George Sawtelle

Jason It is very important to follow the timeline of the original Zapruder film and the copies. It gives you a pretty good idea that the cover-up started before LBJ said ... we need to cover this thing up or 40 million people will die in a nuclear exchange with Russia. So the excuse that a cover-up was necessary to preclude a nuclear war with Russia is hogwash.

If you're saying they couldn't destroy the Z film because there were pristine copies with Z himself and elsewhere, then altering only one of the copies makes matters worse. They either have control of all versions of the film or the alteration narrative fails. IIRC Z watched the film himself right away...then pitched a sales offer to potential buyers like Dan Rather by showing them the same film. Then Life won the bidding, so they got a copy, the govt got a copy and Z kept his own copy. Any alteration CT fails because there are always 1-2 unaltered copies available to surface at any time and fatally unmask the conspirators. Of course I'd like to know why I'm wrong. Jason You don't understand what transpired with the original and the copies. Douglas Horne's account is a good place to start if you have time. I'll try to help you as best I can. Three copies were made of the original Zapruder film on the day of the assassination at Kodac in Dallas. Two copies were given to the SS and one to LIFE. The original stayed with Zapruder. Later LIFE told Zapruder they needed the original to make some still photos for their magazine so Zapruder loan the original to LIFE for a sum of cash and LIFE left their copy with Zapruder. Obviously after the original was altered at Hawkeye Works the three copies had to be destroyed. LIFE took the altered original or a copy of the altered original back to Zapruder and Zapruder gave back the copy they had left with him. Now LIFE and the government had the copies and I believe they were destroyed leaving only the altered original or a copy of it with Zapruder. Not long after LIFE negotiated a settlement with Zapruder whereby Zapruder handed over the altered original to LIFE for a large amount of cash. As far as we know only Dan Rather and Brugioni of NPIC saw the original unaltered Zapruder film. Both said it was different from the extant Zapruder film.

Thanks for the note. I will thumb through the Talbot book today so I can speak about it with more confidence. I've reviewed the allegations about altering the Zapruder film and I'm not really convinced - mainly because if they altered it they could have just destroyed it. That would have been much better and easier. I also think Dulles-Hoover-Helms-whoever could neutralize Kennedy without the sloppy mess of assassination. Jason It couldn't be destroyed. There were copies made and Zapruder had some of the copies. They did try to neutralize Kennedy. During the last days of his administration he trusted only his brother and a few others. But he was still writing laws like NSAM 269 to withdraw from Vietnam and sponsoring meetings with Castro to make peace with Cuba. I'm not trying to convince you to believe the Dulles did it theory. Believe what you want. I don't think the radical right had anything to do with the assassination. BTW if you have time read Horne's account on the alteration of the Zapruder film.

Ok, again, thanks for the conversation. I do in fact remain very open to many ideas. If you feel Dulles is essential, point me to some sources. Not that you're interested, but perhaps we can learn something by seeing how others think about the assassination. For me I had about 4 essential phases: 1980s-1989. I read David Lifton's Best Evidence at the recommendation of one of my teachers sometime in this period. I'm sure you've read it or seen the highlight films - basically the big message I have is hearing the guy in Dallas say they loaded a heavy expensive ceremonial bronze shipping casket onto AF1, but the body arrived for autopsy in a plain utility casket commonly used to send fallen soldiers home from the battlefield. Now I know there's been a lot of back and forth and controversy with Lifton since his famous book, but this was phase one for me. 1990-1995 I had a slight acquaintance with Barr McClellan, Carole Keeton Rylander, Frank Ikard and Jim Mattox - all of whom said in various ways that Texans were the essential element in the assassination. Mattox in particular was often drunk so I wasn't 100% sold on what he said, but this angle did enter my thoughts because all these people were unfriendly with each other yet insisted on a few Texas-centric points to the JFK murder. Around this time I read Garrison's book and of course saw the movie JFK. My dad fell out off his chair at the cinema because he knew David Ferrie from Eastern. He found it totally impossible that Ferrie would be hired or trusted with anything essential and did not believe the CIA could use him for anything but one-off jobs of low level importance. His main point was that the CIA and FBI hated homosexuals, and truly thought they were deranged + untrustworthy + subject to extortion. . . . . . 1995-2016 I read most of the main books, followed some assassination newsletters, went to a few conferences, I met some of Ruby's strippers and other minor characters in Dallas. I started reading but not participating in this forum and a few others. In a nutshell I came to believe that the money, training, and motives that were invoked to get rid of Castro backfired and ended up killing Kennedy. The Texas angle that some political types had told me about in Austin was always in the back of my mind but I couldn't work it out. I have always strongly assumed the Walker shooting was either a PR stunt or a false flag operation, or both. 2016 - 2017: A professor friend of mine met Ruth Paine, talked for hours, and I listened in to the recording. She is not CIA - no way. She hinted without saying it in so many words that Dallas in the late 50s/early 60s was a violent extremist place with a local government and police force for sale to any who wanted to buy them off. Dallas was essential to the assassination happening the way it did, which followed to its logical conclusion means that Texans were the driving force here. I studied the other assassinations and quickly realized they are all in service of the same political objective. So here I am in the Radical Right camp - although I am not necessarily certain Walker is the lynchpin here as Paul Trejo. Anyway, I feel I've read up and down all the major theories. To me they miss motive and anticipated benefit (CIA theories) - or rely too much on the words of criminals (mafia theories) - or rely too much on the passion of anti-Castro feeling when in fact the Cubans are basically impotent and money-grubbing guys happy to stay in America and collect CIA cash for overselling their ability and passion to destroy Castro. So, perhaps you'll critique my thought history here or share your own journey that sees you focus on Dulles today? Jason You and I agree on several points. 1) A few Texans were involved 2) The New Orleans plot was a cover for the real plot 3) Ruth Paine was not CIA I believed Dulles was the CEO of the assassination before Talbot wrote his book "Devil's Chessboard". I was a member of Duncan's forum (a lone nut forum) and I posted several times that I thought Dulles was the CEO of the assassination. This was about 4-5 years ago when I began to seriously study the assassination. I was in high school when Kennedy was killed but I paid little attention to it and believed the Warren Commission's story. The first book I read on the subject was Jim Moore's book "Conspiracy of One". It opened my eyes to the fact that something was not right with the lone nut theory. Today I call Moore's book "A constipation of one". Two points turned my attention to Dulles. 1) Why was Kennedy killed? 2) The Alteration of the Zapruder film I believed Kennedy was killed because he and Castro had agreed on the terms for peacefull coexistence. I believe Dulles felt this was the last straw as he could never accept a communist country so close to the United States and the loss of his clients assets (clients of Sullivan and Cromwell). I believe the decision to kill Kennedy was made shortly after Lisa Howard was debriefed about her meeting with Castro approximately six months before the assassination. Dulles was in Wash DC when the Zapruder film was altered for the first time on the weekend of the assassination. The original was taken to Wash DC (NPIC CIA lab) so that someone could view the film and instruct technicians on what to alter. The alterations were directed by someone familiar with the details of the shooting i.e. the number of shooters and the number of shots. I believe it was Dulles who gave instructions on how to alter the film. The original film was supposedly sent to the NPIC so that briefing boards could be made. It's true, briefing boards were made but those briefing boards were never seen by anyone. Making the first briefing boards was just a charade and a cover for the real reason the original was sent to the NPIC. The real reason for sending the original film to the NPIC was so someone could view the original and`instruct technicians on what to change. Instructions on what to change were given to the agents who took the original to Hawkeye Works in Rochester NY where the original was altered. The altered original film was then sent back to the NPIC where a second set of briefing were made. These are the boards that were seen by others. Quote

Hi George, Thanks for the note. By the facts -or alleged facts- of your post I would of course say that Phillips would be more likely working with Dulles. Now, I imagine that whatever Phillips was doing, he wasn't reporting to Dulles. In any event, and this is important ***a meeting between Oswald and Phillips or anyone else DOES NOT mean the topic of discussion was assassinating JFK***. IMO this highlights the big problem with too many CTs, they fill in a lot of unknowns with complete speculation and a vivid imagination. 2+2 = 7. Unless you have evidence they discussed the assassination, or that Phillips wanted Kennedy dead, or that Oswald was in any way paid/hired by the CIA to assassinate Kennedy or perform any service on 22Nov - this alleged meeting between Phillips and Oswald was presumably about Cuba in my view. There is simply zero evidence that any high ups in the CIA or US government overall (like Dulles) had any desire to kill Kennedy. That's way too dangerous and the blowback could be catastrophic, including destruction of their beloved CIA. Imagined motives don't count for much in my book and the tinfoil hat brigade imagines half the world is angry with Kennedy enough to kill him. I'm only aware of one significant and consistently documented source insisting JFK had to die - the Radical Right. Political assassination in the US is not something well balanced, mainstream, politically savvy men like Dulles or Hoover get involved with. It's only extremists who literally believe JFK must die or the US will die instead. A politician is easily rendered impotent in any number of ways that doesn't risk a prison term. The assassination decade was the work of fanatics. thanks again for the polite discussion Jason Jason I said Phillips was Oswald's handler, thats all. I asked you who Phillips would work with, Dulles or Walker? You answered correctly. You said Dulles. Thank you. It's an important question because the answer possibly provides a link between Oswald and Dulles through their association with Phillips.

Jason On the evening of 26 Sep 1963 three men appeared at Sylvia Odio's front door in Dallas. One was a tall cuban, Oswald was in the middle, shorter than the tall cuban, and the third was mexican looking fellow shorter than Oswald. The mexican looking individual was dark and spoke spanish. This man may have been Charles Rogers, who was short and dark, was known to use the alias of Montoya and spoke fluent Spanish. So instead of going to Mexico City we find Oswald in Dallas. This is significant because Kennedy's trip to Dallas was made public in mid-Sep 1963. It was confirmed by Antonio Veciana last year that Oswald and David Atlee Phillips were together in Dallas on or about 7 Sep 1963. It is assumed that Oswald returned to New Orleans after meeting with Phillips. We can further assume that Phillips was Oswald's handler. My question to you is this ... do you think Phillips, in Sep 1963, would be working with Allen Dulles or General Walker?

I appreciate the distinction you make, which is that there is no distinction between the extreme civilian Right and the government security hawks. Everybody spends a lot of time arguing about evidentiary minutiae like Ruth Paine's typewriter or Oswald's ID card, but in my view this is pointless. The details that need clarity are around who precisely is steering the ship. For 50+ years the focus was on tactical details and operational explanations, while the prime movers are too often left as a formless anonymous entity like "the mafia" or "the CIA." It's time to pinpoint the director and producer of this story. As far as the cast, crew, and script - that is largely certain and the same across all CTs. The REAL argument between Paul and you is that he has a designated producer-director versus a committee or unknown leader. That's all. Paul says the family tree is largely the same as what everyone else says, but he has a named pinpointed Queen Bee and not a murky conspiratorial bureaucracy. The Radical Right had extreme wealth, advance knowledge of the assassination, and they had the STATED intent to kill JFK. No one else had all 3. The others - CIA, Cubans, Hoover, mafia, Dulles - participated in the cover-up for the same reason RFK did - but like RFK, their participation in the Lone Nut narrative certainly does not equate to guilt, in my view. Using post 22November behavior to "prove" pre-22November crime is all wrong. Jason Many had advanced knowledge of the assassination and by staying silent they are complicit in the assassination. Those who covered it up are complicit also. Plenty of blame to go around. But who ordered the hit on Kennedy is unknown at this time. Folks on this board want documentation. And there's probably good reason for that ... we have been savaged in the past by the MSM for theories that have been proven to be false. It hurts those who advance theories like Talbot's "Dulles did it". I've stated who I think ordered the hit on Kennedy without documentation. Dulles as the ringleader makes sense to me and I hope others think so also and continue to look at him. There maybe other researchers who can gain access to documentation that Talbot couldn't.

George - Allen Dulles didn't function outside of the chain of command, but rather inside it. You are right to ask what does someone gain, but miss the point that CIA and the JCS are part of a larger system Eisenhower called the Military Industrial Complex, who taken as a whole had everything to gain from US foreign policies designed to enrich them. JFK stood in opposition to all that, provably. It's a complete distraction and misnomer to use terms like CIA in a vacuum, as if it was just a bunch of individuals acting on their own behalf. Paul In the summer of 1963 Allen Dulles, outside of Sullivan and Cromwell, did not answer to anyone. He was the start and the end of the chain of command. IOWS, there was no chain of command for Allen Dulles. Only Eisenhower had any influence with Dulles.

Well I can see your point that there is no benefit for the CIA in killing Kennedy. A lot of people spend a lot of time trying to prove the CIA did it even though it wasn't beneficial for them to do so...anyway, what is the benefit to Allen Dulles of killing Kennedy? Jason Money

Jason No bennies. The CIA did not kill Kennedy. Neither did LBJ, General Walker, H L Hunt, military industrial complex. There was only one man who could marshall the forces necessary to pull off the assassination and cover it up. Allen Dulles ordered the hit and as Warren Commission member covered it up.

David With all the documentation given in the Warren Report at some point a definite conclusion should be made. The problem with the Warren Report is that illogical and flat out wrong conclusions were made. Is it any wonder that many don't believe their conclusions? I very seldom rely on documentation supplied by the Warren Commission. It has been proven time and time again that evidence was faked and manufactured. Eye witness testimony was changed after a witness signed his or her testimony. How do we know that the note "History of Evidence" was written on 22 Nov 1963? The writing is not consistent, some is written and some is printed. I don't see a signature on that note do you? The note on the right has a signature and date but it seems to conflict with the note on the left. Maybe it is an honest mistake but how can we accept evidence with mistakes as such. In a court of law I would doubt evidence with obvious mistakes would be accepted. I prefer to believe work done by Talbot, Kinzer, Douglas, Fonzi, or Thomas.

David We have an advantage in trying to solve this case. We know for a fact that the crime was covered-up. Horne's perspective comes from that direction. So does mine and so does your's. When we speculate about the details of the cover-up and we put some logic behind it we are probably pretty close, even absent documentation. Brugioni's briefing boards were never`seen by anyone outside of his staff and himself. In fact they have disappeared. However McMahon's briefing boards were seen by others. If you are to cover-up the crime, would you show Brugioni's or McMahon's briefing boards? Horne says McMahon's briefing boards were based on the altered original film, which to me is logical given what happened. When Horne says the alterations were crude he is mainly referring to the black-out used to cover-up the hole in the back of Kennedy's head. He believes that when researchers see the back of Kennedy's head blacked-out with something similar to black paint they will naturally want to inspect the film. The CIA would avoid showing the altered original film to anyone for inspection simply because inspection of the film would blow the cover-up. They finally allowed the film to be released to the public in late 70's since time had eroded the public's interest in the assassination (or so they thought). However the government has not allowed anyone to study the altered original film currently archived in Wash DC. My belief is that the motion picture of the film is the entire film complete, not necessarily a film we would see in a theater. I'm not familiar with the issue of the fourth copy and therefore I won't comment on it.

David There was another alteration made after the Hawkeye Works alterations. It was done between Hawkeye Works and Geraldo's release of the film. That alteration was the elimination of the effects of the first shot, the shot that occurred as the limo made the turn onto Elm from Houston. The first shot hit Kennedy in the back however on the extant Zap film Kennedy is not seen arching his back. All we see is Kennedy waving and smiling. Frames were added and subtracted from the film to eliminate the effect of the first shot. We had a researcher post here saying people on the south side of Elm at the intersection of Elm and Houston were seen in some frames and missing in others. His research supports the removal and addition of frames. I don't know how many frames were added or subtracted. The official version now is the loud sound was not a rifle shot, it was a backfire of a motorcycle. Frames before Z173 were missing from the film LIFE gave to the Warren Commission for their study. What that means is that the effect of the first shot on Kennedy had not been altered at Hawkeye Works, or at the point at which the film was given to the Warren Commission. The elimination of the first shot had to have been done after the Warren Commission.

David See Horne's interview at jfkfacts.org/rewinding-the-zapruder-film/ where Horne gives his take on why the CIA did not want the altered original or a copy of it to be seen. A few years back Horne asked the federal government to allow him to study the Zap film archived in Wash DC and they refused `his request. Our government will not allow anyone to study the archived film. LIFE must have had a copy of one of the original copies made in Dallas at Kodac on the day of the assassination. It was probably the film sent to the Warren Commission. The altered Zap film then became the official record and the copies made in Dallas on Friday were destroyed. IMO, a copy was made of one of the copies that were destroyed. It would have been a second generation copy and that may be why it's so grainy. See Vol 18, Warren Commission, for prints of the film.

David On Saturday, the weekend of the assassination, Brugioni says he worked with the original, unaltered. I believe the original came from LIFE in Chicago. The second set of briefing boards, for which McMahon made the 4x5 prints, was the altered original. McMahon worked on the film on Sunday. That film came from Hawkeye Works Lab in New York. So what happened was after Brugioni worked on his set of briefing boards, the original was sent to Hawkeye Works, was altered on Sunday and then sent to McMahon for his set of briefing boards, which he made on Sunday night. So you are correct, the original was altered the weekend of the assassination. BUT, a big but, no pun intended, a copy of the altered original film as a motion picture never was released to the public or to anyone until the late 70's when Geraldo showed it on national TV. Yes, some people, notably Rather and Brugioni had seen the original motion picture of the film, and both say the original is different from the extant film, the film that was archived for years in Washington. The reason the altered original film or a copy of it never seen as a motion picture until the 70's is because the CIA had no confidence in the alterations. They felt that if it was released that private film experts would want to study the original altered film and would discover that it had been altered. Similar to what we have today. BTW, the government will not allow any review of the film archived in Wash DC. So what the Warren Commission saw`was a copy of the original that had not been altered except made grainy and difficult to see any detail. And it was missing frames. So in a sense it had been altered but it wasn't the original film that was altered by Hawkeye Works. That film was kept under wraps until the late 70's.

David I agree. The Zap film has morphed into something that is basically a shell of itself. About the closest we can get to the original is the copy LIFE gave to the Warren Commission in early 1964. But even that copy was not complete and difficult to view ... frames before Z171 were missing, Z208-Z212 were reportedly destroyed by a lab technician who worked for LIFE and the film is grainy and in black and white.

My bet is the four horsemen, Dulles, Phillips, Harvey and Eisenhower. Dulles the CEO Phillips - the patsy and his look-alike Harvey - through Rosselli mafia assassins Eisenhower although retired still the most powerfull man in the military, supported the coup

Just like most CT's nothing definite. LBJ had motive but so did others ... i.e. radical right, Allen Dulles, Castro, military industrial complex, Texas oil men, etc.etc.etc.

Jason Yes of course, patsy and pawn are similar, both sacrificial lambs. Thank you for clearing that up.

Jason The radical right said Oswald killed Kennedy. They did not say JFK was killed by someone else and Oswald was set up to appear to be the killer. IOWs, the radical right agree with the WC. And of course the WC believes Oswald was no patsy. So it seems you have abandoned the patsy angle. True or not true?

Jason The radical right believe Oswald shot at Kennedy from the sixth floor TSBD. According to them, Oswald was the shooter, not a patsy. I've not read any article that says otherwise. So are you abandoning the patsification of Oswald and the date that the plan to make Oswald a patsy began?

Jason Phillips, Oswald's handler, was in Mexico City when Oswald was supposedly in Mexico City. He knew Oswald. The impersonation is important because 1) proves Oswald did not travel to Mexico City 2) it must have been his handler, Phillips, who ordered him to Dallas 3) when Oswald arrives in Dallas his handler begins to set him up as patsy. So the answer to your question ... when did Oswald become the patsy ... the answer is 26 Sep 1963. It's been great to discuss this issue with you. I look forward to discuss other issues with you in the future. I believe our abilities to analyze the evidence are similar.

Jason The CIA has said from day one they knew nothing of Oswald. They had no files on him and no pictures. If the CIA said they knew the picture of mystery man was not Oswald, then the question would be how do you know? By showing a picture of mystery man insinuating it was Oswald meant to the WC and the public that the CIA did not know Oswald. They've kept up the charade of not knowing Oswald before the assassination for 50 + years. The impersonation of Oswald is extremely important. It means Oswald never travelled to Mexico City and that he really did visit Odio. The Warren Commission has evidence Oswald travelld by bus from Houston to Laredo. But nothing on New Orleans to Houston. So a one transaction ticket doesn't seem possible. Oswald's handler in Dallas is David Atlee Phillips.

Jason Apparently Marina decided to have her baby in Dallas not New Orleans. Ruth Paine would pick her up in New Orleans and drive her to Dallas at about the same time that Oswald would go to Mexico City to get a visa (visas) to travel to Russia. We are to believe then that Oswald is leaving his wife to her own devices while he goes to Russia. Oswald is a cold dude. But the impersonation blows up the WC story of Oswald to Mexico City. Why impersonate Oswald if he's going to bury himself anyway? There were two forces working that were not coordinating. Besides the great work by David J disclosing the absurdity of Oswald's trip to Mexico, logic tells us Oswald never travelled to Mexico City. So why did Oswald travel to Houston from New Orleans on 26 Sep 1963 and then to Laredo TX and then to Dallas where he met with Odio? Who better to control Oswald than his handler? Who was his handler?

Jason Hoover knew he was a fake commie. But did he know who was pulling his strings in Dallas? Banister was out of the picture when Oswald wound up in Dallas, expertly lured there by someone who did not have to divulge why he (Oswald) was wanted in Dallas.