Benjamin Cole

1 hour ago, Chris Bristow said:

Many of the topics in the JFK issue scream conspiracy yet the debates become rabbit holes with no resolution. Complicated subjects like the magic bullet have longstanding threads that go back decades. The same debate is repeated every few years. There is enough wiggle room to create  1% of doubt and then the debate hits a wall. Just how much did the shirt and coat bunch up? Exactly where did the bullet enter JFK's back? Can a bullet slow down enough so it won't deform and still have enough energy to break the radius bone in two? Why has it been impossible to duplicate the near pristine magic bullet for the last half century? Those are rhetorical questions because like most folks here I already have a strong personal opinion. Some smart person once said that if a group of people are 100% convinced of something they will take action on it. But if even a slight doubt is injected the group won't take any action at all. I think this is why some skeptics arguments look absurd on the face of it but if it creates even an iota of doubt the issue becomes clouded.
 When the skeptics argue that the Parkland doctors never got to look at the head wound because they were too busy trying to save JFK's life you just have to laugh. (Maybe the whole thing is too morbid to laugh at their crazy statement, ok)
   The ABC's of resuscitation would prevent them from doing any detailed examination until the airway, breath  and circulation is established. But the WC testimony alone completely and utterly refutes claims that they did not take a look at the head wound before they left the room. They have to add the caveat "detailed" examination but it still does not fly.
 Doctor Perry said he only did a cursory examination of the head wound but noted it was a large avulsive wound in the right occipital parietal with lacerated scalp and missing bone with a serious laceration of the brain. This statements ruins the skeptics argument that we can't trust the Parkland staff because they never did a "thorough examination". Perry's statement is proof that they could ascertain the basics of the wound without any detailed examination. further proof lies in the consistency of so many of the staff's testimony.
 The most compelling testimony that should bury that  skeptical argument is what doctor Clark stated. When he decided to call of the resuscitation he cited three reasons for doing so. 1) the cardiograph showed no heart beat. 2) JFK had shown no muscular or neurological response to their efforts. 3) The head wound was mortal!
  The absolute fact that Dr Clark based his decision in part on the head wound being mortal should have ended the crazy talking point about the doctors never getting a good look at the head wound. It is a complete refutation of their argument. But the argument is a zombie lie in that it will not die. I have driven that point home in discussions with skeptics and then a couple months later they are back to repeating the crazy lie.  Their goal is to create that 1% doubt in the uneducated not to resolve the issue.
 Every point the skeptics try to put forth to explain why 20 of the 25 staff who expressed an opinion on the wound support the Ct not the official wound location, falls flat.
 Even if we eliminate a half dozen of those 20 staff for minor inconsistencies in their testimony the score is still 14 to 4. Then if we apply the same scrutiny to the 4 doctors who support the official record we have to loose Dr Carrico who did a total flip after 20 years, completely contradicting his sworn statement in the WC and HSCA and his notes on 11/22. Then we have Dr Jenkins letter on the 22nd contradicting his official story(Maybe we just put an asterisk  next to that one). The skeptics can't afford to be too critical as they only have 4 doctors on their side to start with. 
 If we really want to be critical the score may be 12 to 1. There is just no way for them to explain away the Parkland doctors testimony. Not a single argument holds water. I think it is the most compelling evidence of a second shooter and a cover up of the medical evidence that exists in the JFK conspiracy issue.

 

Chris B.--

I largely agree with you, but there has been some progress on recent decades regarding the JFKA.

1. CE 399 has been debunked beyond reasonable doubt by the work of Gary Aguilar, John Hunt, Josiah Thompson and others. The CE 399 bullet was almost certainly, and beyond reasonable doubt, entered into the evidentiary record by the FBI. 

2. A review of the Z film shows JBC was shot by about one second before Z-313, the fatal head shot. Ergo, the narrative of one gunman armed with a single-shot bolt action rifle does not hold water. 

3. Recently re-surfaced are photos of the rear bullet hole in JBC's shirt, at the Texas Archives, but also excellently photographed by researcher Gary Murr. The bullet hole in the JBC shirt rear was measured by the Texas Archive at 3/8ths of an inch by 3/8ths of an inch, and that measurement was after cloth was removed for testing. Ergo, the tumbling bullet striking JBC on its long side narrative cannot hold water. The weight of evidence, again approaching the beyond reasonable doubt standard, is that JBC was shot directly, and from behind. 

4. Researchers such as Larry Hancock and John Newman have deepened the background on LHO and the Miami office of the CIA, through real primary document research and interviews. 

So, yes, the real story, the actual mechanics the JFKA remain agonizingly out of reach.  And yes, we often chase our tails here on the EF, and I plead guilty to some of that. 

BTW, Larry Hancock is preparing an article entitled "Red Bird" that will likely add to the understanding of the JFKA on practical levels. 

So, not all is wrong with the world. A lot, but not all.  Anyway, I felt like saying something positive. 

On 11/12/2020 at 6:26 PM, Chris Bristow said:

I just found a letter Dr Jenkins wrote to the Dean of a medical college on the day of the assassination. In it he describes the wound in JFK's head as "Temporal and occipital". That's a surprise! Being that the temporal occipital area is is even lower than the occipital parietal area it is harder to explain this away as an error. The letter is in vol 20 of the WC on page 252.

 

https://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh20/html/WH_Vol20_0137a.htm

Here is a link, for anyone looking. 

Same day, contemporary testimony, by all appearances done without fear or favor, just telling it like it is. 

Can anyone explain the extant purported JFK skull x-rays, and yet observations such as those of Jenkins? 

Certainly, I can not dispel the possibility the 1960s-era globalists had the JFKA done on their behalf. The multinationals of the era (ala Smedley Butler's insights) certainly expected US foreign, military and trade policy to hew to their interests. 

Larry Hancock's work suggests ties to Cubanos, perhaps a more nuts-and-bolts operation out of CIA-Miami. Maybe with HQ tacit acceptance. Hancock has some real names, face and places, which the big picture schemes do not.  

To me, there is a great temptation in the JFKA to: 

1. Envision a grand scheme.

2. Define the JFKA as highly sophisticated and professional. 

Both of those viewpoints may even be true. 

On the other hand, maybe the JFKA looks grand, sophisticated and professional as it was never investigated, allowing mythologies to develop. 

In no way am I exonerating the CIA or the globalist community for boondoggle-crimes done in Indonesia, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and so on. As James DiEugenio has pointed out, six million SE Asians died in the Vietnam war and aftermaths---and for what? 

Let's see what John Newman and Larry Hancock come up with. I wish I could do some basic research on the case, but I live offshore. 

3 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

I think It’s somewhere in the middle, Ben. It doesn’t have to be as small as 5 or 6 people but, won’t be dozens and dozens. Realistically, you need people who are very pro removing JFK, who have something to gain by his removal, and who have everything to lose by speaking out. Those things ensure silence, all concerned know the cost of  doing otherwise.

For sure very few knew the exact details, it’s not something most people would want to know the details of, as it’s a burden. A bit like Prouty referencing military generals who preferred not to know where the CIA were using loaned weapons or hardware. People just want to look the other way and conform to authority. The structuring of the JFKA would be done in a way that compartmentalises everything, with individuals only knowing their role and not roles of others. You would leave no trail and should anyone want to whistleblow, their story would seem less than complete, they wouldn’t have a story, just a small piece of one. Maybe Oswald was lured into his patsy role using such compartmentalisation?! He could have been hanging out and surveilling Ferry and co, as if they were the organisers of the coming hit, he was informing on them, while being manipulated into his role. At the same time a serious team was working on the JFKA with the CIA or military. People like using Ocrams Razor but, this may be far more Machiavellian. The government had plenty of practice with assassinations and regime changes, always came out of them as something other than the suspects. 

Chris B-

My take is nobody in their right mind would plan a JFKA with anything other than very, very close associates, and then as few as possible. 

There is always the possibility that people were not in their "right mind" due to stress and the ideological fever of the times. In 1962-3, otherwise sane people were advocating a nuclear first strike on Russia. In such an atmosphere, perhaps risks were taken, and bungles made. It is a matter of historical record that Cubans took huge risks, even undertook suicide-type missions, to fight Castro. 

There is also the possibility the true JFKA assassins were concerned about being caught, but more concerned about completing the mission.

Larry Hancock posits the true assassins did not hide multiple gunshots in rapid succession, or that shots came from different directions. 

If true, that suggest the true assassins were ready for a massive manhunt afterwards. But somehow LHO was planted into the JFKA...and you know the rest of the story.

4 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

Well I'll give as frank an answer as I can on those questions (some of which are dealt with in much more detail in SWHT so I can only reference that) - acknowledging up front that parts of the following will be both contrarian and unsatisfactory...but its still my best assessment:

1)  For example, didn't apparent CIA asset Ruth Paine arrange for Oswald's employment at the TSBD in October of 1963?

.....Certainly that worked out nicely for the conspiracy, the question is whether it was organized in advance or taken advantage of in the tactical planning that actually began in October.  As Martino noted,  people did go to Dallas in the weeks prior and the final attack plans were only made then.  What we do have, and what the FBI really did work hard at submerging in their investigative reports, are a series of apparent Oswald job inquiries on Main street and at other locations in the downtown area, all of which occurred before he got the TSBD job. Putting Oswald downtown on the route and later planting the rifle in reasonable place as part of the attack was not ideal but certainly might have been an early option.  We also have to consider that Oswald continued to apply for jobs beyond the TSBD even after he was employed...that's covered in SWHT.  And for that matter there is good reason to suspect some sort of inside contact with one or more employees at the TSBD, possibly though Ruby.  So was the job there mandatory to the attack, probably not, was it really convenient, you bet, who orchestrated it - still an open question for me including how and why the word about the job got to the Paine household, which I suspect was through Frazier. 

If so, isn't the implication that Oswald's role in the assassination op was being handled by the CIA at a level other than JMWave and the Cuban assassins?

......No, normally its expected that the tactical/field team make all the arrangements for setting up the attack, including any diversions, planting of fake evidence and setting up patsy's.  That is just standard trade-craft and mandatory for deniability in any case, regardless of how how up an operation originated.

And why did Oswald try to call a handler/cut out in Raleigh, N.C. after his arrest?

......That one has been debated a great many times, even as to whether or not that call was ever really made.  I have not seen it proved to my satisfaction yet.

2)  Does CIA asset Earl Cabell's involvement in the motorcade route also imply higher level CIA management of the op?

......I've seen proof that Cabell was cleared  for security purposes, could  you  provide something to clarify what he did to consider him an "asset" in an operational sense; its pretty much SOP to run clearances on any family who are related to someone in his brothers position.  Also, could you specify his role in the motorcade - which went down the same standard Main street route virtually all Dallas parades did?

3)  Who had the authority to order the scrubbing and removal of the limo?  The confiscation of JFK's corpse?

......we could discuss that sort of thing all day long and probably not reach any agreement - in any case, as I present in SWHT I consider it part of the damage control and conspiracy - which really was not at all the focus of Tipping Point.

      Doesn't that also imply a higher level of CIA management than the JMWave-affiliated Cuban assassin team?

........some aspects of it do,  primarily what the Secret Service and FBI did with the evidence and what happened at Bethesda,  as per above, but I differentiate that from the conspiracy to kill the President....and long ago gave up trying to convince anyone of that.  I just present my case for my view in SWHT and leave it at that.

4)  The Tipping Point material on Hal Hendrix and the post-assassination JMWave Oswald propaganda was informative.

      But what about C.D. Jackson's purchase of the Zapruder film?  Doesn't the handling of the Zapruder film (and shredded story boards described in Tipping Point) also point to higher level CIA management of the op?

......which takes us back to damage control, cover up and SWHT......I can only add that of  you do tie the two together in one giant conspiracy you have a huge bifurcation between the attack which was carried out very effectively(unfortunately) and the damage control / cover up which was obviously iterative over time with many, many redos and loose ends (including  evidentiary loose ends) all over the place.  If some central authority planned and managed that they  would be the biggest bunglers in history.  To really answer your question - Yes they do point to management of a cover up but one that I feel directly involved LBJ playing lead, not just the CIA. Again, reasons for that and a pretty unique perspective on how and why are in SWHT.

To really deal with your questions SWHT, NEXUS and Tipping Point together address the overall story of the conspiracy, the attack, and what happened afterward, the best I can tell it.  But I certainly don't believe it will answer all your questions, it certainly has not answered all mine.

 

Well, my two cents are Larry Hancock is right on this, there was the small-op JFKA and then the necessarily larger-scale post-JFKA cover-up, they were run by two unrelated sets of people. 

John Newman (at least before) has said the "World War III" virus was planted in LHO, who was then somehow planted into the JFKA, to all but necessitate the ensuing post-JFKA cover-up. 

But I go back to my premise: Pre-event, adding dozens and dozens of witting participants with pre-event knowledge....well, strikes me as a plan that an intel agency would not come up with. 

8 hours ago, W. Niederhut said:

Geez, Ben... talk about an alleged failure of intelligence.  The DHS saw no evidence of illegal activity?

I didn't watch news coverage of the January 6th attack live because I was skiing that day, but I was probably one of the few people on the planet who didn't know that illegal activity was occurring at the Capitol.

One person who, obviously, knew about the attack on Congress was Donald Trump.

According to Bob Woodward's new book, Trump ignored requests for intervention* on January 6th while gleefully watching the attacks on television.

No wonder Trump is now suing to block Congress from seeing his January 6th phone records... 🤥

* Trump ignored pleas to intervene during Capitol riot and kept watching the violence unfold on TV instead

www.businessinsider.com/trump-ignored-plea-stop-capitol-rioters-kept-watching-tv-book-2021-9

 

 

W-

I won't pretend to "know what really happened on Jan. 6."

The narrative some favor, that Trump & Co. organized a strike force to hit the Capitol in hopes of overturning the US national election results and then seizing the reins of the federal government, strikes me as far-fetched, and a media confection.

The above is the narrative that will be pursued by the Jan. 6 committee in the House---but for political reasons.  Whether the narrative is true or not matters little----much like the Brian Sicknick narrative.  Truth is not on the agenda. 

It remains a mystery how 600 lulu's could overwhelm the 6,000 police officers available to the Capitol Police and the DC Metropolitan Police Departments. The Capitol Police report to the legislative branch, not to Trump, and the Metro police to DC officials.  If party politics matter, both departments report to Democrats. 

And then for people to cry out loud they wanted the Pentagon to send National Guard troops! This is ridiculous on the face of it. How many hours or days does it take to call up the Guard? Drama! Drama! Danger! 

In truth, the arrests inside the Capitol were made rather easily, by local police, within a few hours. People did not violently resist arrest inside the Capitol. Once inside, the occupiers did not barricade the doors etc., and they were unarmed. 

Choose a narrative, but for me, the popular narratives do not hold water. 

54 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Yeah, You know that Kavanaugh hearing thing you mentioned?  Back in the U.S. That was about 3 years ago!

Sorry you missed it.

 

heh heh heh

Three years ago for you, but hot off the wire for us. First the burros have to deliver to newspapers to Rangoon, and then they telegraph the headlines down to Ayutthaya, the old capital. 

41 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

I know this also must have been quite a shock for you Ben. Your anti "deep state" hero actually discussing with the deep state CIA the possibility of kidnapping Julian Assange!! It's interesting how Glen Greenwald, who I know you like,  is a big supporter of Julian Assange's struggle, but has been so quiet on twitter about this. But maybe I can give you some badly needed context as  the situation involving Glen is a bit soap operaish now.

 

I noticed  Greenwald's  tweets read more and more like a tabloid these days. He  jumped into the twitter fray a couple weeks ago about of all things, the Nikki  Minaj covid statement concerning her cousin's friend whose testacles swelled up. This is what he said about the "Democrat" response.

Democratic Party YouTubers trying to dictate to

@NICKIMINAJ

what she can and can't say, who she is and isn't permitted to cite, what partisan box she must stay in.

But the truth is, There wasn't  an official response by the Democratic Party. I'm not sure what Glen  is implying. Maybe he just assumes that Nikki Minaj is a Democrat because she's black and  he's putting down the Democrats for turning against their own?? Anyway, you'd think this would be beyond a serious investigative journalist.

What's really needed is context. It's really Glen talking about Glen. Glen, like Assange has experienced some isolation among his peer journalists for aiding Trump over Hillary in the 2016 election. This was motivated by Glen's intense dislike of Hillary Clinton, who Glen sees as such a warmonger when she was Secretary of State for her actions in Libya.  Which, although she does deserve blame,  is honestly sort of a myth in that any Republican would have done the same thing or worse, particularly in those days where there was  this false illusion that the west adapted of "Arab Spring" that all the Middle East countries that were affected were just playing out their natural aspirations toward being free and instituting democracies in their countries.

Whose to say that the CIA wouldn't have assassinate Assange? Whose to say the CIA wouldn't have assassinate Greenwald? Among Glen's major avowed values is First Amendment rights. Glen never realized at the time in 2016 that if Trump had the power, and Glen crossed Trump, Trump wouldn't hesitate to squash him, either through again pulling the levers of government or maybe some of his goons might take it upon themselves to get rid of Glen to which all Trump would say later would be nothing more than " it was unfortunate".

Because wiser minds in his profession saw Trump had tyrannical tendencies to First Amendment rights before he was elected. Naturally they weren't thrilled with Greenwald. So Greenwald's been hissy fitting about it ever since. In theory most all the press uphold both  Assange and Greenwald's First Amendment rights. But they're not going to go to great lengths, because in their perceptions, Assange and Greenwald brought it on themselves.

And now we see Trump and Pompeo  actually considered kidnapping Assange, which only reinforces  Greenwald's past bad judgments. It's not completely right, but sometimes a bad judgment can follow someone the rest of their lives. I hope not. I'd sooner see him get into politics more than silly vendettas.

But here at the local telegraph office, which doubles as an informal salo(o)n, we held Greenwald in high regard. I guess we are abashed now! 

30 minutes ago, Kirk Gallaway said:

Oh Ben! So you were actually profoundly disappointed that Kavanaugh wasn't chastised at his SC appointment hearing for his dragging his feet on the release the JFKA files?

This is what I mean by parachuting out into the America political experience from Thailand! You probably need to sit down to hear this Ben, But  actually the release of the JFKA files is not in the top 40 in priority of either the 2 major parties.  There's not one person in the an American Congress that would divert a second of his questioning time to ask Kavanaugh about it.

 

 

But at the local telegraph office, all us US expats we were quite steamed when we received the news. 

26 minutes ago, Ron Bulman said:

Not quite 56 years on this aspect since it started under Nixon.  But important to the subject in that JFK's elimination was important for the atmosphere under which the current situation has risen.  We and our children are screwed for years.

The Lie About the Supreme Court Everyone Pretends to Believe (msn.com)

Conquerors of the Courts - The Washington Post

It is even worse than the MSN/Atlantic article says.

For the purposes of this forum:

At Judge Kavanaugh's Senate confirmation hearings, the Donks were obsessed that the juvenile Kavanaugh might have groped a girl at a high-school beer party attended by other juveniles. In other words, the whole Dr. Ford episode.

Not a word was uttered about Kavanaugh helping to cover up the JFKA.

From Jeff Morley: 

ON A MONDAY AFTERNOON, on July 9, the D.C. Court of Appeals handed down a 2-1 decision against me and in favor of the CIA in a long-running Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. At 4:20 p.m., Judges Brett Kavanaugh and Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee, filed a 14-page opinion with the clerk of the court in Washington. They ruled that the CIA had acted “reasonably” in responding to my request for certain ancient files related to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. Appended to their decision was a 17-page dissent from their colleague Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson who strongly objected to their decision.

---30---

But the Donks thought Kavanaugh's alleged---and only alleged---high-school antics of 35 years ago were much more important than his current deep-sixing of Morley's FOIA request. 

You can't make this stuff up. 

15 hours ago, Anthony Thorne said:

I think you could expand the group of witting participants - Dallas, Secret Service etc - if you figure that some of them knew that something had been planned, and had then been done, but they still had no idea who did it or planned it.

i.e "Do us a favour and let Jack Ruby through the door / keep the crowd at bay while these guys get in a Rambler and escape / stop any nosy journalists from asking questions etc etc etc". Followed by "You don't need to know the details. But keep everyone happy and you'll be rewarded."

There could be plenty of 'insiders' who were on the periphery of the plot, who played a part, and who benefited, yet who truthfully have no idea who planned it, who the triggermen were, what the full details of the plot was. All they likely knew was if they played their part and did their piece and kept their mouths shut, they'd be happy with what they were given afterwards. 

Complicity after the fact, tons of it. The "leftie-loser-loner" story was sanctified, and most people believed it.  To not believe the official story was to be a commie-lover, or conspiracy nut. 

Unwitting complicity before the fact? Gets dicey. Even the unwitting might figure out they had been made complicit to the JFKA, and tell their story. 

On this forum, we have a pretty high standard for evidence against LHO, as we should. But then what happens to the standards when someone else is accused of complicity in the JFKA?  

DHS Told Pentagon ‘No Major Incidents of Illegal Activity’ as Rioters Stormed Capitol

From The Daily Beast

Kana Ruhalter

Breaking News Intern

Updated Sep. 28, 2021 4:37PM ET / Published Sep. 28, 2021 3:24PM ET 

While a Trump-supporting mob stormed the Capitol, pushing through barricades set up outside the building, the Department of Homeland Security sent an email to the Pentagon, reporting “no major incidents of illegal activity at this time,” Politico reports. The Pentagon’s long delay in deploying the National Guard in response to the violence has been widely criticized, but the email, which was sent about 30 minutes after rioters began to breach the barricades, sheds light on the poor communication on Jan. 6.

---30---

The National Guard again? The Pentagon?  Maybe call NATO too.

The Capitol Police had a force of 2,300. The DC Metropolitan Police had 3,500 officers. There many other federal agencies with police in DC, including the Park Police.  The phones worked. 

There were 600 people who occupied the Capitol building, and only one carried a firearm, which he did not use. Some had bear spray. The scrum had to pass into the Capitol through narrow seemingly defensible entry points. 

The Capitol-Metro police had batons, shields, helmets, firearms (shot to kill once), communications gear, tasers, tear gas and numbers. 

But they were waiting for National Guard? The Pentagon? NATO? 

There were federal informants in the scrum on Jan. 6. Many lulu's in the scrum texted in real time they were "let into" the Capitol. 

This story does not ring right. 

1 hour ago, Matt Allison said:

I thought Ron's suggestion yesterday that LHO could have been guarding the freight elevator and back door was very intriguing as well. I hadn't heard or considered that idea before.

Also, the power went out in the TBSD just as JFK passed by. No one seems to know why, but perhaps a switch was thrown. So, who threw the switch? 

D. Zartman:

That is a good question about LHO not being in his assigned position at 12:25 or so.

Unfortunately, all we have are garbled witness statements as to LHO whereabouts from about 12:20 to shortly after the JFKA.  He may have been in position at 12:25 pm. 

The one thing that seems clear is that LHO was nowhere to be seen when shots rang out. He did not go streetside to see JFK pass by, despite an intense interest in politics.  

IF LHO was part of an operation, it is possible he was told to await a signal that would alert him to the pending arrival of the motorcade in front of the TBSD. So, for example, somebody outside the TBSD car-honked three times in quick succession at the right time for LHO to move into position.  LHO wanted to be seen just before and after the event, as a ruse. 

The problem with making LHO an entirely unwitting patsy is you are left with the problem: What if LHO decided to go onto the sidewalk and watch JFK? Or run an errand at lunch and be seen eating at a local deli? 

Also, LHO's reaction after the JFKA is not consistent with an entirely unwitting patsy. LHO goes home, even hires a taxi, and then gets a gun. Why did not LHO assume kooks, or punk-mobsters, or right-wing nuts had taken a potshot at JFK, an event in which he had no involvement at all?  

It seems LHO was involved in some way in the JFKA, and deduced he was the patsy within moments of the shooting. 

That's my story and I am sticking with it. 

Just now, Denny Zartman said:

 

 Why wasn't he in position at the time the motorcade was scheduled to pass?

Where was he? Nobody knows. Not one person ever said, "I was talking to LHO when we both heard the shots ring out." 

He was seen before and after. But he was young, agile and smart. Being seen just before and after the JFKA was just a ruse? 

9 minutes ago, Denny Zartman said:

If Oswald fired a rifle from that window, why weren't nitrates found in his cheek? According to Mark Lane, that negative nitrate cheek test would have been court admissible evidence that Oswald had not fired a rifle that day.

My understanding is the nitrate test at the time (1963) was court-admissible evidence, but later such tests were abandoned.

LHO's cheek could have been negative due to sweating, or if he had washed his face at the rooming house, the Texas Theater, or even at the Dallas PD before testing. Additionally, if the wind had been blowing out from the TBSD window (the building was hotter than outside, for example) that would have reduced the dose his face got. 

Also, it may be LHO fired but a single shot, the Tague shot, reducing the dosage his face got. For that matter, maybe LHO knew about the nitrates test, and put Saran wrap on his face. 

As to LHO's position, no one has ever said they saw LHO at the time shots rang out. His whereabouts are unknown, but we are pretty sure he was nowhere to be seen. My take is he was in the "sniper's nest." 

33 minutes ago, Matt Allison said:

Good point, Ben. I think my assumption on this was always that if the heat got too strong, and LHO's links were exposed, the exiles would be the ones to take the fall next. The JMWAVE characters would claim they had either had no connection to them or had "cut off ties with them because they were uncontrollable."

That seems like the plan...though I suspect there was no way the federal government could ever reveal CIA assets, even former and disavowed assets, perpetrated the JFKA.  Hence, as we know, the WC. 

And from the get-go, Blakey's HSCA agreed the CIA had nothing to do with the JFKA. I suspect that was a condition of Blakey's employment. 

5 hours ago, Matt Allison said:

Good stuff.

I'll add that if you're going to have a patsy, that patsy can't have an alibi that could exonerate him. That would not be a negotiable risk. So that must be reconciled.

I never thought about this before, but if we all conclude LHO was a patsy, witting or otherwise, that means others conducted a real JFKA and took enormous risks. 

Larry Hancock has posited the real JFKA assassins did not even care if people knew about multiple shots from different directions, or fired too quickly---they wanted to start a US war or serious action on Cuba. 

OK, then what assurance would the real assassins have they would "get away with it" and not be hunted down for the rest of their days? Does this indicate the true assassins were foreign mercenaries quickly airlifted offshore to never be seen again (echoes of Prouty).  

Or the Miami team was "true believers" and willing to die for a cause? 

Were the true assassins confident the "World War III virus" would kill any real investigation? That means they were clued into CIA HQ in some way. 

But if the real assassins could be assured no real investigation would take place, why could not that same courtesy be extended to LHO? 

The jigsaw puzzle does not fit together....

18 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Benjamin, the Miami / Cuban / New Orleans nexus may have been a subset of the CIA / Army Intelligence / JCS group- they were not separate entities, in my opinion. In any organization, though, there are differing opinions, which can fracture the  organization.

Chuck S.--

I do not know enough to reply. John Newman seems to take note of different US military organizations, with their own chains of command, and prerogatives, and rivalries, etc. Newman notes that Antonio Veciana switches from a CIA asset to an Army intel asset, for example, as if a River Rubicon has been passed. Never happened before or since. 

On the other hand, it seems to have been a practice for military agencies to loan people to the CIA, or for them to actually retire, "do a job," and then come back somehow. 

My own instinct tells me people participating in a JFKA would keep witting participants at a bare minimum, and within an organization, people known and trusted for years. Like a small clump of Miami guys. 

Let's assume a Miami CIA op, for argument's sake. Adding people in from other intel agencies, or the Dallas Police Department, or the Secret Service etc., would get very dicey and risk exposure (to put it mildly). These added people, say in the Secret Service, would either have to be rogue, or seek superior's approval.  

How does one line up rogue assassins in other agencies, and know they will never squeal? 

My guess is the JFKA op was very small, and contained. Some participants may have ended up dead not long after, perhaps in raids on Cuba, or in gangland drug deals etc. 

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Ben, I'd say that pretty well defines a basic False Flag pitch which literally entraps Lee Oswald - with him accepting because he is frustrated, financially desperate,  no prospects, has a strong "will to believe" and for that matter an acceptance of leaving  not just Marina but his two  young daughters behind pretty much forever. Plus leaving them with the legacy of Dad being either some sort of nut or part of a Commie conspiracy - both of which failed since JFK is not supposed to be killed.  Or was he sucked in far enough to shoot to hit?

That sort of attitude/motive would explain, his using his own gun, his firing the shots.  Of course if he was totally willing to participate in a false flag operation pointing at Cuba  he could have done a more to sell it - like leave a note taking the blame and saying he was working for the revolution, motivated by a Castro speech or even by Cuban propaganda. In SWHT I lay out about a few things he could have done to really point the attack towards Castro if he had been a willing participant, but which he did not do.  But that may be too complex, perhaps the deal was just bring your gun and fire some shots and we will get you out and make it worth the risk

I wonder if anyone else has another version of how a false flag with a cooperative Oswald would have worked?

 

 

 

Larry--

1. Well, there is the option that LHO was sold on the idea that the JFKA fake attempt would be pinned on "Alek Hiddel," who had ordered the rifle. As I said, a body would be found, dead by suicide, with paper records indicating it was a true Alek Hiddel. Ergo, then LHO would not be subject to lifelong manhunts. 

David Josephs presents reasonable evidence a lot of paperwork was faked anyway. So the CIA gins up a paper back history on an Alek Hiddel, pre-JFKA.

2. You ask sensible questions on how to inveigle LHO into any plot regarding the JFKA. A fugitive life beckons thereafter at best, unless superior counter-measures are taken, pre-JFKA.

But by the same token, you are positing that several people participated in a real JFKA, with the same or worse risks. An intense investigation post-JFKA can be assumed, possible discovery, and then lifelong oblivion, either in a jail or on the run. 

How were the actual participants in the real JFKA reassured they "would get away with it"? 

My guess is the actual participants were told, "We have a fall guy, a patsy."  Then could that same enticement have been used to lure in LHO? He was told the patsy would be "Alek Hiddel?" 

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

So Ben,  if I understand it, in that view Oswald was made an offer by somebody he trusts inside the agency to join in a False Flag attack,  shoot at the president,  not hit him, and then be taken away to go into seclusion with a ton of money in the bank and just enjoy the next few decades living a great life without working.  Certainly he would have to buy into being a total recluse to protect himself and the Agency as part of such an agreement - or is there something else that would come into play afterwards? 

He brings in his own weapon, knowing that he will be the symbol of the attack, it will all point towards Cuba and in retribution JFK will be forced to take some strong action against the threat Cuba represents - perhaps not invasion if Oswald was just a lone nut and only influenced by Castro.  Or was he supposed to be part of a Castro hit team in which case a military response would be fully justified?

So Oswald is totally duped, guilty of shooting but not trying to kill JFK and after being taken into custody and charged with murder - certainly knowing he is going down because of what he left in the TSBD -  he stays calm, plays ball, and accepts what's coming for him probably due to what - fear of being assassinated if he talked.  But of course that didn't work out for him, he would have to at least consider he was too great a risk to the Agency to let live anyway?  

Just interested in seeing a fleshed out version of the False Flag/Oswald totally involved scenario that you are thinking about...its an option that has always intrigued me.

 

 

Larry--

My LHO scenarios always sound silly when re-phrased by someone smart and sensible, which you are.

1. Not sure whether LHO stayed calm after being arrested. By most accounts he drew a weapon upon arresting Texas Theater officers, even though outnumbered with no chance of escape. In my native Los Angeles, that would be suicide. That the Dallas Police Department arrested him alive is still remarkable. 

2. After arrest, perhaps LHO is playing for time, not confessing, but seeing if the next shoe will drop. He really doesn't have any options except to wait, and then speak through a lawyer, who would deliver secretly a message to his handlers seeking instructions, but unless they can fix matters, LHO will come clean. Evidently, LHO did try to call a "cut out" in Raleigh, although that is sketchy. James Leavelle indicated LHO did not indicate he himself feared being shot.  We do not know LHO's true inner turmoils, before or after being arrested, if any. 

3. As stated, perhaps the LHO handlers indicated to LHO that they had waiting a dead body, an "Alek Hiddel" and the Mannlicher-Carcano would be traced back to the fictitious Hiddel, who would be found a couple days later (Nov. 24) dead from suicide. Surely, the CIA can manufacture scenarios for public consumption, that is what they do. I do not know who was LHO's handler or contact. Could even be talking to Clay Shaw through untraceable telephone-booth conversations.  

The key is, LHO wanted to believe the fake false-flag JFKA plan would work, as his options in life otherwise were somewhat grim (from the perspective of a 24-year-old with no education and a dishonorable discharge, and a record of being in USSR as a commie lover, but living in Cold War USA, and whose wife is leaving due in part to money problems). LHO's only prospects for better things in life involved working with US intel. Really, what were his options?  

4. The problem on Nov. 22 emerged when LHO heard additional gunshots (not his own) during the JFKA, and figured out something had gone wrong, and he had participated in it. Or...there was supposed to be a ride for LHO, but the ride did not show up. In either case, LHO then bolted. 

......

The fake false-flag JFKA makes sense from the viewpoint of the CIA and military intel. Would sensible person participate in such a plan? No. 

But we are positing some individuals from the CIA and CIA assets participated in a real JFKA. Would a sensible person participate in a real JFKA?  Of course not. It is too horrible to even contemplate, on multiple levels, from humane, to ethical, to moral, to the principles of democracy, etc. But people did it anyway. 

Whatever the true explanation of the JFKA, it is laced with insane actions. Maybe LHO was duped, so to speak, or maybe plans went awry, and he was hung out to dry.  

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Matt,  what I was getting at was that if Oswald truly supported Cuban socialism and the Castro regime,  hence he wanted to go to Cuba, I don't see how he would have wanted to participate in a false flag operation, including himself shooting, which was intended to provoke action against Cuba and oust the Castro regime.  That would be the Oswald taking a deal to actively participate in a false flag attack.

I also don't see how he would have thought he would be well received in Cuba if he was named as a suspect in attacking the President in the name of Cuba - something that would provoke all sorts of problems for the Castro regime even if the US did not respond militarily.  I can't see that he would find that acceptable to Cuba even if he didn't mind taking the blame?

My responses here are totally in regard to the False Flag premise - which many have proposed in the past but I don't seem ,many folks stepping in with details to support?

As to my thoughts on his role - I don't see him participating actively or even deniable in a false flag attack - although I do see him being manipulated and set up as a patsy without his knowledge.  But as has been pointed out in a separate thread, one major challenge to almost every scenario is a rifle tied to him showing up in the TSBD.  That's probably a tie breaker in the scenarios - and I wish I had the answer, at this point I don't.

I'll expand on what I think did happen in regard to setting up Oswald once David and I have the Red Bird Leads paper ready for general distribution,  sources and leads are what drives my own views so that needs to be done before I get ahead of the facts and context we are assembling

A JFKA explanation that holds water may have to rest upon some actors not acting rationally...which tends to undermine even the true explanation's power, in cool-thinking retrospect. 

Lack of logic is everywhere: Even the "lone nut" explanation rests upon LHO leaving incriminating evidence at the scene, and carrying a wallet with both his identities inside---let alone shooting the President from his place of employment (why not cross the street and shoot from the roof of the Dal-Tex building)? 

I posit LHO was desperate for a break in life. Having lived in rooming houses, and having run a struggling furniture business for 20 years, I can assure readers that logic does not always govern human behavior.

Also, promises of something better, huge upsides, are part-and-parcel of the con-man's tool-kit. Every financial rip-off follows that format. The conned want to believe. 

Suppose we first posit that LHO was conned into an operation.  LHO was told there would be huge upside for participating in a JFKA event, and the risks would be handled. After all, the CIA can provide a new identity, and blunt investigations with false trails, or close off certain avenues by positing "national security." 

And LHO wanted to believe in a huge upside. He needed a lucky break. That led to poor judgement on LHO's part. After all,  we are talking about a guy who slit his wrists in Moscow. Probably took a fake potshot at Walker. Waved a gun around in the Russian Embassy. 

So, if we accept that LHO was not acting rationally....then we can accept LHO being conned into fake false-flag JFKA.

Yes, LHO wanted to start a new life. His participation in a fake false-flag JFKA would deliver that---he thought. 

Of course, I am only speculating. 

45 minutes ago, Michaleen Kilroy said:

I’ve always thought from a young age that whoever was behind JFKA wanted war with Cuba and/or Russia. And it easily could’ve turned out that way.

But the minute someone from LBJ’s admin called DA Wade’s office to tell them to stop the ‘communist conspiracy’ talk, that possibility ended. But it also ended ANY conspiracy talk/direction/investigation as far as LBJ was concerned, and that’s how the FBI was directed, igniting the massive, grotesque coverup and letting all suspected perps, including CIA and Mafia, off the hook.

The government coverup resulted in citizen researchers still trying to figure this case out 60 years later.

And the only thing I know for certain is the evidence proves beyond any reasonable doubt there was more than one shooter.

 

Just for fun, you might get a kick out this "Face the Nation" with Richard Russell, 

A great time capsule, but also note Russell's rather honest assessment of Vietnam and his puzzlement at Cuba. 

Remember, Russell was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee from 1951 to 1969, and considered a serious fellow (also, unfortunately, a racist).  And he is saying he does not understand what happened on Cuba, in this interview. 

Whatever happened in Dallas, Cuba was dropped like a hot potato after that. 

Right. National security would be imperiled. 

The weight of evidence suggests LHO was being run by the CIA, for many reasons, including this excellent research work by Malcolm Blunt. 

But I think John Newman is preparing to sketch out the idea that military-Army-intel did the JFKA, which also runs counter to Larry Hancock's work and insights, which lean to the Miami-base of the CIA, and Cuban exiles, who were certainly capable of the job.  

Interesting.