Michaleen Kilroy

2 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Well said Richard, and aside from Plumlee and a couple of fiction books I have never seen any documentation (other than assertions in JFK literature) of the term "illusionary warfare" (military deception is a term which is used and the Army uses the term illusory concept in regard to psychological warfare) of such a specialty or of specific, related training under that name at Nag's Head or anywhere else. 

I would also like to see some documented support for both that term and also for an ONI Defector program targeted on Russia.  That gets talked about frequently and seeing some actual source material would be really helpful. 

Yeah the entire Reiner podcast would benefit from footnotes of reliable sources if he wants us to buy his take. I particularly didn’t think the “Oswald was groomed for spook work since age 13” was believable or well-supported.

9 minutes ago, W. Niederhut said:

Michaeleen,

    Question for you and the forum.  Are people allowed to re-post copyrighted material on this forum for "educational" purposes?

    

Not sure about anything but media articles, but can generally post excerpts with link but not full articles. However, few media outlets have the resources to track offenders. WSJ does.

Sent it to your gmail, Jim. WSJ goes after people who repost full articles publicly. But this one is a doozy - JFK himself is responsible for the American public not buying the WR.

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Yes, of course the debate is over regarding, among other things, the massive hole in the right rear portion of Kennedy's head and the back-of-head autopsy photo forgery. It's just that we have a few ideological anti-alteration holdovers who will never change their minds.

 

Saw JFK: What the Doctors Saw and agree.

Beyond the obvious ‘surgery’ in Kennedy’s brain BEFORE the autopsy, there was McClelland saying the top trauma room surgeon was told to never say the neck wound was an entry wound to the media again - or else.

That suggests the coup leaders were in complete control shortly after the assassination and could do what they want at will.

It boggles the mind but it’s the only conclusion that can be drawn.

On 11/9/2023 at 5:44 PM, Pat Speer said:

Now contrast this willful naïveté re the morality of public servants with the bizarre belief among all too many CTs that these same servants are incredibly sneaky, and smart, and willing and able to fake evidence--even evidence the public was never supposed to see. This is equally delusional, IMO.

True with those involved in the cover-up. But those at the heart of the conspiracy knew they had everything to lose if they messed up. And they had to be incredibly sneaky and smart, or else.

To quote Dylan:

It happened so quickly, so quick, by surprise
Right there in front of everyone's eyes
Greatest magic trick ever under the sun
Perfectly executed, skillfully done

12 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

I think Jeff has played it the right way. If he came out and said "It really looks like the CIA conspired to kill Kennedy," it would probably damage his legal pursuit of the Joannides documents, and would almost certainly damage his access to the mainstream media. There are others like him--a writer from the Boston Globe comes to mind. They are essentially closeted CTs. They know the "official" story stinks to high heaven but can't come out and say as much for fear it will hurt their career. It's kinda like being a gay country singer. People in the biz might know, and might not even care, but they don't want you to tell. Like really don't want you to tell. 

Haha. Sounds about right.

FYI Jeff got a great story in NY mag today:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/jfk-assassination-documents-national-archives.html

These kind of MSM stories never would’ve seen the light of day even a couple of years ago. I guess that’s progress.

On 11/3/2023 at 2:22 PM, Pat Speer said:

You should know if you're not aware that Jeff was a WaPo reporter for many years and retains a number of contacts there. I believe as well that he's published articles and/or been interviewed on the assassination a number of times since his departure. But Jim D is correct in that these always focus on document releases and documents that are still missing, and steer clear of implicating CIA involvement in the killing itself. What's not so clear is whether or not this is because they won't let Jeff say as much or because he doesn't want to say as much. Heck, when I first met him 18 years or so ago, he was still refusing to say if he suspected a conspiracy or not...as he didn't want to be pigeon-holed as a CT/journalist. 

Thanks, Pat.

Yes, I have been following Jeff’s work for years as well and knew about his Wapo background.

I’ve probably read most of his JFKA stories in the MSM but this one - albeit an opinion piece - is the most pointed thus far.

If you have an open mind and click the links to his blog that feature the govt docs, hard to believe a reader wouldn’t have some doubts about the official story.  But human nature being what it is, probably still won’t change many minds I guess.

I didn’t realize until now this was in Wapo. Pretty incredible. The MSM trusts Jeff.

To me, if I was a DC power player, the Heath memo would throw me for a loop. The CIA didn’t buy the LN sorry either?!?

Probably still won’t move the needle but does give validity to the conspiracy POV.

And Jim’s absolutely correct - Wapo would never have published the piece with a direct accusation against the agency. But if you read it carefully, it’s there between the lines.

1 hour ago, Paul Brancato said:

On 10/30/2023 at 8:12 AM, Michaleen Kilroy said:

Two points of view. I’ve always believed the first one, but I’m open to Mr. Kilroy’s idea. The question I have is since CIA was trying to incriminate Oswald, how would pictures of him entering or leaving either Cuban consulate or soviet embassy interfere with CIA agenda? I understand the general idea that CIA would not want to reveal operational interest in Oswald. They’ve done their best to deny it. How would submitting such pics of LHO compromise CIA? In your mind what was CIA doing with him in MC that they are trying to hide? 

Good questions, Paul. The CIA is obviously the only party who can answer them but they don’t seem too willing even after 60 years.

My first guess is reputation protection. A photo of LHO outside the embassy of our No. 1 adversary just weeks before the assassination would be terrible, maybe institution-destroying optics for the CIA in the immediate aftermath. And would raise many questions the American public that would not be easily answered.

The other is possibly LHO is with someone before he enters the embassy.

It’s all conjecture and that’s the way the CIA wants to keep it.

BTW, I’m not against the idea of Oswald being in MC AND being impersonated - at least on the phone.

I think the point of Jeff’s post and of the family member he interviewed is that the CIA deliberately submitted the ‘mystery man’ photo who looked nothing like LHO to create confusion and divert attention away from what they were doing with Lee in MC.

For 60 years that obvious deception has gone unconfirmed by the CIA or the USG investigation bodies. The CIA had the photo of LHO - they chose not to release it and instead lie to investigators and by extension the public.

It’s also clear why they hold on to documents - they don’t want anyone involved in any way to be alive for questioning - in the matter of a presidential assassination.

But you know, just some anonymous nut shooting from a warehouse window…

33 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

That could be. 

But the creation of an LHO paper trail of gun ownership suggests what was planned was false flag failed JFKA attempt. 

As pointed out by thousands, LHO could have bought rifles and handguns anywhere in Texas, while wearing a baseball cap and sunglasses with minimal conversation, or even faking a British accent, etc.  No ID.

My guess is LHO was told the mysterious Alek Hiddel would get the blame for a missed shot, and a body would be found with Hiddel's ID on it, or something to that effect. 

Just IMHO....

 

 

It’s funny. I used to look at Oswald’s attitude and countenance during his brief time in the spotlight as impudence or arrogance. Now I see more of an expression that says, “I’ve been had.” 

19 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

I would accept the story that LHO had become mentally ill or deranged, except for one fact: The shots that strike JFK and JBC are timed to closely to have been fired by a lone gunman armed with single-shot bolt-action rifle.  

There’s really two Oswald’s at least in personality.

One is the guy giving a level-headed speech about his time in Russia at Tulane University, never once mentioning Castro btw even though it was the anniversary of the revolution. And there’s the guy the boarding house owners say who wanted the room nearest people and broke up a fight between two kids in their family.

Then there’s the ‘fanatic’ willing to cross any line to achieve his goals:

- the ‘suicide’ attempt to get in Russia 

- telling a DRE member to ‘hit me’ during the fracas in NO

- brandishing a gun in the Soviet embassy in MC and creating a scene

The question is - why was he only ‘mentally unstable’ in political situations?

It appears to me he would do anything asked of him to meet the goals of an operation. That could include shooting Tippit as SOP - don’t let anyone get in your way if an operation goes south.

There were plenty of coffeehouse communists to hang out with in the early 60s. Oswald never once sought them out. He was clean cut, didn’t drink and was publicly polite and reasoned unless he was ‘on the clock’ as an intel asset.

Figuring out who he was is key to getting a final understanding of the JFKA. It’s amazing after 60 years no one has gotten close. That’s one helluva good cover.

5 hours ago, Cory Santos said:

He left his ring.   He left the TSBD without checking out.   Clearly he was not clueless.  

There’s a good possibility he left his ring because he wore his Marine ring that day which in those days was worn on the ring finger. 
 

If you figure out you’re the patsy, that may also be the reason he left to get a gun. He had no clear escape plan.

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Thanks for the note MK. 

I had not thought about that before, that RFK (understandably) checked out, leaving the stage empty. 

A hard-boiled AG, a Sprague type, might have demanded a real investigation. 

As the Nov. 23 statement from the State Department shows, the federal government was coalescing around a "lone gunman, no foreign involvement" narrative by Nov. 23. 

Could a real AG in 1963-4 have managed to get  to truth, even if flummoxed by the FBI and intel community? Tough call. 

Yeah it would have to have been someone who wouldn’t go along with a dishonest investigation ‘for the good of the country’ like so many did.

On 10/8/2023 at 7:46 PM, Benjamin Cole said:

https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-strange-strange-story-of-governor-connally-s-shirt-coat-and-congressman-henry-b-gonzalez

Paul--

The story of the torpedo job on Richard Sprague (he was Op Mocked) and Gonzalez...defies the imagination. 

Really, fiction pales next to the truth for gripping drama. 

Then Blakey is brought in, to eliminate the CIA as a suspect and pursue the Mob....

 

It’s a great story, Ben. I’ve read it before but didn’t recall the Gonzalez connection - the same rep who torpedoed Sprague. Wow.

it also reminds me that JFK was unlucky in so many ways in facing the conspirators - the first neck shot making him mute, the back brace essentially making him unable to get down, etc.

In the supposed investigation to follow, he was unlucky in having his brother as AG. A less emotionally tied AG just might have been strong enough - and seen as independent enough - to demand a truly thorough investigation. Instead we have asst AG Katzenbach and his ridiculous lone gunman memo.

Love and respect John but assassination researchers, especially the good ones, really need to follow best PR practices for themselves and to help us get the govt to give up the goods.

You don’t reveal this news in the middle of a podcast. You go direct to The NY Times and provide all the receipts.

That would not have worked in the past but now it will. Pete Cook and other MSM reporters appear ready to cover breaking news that furthers the story that the WR’s conclusions aren’t worth a hill of beans.  Take advantage of it.

Sweet Caroline

One word: credible 

Haunted by the assassination his entire life, he avoided learning anything more until Six Seconds in Dallas book is in his hands and he sees they got the origin of the pristine bullet wrong.

He somehow remains an LNer which only bolsters his credibility IMO. He’s not trying to sell anyone a conspiracy theory.

Indicts the WC even further as the political ‘show trial’ it was designed to be.

Strangely, I saw this booklet at the checkout counter at Target today. These types of special topic books are usually reserved for boomer rock star bios - and expensive for the paltry info they provide (this one is $17).

I briefly perused it and found that much of the copy was fairly honest and critical of the CIA’s unaccountable adventurism over the decades.

Of course I looked for any mention of JFK’s relationship with the agency and below was all I found. A bit about the Bay of Pigs - rightly blaming the CIA for the failed invasion - but then wrongly blaming all the crazy Castro assassination attempts on the Kennedy’s.

Nothing on the agency’s ongoing coverup of the JFKA case.

This is about as ‘popular’ popular history gets and what gets embedded in the public mind. So the ‘History’ Channel failed miserably on getting the facts out on the CIA’s many still unexplained connections to the JFKA.

But the fact HC and retailers think the public is interested enough in the agency’s shenanigans to put a brief history at the checkout stand might be a good sign overall. That history has yet to be fully told or understood as we all know.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Sadly, today there are entirely alienated people in America, including the incels you mention. 

The WC tried to define LHO that way---a leftie, loser, loner. 

But LHO had a job, and was well-regarded by his immediate supervisor Buell Frazier.  Mohrenschildt regarded LHO as an intelligent friend. 

LHO was married, with two kids, new baby, troubled family life. LHO had zero criminal record. Was given a honorable discharge from the Marines. 

Joined organizations, such as Civil Air Patrol. School astronomy and chess clubs. Made solid friends in Russia, such as Titovets. 

Seen constantly in the company of others in New Orleans. 

Again, this has little bearing on LHO's guilt or not. 

But the WC had an agenda. 

 

 

Yeah I was shocked when I visited the Oswald rooming house to hear the granddaughter of the owner say out of the many available rooms in the back building, he chose the tiny closet of a room adjacent to the dining and living room to be close to people.

Also accepted an invitation from a family member to discuss his Russia experience to a large roomful of people at Tulane University.

Even the film of him handing out fliers in NO shows him approaching strangers with a friendly smile and looking them in the eye.

Contrary to the WR, he was obviously connected to people.

47 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

After the JFKA, not one news outlet referred to LHO as a "new father." 

He was the father of a one-month old baby. 

That fact, of course, hardly exonerates LHO. 

But it does tell you something about the news environment then, and to this day. 

Always thought the same thing. How can a married father of two babies who reportedly loved kids and they loved him back be considered in the same mold as any of the young incels killing people en masse today?

12 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

Clearly, if Oswald was the assassin, the crime was one of opportunity - that JFK was driving right below the window where he worked. So the anecdote mentioned above in no way negates the notion of Oswald being guilty.

But then he must have known shooting from his workplace he would easily be tied to the shooting. Yet he also seemed to have thought of no escape plan either.

11 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

BTW, that is what the money was for that he left.

For renting a place of their own.

Yep. The wallet was their piggy bank (which would be wallet No. 3 supposedly belonging to LHO if you’re counting).

And the wedding ring he left on the bureau? He was wearing his huge Marine ring when arrested which in those days was worn on the left ring finger and he could not fit with a wedding ring too.

At a JFK conference I heard Wesley Buell Frazier and Mary Moorman separately describe that shot sequence. Journalist Robert MacNeil did as well.

You know the FBI heard the same description from dozens of witnesses.

The feds weren’t interested in honestly investigating the assassination from the get-go. I really have no idea why.

4 hours ago, Gerry Down said:

Why couldn't he achieve the same quality on jfkfacts.org?

What is so special about substack that it has allowed him to improve his quality all of a sudden?

My guess? He’s making more money from the site now via Substack and can spend more time on his stories, deliver more stories, and can pay others to write as well such as the excellent conservative JFKA writer Chad Nagle.