George Sawtelle

The boy is lost. I'm not surprised he attends Harvard where the truth doesn't exist and where privilege and status are what count. He doesn't realize that we can't build our country based on a lie. We can't solve the problems he mentions with a government that hides the truth from it's people. I guess he hasn't talked to his uncle (RFK's son) or more likely he doesn't care. He feels compelled to not rock the boat because that is what his article is all about.

Steve Yes we seem to have hijack this thread. I have a bad habit of doing that. But before we move on I would like to piggy back onto David Joseph' s post and then I'll leave this thread. I think it's very important. This is the right time to mention it since Joseph's post leads directly to it. The fact that Oswald did not travel to MC destroys the lone nut theory and points to conspiracy taking the impersonation into account. The CIA was not involved in the impersonation because they had control of Oswald through Phillips and could have let him (Oswald) bury himself in MC. IMO, it was military intelligence who orchestrated the impersonation. This caper, the impersonation, was the beginning of an Operation Northwoods event, target Russia. In Nov/Dec 1963 the CIA was mainly interested in removing Castro, not nuking Russia.

David Your contribution to the truth with regard to the JFK assassination is outstanding. Thank you.

Jim It comes down to one thing and one thing only. It's very simple ... who do you believe Sylvia Odio or David Phillips and the CIA? The CIA has proven over and over again they are a bunch of liars. Allen Dulles came right out and said it. He said in so many words that if it was necessary a CIA agent would lie, even under oath. Oswald did not go to MC in the time period in question. However he was impersonated but the impersonation was not CIA sponsored.

Paz Does Metta know how the money transferred by Trujillo into an Italian bank was taken to the plotters of Kennedy's murder?

Cory Thanks for the offer. Maybe someday.

Cory You live in a different world. I could explain to you that the CIA has been out of control since Dulles became CIA director, provide evidence but it wouldn't do any good. You would continue to believe it's ok because they keep us safe. Killing foreign leaders, implementing regime change doesn't keep us safe. It just grows the list of enemies for us. Our wars of choice in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq and Afghanistan didn't and don't keep us safe. We are on the edge of nuclear war right now in Korea. We are staring at bankruptcy due in part because we keep throwing away our wealth on our wars of choice. Bankruptcy will not keep us safe. I'm not advocating revolution. What I want to see is the CIA and military subservient to our civilian leadership. As long as the US constitution is followed in this regard we will survive, continue to grow and lead the world.

Cory Lets speak as ordinary citizens, not as lawyers or engineers or professionals. Almost all of the research community knows CIA excuses for withholding the documents are total BS. It's the same old, tired excuse. If we know it, don't you think Trump knows it also. Don't you think about 90% of the world knows it. The fourth branch of the government, the CIA/military twosome, continues to act as though they know what's best for the american people . They need to stay on top of things for the good of the country since we as citizens don't know what's good for us. That is their real justification for doing what they're doing with our documents. The CIA and military have become more and more powerfull since Kennedy was murdered. Along with the help of flag waving congressmen and senators, the CIA and military have enough money to do exactly as they please in our country and the world. If our civilian governments fails to bring these guys under control we could be in a world of hurt.

Keyvan The Mexican police may have tortured Mrs. Duran. Anything she says after release from Mexican police detention is subject to the possiblity of torture.

Larry and Ron I think it was in Kinzer's book where I read that Congress gave the CIA money which they used for unforseen events or emergencies. I understand it was a bunch of money, something like $300,000. Whoever within the CIA responsible for disbursing the money would more than likely have logged in the name of the agent who took the money and the project for which the money was used. There would have had to have been a paper trail created. A guy like Dulles or other bosses would want to know where the money was going. Eventhough Congress didn't have to know how the money was spent or why or where the money was spent an internal paper trail could still make things a little messy. A CIA agent with an axe to grind. Murphy's law right? The money from the Italian bank is the way to go. No paper trail nice and clean. At most no connection to the CIA, at least plausible deniability. I understand Harvey and Rosselli worked on CIA-mafia projects. It's possible they met to discuss assassins for the assassination. Who knows? Harvey may have made more than one trip. Maybe a commercial flight and maybe a military flight. Whatever his trips, just like Phillip's trips ... there's need for an investigation. I think a good investigator like Fonzi would uncover something of interest.

Larry I recall Talbot in his book "Devil's Chessboard" says Harvey's assistant at the Rome CIA station saw Harvey at the airport getting ready to fly out. He asked Harvey where he was going. His assistant did not know where Harvey was going, says lots about the secrecy of his flight. To me, that's not second hand knowledge. To you it may be, but we differ on that. It's much too risky for the CIA to use their funds for the assassination. I don't think the CIA would leave itself open for that type of scrutiny.

Trujillo sends money to Italian bank. William Harvey works for CIA in Rome. Talbot, in his book "Devil's Chessboard", says Harvey may have travelled to US from Rome before the assassination. Requests for the release of Harvey's travel vouchers are denied. Could Harvey be the bagman for the assassination? Could he be the courier of the money for the assassination from the Italian bank to the plotters? Could Talbot have connected the dots?

Paul It can be successfully argued, IMO, that the idea of the Lone Nut theory was not started by Hoover. Consider the following, 22 Nov 1963 Hoover signs FBI internal memo indicating Oswald is the assassin of Pres Kennedy. No mention of confederates ... leaves the door open for conspiracy. (Mary Farrell Foundation) 23 Nov 1963 late night beginning of first briefing board job by Brugioni. IMO, the beginning of the alteration of the Zapruder Film at the NPIC. Alteration promotes one gunman shooting from the TSBD, all shots from behind the president. (Discovered by Paul Hoch, Mar 1976, from desclassified CIA documents) 24 Nov 1963 After conversing with Katzenbach, Hoover writes letter to Attorney General telling him Oswald is the assassin. No mention of confederates ... leaves the door open for conspiracy. 25 Nov 1963 Katzenbach writes memo for circulation. Says Oswald was the lone assassin and had no confederates, no co-conspirators. Shuts the door on conspiracy. Hoover is the originator of Oswald as the lone gunman but Katzenbach is the originator of the lone nut theory, the theory that Oswald acted alone without help. I thought it would be interesting to note that the original Zapruder Film (as per Brugioni) was at the NPIC, the CIA photographic lab, before anyone outside of the FBI circulated information, officially, that Oswald was the lone gunman. An internal memo of 22 Nov 1963 doesn't make the rounds in government circles so the CIA would not have info by Hoover on Oswald. So the CIA was already beginning to alter the Zapruder Film to promote a lone gunman before they could have known Hoover's thoughts on Oswald.

Jim Researchers, IMO, shouldn't expect too much from the release of the documents tomorrow. I doubt there will be a smoking gun or information to connect the dots to determine the truth. These documents from Metta might prove fruitfull if reseachers can trace the money from Trujillo to the Italian bank to the plotters in the United States. Undoubtedly we won't find a paper trail regarding the transfer of the money, no checks, no wire transfer, etc. My best guess is the money was transferred from Italy to the US in cash by courier. This may give researchers a starting point to proceed with an investigation. Sutherland's character in the movie "JFK" keeps ringing in my ears ... follow the money. Metta's info may prove extremely valuable in getting to the truth.

Jason you said ... "In summary the far right had the stated purpose to kill Kennedy. They had the gun nuts, the money, the Dallas police, and the irrational belief in domestic apocalypse as a definite future under the Progrssive agenda." You forgot the most important reason ... they were not afraid of the electric chair. Without that reason, it could have been anybody. But with that reason, it could only have been the radical right. Because everyone else named as a suspect was afraid of the electric chair. It's profound. It's the reason that encapsulates the conclusion of your theory. Wow surprised you would forget.

Eddy Part 2 We know that a LIFE technician destroyed Z frames 208-212 by accident, according to LIFE. I also believe frames were removed in the area immediately after the Stemmons sign. Both the "destruction" of frames Z208-Z212 and the removal of frames immediately after the Stemmons sign were accomplishd for one reason only ... to sell the SBT. Frames were also removed in the area of the intersection of Houston and Elm. This was accomplished to eliminate any effects on the film of Kennedy being shot in the back. Also the backfire or fire cracker theory was circulated as an attempt to eliminate the rifle (misfire) shot that hit Kennedy in the back which bolstered the SBT. The frames removed near the intersection where replaced by new frames which do not show Kennedy reacting to being shot in the back or the loud noise that occurred at the intersection. Frames were also removed before and after Z313. This was done, IMO, because the paint job to close the hole in the back of Kennedy's head did not pass the plotters inspection. The paint job was much too crude. There were several frames where the plotters accepted paint but I think they had no choice, IMO. The removal of the frames and the addition of new frames at the intersection of Houston and Elm, the destruction of frames Z208-Z212, the removal of frames immediately after the Stemmons sign and the removal of frames near frame Z313 has caused problems with the blur analysis and for researchers who seek to determine the true speed of the film i.e., frames per sec.

Eddy I started with Column 3, which I took from Table 2 and Fig 6.3 pgs 208 and 209 Thomas's book. The three scientists, working independently, determined the blur or jiggle on the Zapruder film. The blurs they found were not on the exact same Z frame, but they were close. For instance, Hartmann found a blur at Z158 and Scott found a blur at Z158. Alvarez did not have any frames before Z173 so of course he could not have found anything at Z158. Alvarez used the Zapruder Film that was given to the Warren Commission for their study, which did not include any frames before Z173, and Z208, Z209, CZ210, Z211, Z212. Hartmann and Scott used a later version of Zapruder Film that had frames before Z178 but not frames Z208-Z212. Alvarez found a jiggle at Z182, Hartmann at Z191 and Scott at Z193. I averaged the numbers and came up with Z189. Alvarez found a jiggle at Z221, Hartmann at Z227 and Scott Z226. I averaged the numbers and came up with Z224. Similarly for the Z290, Z313 and Z332. I then took the six shots found by BBN from their acoustic analysis of the dictabelt in the order that they were given on Table 13 pg 582 and lined up the six jiggles to the six shots, with the first shot at 136.20 lined up with the blur at Z158 and so forth. The time between the shots I derived by simply subtracting the times given and the time between the jiggles I derived as given above. The first shot at 136.20 matched to targets near the intersection of Houston and Elm and since the blur at Z158 is nearest the intersection I lined up 136.20 to Z158. Also the highest match to the grassy knoll on the dictabelt was the shot at 144.9 so I matched that up with the blur at Z313, the head shot. The shots between the first and the fifth shots I matched up the the blurs between the blurs Z158 and Z313 and the last shot I matched up with the last blur. I did not use the flap of the lapel or the hands going up to determine the time of the jiggles or the shots. I do not believe that the lapel flap or the hands going up is of any help. The Zapruder Film that the Warren Commission used for their report is not the same as the extant Zapruder Film, or the film we see on the internet, or the film that Hartmann and Scott used for their blur analysis. Alvarez used the same film the Warren Commission used while Hartmann and Scott used the extant Zapruder Film. And thus the discrepancy we see in Alvarez's blur analysis is a result of Alvarez using a different film than did Hartmann and Scott. The lapel flap and the hands to the throat came from the Warren Commission study of the film given to them by LIFE not from the extant Zapruder Film. I'll give you a good example of what I mean. Alvarez found a jiggle at Z221. Hartmann and Scott both found a jiggle at Z227 and Z226 respectively. The extant Zapruder Film shows Z224 to occur immediately after the Stemmons sign. So if that is true, then Avarez could never have seen a jiggle at Z221 simply because that frame, Z221, based on the extant film was behind the Stemmons sign. I do believe Alvarez saw a jiggle at Z221 but he used a different film. IMO, the difference results from frames being removed from the extant film in the area immediately after the Stemmons sign. Another good example is the blur at Z189. Alvarez found a jiggle at Z181 while Hartmann found one at Z191 and Scott at Z193. This difference could be the result of the number of frames different from the film Alvarez used and the film Hartmann and Scott used.

Jason We all want the truth. That's why we're here. We can find a lot better places for ego gratification than this forum. You've provided many documents but you still haven't solved the crime. It just seems you are throwing things up hoping some people on this forum believe your theory thinking more people believing your theory over another theory means you must be right. That works for democracy but it won't lead us to the truth in this case. Paul says you're not there yet and that you need more time, a few more months. I've been waiting years for the truth I guess I can wait a few more months.

Who has control of the documents? The CIA Who gets to decide on "further information"? The CIA Who has the final say? The CIA Don't expect too much. Brought to you by the ART of the DEAL by you know who.

Jim Would you blame anyone for not believing Dinkins? Would you believe him if he had come to you before the assassination? This guy's the perfect set-up. No one will believe him, then all his papers and notes are stolen by a mystery man. No one seems to have documented him coming to them except the TIME-LIFE stringer. Although no one believed him in the beginning the Dinkins affair has received a lot of attention in the research community. It takes the heat off the CIA and places it on the radical right, the military and print media. And it came up again just before the HSCA. Was someone trying to influence? Come on it's obvious.

Joe Redmon says Dinkins used the "Stars and Strips" and other print publications to determine his subconscious messages on the assassination. He doesn't name the other print publications. Why? You won't find the New York Times, Chicago Tribune, Los Angeles Times or the Dallas Morning News in Metz, France. I never saw LOOK magazine on any of the army bases overseas where I was stationed. I was always interested in info from home but I wasn't able to find magazines from the states. I would be interested to find out whatother print publications Dinkins used. Redmon should dig a little deeper.

Joe You said ... "And the disinfo angle is preposteriously illogical. Too many suspicion creating and arousing doorways opened there". Redmon should have done more to critically vet his own article. Sadly he did not. He presents not one document after the fact that supports Dinkin's efforts to contact anyone about his "subconscious messages". BTW, would you believe someone who said to you ... my subconscious tells me the president is to be killed on 28 Nov 1963. I doubt anyone would. The only supporting information after the fact that Redmon presents is the article written by Alex des Fontaines. He is a stringer ???? for TIME-LIFE. Whoa wait a minute. Is that the same LIFE that bought the Zapruder film? The same LIFE whose editor's wife is very fond of Allen Dulles and the CIA? Hmmmm

Ernie I know. I believe zero that Jason and Paul write about the radical right and the plot to kill Kennedy. If the FBI is watching Walker, they are watching the radical right plotters since Walker is the ringleader. The plotters were successfull in getting Oswald off the watch list, they would have gotten Walker off the watch list also. Trying to point out the fallacy of their logic.

Jason You said ... "It's clear from FBI traffic that Hoover is watching Walker perhaps closer than any civilian in 1963". Strange that Oswald is taken off the watch list prior to the assassination but Hoover is watching Walker like a hawk. It would seem more plausible for the plotters to take Walker off the watch list since it was he who was gunning for Kennedy, according to the radical right theory.

Harry I agree. The religious upbringing of the Dulles brothers combined with their anti-communist ideology.