Jeff Carter

Cliff - your partisanship is clouding your analytical skills. If you believe Comey released the emails because he was on Team Trump the whole time, then why does nothing which occurred before or afterwards fit with that assumption? That is why I speculate that some other matter forced his hand, and the release was similar to a limited hangout.

“The only reason Trump gave for not believing the indictments was Putin's "strong, powerful denial."

That’s not correct, he alluded to other reasons, technical questions, which have been part of the debate stateside.

“Publicly back Putin over his own Justice Department?

Fk'n traitor…”

My country right or wrong? Wasn’t that the fall-back reactionary position not so long ago? Besides, he didn’t “publicly back Putin” but said Putin has a position and the Justice Department has a position. His stance seems to be that he has an open mind on the matter, which has been spun by the media to mean he is a traitor.

The internalization of McCarthy-esque paranoia, fealty to the Intelligence apparatus, and refusal to deal with things as they are on behalf of many intelligent rational people in America is astonishing to witness.

Again, I am no supporter of Trump as a businessman or politican, but my more objective take as an observer outside of the U.S. is that Trump is obviously an unvetted POTUS whose policies have gone “off-script” and the permanent deep state is determined to ruin him and have been since the moment the election results were confirmed. Trump’s unforgivable sin is his desire to ease tensions with Russia, there's no real push-back amongst the political class on most of his other policies. That both the campaign to demonize Putin and the campaign to get rid of Trump have extensively utilized known propaganda techniques such as repetition and insult, and that the equivalent of Orwell’s Two Minute Hate is now a daily feature of America’s media-sphere - might suggest that clear thinking has been abandoned.

I found it interesting how the final question of the Helsinki press conference, a direct request to Trump to endorse the substance of Mueller’s two indictments of Russian persons - one on election meddling and the other on email hacking - became in effect a loyalty oath. And when Trump refused to directly answer, and spouted some reasons why the indictments might be lacking, that became the specific reason that the immediate charges of “Treason!” started to thunder across the commentariat and are continuing. It wasn’t Treason due to breaching the Constitution, it was treason because he would not accept the “truth” of an untested Indictment or accept the “word” of a small portion of the Intelligence community loyal to Brennan, Clapper, Hayden, etc - persons who actually have breached your Constitution and lied about it.

I don’t know why Comey released those emails late in the election cycle, but he can’t be said to be a Trump guy and if anything was tied to the “deep state” faction lining up behind Hilary. There have been hints of intense internal divisions within the FBI at that time. I would suggest Comey’s move was a reactive measure to stave off some other event which would have had more far-reaching consequences.

Terrible as it is, “racist appeals to the worst instincts of the worst Americans” have been part of the political playbook since the beginning.

I’m glad Hilary lost - she was assembling a national security team of neoliberal hegemonic globalists who gave every indication they were preparing to seize the moment and apply massive military force to reverse perceived geopolitical setbacks and directly confront Russia and China while they still held military superiority. The TPP trade agreement was also set to be ratified with no public debate or input, which would have codified a neoliberal corporatist economic structure resistant to any reform or reevaluation.

I don’t care for Trump or his politics, but what is happening to him can and will happen to any unvetted candidate who flukes their way into responsible office. It’s rather grotesque - the mainstream media this past week.

Trump, as usual, was clumsy in his statement, but the scenario he referred to actually did happen back in 2008 when the Russophobic President of Georgia decided to shoot up a bunch of Russian military observers in South Ossetia, possibly with the connivance of officials in the W Bush administration. If Georgia was a NATO member at that time, then truly the fight would have been on, without any pause to determine what actually happened.

Do you people actually think it’s a good idea for troop deployments and missile defence systems directly on Russia’s border? The chance for some kind of tripwire mistake that escalates out of control  will become far more likely and far more dangerous than it ever was in the Cold War. Right now NATO missiles are ten minutes from Moscow. That is an extremely dangerous situation in an atmosphere of tension. Like him or not, Trump is right - these tensions must be resolved. The people who instead want to escalate tensions are insane and yet they have the floor.

In one of his interviews, Fletcher Prouty described metaphorically a classic covert trick to manufacture desired outcomes: You are sitting at a table next to someone you have already decided will be your adversary.  Under the table, you kick him in the shin. He pushes you back in response. You point your finger and say to the rest of the table : “aggression!”  Prouty added that the Tonkin Gulf false flag was the classic example of this procedure.

What many Americans do not understand is that in the Ukraine four years ago Russia was kicked in the shin. It was obvious at the time. Everything in the public record supports this understanding. And yet the loudest voices since have been the finger pointers shouting “Aggression! Aggression!”

“Any attempt by one sovereign state to attack and overthrow the leadership of another sovereign state needs to be robustly protested.”

Cliff, you are wildly exaggerating a small scale operation (less than $200,000) which at this time remains an allegation/assertion. There was no regime change - no one was forced from office. The allegations involve an attempt at persuasion during an election campaign, which may have involved securing the publication of allegedly stolen digital files. Otherwise you are talking about a few obscure Facebook ads. The manipulation of election lists described by Greg Palast is a far more pervasive problem in distorting electoral preferences, and that’s a homegrown problem. As is the lack of any curbs on electoral spending and contributions, encouraging a few big interests to hijack the candidates. Not to mention the huge influence in Congressional politics of foreign interests such as Israel and Saudi Arabia, etc.

Kirk, your information on Assange’s communications with both Trumps is based on unverified emails  leaked to CBS and CNN by unnamed persons involved with the Congressional investigations. Assange strongly denied ever sending such communications. Assange is a target for arrest and summary judgment for publishing secret government documents which reveal criminal and corrupt behaviour at high levels of government - much like the Pentagon Papers. Mueller’s Friday Indictment indicates that Wikileaks/Assange will be, among other things, put on trial for handling “stolen” information, also like the Pentagon Papers. Assange’s reputation has been assiduously smeared in the press for some years now, and I fully expect the worst will happen to him and a sadly large amount of otherwise smart empathetic people will approve of it.

British diplomat Craig Murray - who has unquestioned integrity - also insists the material handed over to Wikileaks was from an insider, i.e. a leak.

The point of the Indictment being handed to a Justice Department division which doesn’t follow through on court proceedings is that it underlines the fact that the Indictment was a political stunt designed to damage if not scuttle the Putin/Trump meeting. The Justice Department had no intention of following up, and were simply content to place a series of untested allegations into the public record - with the predictable ensuing hysteria.

As a Canadian, I have perhaps a bit more objectivity on all this.

Were the DNC servers HACKED or was it a LEAK? The Meuller/Democrats/media side say hacked, and hold the Russians responsible. Julian Assange says the information came to him as result of a leak (inside job), and he is backed by British diplomat Craig Murray who also had direct involvement. A group of former US intelligence personnel known as VIPS also hold the opinion that it was a leak due to technical restraints. This group includes William Binney, who is perhaps the person, of anyone, most familiar with cyber capabilities. The FBI never examined the servers in question and so all the allegations of hacking appear based on the work of a private company under the employ of the Democratic Party. Personally, I believe Assange, Murray, and the VIPS people to have more integrity than the other side. 

The constant repetition that the US Intelligence community as a whole endorses the conclusion that Russia hacked and meddled in the election is not correct, as can be determined by simply reading the January 2017 document itself. Hand-picked members of three agencies made this assessment, and the assessment, in their own words, is far from definitive and might actually be wrong (their words). And yet many Democrat politicians and large portions of the major media continue to repeat false information about this.

The Indictment last Friday was clearly a politically motivated attempt to scuttle the Trump/Putin meeting, and it joins other dialogue-preventing mechanisms historically such as the Powers U2 incident, except this time the meeting still happened. There is no expectation that this Indictment will ever go to trial and therefore be tested through due process - in fact the Indictment itself has been handed to the Justice Department’s National Security Division which never takes its work to a courtroom. (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/07/muellers-latest-indictments-russians-politicized-pointless/) (I do not endorse this columnists viewpoint, but the information about the Indictment and the Justice Dept is important for context).

The demonization of Putin has been deliberately manufactured and enforced, again, by constant repetition. When it comes to extra-judicial murder by state actors, the United States is far and away the biggest offender - with a drone program responsible for thousands of targeted deaths including a disturbing amount of collateral damage (I.e. innocent bystanders). The U.S. led destruction of Iraq and Libya were far more serious breaches of international order than Crimea.

According the Mueller, the budget for the entire Russian election meddling and hacking operation amounted to about $200,000. Total spending for the entire 2016 election process has been estimated at over six billion dollars. It is absurd to think that such small scale and arguably negligible activity nearly tore down the foundation of American democracy, and yet many persons of influence apparently believe this. The United States and it 5-Eyes partners, including Canada, in fact run the largest, most widespread, and thorough hacking, cyber-meddling, and information retrieving operation on the planet by a large margin. So the hysteria over the alleged Russian activity is wildly disproportionate.

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Jeff, yes I am saying the nose shadow is consistent with the other shadows and does not show fakery. that does not mean the head was not pasted on the body ir just means they got the shadows right. what did the HSCA say about Oswald's leaning. Did they determine it was possible?

hi Chris

you might find it interesting to skim through the HSCA panel’s work yourself:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=958#relPageId=185&tab=page

To make my position clear:

The HSCA photo panel, through its spokesman Calvin McCamy, presented a false version of the Oswald family photo record, and therefore created a false context for the backyard photos. The HSCA also failed to account for the presence and origin of the third backyard pose. These are crucial issues which transcend the authenticity of the BYP themselves.

That said, the panel’s forensic work on the BYP utilizes recognized techniques in examining photographs (i.e. it is not pseudo-science as seen in other areas such as the SBT), and I am not aware of any substantial critique of its work. If such exists I would be very interested to see it.

My analysis of all these issues is here:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/a-new-look-at-the-enigma-of-the-backyard-photographs-parts-1-3

Hi Chris

Thanks for your work. Am I right in summarizing that the shadow anomalies are in fact consistent with the existing conditions (positions), and therefore not “anomalies”?

After the HSCA photo panel finished their report, the consensus of the consulted experts - from both sides of the debate - was that the only viable location of forgery in the BYP was the possible superimposition of Oswald’s face on someone else’s body (which, everyone conceded, could be done by a skilled forger with high-end equipment). If you are saying the shadows line up and are consistent, then this would make such a superimposition much less likely due to the coincident of an unrelated Oswald face matching the light conditions.

Top-down censorship schemes utilizing self-defined and self-serving concepts of “fake news” ascribed to “authoritative sources” who have their own long history publishing fake news is obviously not the answer. Media literacy and critical thinking skills taught in the school system would go much further in blunting the dissemination of deliberately false information. It would also improve the ability of persons to fully participate in a democracy as an informed citizen. But that is the last thing the powers-that-be want.

A tie is a movable object - below the knot. Look closely at the photograph you posted with the blue circle and try to visualize how it could be possible for the knot of the tie to become “slightly off-center”, let alone how its outer edge could twist in the manner necessary to line up with the top button of the shirt. It is physically impossible short of being purposely manipulated, which the photographic evidence shows did not happen.

57 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

I disagree. But even if you're correct, I don't see where conspiracy theorists can go with that conclusion, because CTers are still in the same boat that I (as an LNer) am in --- that is, LNers and CTers alike think there WAS, indeed, a bullet hole in the lower portion of JFK's throat. And apparently you, Jeff, must believe the bullet (regardless of where it came from) completely missed both JFK's shirt and tie. (Correct?) Therefore, from my LN POV, why couldn't the bullet have also missed the shirt and tie if the wound had been an EXIT wound as well?

Let's have a look (below) at a photo montage I created. Do you think a bullet (regardless of directionality) could have possibly missed the entire shirt and necktie of John F. Kennedy given the location of the wound seen on the right? My answer to that question would be, No, it could not have. ....

It is impossible for a presumed bullet to exit directly below the top button of the shirt and then only nick the outside edge of the tie knot. That is the physical evidence, and therefore a bullet did not pass through the front of the shirt or nick the tie. Whatever Dr Perry observed was therefore above the upper edge of JFK’s shirt. No matter how “magic”, a bullet passing through clothing must leave a corresponding track, and what you think you see in a photograph does not cancel that out.

The alleged correspondence of defects in the shirt and tie was a piece of semantic trickery by Hoover, bought into by the Warren Commission and later the HSCA because it allowed a better argument for the trajectory of the SBT. This demonstrates that the need to construct a particular argument overwhelmed the observable features of the physical evidence. 

42 minutes ago, David Von Pein said:

Well then, Jeff, how did the bullet that CTers think came from the FRONT manage to get into Kennedy's throat without going through the same shirt and tie? Do you think the alleged "bullet from the front" completely missed the entire shirt and tie? How did that happen?

And, btw, the bullet did very likely leave behind a bullet hole in the front of the shirt. [WR; p.92]

https://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wr/html/WCReport_0058b.htm

 

The alleged bullet hole was created by a nurse's scalpel. As is clearly seen, this defect is directly below the top button of the shirt. The position of the top button of the shirt, between the right and left collar, can be located in the photo you posted with the blue circle. Not only does this not correspond with the defect on the tie, but if it was a bullet it would have carried forth directly through the centre of the knot in the tie. The tie does not have that damage. 

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

We had a discussion about the necktie in April of 2017, James. (Did you forget?)

And it's very unlikely that the small "slit"-like tear in JFK's tie was caused by the nurses cutting off the tie at Parkland.

I archived last year's "necktie" discussion at my website below....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2017/04/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-1244.html#JFK's-Necktie

And given the way Governor Connally was turned to his RIGHT when the SBT bullet struck him, I don't see anything magical about the bullet proceeding on a slight Right-to-Left trajectory and being able to strike all three items in question ---

1.) JFK's upper right back (14 cm. below the tip of his mastoid process),

2.) the left side of JFK's necktie,

3.) and John Connally's far-right upper back.

[Note --- This photo montage below is not an "official" photo of any kind. The blue circle was put there by me, DVP.]

Simply look at the above photo and the position of the blue circle and it's so obvious that it is simply amazing anyone would try to argue a passing bullet nicked the tie - but how does the supposed bullet not put a corresponding hole in JFK's shirt?  It necessarily must pass through the shirt. The shirt in evidence does not feature such damage, therefore a bullet did not nick the tie.

 

A Part II has been posted, with Unz favouring LBJ/Israel as top suspects.

https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-the-jfk-assassination-part-ii-who-did-it/

The first part received over one thousand comments - which is large for that site and another indication that popular interest in the topics remains high. Within these comments, the same crusty debates over the evidence occur, although claims to the authority of Bugliosi (and his 1400 page book no one will ever read) always get slapped down by informed commenters. The only other LN debating point that carries limited traction is versions of "the first shot occurred at Z-160." But, as appears in these comments, that talking point dissolves against the simplest and easiest counter argument: JFK was shot in the back, not the neck. 

A bit of promotion...

Black Op Radio's 50 Reasons series has been running a sequel on the 1968 assassinations, four episodes apiece on RFK and MLK. 

Here is the first RFK episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQGSEeK28Kw

Here is the first MLK episode:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9g5duA9nvzc&t=43s

Yes, I have come to see a JFK foreign policy framework which is so different from the Dulles consensus - and, as you have ably pointed out, is little understood or acknowledged. Gibson's "Battling Wall Street" helped immensely in grasping what was at stake. 

The thrust or direction of these sorts of policies put the target on JFK , as his enemies were firmly in the Dulles camp, and the Dulles foreign policy framework served their self-interest.

It is absolutely a humanitarian disaster - but is the primary cause of this disaster because Assad is engaged in a war against his own people with the support of Putin or because regional adversaries have been financing a regime change operation in that country? I say it is the latter.

Here is a reasonable overview:

https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/20/hidden-origins-of-syrias-civil-war/

The second link in that article goes to an article by Eric Margolis on the refugee issue.

As for reasons for displacement - the most obvious reason is that there was military conflict ongoing and therefore people were not safe in their homes. They could have been fleeing the government or fleeing from the rebels or just fleeing to save their lives. Early 2016 was the high water mark of the rebel’s control of territory, so there weren’t then “government protected areas” that were particularly safe at all. It has been observed since then that large numbers of displaced people returned to areas like east Aleppo and Ghouta after the government’s military operations reversed rebel control there.

I would not take the UN’s numbers at face value, as they had been very wrong in claiming 250,000 civilians at risk in east Aleppo when fighting there was approaching government victory about 18 months ago. The real number turned out to be a fifth of that. The UN was using the inflated figure to support a ceasefire to stave off defeat of the rebel forces (who were largely associated with or actually were designated al-Qaeda forces).

The SDF are not exactly “Democratic” forces. Today they are, effectively, the Kurdish militia from the north eastern part of the country with a few local Arab allies.They are not fighting the government, but are in alliance with the Americans who are. It’s very complicated.

ISIS, in my opinion, was both a psychological warfare operation and an effective proxy force. The Syrian opposition was never truly united, but were mostly ideologically Islamist, as senior US political figures conceded. Even the so-called moderate rebels had a social and political platform not dissimilar from the Taliban. They openly stated that if they were victorious they would spark another humanitarian crisis displacing all who remained who did not follow their religious teachings.

This topic has veered into current events, but I think there is an appropriate link in the ways a conventional wisdom can be created out of false representations. 

The terrible events in Syria have been grossly mis-reported by the corporate media (MSM). It use to be joked ten to fifteen years ago that viewers of Fox News cultivated completely false or inverted understandings of national and world events based on how much Fox programming they consumed. That phenomenon seems common now across the MSM landscape.  Support for regime change in Syria has been consistent in the MSM since the start, part of an information warfare environment which is a distinguishing feature of the struggles in that country. Part of that information warfare relies on decontextualizing facts and figures, and demonizing certain parties while obscuring others.

For instance - yes, there has been massive displacement of peoples, a humanitarian crisis. But the implication in the reporting has been that the Assad government is solely to blame for this, which is not true. The Islamist rebels, who managed to seize a lot of territory before Russia’s intervention, are responsible for creating many of these refugees - as is proved by the fact that many persons have returned over the past year or so as the rebels have been displaced and security has returned to the large population centres. Similarly, reports of the conflict’s death toll - approaching approximately 450,000 - usually infer that these represent mostly civilians killed because of their opposition to the government. Not true again. Over half of that number represent government soldiers killed in combat. Another third represents rebel fighters killed in combat (many of whom were Islamic foreigners inserted into the country). The rest were civilians killed during operations by both the government and the rebels.

Putin, at the UN in September 2015, stated very clearly his reasons for Russia’s intervention in Syria, largely consistent with principles of sovereignty as described in the UN Charter. This again has been mis-represented by the MSM, which has featured for almost three years scores of talking heads and analyzers who assert Russia’s motives in a form of free association which rarely if ever refers to the original statement (to which the Russians have remained rather consistent). Like the Russians or not, they have introduced innovative means to minimize the fighting, including deconfliction zones and negotiated removals of fighters to other areas. The combat which has occurred, in support of the Syrian government, has been undertaken consistent with UN Security Council resolutions which have called for the “eradication” of designated terrorists and their enclaves.

The JFK assassination has a huge “fake news” component, analysis of which should allow for a sharper more critical focus on contemporary events. I say the MSM version of Syria is fake news. It is astonishing that the established fake narrative promotes radical Islamist warriors, with whom the US is technically at war and yet has tacitly supported and further turned a blind eye to the massive support undertaken by its regional allies to such forces. A proxy war utilizing designated terrorist groups is a terrible thing to inflict on people.

Walt Brown in his JFK Chronology (Book 2 pp65-66) noted that two of the Dallas police officers in charge of keeping persons off of the overpass during the motorcade, both happened to submit a written report on December 4, 1963 in which both used the exact same phrase to describe their instructions:

“As I recall, he instructed me to keep all persons off the overpass at this location during the parade.  It was my understanding that I was to keep all unauthorized persons away from the location…”

Brown:  “The reader will note that the statement made by Officer J. C. White, xxxigned to the western side of the Triple Underpass, and the statement here, by Officer J. W. Foster, xxxigned to the eastern side of the Triple Underpass, are identical.

Not “similar” or “close.”  Identical.  And it’s not a coincidence, because the odds of two different individuals using the exact same 35 words to describe a situation, when measured statistically, generate a number that is 18 digits in length…

In this situation, the two officers on top of the Triple Underpass are guilty of collusion, in that they both weasel-worded their statements to cover their butts because not “all persons” were kept off the Triple Underpass.

Whatever else they are guilty of, I leave to the reader.”

(CE 1358 link to White’s statement, with Foster’s on the subsequent page)

 https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=634&tab=page

In my opinion, Oswald came directly into what might be described as a fascist milieu in Dallas circa March 1963. This may have led to involvement with the fake assassination attempt, but also may have led to the connection with Banister in New Orleans. The FPCC operation began while Oswald was still in Dallas (mid-April).  The record seems to indicate that the specific move to set up Oswald as a patsy began circa September 1963. I suspect that some of the support for this latter project came from this fascist milieu in Dallas. (i.e. in my opinion Oswald had interacted back in the spring with some of the people who later helped frame him). 

It's worthwhile looking at Russell's Nagell book Chapter 13 "The Attack On General Walker", which indicates Walker had heard, long after 1963, that Oswald had been connected with Larrie Schmidt in March 1963. Walker also tells Russell (this was in 1976) that the German newspaper was interested only if Oswald was a communist - i.e. the Oswald shot at Walker angle was introduced by the newspaper, not Walker. Although, if the shooting attempt never came up during that conversation,  how a reporter several hours later knew to ask that question to Jesse Curry is quite mysterious.

3 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Interesting. Would love to know who that reporter was and what caused him to ask that question. Do you have any more info on that? Or do you have an opinion or suspicion of what might have been the backstory? 

The reporter cannot be seen. I dug out the footage (WFAA, the local ABC affiliate) and realize that the question was posed earlier, in the afternoon. Curry is being questioned about Oswald's presence at the TSBD and the smudged fingerprints on the found rifle. Then a question from deeper in the scrum:

Q - Is there any connection yet between this and the firing at Major General Walker?

A - I do not know.

I have no idea why the reporter asked the question. Walker was in Shreveport, and conducted the interview with the German paper there some hours previously. It is possible Walker spoke with someone in Dallas and recounted the morning's conversation, and then this was passed along to the reporter. That this topic is not broached again until after the publication of the Walker interview six days later tends to support the notion that the Oswald connection to the Walker shooting was introduced by Walker's German interviewer rather than Walker himself (or there would have been more of this topic put out in public). 

Personally, I think the alleged attempt on Walker was staged to gain the General publicity and sympathy. Oswald may well have been involved in some fashion, but whatever happened has no correlation at all with the wild stories told by Marina Oswald. If the backyard photos are authentic, then they were produced out of this staged assassination attempt, possibly as some kind of trophy or joke. The Imperial Reflex camera links these photos with others taken of Walker's residence (and the tying of that camera to Oswald specifically is very weak).

I can't find the State Department airtel which describes the first interview with deMohrenschildt in Haiti. He mentions the attempt on Walker, likely in response to a question - I don't know the date of the airtel, whether that interview happened before or after Nov 29.

A reporter (off camera) directed a question the evening of November 23, to Jesse Curry in the hallway of the Dallas Police Department, asking if Oswald might be connected to the Walker shooting. Curry replied he had no information on that. This was during a press scrum referring to the mail order rifle receipt and the backyard photos. 

hi Steve

The recollection that Oswald was leaving the welding job seems to place the meeting in question as October 7th.

You are absolutely correct that things don’t add up. This is another topic in which skilled investigators operating in an official capacity should have noted contradictions and sought clarification. They failed to do so, and contributed to the ambiguity which defines much of the record. 

Stories of Oswald’s supposed desperate unemployment are linked, in 1962, to efforts to separate Marina from Lee (as were stories of spousal abuse). Oswald quit the welding job on October 8 and was hired at J-C-S on October 12. During the autumn of 1962, deMohrenschildt was making inquiries for Oswald in the field of industrial security. That seems to be the sort of work Oswald was hoping for, and presumably needed assistance or reference to obtain. The Reilly’s job in New Orleans seems to be linked to eventual placement in that field (co-workers hired at NASA), or served as cover - if one considers Oswald’s link to Banister’s agency as likely an industrial, or private security gig. When Oswald returned to Dallas in October 1963 he told Mary Bledsoe he was attempting to get work at Collins Radio and/or Texas Instruments.

Marina Oswald’s animus to the FBI was said to have been stoked by an impression that they had interfered with Lee’s employment or stymied application for employment. But there is no record of the FBI intervening against him at Leslie Welding, J-C-S, Reilly’s Coffee, or the TSBD. Might the FBI assisted in blunting some of Oswald’s attempts at employment in the industrial security sector, deliberately or not? Perhaps Oswald returned to Dallas feeling the FBI had somehow messed up his ability to gain traction in the industrial/private security field through his efforts in New Orleans?

13 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jeff,

To grasp the George DM version of the Oswald BYP, we must examine George DM's 1977 manuscript, I'm a Patsy! I'm a Patsy!

In this manuscript we find a description of George DM and Volkmar Schmidt egging Oswald forward to hate and despise General Walker.

It is almost certain that an old boaster like George DM would tell young Oswald that he once worked for the CIA -- which would entice Oswald, who wanted to work for the CIA so badly that he could taste it.

If so, then it seems likely that the naïve young Oswald tried to kill General Walker as a gift to George DM and Volkmar Schmidt.   We get a taste of this, too, from Bill Kelly's interview with Volkmar Schmit in 2008.  http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2008/01/volkmar-schmidt-interview.html

If so, then this also explains the BYP that Oswald gave to George DM in the record albums that Marina returned to Jeanne DM through Everett Glover when the DM's were in Haiti.

If so, then Michael Paine's revelation to Russo and Rather that he saw the Oswald BYP in April, 1963, is credible and should be treated as US history.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

hi Paul

I have serious misgivings of Michael Paine's late story of being shown a BYP in April 1963, for reasons which I have detailed elsewhere. You are of course free to have your own opinion. 

I would point out, re: DeMohrenschildt, that in his first statement after the assassination, appearing in a State Department airtel from Haiti, he says that "everyone" in Dallas believed that Walker staged the attempt on himself. I have no reason to doubt Volkmar Schmidt's information, but that Oswald would literally shoot at Walker as a result of that conversation is a suspicion or surmise, not actual proof of such event. 

14 hours ago, Tom Hume said:

Hi Jeff, 

You wrote: “Hi Tom  - the negative for 133-A is in the Archives. It was the negative for 133-B (and 133-C for that matter) which is missing.”

Perhaps I’m confused, but the HSCA report linked below says:

“CE749, the original negative to CE 133-B, was the only negative recovered from the possession of the Dallas Police Department; consequently, it was the only original negative available to the Panel for analysis. There is no official record explaining why the Dallas Police Department failed to give the Warren Commission the other original negative.”

http://www.jfklancer.com/Rifle.html

 

hi Tom 

you are correct, my mistake. (data overload)  The negative for 133-B is in the archives. The negative for 133-A is missing, although it was listed in the original police files and their Dallas Identification Bureau actually made an 8x10 from it late in the afternoon of Nov 23/63. No explanation why it subsequently disappeared. Perhaps it was removed from DPD custody to create the DeMohrenschildt print. No one knows, no one tried to fully account for this, although the HSCA was claimed to be authoritative on this matter.

37 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

So no one really knows where that came from I guess.

Alright, then since I have you here, how about the other picture?  The one that was burned by either Marina or Marguerite?

Isn't that a completely different pose?  Greg Parker thinks that was taken in Russia.

Another pose - possibly holding a rifle aloft, over his head. Another "ask the question" moment, as Marguerite's interlocutor does not pin down whether it is a backyard photo or not (i.e. was he next to the staircase as seen in the other photos). I personally concur with Parker - it was taken elsewhere, not a BYP.