Michaleen Kilroy

Yeah, who wants to be the guy who let's everyone know he was involved in the JFK assassination? Broken codes with dead compatriots, humiliation and hatred for the family, historical legacy of infamy forever... There's no real upside. The only guy who would publicly confess to rectify the historical record would, in the end, be a real man of courage. But that's not ever going to be some chickensh!t who ambushes a guy riding in a car with his wife.

Thanks, Larry, for the additional info. I suppose I shouldn't be accusing anyone of the crime who's still alive but if anyone saw what actually happened, it sure seems like Jenkins would be the guy.

I've read through the Wheaton interview and am getting through the rest. This seems like one of the most substantial finds in JFK research to me. Wheaton's bona fides seem beyond reproach, and Carl Jenkins seems like he was perfectly positioned to accomplish the assassination he boasted about. Quintero was just another in a long line of bitter anti-Castro fighters except is more likely a participant because he was being trained by the CIA to assassinate Castro. A few thoughts: It's strange Wheaton didn't talk to authorities sooner as a self-described lawman for life. It's also strange Wheaton didn't have one scrap of detail on the operation that isn't already known or at least theorized, e.g. triangulated crossfire. As an operations person himself, you would think that would've been top of mind in his conversations with Jenkins and Quintero. At the same time, and as the article points out, he never once tried to gain publicity or notoriety from his knowledge of these two. Also, the two different reactions of Jenkins and Quintero - the former claiming it never happened and the latter claiming Wheaton was confused about what they said - bolsters Wheaton's veracity. For what it's worth, my gut tells me these guys were involved. Those involved in the CIA-backed Castro assassination plots were long considered by researchers to have turned on JFK. This article gives a lot of credence to that with the details on their training and who was involved, and makes so much sense in terms of means, motive and opportunity, down to knowing how to frame a patsy (for Castro, to make it look like a non-US hit). What is also shocking, and also demonstrates how essentially institutionalized JFK's murder was, these CIA agents have no fear of telling an outsider about their role in the assassination, as if knowing no repercussions would be forthcoming. They're confessing but with no real fear of going to jail for it. It's groundbreaking research, IMO. Congrats to Larry, David, Bill and all those who contributed. For the first time, it feels like this case could be resolved in my lifetime. One question - is Jenkins still alive? If so, is someone still trying to get him on the record?

I'm friends with Abraham Bolden on Facebook and felt compelled to ask him what he thought of Dylan's song. I got a great response: Just curious what James DiEugenio and Vince Palamara think of Bolden's story and if you've ever spoken with him. He seems to be the only reliable third-party witness still alive who saw the machinations of the conspirators up close before and after the assassination.

Great job, Jim. I especially like the intro where you say it looks like Dylan wrote this specifically for people informed about the case. It sure does seem like that. As an aside, I do think Dylan wouldn't go to all this trouble without at least pointing to who he thinks the perps were. Here's where I think that is in the song/poem: ”Where we ask no quarter, and no quarter do we giveWe're right down the street, from the street where you live” This is when Dylan has taken on the voice of the conspirators in the song. They're talking to JFK - the street where he lives is Pennsylvania Avenue. They are right down the street, which means they are DC based and this is a federal government conspiracy. Notice he doesn't say "on the street where you live." That would point to the FBI which is headquartered on Pennsylvania. But "right down the street" and after the military jargon of 'no quarter' in the lyric? I'd say Dylan is referring to the Pentagon. What I really like about Dylan's song is he doesn't fret about 'figuring out' the ambush. It was a well-planned trick by experts who know how to do this work. That is the best explanation of the operation at Dealey. You don't need to know anything more on that front. It's just a distraction. Neither the official version nor any alternative version tells a believable story. It's all confusion. Which is what happens when a crime is purposefully covered up from the start by local and federal authorities.

Anyone else feeling like the MSM is once again missing the point? The Nobel Prize-winning songwriter/poet and seminal figure of the 60s believes JFK was done in by a domestic conspiracy. And that fact has negatively affected American life ever since. ”Where we ask no quarter, and no quarter do we giveWe're right down the street, from the street where you live”

Great find, Vince. If the document is accurate, it would appear to make Helms full of doo-doo yet again when he told CBS in the 80s he "personally checked" to see if there were any agents in the field in Dallas that day. Of course, he said no. If you had to cast someone from CIA being in the middle of things in Dallas, this guy would fit the bill. And he couldn't have been Secret Service because they said no agent was hanging around Dealey at anytime during or following the assassination. I think you're onto something.

Thanks, Gene. To answer your questions: He's the subject of the recent USA Today story in the second to final slide: Ross Lester Crozier It was Ed Butler of INCA who facilitated the radio 'debate' (ambush?) between LHO and Carlos Bringuier. I meant that any anomalies citizen researchers found were not pursued by media because of the complexity of the case but more importantly journos were afraid of losing their jobs if they even tried to tackle it, I believe. Sylvan Fox, a Pulitzer Prize winning reporter for the for NY World-Telegram wrote the book in 1964 called 'The Unanswered Questions of the Kennedy Assassination" because he couldn't get his paper to publish his analysis and critique of the WC. He's the only mainstream media person I found who questioned the story in the early days. I believe LIFE and a couple of other outlets were publicly skeptical a couple of years later. Here ya go: https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2003/12/18/jfks-assassination/ Looks like it was 2003 not 2005. My bad. I agree with you - the assassination always looked to me like someone wanted a war. I'll take a look at DeBrosse's paper. Thanks for the tip.

No attack but a clarification: the preso wasn't meant to be a comprehensive theory of who killed JFK. It was a brief overview of the PR and propaganda tactics that have been used over the years to influence public opinion about the case.

I added a bit more context here and there but mostly focused on the PR tactics that were used since that was my audience and topic. I got a few questions mostly for confirmation, such as "Butler did a media drop?" referring to the WDSU-TV film, and "The DRE release came out before the assassination?" Also, someone asked how COINTELPRO hurt citizen's movements. I said they would often try to associate them with communism. My impressions were a) the younger crowd was not emotionally tied to the assassination like older generations and b) they expressed no real shock in seeing government disinformation/malfeasance at work. I avoided asking what anyone thought of the case at the end and wanted to leave it up to them. Of course I have my thoughts but kept them to myself. But I'll share them here (naturally). If you look at the facts of the public influence campaign immediately following the assassination and how it was put together, there are only one of 3 conclusions you can make: 1) It all happened organically. LHO found the DRE publicity director, provoked him, the DRE and Butler responded, the media covered it, Butler held onto the film and the debate tape, etc., etc. And the CIA lied about it all for decades just because. (Fat chance, IMHO.) 2) The CIA ran a COINTEL campaign against the FPCC in NO using LHO, and then LHO shot JFK or someone hijacked him as a participant but the CIA knew nothing. Hence the cover-up. (My argument against this idea is if the FPCC was non-existent in NO, then why go to the trouble of damaging the reputation of a chapter that doesn't exist?) 3) By the times Helms hired Joannides, the conspiracy was well underway. So it's either happenstance, Oswald fooled the CIA, or the CIA fooled Oswald. My bet's on the latter.

Absolutely, Jim. Just sent the PDF.

This is great stuff, Pat. Thanks for sharing. I'm fascinated by the way the CIA attempted to manipulate public opinion from the get-go in this case, while also covering up material evidence for decades with top officials lying under oath. Following that path of public deception and what they're protecting to me is the path to real answers. And whatever Newman says about Veciana, no one's gonna convince me key agency players weren't involved or enablers. There's a reason top prosecutors Sprague and Tanenbaum immediately smelled a rat with David Atlee Phillips but the CIA again managed public opinion to get them removed and replaced by Blakey who was obviously going to focus on the mob. Now a bit of self-aggrandizement. Jefferson Morley was nice enough to post a presentation I gave to some communications underlings recently. If I had the time, I'd love to track every way the CIA tried to manipulate public opinion in the JFK case over the past 50+ years: https://jfkfacts.org/perception-management-public-relations-and-the-jfk-story/

Thanks for posting this, Andrew. For this longtime PR professional and student of the assassination, I personally thought this article was a major breakthrough for MSM after 56 years of dodging the case. It addressed a relevant story from the case on its own terms - no reliance on conclusions from the WC or HSCA It used the factual discoveries of researchers when appropriate The story originated with the paper's own research - not just reporting what Jefferson Morley or other independent journalist found or announced It sets the context for what was to follow with the next DRE case officer - George Joannides It sources primary materials with links in the copy THIS is the way forward, IMHO gents and ladies, if we truly want to resolve the case to the satisfaction of everyone. It just so happened I used this USA Today story in a talk I gave to my fellow communications professionals this past Friday, Nov. 22, providing an overview of the ways PR and propaganda have been integral to the case even BEFORE the assassination. Here's a link to the preso in case you're interested: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hRDDOiiDNz2J8sec3ZraVAiw_OHOLs-A/view?usp=sharing

I don't what took me so long to see this documentary, but I finally rented it on Vimeo and was incredibly impressed. Yes, it has it's flaws like anything else, but for me it's the best single piece of evidence that a conspiracy was afoot in the lead-up to Dallas. The best JFK documentaries for me feature as much footage of real sites and real people as possible. I get tired of theorizing and want to see who was involved. This doc delivers, featuring rare if never-before-seen archival footage including a video of one helluva suspicious character in the case - Ed Butler https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbutlerED.htm. He was the one responsible for holding onto the audio and film record of LHO's propaganda operation in NO and who personally delivered that film to the networks and DC influencers the night of the assassination - somehow beating JFK's body to the capital. It's all so sad and obvious someone was manipulating LHO. There is no way this guy is doing this crap on his own. The intelligence community - from the CIA and FBI on down - keeps giving him a pass because they know he's a valued asset. In fact, the connections are so obvious I was beginning to wonder why they would use him as a patsy at all. There is still the outside chance someone with knowledge of his intelligence connections hijacked Oswald for the JFK hit knowing it would be covered up by the govt as fast as possible. Newman, Russell and Mellen are awesome and in top form. And although David Kaiser at first pushes his mob-did-it theory, that generally disappears and he offers some great objective commentary on how strange this all was. Nobody really investigated what this doc shows (although Sprague and Tannenbaum sure tried). The CIA led the way in felonious obstruction. Warren got talked into fearing WWIII by LBJ. And Cronkite and NY Times led the way in trying to make Americans feel like their govt had the case handled when it obviously did not. I was talking with a friend of mine the other day about the new HBO series The Watchmen. And he had no idea about Black Wall Street and the Tulsa race massacre. He said it was ridiculous to say there was never domestic terrorism on our soil until recently. He said he never heard about it in 16 years of schooling and countless American history courses. Unfortunately, that's where the real story of the JFK assassination currently sits. The vast majority of Americans don't know about the overwhelming evidence of conspiracy. Shane O'Sullivan's documentary does the best job I've seen of presenting the case for conspiracy by simply laying out the facts. It should be required viewing by all America students, high school age on up.

I don't find Helms funny or innocuous. In fact, I find him culpable:

The strange thing is Holland is absolutely clear on the details on what he heard and saw, and his testimony perfectly matches what everyone can see in the Z film, IMO. And about six guys went with him to the picket fence so they must have heard and saw the same thing. I can't believe he was wrong about the foot. Why would he even say it if he didn't see it? Then it shows up in a photo of the limo on the way to Parkland? That's quite a coincidence if Holland got it wrong. My guess is JFK was in his death throes as the limo came out from the under bridge and that's when Holland saw his foot hanging over the car door. I only brought this horrific scene up because for me it again reinforces that the head shot came from the front right as Holland and his fellow railroad men saw it. One more thing - I heard both Wesley Frazier and another key witness at a JFK Lancer conference both say the last two shots were almost simultaneous just as Holland heard it, like many witnesses have said. That negates the possibility that the Carcano did all the shooting.

I was watching the SM Holland interview with Mark Lane recently (who IMO offers the most damning evidence of a shot from the front) and noticed this photo at the end. I had never seen it before but it was included after Holland said JFK was hit so hard by the shot from the knoll that it "flipped him over" and his foot was hanging over the car door. You don't really see this in the Zapruder film but is this true?

Would be great to try the lie detector test on this interview:

Sure would love to see that test on certain CIA officials testifying to Congress during the HSCA, namely Helms, Phillips and Angleton.

It’s all of a piece, isn’t it? Don’t think I have anything new but I like to try to point out issues that maybe the uninitiated may understand. The CIA’s obvious malfeasance means the case is never closed until they come clean on what the hell they were doing with LHO.

FYI, I spent time looking at live coverage following the assassination. The film of Oswald handing out fliers in NO is broadcasted in the early evening of Nov. 22 by Cronkite and others. At that moment, if they didn’t know already, Helms and others at Langley knew the accused assassin had interfaced with their secretly funded propaganda group, the DRE. And they never said a word about it to anyone. Lone nut. Right. Sure seems obvious to me the highest echelon of the CIA was overseeing an operation to tie LHO to Castro in the public’s mind ASAP. That’s the ONLY reasonable conclusion. Especially since they covered it up for decades and STILL won’t provide ANY explanation.

Forgot I had posted it here before: FYI, I sent it to Robert Blakey who emailed me back this: “I read your piece with great interest. Sadly, I don’t think anything will come of it in our lifetime.”

Just a lone nut loser, eh? And yet, for some reason, this anonymous sociopath caused such consternation at the CIA that they chose to withhold material evidence, lie and run domestic operations to obstruct justice in all federal inquiries. Curious how you can explain this: https://medium.com/me/stats/post/377267b73309

I'm not sure so I'll let the Dan the Man tell his story:

I finally had the time and the stomach to watch "Parkland" (plus it was free with Amazon Prime). I found it to be a tragi-comedic farce by the producers who are pretending to deliver 'just the facts, m'am" while doing their level best to stay away from inconvenient facts that might get the viewer to question the official story. Or they included facts that clearly show a conspiracy that they likely didn't mean to. A few incongruities that jumped out to me were: You call a movie "Parkland" but you don't include reporter Seth Kantor's run-in with Ruby there? That's as close to an indisputable fact in this case there is, no matter that the WC chose to ignore the veteran reporter's account and go with the "over-emotional, patriotic nut." Jackie's character hands a nurse the part of Jack's head that she had retrieved from the back of the limo. The nurse's response was - "It's from the base of the head." Well, yes, it was. And how does that fit in with a shooter situated high and behind the POTUS? They choose not to mention what EVERY surgeon and nurse who saw the president before the tracheotomy saw - an entrance wound in the front of his neck. They choose not to include what several surgeons and nurses saw - a clear blowout in the back of the head. Robert Oswald's immediate acceptance that his brother is guilty and guilty alone. He's agreeing with his co-workers that Lee is the apparent shooter when he's just been picked up on a different charge. With what we know today, I was amazed how prescient both Lee and his 'crazy' mother were. When Lee tells his brother "don't believe the so-called evidence" that was before anyone even knew about the "magic bullet" much less the rifle with no prints and a bad scope. Marguerite claims he's a spy for the government before we ever knew how the CIA - the day of the assassination onward - decided to cover-up the fact Lee had gained publicity in NO through the secretly funded DRE. And the close trailing of Oswald weeks before the assassination, and the agency's own internal lies about LHO to the Mexico City station. And Lee's requested hour-long meeting with the FBI in NO. Sure looks like a government agent to me! They included the 'baby shoes for June' line that Lee actually told Marina, not Robert. But they leave out the part where Robert looks into Lee's eyes and Lee tells him, "you won't find anything there, brother." That could mean two different things, e.g. I'm an empty soul OR I didn't do it so there's not guilt to be found. Half the movie focuses on Zapruder and you don't include Dan Rather seeing the assassination film and then LYING directly to the American public about what he saw on national TV? What was the point of the juxtaposition of Hosty burning historic evidence while JFK's eternal flame is lit? This movie shows what happens when you attempt to build a credible a story around the WC fiction. It just falls apart. Completely. One note: I know Zapruder was going through a lot and maybe didn't have his wits about him but the better option than selling his movie to LIFE magazine would have been to provide copies to the top forensics labs and law schools in the country, allowing only approved law enforcement and legal professionals to view it. That way the truth of the 'back and to the left' would've come out without the public necessarily having to view it. Especially once the WC decided to not include a true descriptions of the film. At that point Zapruder must've known the WC was lying and should've made sure the American public knew that as well. I also recently watched media coverage in the immediate aftermath of the assassination and have come to one conclusion: the JFK case is a mess because people in high places who should've known better and that the American public trusted LOST THEIR NERVE. Cronkite, Bradley, the NY Times, etc., etc. The irony is that most were 'fans' of JFK's courage, imagination and service to country. And those 'friends' all disappeared and shirked their duty just when JFK and their country needed them most.