In the last sentence of the section, it is not the commissions conclusion that provides proof, it is the fact that the fibers most probably came from Oswald's shirt. Also, does that show that he "owned" the rifle, or just that he or someone that wore the shirt had handled the rifle at sometime? 

Photograph of Oswald with rifle

1.  It is interesting to note that the conclusion to the ownership section, on page 32, states that "a photograph taken in the yard of Oswald's apartment showed him holding this rifle". That statement appears in the conclusion in spite of the fact that Shaneyfelt specifically testified that he could not make a positive identification of the rifle that Oswald was holding in the picture and in spite of the fact that the commission was not able to conclude, In the discussion of this subject on page 31, that Oswald was holding the assassination weapon in the picture.

Rifle among Oswald's possessions

1.  I do not believe there is any real authority for the proposition that Oswald cited through the telescope site on the porch in New Orleans. Marina Oswald first said she did not know what he did with the rifle out on the porch and then was led into a statement which might be thought to support the instant proposition. It is not very convincing.

2.  On the top of page 32 it is stated that Ruth and Michael Payne "both noticed the rolled up blanket in the garage throughout the time that marina Oswald was living in their home". I am sure the record will not support that statement, a rather important one, too. I recall that there was a period of time before the assassination that neither of them saw the blanket. I have always had the opinion that there was a gap in the proof as to the rifle being continuously in the garage, one that probably could not be filled. It cannot be filled by ignoring it. The conclusion is even worse when it states that "The rifle was being kept among Oswald's possessions from the time of its purchase until the day of the assassination. I do not think the record provides any real evidence to support that broad statement. The fact is that not one person alive today ever saw that rifle in the pain garage in such a way that it could be identified as that rifle.

The curtain rod story

1. The report states that Fraser was surprised when Oswald asked for a ride on November 21, 1963. I am not able to find anything in the record to support that statement.

2. The last paragraph of this section is miss leading when it at times to show the falsity of the curtain rod story by stating that Oswald's room at 102 six N. Beckley had curtains, and does not take account of the fact that Fraser specifically testified that Oswald said he wanted the curtain rods to put in an apartment. This takes an added significance when we remember that Oswald was talking about renting an apartment so that his family could live in Dallas with him. That aspect of the problem should be specifically treated if we are going to mention the fact that his rooming house had curtains.

The long and bulky package

1. The last sentence states: "Fraser could easily have been mistaken when he stated that Oswald held the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand, or when he stated that the upper end was tucked under the armpit." On the very next page of the galleys, in the discussion of the Prince that appear on the paper bag, it is stated that the palm print was "found on the closed and of the bag. It was from Oswald's right hand in which he carried the long package as he walked from Fraser's car to the building."

I am advised that the palm print is right on the end of the bag, just where it would be if Oswald had carried it cupped in his hand. If we say in the discussion of prints that that print was put on the bag when he carried it into the TSBD (which we don't quite do)'and if the print is where it would be if he carried it kept in his hand, then we must face up on the preceding page and admit that Fraser was right when he said that that is the way Oswald carried it. If the print story is right and the implication left there as to when the print was put on the bag is valid, Fraser could not have been mistaken when he said Oswald carried the bottom of the bag cupped in his hand.

Scientific evidence linking rifle and Oswald to the paper bag

1. The section on fibers in the bag is very thin. The most that can be said is that there was a possibility that the fibers came from the blanket. The FBI expert would not even state that such was possible.

conclusion

1. I am at a loss to know why the fact that Oswald apparently failed to turn out Ruth Paine's garage light is mentioned in the conclusion.

Palm prints and fingerprints on cartons and paper bag

1. The problem of all the identified prints has already been discussed. The FBI has been requested to conduct additional investigation to attempt to identify those prints. The results of that investigation must be incorporated in the report.

2.  This section emphasized the freshness of one palm print on one carton. That palmprint was the only one of 28 prints that could be developed by powder as opposed to a chemical process. As a result it was held to have been placed on the carton recently, within from 1 to 3 days prior to the time it was developed. The inference may be drawn from the present language of this section that all of the other prints, which could be developed only through a chemical process because the cartons had already absorb them, must have been older than the palm print. Thus, it could be argued that Oswald's other prints had to have been placed on the cartons at least a day before they were developed and perhaps as much is three days before. While there may be some reason within the realm of fingerprint technology why that is not so, it does not appear in the report.

Under those circumstances the presence of Oswald's other prints, which must be treated pari passu with the prints of others on these cartons, seems to have very little significance indeed. This relates to the prints on one of the rolling readers cartons  near the window, the existence of which is emphasized by stating that they "take on added significance" because of the work being done on the six floor. The report also states that the commission placed great weight on the fingerprint and palm print identifications. I don't think we should say that in any event. We certainly should not until we deal with the problem of the apparent age of Oswald's other prints and the presence of all those on identified prints.

3.  The report states that it is "significant that none of the prints on the cartons should be identified as the prince of a warehouse employee." It also states that those employees "like Oswald, might have handled the cartons" presumably in the ordinary course of business. It is significant. But not necessarily to the point that the report tries to make. The fact that only Oswald's prints appear on the cartons could show that he was the soul warehouse employee that handled them in the ordinary course of business. The fact that Oswald was the only employee whose prints appeared on the cartons does not help to convince me that he moved them in connection with the assassination. It shows the opposite just as well.

4.  It is also difficult to tell just what happened to all of the cartons or who developed what prints. While it appears that all four cartons were forwarded to the FBI, some confusion is created by the later statement that the right palm print on the box on the floor next to the three near the window was also sent to the FBI. Why was that necessary if the carton had already been sent? The use of the passive voice in the second sentence of the second full paragraph on page 35 of the galleys leaves open the question of who developed the prints.

Eyewitness identification of assassin.

1. There is a duplication of a long quote from Brennon's testimony that also appears at page 15 of the galleys, the first page of chapter 3. It does not seem to be needed in both places. If left the way it is, the form as to omitted material should be standardized.

2. Following that "it says that Brandon's description most probably lead to the radio alert sent out to please in which the assassin was described. Can't this be more definite?  One of the questions that has been raised is the speed with which the assassin was described, the implication being that Oswald had been picked out as a patsy before the event. The Dallas police must know what led to the radio alert in the description. If they do we should be able to find out. If they do not know, the circumstances of their not knowing should be discussed briefly. 

3.  On page 36 it says that at 1:29 PM the police radio reported that the description of the suspect in the Tippitn shooting was similar to the description which had been given by Brennan in connection with the assassination. On page 46 it is stated that it was unlikely that any officer said anything like "kill the president, will you?" The reason given is that the officers did not know "that Oswald was a suspect in the killing of the President". But they very likely had heard the police Radio note that the description of the two were similar and may have been drawn their own conclusions.  The statement on page 46 should be taken out or qualified .

4. There should be a picture of the inside of the TSBD 6th floor showing the low windows sills and a reference to that picture in connection with the discussion of Brennan's testimony that he saw the man standing.

5. Where we if we need such a long paragraph and Eunis' testimony merely to conclude that it is inconclusive as to the identity of the man in the window.

6. In the last sentence of the second to the last paragraph in the section it says that Altgen's picture was taken about two seconds "after the shot which entered the back of the presidents neck". We should say after that shot was fired or heard or something. The sentence is not a good one as it now stands.

Oswald's actions in building after assassination.

1.  I do not think the description of the baker Oswald sequence is sufficiently clear. I am confused as to how many entrance doors there are to the vestibule, even though after a close reading there appeared to be only two, the one connecting to the second floor landing and the one connecting to the lunch room. It is also not clear whether baker saw Oswald through the window in the vestibule landing door, or whether that door was still open as is implied by Baker's testimony. Mention of the window previously, however, implies Baker saw Oswald through the window. It does not seem likely that Oswald would still have been visible through the window if the door had already closed, although that depends on how far the door closes, which is something I would like to know. What kind of a stairway is it that someone coming up can't see nothing at the top of the landing? Truly may in fact have seen Oswald if the latter had just come down the stairs from the third floor has truly was coming up on the second.

I think additional effort should be made with the writing and a picture of the view coming up to the second floor and a diagram or other pictures of the landing and vestibule area would be a good idea.

2. The first sentence in the third from the last paragraph on galley page 38 leaves a false inference concerning Oswald's presence on the sixth floor. It should be rewritten along the following lines: "Thebfact that Oswald could not have come down in the elevators, the only other possible means of dissent, is shown by their movements after the time Baker and Truly tried to use them to go up in the building."

3. In the same paragraph, the statement that both elevators occupy the same shaft is not clear. It would be better to say: "both elevators, which operate adjacently in the same shaft,"

4.  Last paragraph on page 38 galley: the testimony of the employees as set forth in that paragraph is also consistent with Oswald having been in Ethiopia at the time of the assassination or with his having used the elevators to get down from the six floor. Since those employees did not see either Oswald or Dougherty, their testimony says nothing on the point under discussion. The whole paragraph should be cut.

5.  The next two paragraphs, the first two on galley page 39, or a complete mystery to me. When I left the bottom of page 38 I was looking for additional testimony showing that Oswald came down the stairs and not the elevator. After two paragraphs of excellent analysis I am convinced that at Victoria Adams either came down the stairs before or after as well did and it is clear that that is so  because we know that Oswald came down the stairs and not the elevators. I still do not understand, however, how the fact that Victoria Adams came down the stairs before or after Oswald did shows that Oswald came down the stairs. If the idea is to show that Adams was not on the stairway when Oswald was, I am not convinced by the analysis or speculation in these two paragraphs.  Furthermore, if that is the idea that it is not clearly set forth. How about a first sentence like: "Victoria Adams testified that she came down the stairway, within about one minute after the shots, from the fourth floor to the first floor where is he encountered to depository employees bill Shelly and bill love lady. If Miss Adams was on the stairway at that time,  The question is raised as to why she did not see Oswald......"

6.  In the conclusion: I do not see how the commission can possibly stay that "fingerprint and palmprint evidence establishes that Oswald arranged the cartons in the window." That evidence establishes that at some time Oswald handled one of the three cartons in the window, as suggested above, probably prior to the assassination by at least 1 to 3 days. That evidence establishes with equal validity that perhaps about 20 other persons "arranged the curtains in the window."

Oswald's movements after leaving the depository building

1.  The description of Oswald's bus ride sequence is very confusing and holy unable to stand by itself without a map. Even if we include a map, which I assume we will, the text should be clear enough to stand by itself. The basic problem is that there is no indication of the relationship of various intersections to each other, it should be simple enough to set forth the relationships between Saint Paul and Elm, Field and Elm and Poydras and Lamar.

2. There also seems to be a mistake in description of directions. I don't see how Oswald could walk west on Elm and board a bus heading back in the direction of the Depository and which was also traveling west. Somebody had to have gone east. (Oswald)

3. The second to the last full paragraph on galley page 40 is not very clear as to what all those buses actually do and what they are supposed to do. I have set forth suggested clarifying changes in the margin of the galley.

4. On galley page 41 the terms lineup and show up are used interchangeably. It should be one or the other throughout. I have always thought it was lineup.

5. There are direct quotes in the first paragraph on galley page 42 for which there are no footnotes. It is my understanding that there are to be footnotes for each direct quote and that there is to be uniformity on this point throughout the report.

Description of the shooting

1.  References here to what the Dallas police radio ordered Tippit to do should be qualified to indicate that a transcript of the recording of the radio communications indicates the material being set forth. This should be done at least until we have cleared up the problems with the transcript and recordings, if we have not already done so. 

2. There are no footnotes at all in the last paragraph of this section.

Eyewitnisses

1. There is more confusion between lineups and show up at the top of galley page 43.

2. As to any attempt to explain Mrs. Markham's description (so called) of Oswald as having bushy hair by showing the world a picture of Oswald "taken at the time of the arrest:" I suggest that even the slowest of readers would imagine that their hair might be in an uncombed state – which is the suggested explanation of the bushy condition – after they had fought with a dozen policeman  in an attempt to resist arrest. In fact Pizzo Exhibit 453 – C, the evidence for this proposition, shows Oswald with cuts and bruises on his face. I don't think Mrs. Markham's testimony needs much comment and neither does her statement to Lane. Any attempt, such as is presently in the report will merely play into lanes hands and make the commission look naïve.

3. Query statement that Markhams identification was mostly from his face. I think she was all over the lot on that one.

Murder weapon

1. Why don't we take a sentence or two and explain why the bullets fired from the revolver or smaller than the barrel there is no way to tell from the report now and an obvious question is raised as to why.

2. There is an unclear sentence in the middle of the third paragraph of this heading which states: "Alec the bullets were mutilated." Which ones?

3. The paragraph dealing with the number of shots fired and the manufacture of the cases and the slugs seems to me to be an exercise in pedantry, and possibly subject to error. Is it not possible that a Winchester western slug could have been fired from a Remington Peter's case? Even if not, why leave ourselves open to question when it does not really matter how many shots were fired, as between four or five.

4. The last paragraph of this heading need some footnote, either in or out.

Ownership of the revolver

1. The first sentence refers to "this type of revolver." I think it would be better to say the "type of revolver that was used to kill Patrolman Tippit."

Oswald's jacket

1. The second paragraph of this heading needs some footnotes.

2. There are inconsistencies in the description of commission Exhibit 162. The same problem occurred above, when an exhibit was described sometimes as "exhibit ______" and at other times as "Comission Exhibit ______". A little thing but why not do it right?

3.  The conclusion to this heading reaches the crushing result that Oswald disposed of his jacket as he fled from the scene of the typical killing. I submit that that is really not the conclusion we work toward. Why not: "Those facts strongly support the finding that it was Lee Harvey Oswald who killed Patrolman Tippit and then fled through the parking lot adjoining Jefferson Boulevard, disposing of his jacket as he did so."

Oswald's arrest

1. At first I was surprised to learn that Johnny Calvin Brewer knew that a patrolman had been shot one Oswald walked by his place of business, less than eight blocks from the point of the typical killing which Oswald apparently left as fast as he could.

2.  Then I was surprised to learn that the police radio did not send out information about the sunset back being in the Texas theater until 145, about 30 minutes after the police first learned of the typical killing from Benevides over tippets radio. What were Oswald and Brewer doing during this 30 minutes? Oswald was strangely in active during this period, considering all that he had done in the 45 minutes following the assassination.

3.  Well I know that I will be thought mad to suggest that some editing be done on this chapter, consider the following sentence that appears on gallery page 46: "As Oswald, handcuffed, was lead from the theater, he was, according to McDonald, cursing a little bit and hollering police brutality." There are only five commas is in that sentence.  How about: "McDonald testified that Oswald was cursing a little bit and hollering "police brutality" as he was the lead hand carved from the theater."

4. Here compare the note above concerning page 36 that the police radio had noted the similarity of the descriptions between the man wanted for the assassination and the man wanted for the tip at killing, by the time Oswald was arrested at the theater. It could be, therefore, that some of the officers suspected that the man they were arresting was wanted in connection with the assassination.

statements of Oswald during detention

1. There are entirely too many subheadings under this general heading. None are really necessary. We reach the sublime when we have one hole heading for one short, for sentence paragraph. They should all be cut out and the whole discussion comprehended under the above general title.

2. In the paragraph on denial of rifle ownership appears the statement "small bore .22 rifle." That is redundant, since I presume we do not mean to distinguish from large bore 22 rifles. It should probably just read "22 caliber rifle."

3. The second to last sentence in that paragraph needs a footnote.

 

Shooting of Major General Edwin A. Walker

1. There is no footnote after the sentence concerning the 15-year-old boy who saw two men leave the area.

2. Same after the statement that a friend of Walker gave information to the police about the two men snooping around. Also that statement is not correct. Walker gave the information to the police.

3. No footnote after statement regarding results of private investigation.

4. No footnote after statement that the note was in the "Book of Useful Advice."

5. The second full paragraph on page 48 assumes a lot of knowledge about Oswald's movements and about the pains that the reader had not gotten anywhere yet, except in the first chapter narrative. A few extra words as suggested in the margin of the galley might improve things considerably. Furthermore, the first sentence needs a footnote, as does the entire next paragraph, which has not one footnote to its name.

6.  In the paragraph on photographs, a footnote is needed after the first sentence. The second sentence must be changed because at present it implies that Oswald told Marina about the notebook or rather showed it to her when he returned the night after the attack. She stated in her testimony in July and she did not see what was in the notebook until three days after the attack and there is nothing in her early testimony that I know about to support the proposition now in this report.

7. Statement that Oswald apparently destroyed the notebook should be changed in order to reflect fact that he did destroy it, and at the suggestion of his wife.

8. Second to last sentence in photographs section must be changed to indicate that Oswald did not bury his rifle in some bushes, but rather that he may have hidden it there.

9. Query usage of "ballistics" in first paragraph of "firearms identification" section. Same as to last paragraph thereof.

10. Under "Corroboration by Marina Oswald" we learn for the first time about a postponement of the attempt to kill Walker. There is no mention of from when, what the circumstances of the postponement were, what happened to the rifle in the meantime, etc. it should be set forth, since there is no mention of it above, as I recall.

Oswald's rifle capability

1. The purpose of this section is to determine Oswald's ability to fire a rifle. The third word at the top of page 50 of the galleys, which is apparently meant to describe Oswald, is marksman. A marksman is one school that shooting at a Mark; one who shoots well. Not only do we beg the question a little but the sentence is in exact in that the shot, which it describes, would be the same for a marksman as it would be for one who is not a marksman. How about: "The assassins shots from the easternmost window of the southside of the Texas school book depository were at a slow-moving target proceeding on a downgrade virtually straight away from the assassin, at a range of 177 to 266 feet."

2. The last sentence in the first paragraph on galley page 50 should indicate that the slope of Elm Street is downward.

3. The section on the nature of the shots deals basically with the range and the effect of a telescopic site. Several experts conclude that the shots were easy. There is, however, no consideration given here to the time allowed for the shots. I do not see how someone can conclude that he sat is easy or hard unless he knows something about how long the firer had to shoot, i.e., how much time is allotted for the shots.

4. On nature of the shots – freezer testify that one would have no difficulty and hitting a target with a telescopic site, since all you have to do is put this crosshairs on the target. On page 51 of the galleys, however, he testified that shots  fired by FBI agents with the assassination weapon were "a few inches high and to the right of the target because of a defect of the scope." Apparently no one knows when that defect appeared, or if it was in the scope at the time of the assassination. If it was and in the absence of any evidence to the contrary one may assume that it was, putting the crosshairs on the target would clearly have resulted in a mess, or very late lately would, in any event.  I have raise this question before. There is a great deal of testimony in the record that a telescopic sight is a sensitive proposition. You can't leave a rifle and scope lying around in the garage under foot for almost 3 months, just haven't brought it back from New Orleans in the back of the station wagon, and expect to hit anything with it, unless you take the trouble to fire it and site the scope in. This would have been a problem that should have been dealt with in any event, and now that it turns out that there actually was a defect in the scope, it is perfectly clear that the question must be considered. The present draft leaves the commission open to severe criticism. Furthermore, to the extent that it leaves testimony suggesting that the shots might not have been so easy out of the discussion, thereby giving only a part of the story, it is simply dishonest. 

5. Why do we have a statement concerning the fact that Oswald's marine records show that he was familiar with the Browning automatic rifle, 45 caliber pistol and 12 gauge riot gun? That is completely irrelevant to the question of his ability to fire a rifle, unless there is evidence that the same skills are involved. It is, furthermore, prejudicial to some extent.

6.  Under the heading as well as rifle practice outside the Marines we have a statement concerning his activities in Russia. It says that he joined a hunting club, obtained license and went hunting about six times. It does not say what kind of weapon he used. While I am not completely familiar with the record on this point, I do know for a fact that there is some indication that he used his shotgun. Under what theory do we include activities concerning a shotgun under a heading related to rifle practice, and then presume not to advise the reader of that fact?

7. The statements concerning Oswald's practice with the assassination weapon or miss leading.they tend to give the impression that he did more practicing in the record suggest that he did. My recollection is that there is only one specific time when he might have practiced. We should be more precise in this area, because the commission is going to have its work in this area examined very closely.

8.  On the top of galley page 51 we have that statement about Oswald citing the telescope site at night on the porch in New Orleans. I think the support for that proposition is then indeed. Marina Oswald first testified that she did not know what he was doing out there and then she was clearly laid into the only answer that gives any support to this proposition.

9. I think the level of reaching that is going on in this whole discussion of rifle capability is nicely shown by the fact that under the heading of rifle practice outside the Marine Corps it appears the damning statement that "Oswald showed an interest in rifles by discussing that subject with others (in fact only one person as I remember it) and reading gun magazines."

10. I do not think the record will support the statement that Oswald did not leave his Beckley Avenue rooming house on one of the weekends that he was supposedly seen at the Sports Dome rifle range.

11. There is a miss statement in the third paragraph under rapidfire test when it says "four of the firers missed the second shot." The preceding paragraph states that there were only three firers.

12. There are no footnotes whatsoever in the fifth paragraph under rapidfire test and some rather important statements are made which require some support from someplace.

13. A minor point as to the next paragraph – bullets are better said to strike rather than land.

14.  As I read through the section on rifle capability it appears that 15 different sets of three shots were fired by supposedly expert rifleman of the FBI and other places. According to my calculations those 15 sets of shots took a total of 93.8 seconds to be fired. The average of all 15 is a little over 6.2 seconds. Assuming that time is calculated commencing with the firing of the first shot, that means the average time it took to fire  The two remaining shots was about 6.2 seconds. That comes to about 3.1 seconds for each shot, not counting the time consumed by the actual firing, which would not be very much. I recall that chapter 3 said that the minimum time that had to be lapse between shots was 2.25  seconds, which is pretty close to the one set of fast shots fired by Fraser of the FBI. 

The conclusion indicates that Oswald had the capability to fire three shots with two heads in from 4.8 to 5.6 seconds. Of the 15 sets of three shots described above, only three were fired within 4.8 seconds. A total of five sets, including the three just mentioned, were fired within a total of 5.6 seconds.  The conclusion at its most extreme states that as well and fire faster than the commission expert fired and 12 of their 15 tries and that in any event he could fire faster than the experts did intent of their 15 tries. If we are going to set forth material such as this, I think we should set forth some information on how much training and how much shooting the experts had and did as a whole. The readers could then have something on which to base their judgment concerning the relative abilities of the apparently slow firing experts used by the commission and the ability of Lee Harvey Oswald.

15.  The problem is raised by the above analyses should be met at some point in the text of the report. The figure of 2.25 as a minimum firing time for each shot is used throughout chapter 3. The present discussion of rifle capability shows the expert rifleman could not fire the assassination weapon that fast. Only one of the experts managed to do so, and his shots, like those of other FBI experts, we're high and to the right of the target. The fact is that most of the experts were much more proficient with a rifle then Oswald could ever be expected to be, and the record indicates that fact, according to my recollection of the response of one of the experts to a question by Mr. McCloy asking for a comparison of the NRA master marksman to a Marine Corps sharpshooter.

16.  The present section on rifle capability fails to set forth material in the record tending to indicate that Oswald was not a good shot and that he was not interested in his rifle while in the Marine Corps. It does not set forth material indicating that a telescopic sight must be tested and sighted-in after a period of nonuse before it can be expected to be accurate.  That problem is emphasized by the fact that the FBI actually found that there was a defect in the scope which cause the rifle to fire hi and to the right. In spite of the above the present section takes only part of the material in the record to show that Oswald was a good shot and that he was interested in rifles. I submit that the testimony of Delgade that Oswald was not interested in his rifle while in the Marines is at least as probative as Alba's testimony that Oswald came into his garage to read rifle and hunting magazines.

To put it bluntly that sort of selection from the record could seriously affect the integrity and credibility of the entire report.

17.  It seems to me that the most honest and the most sensible thing to do given the present state of the record on Oswald's rifle capability would be to write a very short section indicating that there is testimony on both sides of several issues. The commission could then conclude that the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so. It may have been pure luck. It probably was to a very great extent. But it happened. He would have had to have been lucky to hit as he did if he had only 4.8 seconds to fire the shots. Why don't we admit that instead of reaching and using only part of the record to support the propositions presently set forth in the galleries. These conclusions will never be excepted by critical person's anyway.

General comment.

1. The above was written without having the footnotes to the chapter, a considerable disadvantage when one would like to check this accuracy and precision of statements made in the text.

2. The placement of footnotes is not consistent within the chapter, nor with in the general rule that there are to be footnotes after all direct quotes. Many times there are no footnotes where it appears to me that there should be.

3. Form as to omitted material should be checked. The form of citations to the appendix is not consistent with chapter 3 or internally.

4. I forgot to mention that some question might be raised when the public discovers that there was only one eye witness to the Tippit killing, i.e., One person who saw Oswald kill him. All the rest only saw subsequent events. Mrs. Markham is nicely buried there, but I predict not for long.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Playing with my iPad voice response function for translating documents. Using the split screen function is handy.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/157-10011-10019.pdf

 

 In to discuss what Harvey reviews to as an executive action capability i.e. a general standby capability to carry out assassinations when required. Harvey's notes "Bissell as saying "the White House has twice urged me to create such a capability" "Bissell Recalls discussing the question of developing a general capability with Harvey. Then there is further  discussion the  of dates, but not of substance, and at the bottom of the page the substance continues as follows: "After some discussion of the problems involved in developing an executive action capability, Bissell placed Harvey in charge of the effort. Harvey says that Bissell had already discussed certain aspects of the problem with "now we have some blank out here in hardcopy"

 Are they not names which we have already seen? 

Mr. Breckenridge. You have seen those names – you have seen one of them I am not sure you have seen the other. 

Send me your swagger. In view of the fact that we use this as the point, would you furnish us with that? Otherwise we can't very well understand the statement without those two names. 

Mr. Breckenridge. Yes. Let me give you those names.

I have given you one of those names as someone we interviewed. And we didn't give it in this context.

The names of the two people are Arnold silver and Sidney Gottlieb.

Mr.Schwartz . And Mr. Gottlibb was a person who work in the technical service division, was he?

mr. Breckenridge. Yes.

Mr. Swarts. And he was the kind of person who made exploding cigars and poison and syringe is and that sort of thing?

mr. Breckenridge. That organization could do this sort of thing.

The next one is, since silver was already cut in.

mr. Schwartz. What was silver is function?

mr. Breckenridge. Silver with silver was at this time I don't recall silver is a man who is primarily a case officer in the European area. Here earlier recruited an asset, an agent, who came to be considered for use in the lumumba instance

Mr. Schwartz. Was that the person we already have on the record called QJ WINN?

mr. Swarts. And that recruiting had taken place sometime in 1960, is that right?

mr. Breckenridge. The exact place I don't recall now. QJ win was recruited separately from this later activity. So he was someone that already existed.

mr. Bader. Excuse me.

mr. Breckenridge. At one time he was. He spent many years in Europe. And it was because of his service there that......

page break p. 76 missing

since silver was already cut in, Harvey used him in developing executive capability, although never with respect to Castro.

and then after that:

we did not question silver on his knowledge.

mr. Breckenridge. No, we did not question gottlied.

Mr. Swarts. Where is Mr. Gottlieb today?

mr. Breckenridge. He is retired and I understand he is living overseas.

Mr. Swarts. Is he living in India today?

Mr. Breckenridge. I am not sure whether it is India or Africa.

mr. Swarts. Going along, there is a notation by blank that Harvey instructed blank to discuss techniques with blank without associating the discussion with the Castro operation.

 

 

 

Disarmament initiative document, Fall of 1963

 

"Treaty" proposed?

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626311.pdf

------------------------

JCSM's referenced 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626317.pdf

 

JCSM-685-63  3 September, 63. U-USSR Negotiations on the Establishment of Observation Posts

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626318.pdf

---------------------------------

 

 

"A New Disarmament Strategy: Table of contents"    The "tabs" listed below in this post are indicated in this table.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626309.pdf

 

"Tab B: Definitions"

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626312.pdf

 

"Tab C Soviet Views, Public and Private"

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626313.pdf

 

"Tab D Economic Impact"

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626314.pdf

 

"Tab H:  Inspection"

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626316.pdf

----------------------------------

 

"Possible Strategy Toward France"   Undated

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626315.pdf

 

-------------------------

44 page doc. October 1, 1963: "Considerations Involved in a Separable First Stage Disarmament Agreement".

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626321.pdf

---------------------------

 

October 29, 1963: "Chemical and Biological Weapons"

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626322.pdf

 

September 11, 1963: "Biological Warfare Ban; Campaign Against Biological Disease"

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626324.pdf

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Hi Jason,

In my reading, the Mexico City trip by Lee Harvey Oswald (LHO) at the end of the summer of 1963 was the payoff for this FPCC scam.

We have documents from The Hardway-Lopez Report (2003) that reveal exactly what LHO was doing in Mexico City.  He brought a Fake Resume to prove that he was a Fake Official from the Fake FPCC in New Orleans.

In that Fake Resume he included a Fake Communist Party membership card (while Communists didn't have membership cards).  LHO also included newspaper clippings from New Orleans that reported his arrest for his "street fight" with Carlos Bringuier, and his radio and TV appearances in New Orleans in which he claimed he represented the FPCC.

With this massive amount of Fake ID, it is clear to me that LHO was trying to get an expedited Visa to Cuba as an "official" FPCC Secretary.  This was the strategy.  Evidently LHO was promised a lot of money if he could help a Havana Team kill Fidel Castro.  That's my reading.

The clerks at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City could barely stifle their laughter.  They most likely had a printed list of official FPCC Secretaries -- and Lee Harvey Oswald wasn't on their list.  Fidel Castro would soon hear of this farce.

All best,

--Paul

 

7 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

I know you guys don’t read my posts, but others do, so I think it’s worth repeating my problem with Trejo’s logic. There is no way a real Lee Harvey Oswald would go to Mexico City thinking that his documentation would get him into Cuba. It was all fake. And there is no info, other than in Phillips work of fiction, that supports the idea that Oswald was trained as an assassin, or that he worked for anyone that would have chosen him for the mission to kill Castro. And if the real Oswald was in fact sent to Mexico by agents unknown, these agents certainly knew he would fail to get into Cuba. 

What all of this more likely shows is a frameup of Oswald, whether by using Oswald himself, an imposter, or both. 

Yup, Paul writes a great deal of fiction. Most of it you have sort through documents and testimony, laboriously, to show he is not telling the truth. 

This story, however, saves the critical reader or responder from having to go to the sources to illustrate the false claims. This one is just absurd on its face. Paul Trejo, in this rendition, left out his repeated claim that LHO was packing a rifle in his duffel bag, and was planning on shooting Castro in Cuba, by himself.

I believe I recall Paul Trejo claiming that AMLASH was LHO’s code name, in Phillips MS. Mr Brancato, do you recall that claim by Paul Trejo?

Sorry for the Doubled-up link, above. The editor would not let me pare-down my second post.

5 hours ago, Jason Ward said:

Just to be clear, Oswald is purposed towards FPCC infiltration in New Orleans according to your CT?

But there is no FPCC in New Orleans until Oswald shows up, so what are they hoping to do; infiltrate up nationally?  Or identify local Castroites/communists in New Orleans?

 

 

Jason

 

On 7/28/2017 at 5:55 PM, Michael Clark said:

"McCord worked for the Central Intelligence Agency. In 1961, and under his direction, a counter-intelligence program was launched against the Fair Play for Cuba Committee." (Wikipedia; Oswald and the CIA by John Newman p.138)"

 

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/157-10008-10211.pdf

List of attachments, some missing including 

13. Memo... record... AMLASH 1 meeting, 29 October, 63. Dated 13 November 63.

14. Contact Plan CSAS meeting AMLASH in ****** undated

15. Cover for C/SAS meeting AMLASH 1 ******* undated

16. Scenario for C/SAS meeting with AMLASH -1 in ****** updated

17. Fall back position for AMLASH 1 undated

18. Memo Record plans for AMLASH 1 contact. Dated 19 November 1963

19, Contact report AMLASH 1. 22 Nov. 63 in ******* dated 25. Nov. 63

20 . Director. Dated 18 Dec. 63

21. JMWAVE dated 7 Dec. 1963

-------------

Page 5.   "Here", presumably the location of the "World Youth Festival"  = Helsinki = 14-1

(Also AMWHIP, AMLASH-1)

P. 11. Location Code. 19-1

p. 14.   19-6, 14-6 loc. Codes

-------------

( does this doc dispute the identity of AMLASH, AMWHIP?)

AMWHIP 1 and AMLASH 1

Interestingly, this document is dated to August, 1962.

The Mary Farrell site indicates that AMLASH was recruited in 1963

AMWHIP-1- Carlos Tepedino Gonzalez, a Cuban exile living in the U.S. who was a "long-time friend" of Rolando Cubela (AMLASH). AMWHIP-1 arranged the 1961 meeting between a CIA case officer and Cubela, who was recruited to attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro. 

AMLASH.   Rolando Cubela Secades, a Cuban doctor and official who was recruited in 1963 for an assassination attempt on Castro. Cubela stated that Castro had to be eliminated before any coup could succeed and had initially requested a high powered rifle from the CIA. The CIA balked at that and Cubela was being given a CIA poison pen on Nov 22 when news of JFK's death broke. Suspicion remains that Cubela may have been acting as a dangle to the CIA by Castro; that is fueled by his lenient treatment after being exposed and convicted of treason. 

Why is there a note in the margins of page 10, asking where LHO stayed on July 30, of 1962, while discussing a meeting betweem AMLASh- 1 and AMWHIP-1 in Helsinki?

p. 11. Location Code. 19-1

 

 

Thread Post 13

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10162-10031.pdf

11-29

21-29

21-27

21-24

21-29

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10162-10032.pdf

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/104-10162-10034.pdf

16-20

21-20

Putting a couple things together and using a couple of assumptions as a hypothesis.

- Let's assume Oswald was recruited out of the Marines and into the CIA. 

- He ends-up in Eorupe on his assignment in Russia by October 15.

- His Discharge, visit with Mom, and departure are all done in haste.

- Laherve- England to Helsinki, all tout-de-suite. 

- Secured documents for Russia as quickly as can be done...

Why Take  a 3 week steamer to Eorupe?

Of, course, traveling by steamer in 1963 might sound quaint, or normal. But, LHO was burning rubber between his discharge and Russia. The steamer makes no sense, and as David Josephs has pointed out, there is little evidence of our Ozzie on that boat.

So, assuming he's not on that boat, he is of course getting debriefed and trained somewhere, and meeting contacts. We'll never know how he really got to England or Helsinki. Can we pick up the trail of who may have handled him during the time he was supposed to be on a boat?

A boat trip, in this case, is just too rich to pass up as cover for other activities.

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/157-10008-10211.pdf

 

AMWHIP 1 and AMLASH 1

Interestingly, this document is dated to August, 1962.

The Mary Farrell site indicates that AMLASH was recruited in 1963

AMWHIP-1- Carlos Tepedino Gonzalez, a Cuban exile living in the U.S. who was a "long-time friend" of Rolando Cubela (AMLASH). AMWHIP-1 arranged the 1961 meeting between a CIA case officer and Cubela, who was recruited to attempt to assassinate Fidel Castro. 

AMLASH.   Rolando Cubela Secades, a Cuban doctor and official who was recruited in 1963 for an assassination attempt on Castro. Cubela stated that Castro had to be eliminated before any coup could succeed and had initially requested a high powered rifle from the CIA. The CIA balked at that and Cubela was being given a CIA poison pen on Nov 22 when news of JFK's death broke. Suspicion remains that Cubela may have been acting as a dangle to the CIA by Castro; that is fueled by his lenient treatment after being exposed and convicted of treason. 

Why is there a note in the margins of page 10, asking where LHO stayed on July 30, of 1962, while discussing a meeting betweem AMLASh- 1 and AMWHIP-1 in Helsinki?

p. 11. Location Code. 19-1

Reserved