Michaleen Kilroy

And thank you Michael Clark for transcribing!  Looks even more damning when the words are clear and digital.

2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

How about this one Mike:

 

WL: The conclusion is even worse when it states that "The rifle was being kept among Oswald's possessions from the time of its purchase until the day of the assassination." I do not think the record provides any real evidence to support that broad statement. The fact is that not one person alive today ever saw that rifle in the Paine garage in such a way that it could be identified as that rifle.

Yeah, I've always felt that way as well.  To my recollection, the two ladies and their kids transported LHO's rifle "in a blanket" in the Paine family station wagon without ever knowing there was a rifle in the blanket?  Does everyone carry a blanket so gingerly when they're just moving "stuff."  My guess - it wasn't in there.

This entire document is Exhibit A to anyone with a lick of sense that the WR was just a prosecutor's brief and a whitewash, just as Mark Lane and others charged it was.  What a terrible disservice to the American people.

This was my favorite, Jim:  It seems to me that the most honest and the most sensible thing to do given the present state of the record on Oswald's rifle capability would be to write a very short section indicating that there is testimony on both sides of several issues.The commission could then conclude that the best evidence that Oswald could fire his rifle as fast as he did and hit the target is the fact that he did so.

LHO doing the shooting is proof he could do the shooting.  WTH?!?

Goes back to what the Katzenberger memo and what Hoover said: We need to convince the American people of Oswald's sole guilt.

Why's that?  Shouldn't the first order of business be to determine the truth no matter what the outcome?

Infriggincredible.

Reads like fiction from a CTer rather than the musings of a WR lawyer.

Wow. Behind the scenes of the cover-up.

Essentially if just one of his assertions is true, LHO is exonerated. 

20 hours ago, Evan Marshall said:

I was assigned to Detroit Homicide on two separate occasions. What does that me me an expert in? Canvassing neighborhoods because I must have knocked on a bazillion doors. My partner and I would start working a case with certain conclusions but when those proved not to be true we would shift directions and look for "new truth".

 

We had Family Tree's at Homicide and I would inherit open case that were often committed before I joined the police department. Looking at these case with a fresh eye we often found that the cases were "investigated" with blinders on.

Perhaps if we locked away our egos and were more careful with what we assumed was fact because it aligned with prior bias, we could actually solve this darn thing!

 

Additionally, it is actually possible to disagree without being disagreeable!

It’s actually reassuring to me that a homicide detective still sees the JFK case as open. 

For someone to pull something off this audacious, I believe they would have to have a lot knowledge in deceiving the authorities and entire populations in political assassinations.

That’s one of the reasons the CIA tops the list for me as suspects. Bill Harvey in particular not only hated the Kennedys but studied Russian assassinations throughout the world and knew how they worked. 

The mob obviously did this as well with local police, judiciary and witnesses as well politicians on occasion. They were less interested in the con staying but knew how to use an assassin in a police uniform, for instance, to fool people during the crime. 

Didn’t the CIA use a similar scenario to JFK’s murder to kill a Phillipine leader through a Commie patsy who was killed himself quickly following the assassination?

And it should be noted that every single CIA agent was given a copy of this book when they came on board:

https://www.amazon.com/Big-Story-Confidence-Man/dp/0385495382

This book was also the basis for the movie ‘The Sting.’

12 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mike: I do recall conducting interviews with people a few years after reading that book as a local journalist and finding that many people hated JFK.

Where was this Mike?

Working at the Southern California Community Publishing Group covering Southeast LA actually.  I was asked to talk to city luminaries as opposed to average folk.  FYI, many represented the last white residents in what had become predominately Latino communities.

When I was 20 I skipped my boring college math class and went to the school library.  There I happened upon a book that highlighted the things JFK had said and his proclamations on each of his 1,000 days or so.  It was more of a picture book, with a photo from each day and quotes underneath on every page.

I didn't know much about JFK other than my Irish Catholic parents loved him, he was assassinated, and he seemed to have been a smart, witty guy - like a lot of my Irish family, actually

Reading that book in that library (I read it over the next 3 hours or so), I found that I essentially agreed with every statement and sentiment JFK had made during his administration that was represented.

From his first act as president, which I recall was releasing stockpiles of food to the poor, to his comments about the environment and women's rights, JFK seemed to a man ahead of his time whose thoughts foreshadowed many of the issues that would come to the fore in the 1970s.

As I started reading more, I realized JFK seemed like one of those leaders in Russia or other autocratic nations whose true history and actions had been "disappeared."  He didn't at all fit the narrative the MSM tried to tell about him.  The majority of the American public still doesn't have a clue but I think they appreciate his reason and search for peaceful solutions in dangerous times.

I've realized that it's not a sentimental cliche to believe the world did change when he died.   And today, after doing a fairly intensive study of the assassination literature with a critical eye, I do believe there is a better than 50/50 chance someone engineered a very clever trick in Dealey that day.  There was enough Cold War paranoia, naivete, absence of questioning authority, cunning among the intel community and general unity among other factions against Kennedy to pull it off IMO. And the reasons appear to be related to JFK's approach to key foreign policy issues.

I do recall conducting interviews with people a few years after reading that book as a local journalist covering the 25th anniversary of the assassination and finding that many people had hated JFK.  They wouldn't say it directly but I got many answers like, "Well, I didn't like his policies but I felt sorry for his family."  So if there was animus at the citizen level you have to know that it was magnified exponentially in the halls of power.

In any case, the reason I come to these forums is to essentially find new information that may help me get to the full truth of the assassination and JFK's presidency.  I appreciate anyone else who is on this quest 50+ years later and approaches the subject with honesty and critical thought.  I also appreciate anyone who has the time to dig deep into research because I unfortunately do not.

1 hour ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Mike, what's your take on Kennedy passively green-lighting the over-throw of Diem?

To be honest, the details always seem a bit fuzzy every time I’ve tried to understand it. It seemed like he supported the coup - the Diem bros were terrible leaders - but not the violence. Hard to believe JFK would be that naive though.

26 minutes ago, David Josephs said:

Now I'm confused...

John Whitten was a high ranking CIA official... he's the author of the Scelso Deposition...  why would he be working to expose the CIA?

Is this the same person you mean ??

With regards to Hardaway and Lopez... I think all one need know is this:

The assumption was that Oswald was actually there...  a very poor place from which to start....

http://jfkfacts.org/hardway-declaration-cia-stonewalled-jfk-investigation/

At the CIA, Angleton killed John Whitten’s efforts to investigate Oswald’s Cuban contacts.

I learned that David Atlee Phillips, contrary to his sworn testimony to the HSCA in his first Executive Session appearance, had not been in Mexico City at the time of LHO's alleged visit to that city. He had been on a temporary duty assignment at CIA Headquarters and at the CIA JMWAVE station in Miami.

Yes, yet as I show.. Phillips is promoted to the Cuban Desk in Mexico on Friday Sept 27....  while Oswald, Mugrado and "Leopoldo" are with Odio in Dallas...

 I was able to establish that most of the sources of the stories (read: Alvarado & Duran) were, or had been, agents or assets used at one time or another by David Atlee Phillips

-----

It also delves into the DRE and the staged encounter in New Orleans...  yet Odio and the two other men spoke of JURE

And weren't those two groups at odds with each other?  1 man involved with both groups would be a big red flag... right?

 

 

As I understand it, Whiitten was removed from the internal investigation by Helms and replaced by Angleton when he felt they had lied to him about LHO and started exploring the Cuban/JMWAVE nexus. He was the only one of the bunch whose career didn’t rise after the assassination and eventually left the agency. So he has my vote as a patriot seeking the truth.

Whitten and Sprauge - the two honest investigators who would’ve got to the bottom of this whole charade if allowed to proceed.

JFK was a reckless rogue with women -and his behavior risked compromising his responsibilities as President, especially sharing a mistress with a mobster.

He made a huge mistake with the BoP but that has got a bit more understandable with more context in recent years.

And his presidential fitness program is still the most difficult athletic endeavor I ever participated in, and I was a pretty good athlete. So I hold that against him as well.

Am I still a cultist/fan man?

46 minutes ago, B. A. Copeland said:

Reopenkennedycase were on this as well late last year sometime. Fascinating study:

http://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t1680-was-the-fpcc-cia-operation-under-the-direction-of-gibson

May I add that this seems to be pretty significant news (aside from the fact that they outed the guy....strange as all hell).....?

I thought the same thing - significant news.

I’d like to know who wasn’t connected with US intelligence among LHO’s interactions in ‘63?

‘“It is at a very strategic point in the parade route. Whoever pulled this devious act knew he was picking a key location for his attempt on the president’s life.”

Hmmm....

Thanks for posting this, DVP.

On 4/5/2018 at 10:37 AM, James DiEugenio said:

Thanks for that one.  Man, I guess to get one we have to give one.

 

On Congo, did you know that during the 1960 election, JFK mentioned Africa 479 times!  That is how interested he was in the subject.  That is why when he gets the news of Lumumba's death, his face is contorted in distress.  And Lumumba was killed just three days before JFK was inaugurated.  But they hid it from him for almost a month.

In just a few short months, Dulles and JFK were opposed to each other on the Bay of Pigs, Congo and the OAS rebellion in France.  

Really, what choice did JFK have except to fire him. 

 

I always felt the CIA created the circumstances for Lumumba’s death, like they so often did, before JFK could have a say.

19 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Mike:

Two brief points I discovered.

1.) Kennedy's ideas about foreign policy, especially in the Third World, were formed many years before he entered the White House.  His ideas began to change with a trip to Saigon in 1951.

Click here https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/edmund-gullion-jfk-and-the-shaping-of-a-foreign-policy-in-vietnam

This culminated with his great Algeria speech in 1957.  Jim Douglass and many others think the American University speech was his best.  I disagree, considering when this speech was made and who he was targeting, the Dulles Brothers, Nixon and Eisenhower,  and how far ahead of time it was, I think this is his best.  If you read it closely, he even hints at a possible explosion of Muslim fundamentalism due to oppression, this was 22 years before it happened.  The next year, Kennedy bought a hundred copies of The Ugly American and sent them to the rest of the senators.

2.) Because of his revolutionary foreign policy in the Third World, Kennedy was very much up against it with the Power Elite, that is the Eastern Establishment power brokers who hated him for what he wanted to do in places like Congo and Indonesia.  That is let the citizens there have access and the profits to their own resources.  And if they did not have the means to do so then get better deals from the foreign companies who were extracting their wealth.  Don Gibson's book, Battling Wall Street is pretty good on this issue.  So is Greg Polgrain's The Incubus of Intervention.

 

 

Thanks, Jim. I’ll be checking out the references you provided. Appreciate it.

One point I like to make is that I think JFK’s Irish heritage informed his world view. It was pretty obvious which side he was on when you’re talking nationalist rights vs colonialism with regards to Britain and Ireland, IMO. Plus he loved the Irish rebel tunes!

But I’m probably revealing too much of my JFK cult perspective.

It gets stranger... from Spartacus:

“[Gibson] stated that it was his personal opinion that it would be much more effective to use the FPCC as a cover for intelligence and counter-intelligence purposes...”

http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKfairplay.htm

Isn’t that what CTers have maintained all along regarding Oswald’s interaction with the ‘subversive grassroots group’ - the FPCC was more like a CIA and FBI front group and commie honey pot?

And somehow the future alleged assassin walks across the FPCC’s path and also the CIA-backed DRE within weeks of each other. But of course nobody knew him or paid him any mind.

 Just another former Marine defector/traitor interacting with groups secretly guided/infiltrated by US intel  agencies completely by chance and yet also completely unmolested.

Waiting for MSM to put this on the nightly news.... jk

The FPCC was co-founded by a future CIA agent? We already know the FBI had an informant at the top of the organization in ‘63. Were there any actual Castro supporters running it? 

And the supposed pro-Castro leftist turned spook, Richard Gibson, is still alive at 87.

Jefferson Morley has the goods here:

http://www.newsweek.com/richard-gibson-cia-spies-james-baldwin-amiri-baraka-richard-wright-cuba-926428?amp=1&__twitter_impression=true

6 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

About 95% of the Kennedy assassination books would lead one to think that Kennedy's foreign policy dealt primarily with Cuba and Vietnam.  And in that he was in conflict with the CIA and the Pentagon and to a lesser extent the Mob.    But in the research I have done in this field--and its been quite a lonely endeavor--I discovered this was far from the facts and the record.  

Jim, curious how the above about JFK’s foreign policy and relationship with the security agencies is wrong.

I’m under the impression Mervyn that you are actually hiding you’re own political bias towards the Kennedys and are unable to have a clear view of the political context of their murders, IMHO. I could be wrong. 

Thanks for the photos, Dave.

l don’t believe everything every CTer ever said, but I do know this - much of the accusations they originally made have turned out to be true, e.g.:

- JFK was at odds with his national security agencies on a variety of issues, from a ‘winnable’ nuclear war against Russia to Cuba, Laos and Vietnam. He was not a ‘normal’ war-mongering president on communism. And there was venom against him by some for that.

- The CIA was involved with Oswald through their agents in the DRE. We don’t know how closely because the CIA lied and continues to obstruct on the evidence and won’t come clean on it.

- The WC and to some degree the HSCA were not thorough, honest investigations, hampered by intel agencies lying and obstructing justice.  Not to mention Cold War tensions the WC faced and the sabotage of Sprague - a truly independent prosecutor - with the HSCA. 

- The highest echelons of the CIA - Helms and Angleton - were lying about what they knew about the DRE and Oswald before the assassination, and kept quiet when Joannides fooled Congress.

- Not that I think he was involved but Clay Shaw did lie about being connected with the CIA.

Not absolute proof of conspiracy but plenty to keep an open mind on the case.

3 hours ago, Mervyn Hagger said:

Mike, Americans have been fed a lot of drivel about a lot of things and JFK died before his disasters could be pinned on him. They were pinned on LBJ (who was no shining star) and a lot of other people (many who deserved it.) But as for JFK he was an image without substance who created one heck of a mess - just like his brothers and just like their father. As for Jackie, well the fact that she got away with her myth only goes to show how stupid the public are and why TV producers never aimed above a 13 year old mentality. No I am not a Kennedy fan at all. Over the years Americans have become a lot more cynical and because moral codes have been removed they are not judgmental about the lives of politicians in general, although the current hoopla by bimbos, sometimes decades after the fact is now creating another wrecking ball for the idea of American 'justice'. It is almost another aspect of religious and racial bigotry. But just as the witch trials of old eventually became seen for what they really were, so this bimbo phase will also pass, but not without creating a wave of destroyed lives in its wake. The Kennedys unfortunately have so far got away with a lot that they should be blamed for, and perhaps that day will also dawn. However, the question of who shot Jack and why, still remains to be answered. Whether it was or was not LHO, I am convinced that he was as he claimed he was, a 'patsy' in someone else's game.

Well, you got the last part right

i dissgree about your assessment of JFK. I think the Camelot crap actually trivializes and distracts from what a unique president he was in modern times. 

For instance, he understood nationalist movements for what they were - people yearning for freedom and self-determination not simply places to stop communist influence. 

Also, his attempts to end the Cold War a good 25 years before it did are obvious. The test ban treaty was a huge first step in lessening nuclear tension while his call for a joint mission to the Moon with the Russians was out and out radical even to this day.

 Not sure what you mean by the bimbos and American justice unless you’re talking about Trump’s issues which go far beyond his affairs, IMO.

On 5/8/2018 at 9:03 PM, Cory Santos said:

Well, I take 3 things away, 1) Hoover told RFK about JFK in a cold voice, no emotion.  2) RFK thought "they" would go after him 3) There was a conspiracy to protect the bureaucracy.

It would be nice to ask, based on the new records, did you know A?  or B? or C?  Does that change your mind about if there was a conspiracy?

https://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=131457&page=1

Contradictions undermining his no conspiracy conclusion abound.

For instance, Thomas claims distrust in govt happened because they were ‘covering up’ anything to assure the public Oswald acted alone and the communists didn’t do it.

But RFK INSTANTLY suspected the Cuban/CIA nexus, and he was better informed than most on that front.. 

Then Thomas admits JFK did separate himself from his national security state following the BoP,  and the fact that gap only grew is now clearer than ever and could’ve served as a motive behind the assasination with govt plotters using the very real fear of nuclear war to avoid investigation.

Also what Thomas doesn’t address is if the intel agencies covered their tracks in the interest of calming the citizenry why the CIA continued to lie and obstruct justice in the case for decades leading up to the present day.

Sorry, ain’t buying it. More blinders and ignorance from a MSM journalist on the assassination. He even trots out the condescending and insulting ‘a little man killed a big man’ theory on why thinking adults don’t believe the official story.

BTW the reason the American people still love JFK isn’t based on some myth Jackie made up. It comes from the fact that he was a helluva smart guy who had the American people’s best interests at heart and was committed to a creating a peaceful world in a very dangerous time. 

Apparently there is ‘stylometry’ software that may be able to help.

It’s so strange this was kept secret with no author identified or other context.  JFK had been talking disarmament since he became president, just not at this level of detail.

Whoever wrote it knew geo-politics well which was JFK’s forte.

3 hours ago, Michael Clark said:

Yes, I am astonished that it has not garnered more interest. It could very well be that it is not new, but is is released in it's latest form, with some redaction removed. One can clearly see the change in fonts, so it may have been further messed with, but I am nearly completely convinced that JFK wrote it. I think that it can be proven by experts that he did write it, if it was written by him. If it was, it is of great historical importance.

No doubt. 

Interesting that the title resembles JFK’s title for his American University speech, ‘Toward a Strategy of Peace.’

1 hour ago, Michael Clark said:

Hi Mike, it was part of the recent release. No provenance. No Author. What you see is all I know. I agree with your assessment.

Helluva find, Michael.

20 minutes ago, Michael Clark said:

Thanks for that Robert. Unfortunately, War and perpetual antagonism proved too profitable, especially when the promised space race could be had as well.

Aloow me to share a document that mat be relevant. I think that this may very well have been written by JFK. I see it as a foreign policy primer for his administration, congress, and the states. It also, IMO, reads like a précis for a speech. It's unfathomable that it was withheld for so long. It's classification as Top Secret highlights the perps and their motivations.

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2018/docid-32626310.pdf

Quite a document, Michael. Do you have any background on the context of its creation and purpose? The writing does sound like JFK to me.

Explosive really to anyone who understands how radical these ideas are. I can recall supporting a nuclear freeze initiative in the 80s that was considered radical. Can’t imagine how the security state felt about this in the fall of 1963.

Was this part of the most recent release of docs?  Obviously no national security interest to keep this secret like you say. This was purely to hide JFK‘s intention to end the nuclear arms race.