Michaleen Kilroy

Thomas -

If the CIA can explain why Richard Helms, David Phillips and George Joannides said nothing to any authorities the night of the assassination when the networks ran the NO footage of Oswald messing with the DRE, I'll drop them off my list.  These CIA men maintained their silence about their intimate knowledge of the agency/DRE relationship to their deaths.

If you can also get them to explain their reticence discussing the coin-operated DRE but spilling the beans on Oswald and Kostikov the day after the assassination (while giving LHO a pass when the two actually met), you can remove Angleton as well.

Until then, no dice.  They're suspects, IMO.

Mike

Interesting.  Thanks, Steve.

Quote

I personally think that Veciana identifying Oswald as having met with his (Veciana's) case officer, Bishop or Phillips (or whatever he was calling himself that day) was no mistake. He not only undercut Oswald, but he undercut the CIA as well.

Can you clarify?  When you say it was "no mistake" - meaning he lied deliberately or he was correct?  Not sure how that 'undercuts' Oswald.  Definitely the CIA.

I'm just aghast at Helms, personally.  If you read that meeting summary, he was up to his eyeballs in managing these guys.  They somehow run across the alleged assassin a year later and Helms doesn't say a word about it.  That's just highly suspicious to me and gets to the crux of CIA subterfuge around the assassination.

29 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Mike,

 

I too read the CNN article that Jim Hargrove referenced, and I've been doing some thinking. Immediately after the assassination, the DRE jumped all over the fact that they knew Oswald, and I got to wondering why they would do that. At first glance, you would think that they would want to deny they knew anything about this presidential killer, let alone that they had had dealings with him.

 

But then I got to thinking, by jumping out ahead of the story, they tried to kill two birds with one stone:

1) They revealed that, yeah, we knew the guy, but we knew right off the bat that he was a no good rat bastard, Castro-loving, commie, and we sent him packing; and,

2) They undercut the CIA. I would be interested to know when the rumors of Oswald being a government informant first began to surface; not only post-assassination, but pre-assassination as well. I would like to know what rumors about Oswald were being circulated by the cuban-exile groups. I think I will start a separate thread on that question in the Forum

The CIA and the Cuban exile groups were not strictly working together. There was no love lost. As 1961 and 1962 wore on, the Cuban exile groups began to realize that the CIA was just stringing them along. The official policy of Jack and Bobby Kennedy was that, "Yeah, we support the Cuban exile cause, but we can't lend the legitimacy of the United States to their efforts by allowing them to launch their overthrow efforts from U.S. soil." "We'll support their raids on Cuba, as long as they are launched from somewhere else. So we'll set them up in Guatemala and Nicaragua."

The Cuban exiles, on the other hand, needed that legitimacy. They needed the world to know that their overthrow efforts had the full backing and support of the United States government.

You might want to read this April 12, 2001 article by Jefferson Morley in the Miami New Times Magazine.

"We worked with the CIA," recalls Salvat. "We never subordinated ourselves to them."

http://www.miaminewtimes.com/news/revelation-1963-6353139

 

Steve Thomas

 

 

Thanks, Steve.  Not sure if you've seen this summary of Helms' meeting the DRE leadership in November 1962:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=18923#relPageId=1&tab=page  

 Highlights include:

• The meeting was held to get the DRE more firmly under the CIA’s control.  Its leadership had been on TV citing their sources in Cuba who say the Russian missiles were not being removed following the Cuban Missile Crisis.
• Helms tells the DRE leadership he will now manage them through an intermediary in the CIA who he will personally select and who will report directly to him (Joannides would be the one chosen).  
• The DRE receives 90% of its funding from the CIA.  I believe somewhere in the memo DRE leadership admits it would not exist without CIA funding.
• Helms tells them new orders will be coming for "collaboration" but neither the press nor the exile community can know about it.
• Helms tell the DRE that if they ever appear on TV again, they should immediately contact him or the new case officer (Joannides).

Now imagine your Helms and Joannides on the night of the assassination.  You see video from the group YOU secretly fund and manage on national TV with the arrested Oswald.  

If you're a guiltless patriot, don't you immediately alert the FBI and all other authorities?  Let them know that they need to thoroughly investigate the DRE and all connected parties and the CIA will help them?  Don't you also take the DRE leadership to task for not alerting you about Oswald and "being on TV" in NO?

No.  Instead, if you're Helms and Joannides, you don't tell a soul about the relationship and take the secret to your grave.

That, IMO, is incriminating on its face.  To paraphrase the old Casablanca line, in all the gin joints in all the towns in all the world, somehow the alleged assassin walked into the CIA's.  And if it was pure coincidence, they could've said so immediately.  But they kept it quiet and the agency still won't explain it.

Maybe even CNN is finding it hard to ignore the growing 'fact pattern' of CIA subterfuge surrounding the assassination. 

I am now at a place where the CIA would have to prove it DIDN’T do the crime.  There's a myriad of reasons but just these basic facts are enough for me to require the agency to explain itself:

1) Video of Oswald showing his pro-Castro bona fides appears on national TV the night of the assassination, before he was even charged with the crime. That video WOULD NOT EXIST nor WOULD’VE MADE IT TO DC BEFORE JFK’S BODY without the CIA and its propaganda assets - the DRE and Ed Butler of INCA. Prima facie evidence for me that the agency wanted to set the narrative and perception immediately.  Top CIA official Richard Helms directed the DRE through Joannides and never told any investigative body about his knowledge of that relationship in 1963.

2) Angelton’s office in getting both MC station and FBI to “stand down” on Oswald after this traitorous defector meets with Russia’s head of wet operations. Two weeks later CIA was following Kostikov closely after he entered the U.S. He was a major figure to them. Think James Douglass nailed this in “Unspeakable” – the ‘maturing’ memo was to hide LHO until the crime was done then alert LBJ and Hoover after the fact and scare the govt away from a real investigation.

3) CIA has lied and covered-up on all the above for decades. Like Bugliosi said endlessly about Oswald, lies are proof of guilty knowledge.

Thanks for clarifying, James.  Never understand the down-playing of JFK's unique approach and attitude in both his foreign and domestic policies by those calling themselves progressives.

This from Alternet:

https://www.alternet.org/visions/chomsky-republican-party-most-dangerous-organization-human-history

Excerpted:

Quote

 

NC: There are some steps towards imposing constraints and limits on state violence. For the most part, they come from inside. So for example, if you look at the United States and the kinds of actions that John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson could carry out in Vietnam, they were possible because of almost complete lack of public attention.

I don’t know if you know, but as late as 1966 in Boston we could barely have an anti-war action because it would be violently broken up with the support of the press and so on. By then, South Vietnam had been practically destroyed. The war had expanded to other areas of Indochina. The Reagan administration, at the very beginning, tried to duplicate what Kennedy had done in 1961 with regard to Central America. So they had a white paper more or less modeled on Kennedy’s white paper that said the Communists are taking over. It was the usual steps, the propaganda, but it collapsed quickly. In the case of the Kennedy white paper, it took years before it was exposed as mostly fraudulent, but the Wall Street Journal, of all places, exposed the Reagan white paper in six months. There were protests by church groups and popular organizations and they had to kind of back off. What happened was bad enough but it was nothing like Indochina.

 

Anyone have any clue what 'white paper' he's talking about?

More excerpts from the Arkansas News' conversation with former Secret Service agent Mike Howard:

Quote

Part of what they reviewed was Oswald’s notebook. Howard said it contained statements that Oswald would kill FBI agent James Hosty, John Connelly, Gen. Edwin Walker and vice president Nixon.

Quote

Do you have any reservations about the Commission’s findings, I asked? “Oh no. They tried their best with what information they had. They failed to put one thing in there that was a dead ringer and that was what was in his notebook, where someone had torn out the page where he said he was going to kill these people. Someone tore that page out between the time it left our hands and when it got to the Warren Commission. It (the notebook) went through the FBI, which is who we turned it over to.“

This makes no sense at all to me.  Why does the FBI get rid of the pages that would shore up the lone nut theory?  And if pages were removed, why didn't Howard bring this up with the WC at the time, or at least confront the FBI?  This is still obstruction of justice, however you look at it.

47 minutes ago, Steve Thomas said:

Mike,

 

Just for your own curiosity, you might be interested in this list of subversive groups that were investigated by the Dallas Police Criminal Intelligence Division prior to Kennedy's visit.

It's in Box 13, Folder# 4, Item# 52 of the DPD Archives here:

http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/box13.htm

 

I have become convinced that Oswald was not in tthe Police Department's  Intelligence files. In other words, the feds didn't share what they knew about Oswald.

 

Steve Thomas

Thanks, Steve.

Yes, I believe Oswald was removed from the FBI Watch List after the spurious memo from CIA HQ to Mexico City repeating two-year-old State Dept claims that Russia had "matured" him.

Coulda been a mistake.  Coulda been deliberate.  But no investigative body knew enough to ask at the time.

I thought this was an interesting new tidbit from a recent article on a Secret Service man on JFK's detail in Fort Worth, the stop before the Dallas:

During his advance work, Howard had investigated approximately 30 people who had made some kind of threatening comment.
He told me they came up with whatever reason they could dream up to put some of them in jail during the visit. Many of them disliked Kennedy solely because he was Catholic. “Some of them made the crack that they ought to kill that SOB,” said Howard. Of those 30, some ended up in jail and others tailed by agents and police.

http://www.hsvvoice.com/news/20180220/secret-service-agent-remembers-jfk-assassination---part-i

So cranks in Fort Worth get the Secret Service's full attention while a traitorous communist defector who recently got on the radar of the CIA and FBI with altercations in New Orleans and his supposed shenanigans in Mexico City with our enemies' embassies - and now working on the motorcade route - barely gets a nod.

On 2/15/2018 at 2:28 PM, David Boylan said:

So I did a little more digging and found this.

 

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=23765&relPageId=3

104-10170-10027: AMSPELL STATUS

11/15/62: A secret letter from AMSPELL to AMBARB delegates was sent about this date, laying the groundwork for recalling in AMBARBs in early December due to conflict with CIA. AMHINT-53 (Luis Fernandez-Rocha) cited AMSPELL policy "against coexistence". "On 5 December 1962 Walter D. Newby (George Joannides) was introduced to AMHINT-53 and succeeded Harold D. Noemayr (Ross Crozier) as the responsible case officer for the project."

http://aarclibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/dan_hardway_aarc_9_26_14.pdf

And this - In the fall of 1962, George Joannides was hand picked by Richard Helms to replace Ross Crozier as the CIA’s DRE case officer in Miami after DRE’s public opposition to the government’s policies during the October, 1962, missile crisis. 11 Joannides reported directly to Helms. 12 Joannides’s registered pseudonym was Walter D. Newby. His supervisor was Robert K. Trouchard. Up to 90% of the DRE’s operating funds came from the CIA. 13 The ARRB managed to force the CIA to declassify a few ofJoannides’sfitnessreports. 14 

 

Thanks for this, David.  I went to Dan Hardway's article in the third link and then tracked down the memo he cites where Helms promises the DRE a new CIA liaison that he will personally appoint and manage.  Here is a link to that memo: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=18923#relPageId=1&tab=page (Memorandum for the Record, Mr. Helms’ Conversation with Luis Fernandez Rocha...., RIF 104-10170-10022)

For me, this memo should be of incredible interest and meaning for assassination researchers.  In it, Helms, the second in command of the CIA, tells the Cuban group:

o Helms will essentially manage them through his intermediary - the soon-to-be-chosen Joannides - who will report directly to Helms. 

o Helms expresses intense interest in continuing the agency's the group despite the fact the US policy toward Cuba was then unknown and might be disagreeable to the DRE when a decision was made.

o Helms also told the group's leaders that whatever that policy was, they would have to maintain it under strict confidence.  He was concerned about a new policy toward Cuba being spread among the exile community.

o Rocha stated that he could not guarantee the DRE would be able to continue the relationship for a change in U.S. policy toward coexistence would differ from what the DRE believes is a duty to their country.

o Rocha gave Helms his "word of honor" he would inform his contact or Helms when the DRE felt they could no longer cooperate with the Agency because of the difference in what the believed in and U.S. policy. 

o Rocha claimed they were still anxious to cooperate with the Agency, and it was "foolish to think" that without Agency support they could continue their present level of activity.  He in fact stated that "80 to 90 percent of their activity would cease" if Agency funds were discontinued.  This would be "suicide," and according to Rocha, this he did not want provided a satisfactory arrangement could be reached.

o Helms also tell the DRE that if they appear on TV, they should immediately contact him or the liaison.  

o Helms again assured Rocha of his continuing personal interest in this relationship. He wanted Rocha to deal with his Agency contact in Miami with this in mind, but he warned Rocha that although this is the case, he did not want the DRE running "end runs" on their contact on matters they can deal with in Miami.  Rocha said he understood.

Ten months later, Oswald interfaced with the DRE in New Orleans, securing TV,  radio and print coverage.  Joannides maintained a personal residence in NO.

After the assassination, Helms serves as the liaison to the Warren Commission and never tells them the CIA coin-operated the DRE.

During the HSCA hearings, with Joannides serving undercover as the agency's liaison to Congress (and with the CIA maintaining the agency broke contact with the DRE in 1963), Helms is asked:

MR DODD:

Are there other things that you can recall that might have had relevancy–things of importance, to the Warren Commission’s investigation of the assassination of an American President.

Mr. HELMS – Well, I don’t know of any others. I can’t think of what they might have been, but then we might have been guilty of some other errors of omission, I don’t know. None come readily to mind. This didn’t come readily to mind at the time.

[source: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/hscahelm.htm[mcadams.posc.mu.edu]

To my mind, Helms' blatant obstruction of justice to the WC, and obstruction and perjury to the HSCA, is THE smoking gun of the Kennedy assassination.  

More documents released would be nice.  But the problem with the assassination is that everyone gets distracted and pulled off into different directions based on the minutiae of the case.  The document releases have served as more shiny objects for the media and public to ooh and ahh over, and get misunderstood usually.

But we don't need more than the above.  Helms' obstruction is the thread that leads to everything else.

Why is the second-in-command of the CIA withholding critical evidence on the assassination of the president from the WC and HSCA?

We need a full investigation into what is described above if we want to get to the bottom of what truly happened, how and why, IMHO.

On 7/23/2017 at 9:45 PM, Jason Ward said:

I'm a long time lurker but this is my first time post, so be easy on me, please...

http://www.richmond.com/news/special-report/jfk/people/buell-wesley-frazier-a-commute-with-oswald-then-a-harsh/article_a9be7f2e-fb7f-5357-91c9-605df00641f7.html

I just thought I'd add this small resource on Frazier because I haven't seen it anywhere on here.  I don't think it says anything we haven't heard before in that the the biggest take-aways from this short interview are 2 points:

1. Frazier's insistence that there is no way he brought a rifle with Oswald in his car, although he did transport some kind of bag.

2. DPD tried to force him to sign a false confession; Frazier claims he retaliated to this by threatening Chief Curry with some "good licks" in a fist fight. (!)

It's hard to tell from such a short article, but it seems to me Frazier definitely wants to keep his distance from Oswald in the mind of the public, going so far as to argue they never stopped for a beer or donut together.  He reiterates that it was all "strictly business."  Given everything I've read it sounds unbelievable that "Frazier took Oswald under his wing," and that Oswald was his "shadow," but they never had any kind of social or off-work time together.

 

 

Spoke with Buell at the JFK Lancer conference.  He told me if the WC was so convinced Oswald brought the Carcano in that bag they allegedly found in the TSBD, why didn't they just try fit it back in the bag?

Maybe the WC did.  But I never saw it.  

11 hours ago, Jim Hargrove said:

A very bad joke, at that.

The evidence seems to indicate elements of both the FBI and the CIA helped to clear the way for the patsification of Oswald.  Six weeks before the assassination, the FBI canceled the wanted notice on Oswald, this just two months or so after he was arrested in New Orleans for allegedly violent pro-Communist activities.  Who is kidding who, here?

At exactly the same time the FBI is turning down the lights on Oswald, the CIA issues it's infamous "LEE HENRY OSWALD" cable, which essentially gave him a clean bill of political health.  This took Oswald out of the spotlight of Federal authorities who otherwise would have been all over him in Dallas on and before 11/22/63.

 

 

Never saw the Wanted Notice on Oswald with the flash cancelled.... how the hell isn't that in every history book?  

If not initial suspects, the FBI and CIA should have at least been under immediate investigation following the assassination... even if behind closed doors by Congress.  

When you add Oswald's threatening note to the FBI and "Comrade Kostin" letter to the Russian embassy two weeks before the assassination, what else do you need to at least pin criminal negligence on these agencies?

Some heads should've rolled, conspiracy or not.  And Congress and DOJ should've got to the bottom of why both of the above documents happened at all.

It’s a really good interview and summary of Morley’s book.

That said, I think the implications of Angleton’s surveillance of Oswald went past Rockwell.

If you look at the goals of Cointelpro - of spying and messing with ‘dangerous’ leftist groups and individuals - then LHO was a perfect candidate for their close monitoring and harassment.

Yet somehow this guy who rings every alarm bell you could - defector, traitor, FPCC supporter, meeting with head of KGB assassination program in MC, falls through the cracks and kills the president. In some ways not even falls thru the cracks, he appears to be assisted in his activities and travels or at the very least used for an intelligence purpose.

Makes the conclusions of both the WC and HSCA look like a joke.

7 hours ago, Pat Speer said:

While the format of the show (Bob Baer=supersleuth), and its constant claims of presenting "new" evidence that's actually been known for decades, is undoubtedly annoying, I consider the program a win for the research community overall.

I mean, think about it. Baer, a respected former CIA officer, is hosting a main-stream produced program in which he flat-out claims the FBI and CIA hid evidence from the public and that the "official" story of Oswald being some lone-nut stinks. While a step to the side of the path we might envision, it's nevertheless a step forward from the Bugliosi-fueled "the WC was totally legit and all the people claiming it was a cover-up are wackos" rut of the last decade's programs re JFK.

That's what I thought as well from the start of this series, too, Pat.  The series was dim-witted and wrong on many counts, but the positive impacts probably outweighed the negatives on helping the American people get the full truth of the assassination.

25 minutes ago, Jeff Carter said:

This version of the limited hangout was first promoted on the CBS program "Face The Nation" in November 2013 by Peggy Noonan and Bob Woodward. Their discussion on this program also, I believe, introduced the term "deep state" to the American mainstream media. Noonan claimed the coverup was engineered by "patriots" who avoided WWIII while also preserving the State which would eventually win the Cold War. A potted history, for sure, but also an acknowledgment the official story had withered against the 1990s document releases. But such a slow agonizing withering...

Well said, Jeff.  Interesting that such 'radical' observations came from two establishment media representatives.

Who can figure out the History Channel’s “JFK Declassified” series?

Its own history falls perfectly in line with all the other inexplicable shenanigans surrounding the JFK case itself.

Earlier this fall, two episodes of the 6-part series were aired and then the series disappeared.  No explanation was given even as many people contacted the cable channel to find out what happened.  No one responded, either directly, on the History Channel site or on the cable channel’s social media.

The episodes started appearing overseas and in Canada and interested U.S. viewers had to read written descriptions of the remaining episodes.

Then, as abruptly as it disappeared, it showed back up on the History Channel with back-to-back airings of the final four episodes, looking for all the world like they wanted to bury it but still fulfill some contractual obligation.  There was no promotion or explanation.  Luckily, I just happened to see that the episodes were airing that night and recorded them.

Not to say it was any great shakes as a serious inquiry into the assassination.  Jim DiEugenio’s site did a fine job of taking down each episode here: https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-reviews/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald-part-6

But despite it’s many failings, I kind of enjoyed watching JFK Declassified.  Partly because it was the first documentary I saw on the case that actually filmed at the locations where key events took place – the likely CIA surveillance room overlooking the entrance to the Russian embassy in Mexico City, the training camp at Lake Ponchartrain, an anti-Castro Cuban safehouse in Dallas, etc. 

And while the producer and show host, former CIA man Bob Baer, did his best to keep his focus on Castro as the likely culprit, if you watch the show informed with the facts of the case, it was amusing to watch Baer tie himself in knots to keep from casting aspersions or suspicion toward the agency.

And there was the “first” that I’ve seen in any assassination documentary -- a CIA man admitting that LHO understood “tradecraft” by the way he conducted himself.

Then last week, without any notice again, another episode appeared, this one focused on Baer riffing on the new document releases.

And this is where things got interesting.

While Baer spent most of the hour heading down the same old worn path that the Russians, Castro or combined evil Commie forces killed the president, in the end he doesn’t seem too convinced of that scenario any longer.

He reads the now fully released Nov. 24 Hoover memo distributed two hours after LHO is murdered – the “public must be convinced…” one.  As usual, he mischaracterizes Hoover's statement as new, but it does get Baer riled up.  Here’s some of his reaction to the memo (or something to this effect):

 “He should be screaming ‘I need to know the facts on this guy!’

“It’s not appropriate for the head of an investigative body to be shutting down the investigation.”

“This is a political response to a criminal act.”

“It’s basically an order to all FBI agents and field offices not to investigate.  It’s a cover-up.”

Baer then gives Hoover a pass and says he is reacting this way to avoid nuclear war.  But then another memo is released that shows Hoover barely reacting to LHO being killed and saying they had told DPD the FBI had received threats against the alleged assassin’s life.

Baer reacts:

“The FBI should’ve been there protecting LHO.  After learning of the threat, they didn’t send agents to protect him.  The FBI did nothing pro-active.  It’s almost a relief for the FBI that LHO isn’t around.  Because they can write the whole case off.  They want him dead.  Everyone wants him dead.  They easily could’ve kept LHO alive – they chose not to.”

“The FBI and CIA did not seem to care.  It’s either colossal incompetence or an organized cover-up.  Since 1963, we’ve been kept in the dark about who killed JFK.  54 years later we’re starting to get real evidence.  It’s certainly not a lone wolf.”

 “Now the intelligence community is pressing the POTUS to withhold files.  There’s always the possibility it’s not to protect sources and methods - it’s to protect themselves.”

 “It’s embarrassing what they knew.”

When asked what he’s looking for in the next releases, Baer says, “The FBI’s connection to Jack Ruby. What the FBI knew about Jack Ruby and his connections to mob.  Why are they trying to hide it?”

The FBI’s “connection” to Ruby?  Never heard of that line of inquiry before.

After seeing this episode, I’m not sure what Baer’s game is.  He seems sincere in his passion to solve the assassination mystery, at least in his own mind.  But he also makes huge factual errors, never points to CIA malfeasance and obstruction, takes credit for breaking news that has been known for years, and constantly pushes the Castro did it line with Russian help theory.  Most times, he just seems to be sent to muddy the waters yet again for the public.

But those last few minutes of this episode make me think he’s a witting or unwitting part of an operation to create a “soft landing” when the final files are released.  In other words, narrow culpability down to a few scapegoats in the intelligence community from decades ago and help the agency escape permanent institutional damage.

Anyway, if you want to see the episode, you can find it here:

http://www.history.com/shows/jfk-declassified-tracking-oswald/season-1/episode-7

Not sure if this has been noted on this forum before but I never knew it - Oswald hitchhiked.

Long before the days of Uber, people would hitchhike as a mode of transportation.  I know my dad did in the 50s to travel across Ohio to see my mom.  Hitchhikers were a fairly a common sight in the post-WWII era.

Ruth Paine mentions Oswald hitchhiking in her WC testimony:

Mr. JENNER - Did any conversation ensue as to how he had, by what means he had come from Dallas to Irving? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. He then said that he had hitchhiked out, caught a ride with someone who brought him straight to the door, a Negro man. 
Mr. JENNER - To your door? 
Mrs. PAINE - Yes. To whom he said that he had been away from his wife and child and he was just now getting home, and the man kindly brought him directly to the door. 

Might explain how Oswald got around at times when no other explanation is plausible.

For me, that was the most enlightening and compelling presentation of the conference.

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

Hi Mike K.,

There's testimony in the WC volumes to the effect that the Carcano can be assembled using nothing but just a regular ol' ten-cent piece. (Do you disagree with that?)

Re: the spacing of the shots....

There were several witnesses (at least 7 or 8) who said the shots were more "evenly spaced", instead of the last 2 being closer together. So there's certainly SOME conflicting testimony regarding that subject (although you'll never hear a CTer ever mention the eight witnesses I talk about in the post below when it comes to this topic)....

http://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/2014/05/jfk-assassination-arguments-part-710.html

Thanks for replying, David.

I've ready a few books that attempt to make it 4-6 bullet sounds.  But after speaking to 3 witnesses personally, each with the identical description and based in different areas of Dealey, I'm going with that.  So saying there were only 3 is somewhat anti-CT.  I think the WC and DPD have supporting witness testimony that backs it up - 3 shots, two coming on top of each other at the end.

Did Oswald have a dime on him when arrested?  So you think he dropped his bag in sniper's nest when he came into the building and then later put it together with a dime with the clock ticking there?

I'd love to see a re-creation of someone putting together a working Carcano with a dime in a few minutes.  At least one writer I've seen said he couldn't do it.

David - I've always wanted to ask the lone nut theorist - where and when did Oswald assemble the rifle?  There was no screwdriver found in the 'sniper's nest.'  I never heard of any screwdriver being found on the Sixth Floor.  He HAD to assemble it on the 6th floor but there were people up there until as late as 12:15 - 10 minutes before the motorcade was due to pass by.  He couldn't assemble it on another floor and bring it up to the 6th.

The Carcano also broke down into about 9 different parts as I recall with screws.  Was all that stuff rattling around in the "lunch" bag that Wesley Frazier said in no way was big enough to even carry the disassembled rifle?  (And Wesley made a good point to me personally at the recent JFK Lancer conference - did the WC ever place the disassembled Carcano back in the bag that was found themselves to see if it fits instead of badgering him to say it did?).

And one more thing - the majority of witnesses said the shots came Pow!......[long pause].........Pow!Pow!

How did the Carcano, which the FBI said takes at least 2.5 seconds to recycle, manage those last two shots that were nearly on top of each other?

The glaring"fact pattern" of CIA lies, subterfuge and obstruction around the assassination points to an agency cabal to me featuring Harvey, Phillips, Morales, Helms and Angleton with Dulles playing clean-up.  Would love to see any additional info from Malcolm, a dedicated fact-based researcher.

The facts of the actual shooting are so in dispute because of the rush to judgment on a lone shooter behind the president, and the FBI mangled so much evidence and clearly never investigated any other possibility, the "best evidence" to my mind are in the "document forensics" that Blunt, Newman, et al do.  

I think it would be great to put together a clearly presented, brief declaration of where the facts stand on agency guilt with links to real documents that gets sent to every single media person every single time they cover the assassination.  I've done that in my own way with several reporters and did get some positive feedback, but no breakthrough stories, of course.

Thanks, James.  I'll check it out.

On 11/14/2017 at 1:43 AM, Steve Thomas said:

Mike,

 

I see Oswald as an agent provocateur working on behalf of someone else:

• an effort to infiltrate the DRE and then pick a public street fight in an effort to discredit them in August. The first thing he does is ask to see an FBI agent.
• visit to Sylvia Odio of Jure in September (I personally believe she was involved in trying to smuggle guns into Cuba).
• Oswald's role as a possible informant in the Lawrence Miller/Darnell Whitter case.
• visits to the house on Harlendale "in the last several months" where Alpha 66 is holding bi-weekly meetings.

I think I see a pattern here.

 

Steve Thomas

Yes, there's tons of 'smoke' around Oswald's activities... but no honest investigation ever took place into his intelligence connections.  The WC gave the CIA and FBI a pass, then the HSCA was undermined by a CIA operation to remove Sprague, who was on the right track with a no-holds barred investigation where Blakey cut a deal with the agency (to his everlasting regret).  Then the CIA made sure the JFK Records Act kept Joannides' very existence secret - who was hired by Helms and reported directly to him.  

The CIA has deliberately withheld material evidence from every single investigation and records release body, and now are in violation of the JFK Records Act to release the final records.  Not to mention, both Helms and Angleton can be proven to have lied under oath to Congressional investigators in the '70s with the knowledge we now have.

So much subterfuge for a lone nut shooting a POTUS from a warehouse window.  As Morley has said, you have to be willfully naive to believe the CIA isn't hiding a major revelation that's highly embarrassing if not fatal to the agency.