Benjamin Cole

1 hour ago, Chris Barnard said:

It's a bit of a revelation. I am trying to think of a motive for Larry to lie or make that up, seemed very candid. 

Well...Larry King showed extraordinarily bad judgement in using $5k cash to pay his own IRS tax bill rather than delivering the cash to Garrison. Taxes? You can always get an extension in payment from the IRS, or go on payment plan. 

But, set that aside. Larry King probably did the hear the tape as described.

Of course (you are probably ahead of me on this) is the purported pilot on the tape telling a real story, or just a drama seeker? Or even a CIA plant sending Garrison up another box canyon? At this late date, and without even the tape, all that remains are ciphers. 

That said, yes I strongly suspect LOH had arranged for a getaway car (although LOH once said escaping somewhere by bus is not a bad plan, as cops do not check busses. Ironically, and perhaps tellingly, cops were checking busses after the JFK shooting). The car-ride dematerialized, or LOH decided not to take the ride, after the JFK assassination happened for real. 

The Larry King version, of course, suggests LOH played a role, one that became the patsy role, in the day's events. In the Larry King version, LOH was a patsy, who initially anticipated escape help. 

Add on---A bit shaky on this point: Who would hire a mercenary for $5k + $5k to provide an airplane ride to a Presidential assassin?

So the hired pilot figures out the next day, when he reads the newspapers, that he just gave a plane-ride to Mexico to the President's assassin. So the pilot mulls things over. I can keep quiet, but if LOH's escape is tracked back to my plane I then become an accomplice in a President's assassination.  I better squeal---meaning I say who hired me. 

I rather think LOH's get-away ride was a car, driven by a Cuban/CIA asset who was in on the intentionally unsuccessful false-flag JFKA. The ride never happened after JFK was shot for real. 

23 minutes ago, Chris Barnard said:

Great interview Doug. Very very interesting. 
 

@Benjamin Cole You may like this. 
 

Chris Barnard---

Thanks for the heads-up. 

On 11/2/2020 at 1:29 AM, Larry Hancock said:

This is simply a notice that Rex Bradford has finished an immense amount of work and Tipping Point is now beginning on the MFF site.  I will post a notice in the book section of the forum as well and answer question and engage in discussions there rather in this main section.  I will also be blogging on it and am happy to chat there or via email at larryjoe@westok.net

As I said earlier, Tipping Point represents my personal analysis and observations on the conspiracy.  I know there will be disagreement and that is to be expected.  For those who want to engage with it, and hopefully profit form the research and information it presents - great.  It's not intended to sway anyone else from their preferred scenarios or views. 

We will put up a new section every one to two weeks, finishing it up online in December for a totally free read - with the book to follow for those who would want it all together in print.  I hope that will allow readers to really dig into the references and cited documents, several of which are hot linked either in the body or in the end notes.  In that regard, kudos to David Boylan and Bill Simpich who were involved with a great deal of the brand new documents research which went into Tipping Point.

If you wish to pursue it, this link will get you there:

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Tipping_Point.html

Larry--

Congratulations on an earnest and intelligent effort.

We can kibbitz, even disagree---but we should all recognize excellent work when done. 

And if we disagree, let us posit other plausible scenarios for public discussion...and save for those divinely inspired, any one of us could be off target. 

59 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

You are probably right that the 8 hours delay in taking the paraffin cast of Oswald is just enough that, if someone believes on other grounds that it is airtight that Oswald was the shooter of JFK, the NAA on the cheek paraffin cast could be considered uncertain as opposed to exculpatory. Maybe more accurately put would be that the NAA on the cheek cast is "strong" stand-alone indication that Oswald did not fire that rifle that day, slightly less than "decisive". 

Oswald was reported by Earlene Roberts to have rushed in and out of his rooming house in Oak Cliff in a hurry without a bathroom stop to wash up. Following his arrest, at the Dallas Police Station, on Saturday Oswald told reporters police were denying his human rights to a shower. Police Chief Curry in response to reporters' questions about this did not say "he did take a shower!" but rather, "if he wants to take a shower, he can". That says Oswald had not had a shower. The nitrates found on his hands do not establish that he fired a pistol but do argue against Oswald having washed his hands thoroughly prior to the paraffin test. This leaves only the 8 hour time delay itself as the basis for impeaching what otherwise would be an exculpatory finding that Oswald did not fire the Carcano.

I see from a Minnesota Dept. of Public Safety website that "after four to eight hours it is unlikely that residues will be found on a live and mobile individual's hands ... the residue can persist for longer periods of time on some areas of interest such as on the deceased, on clothing or other stationary objects". A Los Angeles Forensic Toxicology Expert Witness website (for defense attorneys defending accused clients) says "residue collected after more than six hours of the gun being fired could be considered unreliable", citing handwashing removing nitrates from the hands. A Missouri State Highway Patrol Crime Lab site says, "As time passes after discharge, GSR [gunshot residue] particles can be removed from the hands by contact with other objects or by hand washing. After 6-8 hours, analysts would not expect to detect GSR on an active person." But of course Oswald did have GSR on his hands 8 hours later. As Pat Speer points out, why should Oswald's cheek not have GSR, if his hands did, at the time that paraffin test was done, if there had been gunshot residue from firing a rifle on his cheek? (For, contrary to expert opinion testimony set forth in the Warren Report not based on any test data, Vincent Guinn actually tested rifles like the TSBD Carcano, and gunshot residue was found on the cheeks of the shooters of those rifles in 8 out of 8 such tests.) The chief concern with the time delay of paraffin testing of hands in all of the sources that I have seen is the GSR coming off by either handwashing or by the hands rubbing the GSR off against other things. I could find no published data or studies on how long GSR remains on cheeks but simply reasoning logically: unless the face is washed thoroughly, there would be less occasion for GSR to be lost from the face compared to hands since face skin comes in less contact with things than do hands. And Oswald's hands did have GSR at 8 hours. Therefore the absence of GSR as expected from a shooter of a Mannlicher-Carcano from the Oswald cheek paraffin cast taken at the same 8 hours, not only from the finding of the less-reliable chemical test done that evening but more importantly and separately the finding of the highly accurate NAA analysis done later under high secrecy, appears much stronger in weight toward exculpation than the Warren Commission wished for the public to realize. It seems likely that if the NAA aspect of that paraffin cheek test had been brought out in court properly in a hypothetical trial of Lee Harvey Oswald, that unless the prosecutors showed the jury an absolutely airtight case against Oswald on other grounds, a jury would consider the NAA paraffin cheek analysis more than sufficient to establish "reasonable doubt" that Oswald fired the Carcano that day.

And as Pat Speer brings out, the way the NAA followup testing of the paraffin casts was done and reported just smells to high heaven. It was essential, if the Oswald-alone case was to be presented in a tight, neat package, to dispense with the paraffin test analysis which failed to find gunshot residue on Oswald's cheek as a rifle of the kind of the Carcano did leave when fired. The way not just the chemical test, but the NAA analysis, was dispensed with was not by claiming the 8 hour time delay made the test unreliable, but rather by claiming the cheek paraffin cast had been contaminated and therefore was useless for delivering useful information. As Pat Speer brings out, that was a sidestep. That there was some kind of contamination of the outer side of that cast does not detract from the essential point that the inside surface in contact with Oswald's cheek did not show evidence that he had fired the Carcano, that would be expected if he had fired it. 

And most stunning of all to me was this: the NAA data of that paraffin cheek test not only was not published in the Warren Report but it was considered classified and secret, forbidden to be seen by the public. Harold Weisburg and Jim Lesar filed Freedom of Information Act lawsuits against the FBI and Atomic Energy Commission to get the test results of the NAA paraffin cast analyses. The Justice Department opposed this in court, saying in 1970 that "the Attorney General of the United States [John MItchell] has determined that it is not in the national interest" to disclose those NAA test results.

How could disclosing scientific test results obtained through a method with state-of-the-art accuracy (NAA), of the paraffin cast of Oswald's cheek, "not [be] in the national interest"?

It sounds as if the reasoning was: if this data were to become public, it might call into question whether Oswald shot at Kennedy that day. That was not in "the national interest". 

It is a sad day when pursuit of truth, of establishing true innocence or guilt of an accused person in the eyes of history, becomes regarded by state authority as "not in the national interest".

The sniper's nest, the linkage of the Carcano to Oswald, and Oswald's actions that day do call for explanation. It is also the case that all of the TSBD employees were questioned and not one reported seeing anyone unusual or who did not belong in the building that day, increasing the focus on Oswald who was in the building as connected to the extraordinary events involving the TSBD that day. But in light of the NAA analysis of the Oswald cheek paraffin cast, it might be asked whether (a) some form of a false flag or phony assassination attempt--so in keeping with known "Northwoods" Joint Chiefs' intentions both before and after the assassination--is correct, as you suggest, but also (b) no one fired a rifle from the 6th floor window, or from the TSBD, at all that day.  

Greg--

I do not believe LOH shot JFK. I think he took one or couple of wide misses, on purpose. The Tague shot, for example. 

Still, you and Speer raise excellent points---why no telltale traces on LOH's cheek? 

That is a weakness in my version of events, which I will post after a couple more edits. 

Nevertheless, there is a possible mix of explanations for LOH's "clean" cheek.

1. A false negative due to time delay. And it may be LOH only fired once, not three times. The Guinn tests followed WC gospel of three shots.  We do not take WC as gospel---except when we do? 

2. Perhaps Oswald did wash his face, maybe with a garden hose en route to the Texas Theater, maybe in the Texas Theater, or maybe even when taking a bathroom break at the DPD. He did not take a shower in DPD custody---but really, he never used the john either? Are you sure?

Earlene Roberts testimony is clear, as you say---but really, if LOH had ducked into the bathroom quietly, would she have noticed? She was never asked directly about this possibility 

3. It sounds whimsical, but LOH could have put saran wrap, or possibly a sheet of paper, on his cheek when firing. 

4. The circular sniper's nest may have created a swirl of air outwards, which blew out when LOH fired his one shot (not three shots). 

Any mix of the above explanations might result in a false negative. 

So why did Oswald's hands test positive, but not his face? Many answers for this one. Perhaps his  hands came into contact with (common) items that test positive, after the assassination. False positives, in other words.  Perhaps LOH really did shoot Tippit, many times, and with a revolver, and that left a strong "dose" on his hands.

I am open to the idea that LOH, realizing he had been framed, and thinking he had been done in by powerful figures, was in a desperate frame of mind when he met Tippit. The timelines do not add up, but maybe. 

Anyways, that is what I can think up today. 

1 hour ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Benjamin Cole writes:

It's true that the eyewitness evidence for a gunman on the sixth floor is jumbled. But we know that a gunman was seen several times over the 15 minutes or so before the shooting. We also know that Oswald was on the ground floor around five minutes before the shooting, when he saw James Jarman and Harold Norman enter the building by one of the rear entrances (http://22november1963.org.uk/lee-harvey-oswald-alibi) .

If Oswald was the (or a) gunman, he must have started out on the sixth floor; then, at almost the exact time the motorcade was due to pass by the building, and not knowing that it was running late, he must for some unexplained reason have dashed, unnoticed, down to the ground floor, where he saw Jarman and Norman; then he must have dashed, again unnoticed, back up to the sixth floor to take his potshots at Kennedy; and finally he must have dashed back down to whichever floor Officer Baker was actually on when he noticed the presence of someone who didn't match Oswald's description.

Placing Oswald on the sixth floor at the time of the shooting is fundamental not only to the lone-nut argument but also to many conspiracy-based alternative scenarios. The balance of the evidence very strongly suggests that he simply wasn't there.

Jeremy-

Thanks for your comment. 

Well, maybe. 

On the other hand, let us say you are relatively crafty and smart fellow ala Oswald. You want to be seen just before and after the shooting in innocuous locations, so indeed you to try to arrange just that. Plant exculpatory evidence. 

Five minutes--from when LOH saw Jarman and Norman--is plenty enough time to get upstairs. 

People have re-traced LOH's steps on the way down many times, and he had enough time to run into Marion Baker. 

Also, neither here nor there, but please read the WC testimony of Amos Lee Euins. He states flatly he saw the gunman, and the gunman was bald. I ask this every few days, but why is Euins' testimony always ignored? 

7 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

Benjamin I think Pat Speer has shown the LHO paraffin test data is as strongly stand-alone decisive that LHO did not fire the Carcano, as about any single piece of evidence can be, when the full facts are considered. This is not referring to the original chemical paraffin tests carried out by the DPD the evening of Oswald's arrest, which while they suggested LHO did not fire a rifle that day fell short of exculpation because paraffin tests done chemically were, as you put it, "dicey, both false positives and negatives". However that description does not apply to the NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) subsequently carried out on the DPD paraffin casts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which is highly accurate and which from Pat Speer's analysis is practically certain positive exculpation establishing as a baseline fact that LHO did not fire the Carcano that day.

In fact, Pat Speer's 4f, "Casts of Contention", http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention, may be just about the strongest single stand-alone evidential exculpation of Oswald as a shooter of JFK there is. It takes work to read through Pat Speer's analysis (58 pages printed out) but it is just devastating, showing not only the exculpation but agencies' dissembling in the way that exculpatory evidence was handled and reported. If there is a rebuttal of Speer's 4f I would like to know; I am not aware of any. I am surprised Pat Speer's 4f has not received more attention.

Thanks for your contributions and I look forward to your article.

Greg--

Ok, I have now read through Speer's chapter 4.

Excellent work by Speer. 

Speer makes a solid case that anyone shooting a Mannlicher-Carcano should have telltale residue (chemical or metallic traces) on their cheek afterwards, for at least several hours.

There is the problem of washing the face. It seems unlikely Oswald washed his face, but then there are times his whereabouts are unknown, after the shooting. Though unlikely, Oswald might have washed his face with a garden hose, or inside the Texas Theater before taking a seat. There is some confusion about Oswald going upstairs or not at the theater. I wonder where the bathrooms are. 

Possibly Oswald even washed his face at his rooming house, through not mentioned by the landlady. But if he made a quick jag to the bathroom before or after entering his room, would she have noticed? As I recall, she was watching TV or reading a book. 

Also, are we certain Oswald was never even allowed a bathroom break while being detained? The DPD has been lambasted for poor police procedures. 

It is little surprising that something such as which way the breeze is blowing can affect cheek-test result. Sure, the breeze was blowing towards Oswald, which should enhance the amount of traces left on Oswald's cheek. But, we all know breezes can swirl.  

Lastly, the casts of Oswald's cheek, which admittedly were negative, were done many hours after the event. The longer one waits, the higher the chances for a false negative.

All in all, I think the negative result of the cheek test in Oswalds case is suggestive, but not conclusive. And yes, the FBI and the WC lied their teeth out about the whole matter, and they framed Oswald in many other ways. I am amazed they didn't just rig the cheek test too--ala CE 399.   

I am being a bit whimsical when I say Oswald might have used saran-wrap on his face before shooting. Since I contend LOH was part of a false-flag but phony assassination attempt, there would be no need for that. But maybe he planned on a little insurance in case he was caught. 

51 minutes ago, Greg Doudna said:

Benjamin I think Pat Speer has shown the LHO paraffin test data is as strongly stand-alone decisive that LHO did not fire the Carcano, as about any single piece of evidence can be, when the full facts are considered. This is not referring to the original chemical paraffin tests carried out by the DPD the evening of Oswald's arrest, which while they suggested LHO did not fire a rifle that day fell short of exculpation because paraffin tests done chemically were, as you put it, "dicey, both false positives and negatives". However that description does not apply to the NAA (Neutron Activation Analysis) subsequently carried out on the DPD paraffin casts at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, which is highly accurate and which from Pat Speer's analysis is practically certain positive exculpation establishing as a baseline fact that LHO did not fire the Carcano that day.

In fact, Pat Speer's 4f, "Casts of Contention", http://www.patspeer.com/chapter4e%3Acastsofcontention, may be just about the strongest single stand-alone evidential exculpation of Oswald as a shooter of JFK there is. It takes work to read through Pat Speer's analysis (58 pages printed out) but it is just devastating, showing not only the exculpation but agencies' dissembling in the way that exculpatory evidence was handled and reported. If there is a rebuttal of Speer's 4f I would like to know; I am not aware of any. I am surprised Pat Speer's 4f has not received more attention.

Thanks for your contributions and I look forward to your article.

Greg D--Thanks for head's up on Pat Speer's work regarding Oswald's cheek, and I will of course check it out, as Pat Speer is a very solid researcher and thinker, and I will get back to you. 

As idle chit-chat, I wonder what would happen if someone placed Saran-wrap style stretch-wrap on their face before firing a rifle. Saran wrap was introduced in 1949. 

3 hours ago, James DiEugenio said:

Those were the days when someone like Lane could get on a big program.

Not only---as you have so competently pointed out, the mainstream media savaged Jim Garrison in every way possible.

Yet Garrison won the right to a 30-minute rebuttal on NBC on July 15 1967, after NBC had smeared him. And this was when the networks were huge and important, and dominated broadcast news. 

Can anyone imagine today any figure like James Garrison getting 30-minutes free and clear on national TV to defend himself? You think CNN or Fox would ever do that? 

Today, even fringe groups (that I usually disagree with) are knocked down from lesser Internet platforms. 

Well, at least for now, we have Kennedys and King, or the Education Forum. One might wonder for how long. It has become acceptable to torpedo anyone off the web.

If Kennedys and King or the Education Forum are booted, who will note or care? 

3 hours ago, Chris Barnard said:

I ended up watching the G. Gordon Liddy one also with Buckley. Very slick operators indeed. It must be some education you get at Yale, Buckley was another Skull & Bones. 

There is yet another great one--- 

Yes! Buckley and E. Howard Hunt!

Hunt admits on national TV that there were plans drawn up to murder columnist Jack Anderson and that he would have completed the mission if the order had come down from the White House. This is a horrible laugher---and chilling too. 

If a guy will baldly state on national TV that he would have murdered a columnist---a newspaper ink-stained wretch, not even accused of being a spy, etc.---then what else would he participate in? 

The above discussion contains excellent observations from Pat Speer, who I usually agree with. 

Also, really, ACSI and CIA never coordinated? 

On 3/5/2021 at 11:55 PM, Chris Barnard said:

What a sharp man Mark Lane was. It's interesting to watch the obfuscation and deflection tactics of 1966. Potentially ex-CIA Buckley is eloquent as ever but, he struggles with lane as an adversary. 

This is a wonderful display by an ex-CIA man, as Buckley tries to define Mark Lane as someone who wants to make money, and to get Oswald off the hook as a fellow leftie-commie. The words "conspiracy theory" come alive. 

It turns out Buckley took his cues from the CIA playbook, which had recommended all these tactics in dealing with the JFKA. But Buckley was a smart guy himself, whatever his politics and biases.  

Mark Lane mostly held his own, which is saying something, as he was in Buckley's wheelhouse, so to speak.  

20 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:

Paul B--

Excellent line of inquiry you present.

And my sagacious answer: "Well....not sure." 

Can we simply discount all the excellent work John Newman (and others) have done in establishing that LOH was an asset being run by the CIA? Those observations still hold water, no? 

Certainly James Angleton knew Phillips and of LOH. Certainly Phillips was active in the exile, anti-Castro movement, as was LOH.  

OK, let us grant that at some point in the early 1960s, Veciana had a falling out with the CIA, and switched over to working with Army intelligence (though some researchers contend he still worked for both, unique among assets). 

But does that mean LOH stopped working with the CIA? No. LOH remained a CIA asset. 

Does the Veciana-CIA falling out prevent Phillips from working with LOH? No.

Even more....would a Veciana-CIA falling out mean Veciana would never meet again with Phillips (Bishop)? There are formal organization line-charts and rules, and then there are guys who still meet informally and talk. 

Is there no connection between LOH and Phillips? Seems likely there was a connection, as both LOH and Phillips were so active in the same circles. 

Actually, whether Veciana did, or did not meet, Phillips in Dallas in late August-early September is not so vital to my version of events. 

For that matter, someone besides Phillips at the CIA could have put LOH up to a false-flag fake assassination attempt on JFK, which was then leaked and piggy-backed on by Cuban exiles, who fired in earnest (Del Valle). I suspect it was PR guru Phillips, from his final statement to Kevin Walsh (elements of the CIA did it), and his confessional, unpublished last manuscript.  

John Newman is a titan among researchers. But he seemed almost peevish in his presentation in his vilification of Veciana. He accused Veciana of stealing from the CIA. Then, this turns out to be $600 of explosives, that Veciana may have used in other, non-CIA, anti-Castro missions. 

As I say, we will have to wait for Newman's work to come out. I will repeat myself, and say I am leery of any assassination plot that has dozens of actors, and was carried out under the formal aegis of the CIA or the Pentagon. 

After the fact, yes, many (all government employees, and most prominent members of the media) followed orders, and joined the "LOH is a leftie-loner-loser" story line, and "but we have to avoid WWIII." 

Newman contends those story lines were planted by Angleton before the assassination. 

My version holds water, yet has but two, and possibly three witting actors. It is more plausible.

That does not make my story line the truth---it just makes it more plausible. 

 

 

Add on (sorry).

OK, let us reason this out:

Let us posit LOH is a mere, unknowing inert patsy on Nov. 22, set up by Army intel. His career as CIA asset and government informant has petered out, and he is but a warehouseman, working on sorting and packing books in the TSBD. 

So, LOH is the lunchroom buying a Coke, when JFK is shot (this is odd, as LOH was interested in politics, and could be expected to watch the motorcade, but let that go). LOH hears gunshots, but has no idea what has happened. Might be a common street shooting, might be firecrackers, or car backfire. 

Next thing LOH knows, Dallas motor cop Marion Baker is pointing a gun at him. Ray Truly says LOH is one of our ours, and Baker proceeds up the stairs past the clueless LOH.

LOH wanders outside, then reasonably deduces something serious has happened, and then, from all the commotion, that JFK was shot. But by who? A thug seeking glory? By an angry right-wing nut? A disgruntled Secret Service man who lost his mind? The innocent, inert LOH would not know. 

So...LOH leaves the TSBD (a little unusual) hails a taxi (unusual) goes home and gets his Smith & Wesson .38, stuffs it in his waistband (very unusual), and heads on foot to the Texas Theater---even though LOH has no idea what has happened, other than JFK has been shot by parties unknown, possibly mere lowlife. 

Really...this scenario just does not hold water. 

If LOH was a completely clueless patsy, why would he hail a taxi (relatively costly), and go home and arm himself, and seek refuge in the Texas Theater?  

If Army intel was making LOH a completely clueless patsy, were they not worried he might go down to the motorcade route and watch (and be photographed)? Or actually have lunch with fellow employees in the domino room? 

And how did Army intel even know about LOH, who was a CIA asset? 

Sure, Army intel could still then pin the "murder weapon" on LOH through the (possibly phoney) paper trail, but then by deduction LOH would have accomplices. Which would raises more questions. 

Well, let us see what Newman comes up with. 

8 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Did this presentation make you reconsider Phillips connection to Oswald? There is Mexico City evidence that Phillips was part of incriminating LHO as a Cuban or Soviet agent, possibly setting him up as a patsy. But there is no reason to think he met Oswald or ran him. That was a somewhat logical conclusion until Newman got down in the weeds and dug up a wealth of documents (he and a few other intrepid researchers like Malcom Blunt have been figuring out how to actually read Intelligence documents, which are notoriously difficult to parse because of multiple pseudonyms and aliases and obscured tracking pathways through the system). I saw him in action at a conference two years ago in SF, which Jim D graciously invited me to attend. Once we let go of Gaeton Fonzi’s well meant research into Phillips/Bishop and realize that Alpha 66 was working for Army Intelligence not CIA, something kept hidden from Fonzi and others deliberately by Veciana, and climb out of that long rabbit hole we can see clearly the role of Lansdale, on ‘loan’ from CIA to Army intelligence ACSI.
Benjamin - you are right - Newman has come a long way since he wrote that first book. 
There are some interesting threads here on Army Intelligence. I know you’ve worked hard on your theory but it was clearly based on DAP running Oswald, and Oswald somehow being more than ‘just a patsy’. Newman makes a point of saying that killing was the province of the military. JFK himself was worried about a military junta, his JCS, enough so that he asked Frankenheimer to make 7 Days in May into a movie and let him film some of it in the WH. 
One more thing I like to point out - and Lansdale is a perfect example of this - there is no hard line in the sand between CIA and MI. 

Paul B--

Excellent line of inquiry you present.

And my sagacious answer: "Well....not sure." 

Can we simply discount all the excellent work John Newman (and others) have done in establishing that LOH was an asset being run by the CIA? Those observations still hold water, no? 

Certainly James Angleton knew Phillips and of LOH. Certainly Phillips was active in the exile, anti-Castro movement, as was LOH.  

OK, let us grant that at some point in the early 1960s, Veciana had a falling out with the CIA, and switched over to working with Army intelligence (though some researchers contend he still worked for both, unique among assets). 

But does that mean LOH stopped working with the CIA? No. LOH remained a CIA asset. 

Does the Veciana-CIA falling out prevent Phillips from working with LOH? No.

Even more....would a Veciana-CIA falling out mean Veciana would never meet again with Phillips (Bishop)? There are formal organization line-charts and rules, and then there are guys who still meet informally and talk. 

Is there no connection between LOH and Phillips? Seems likely there was a connection, as both LOH and Phillips were so active in the same circles. 

Actually, whether Veciana did, or did not meet, Phillips in Dallas in late August-early September is not so vital to my version of events. 

For that matter, someone besides Phillips at the CIA could have put LOH up to a false-flag fake assassination attempt on JFK, which was then leaked and piggy-backed on by Cuban exiles, who fired in earnest (Del Valle). I suspect it was PR guru Phillips, from his final statement to Kevin Walsh (elements of the CIA did it), and his confessional, unpublished last manuscript.  

John Newman is a titan among researchers. But he seemed almost peevish in his presentation in his vilification of Veciana. He accused Veciana of stealing from the CIA. Then, this turns out to be $600 of explosives, that Veciana may have used in other, non-CIA, anti-Castro missions. 

As I say, we will have to wait for Newman's work to come out. I will repeat myself, and say I am leery of any assassination plot that has dozens of actors, and was carried out under the formal aegis of the CIA or the Pentagon. 

After the fact, yes, many (all government employees, and most prominent members of the media) followed orders, and joined the "LOH is a leftie-loner-loser" story line, and "but we have to avoid WWIII." 

Newman contends those story lines were planted by Angleton before the assassination. 

My version holds water, yet has but two, and possibly three witting actors. It is more plausible.

That does not make my story line the truth---it just makes it more plausible. 

From John Newman's 2008 book Oswald and the CIA :

"It is now apparent that the World War III pretext for a national security cover-up was built into the fabric of the plot to assassinate President Kennedy. The plot required that Oswald be maneuvered into place in Mexico City and his activities there carefully monitored, controlled, and, if necessary, embellished and choreographed. the plot required that, prior to 22 November, Oswald's profile at CIA HQS and the Mexico station be lowered; his 201 file had to be manipulated and restricted from incoming traffic on his Cuban activities. The plot required that, when the story from Mexico City arrived at HQS, its significance would not be understood by those responsible for reacting to it. Finally, the plot required that, on 22 November, Oswald's CIA files would establish his connection to Castro and the Kremlin.

The person who designed this plot had to have access to all of the information on Oswald at CIA HQS. The person who designed this plot had to have the authority to alter how information on Oswald was kept at CIA HQS. The person who designed this plot had the authority to alter how information on Oswald was kept at CIA HQS. The person who designed this plot had to have access to project TUMBLEWEED, the sensitive joint agency operation against the KGB assassin, Valery Kostikov. The person who designed this plot had the authority to instigate a counterintelligence operation in the Cuban affairs staff (SAS) at CIA HQS. In my view, there is only one person whose hands fit into these gloves: James Jesus Angleton, Chief of CIA's Counterintelligence Staff."

---30---

There is plenty more in that excellent book.  I am not sure what direction Newman is going now, but he seems to be suggesting military intelligence, but perhaps not the CIA, assassinated JFK. 

So...if we follow Newman...the CIA built up the LOH legend, used him as a dangle, an asset...but then military intelligence set LOH up as a patsy, and implemented a military-style ambush on JFK? 

Is this jelling? 

Well, we will see what Newman comes up with. 

8 hours ago, David Boylan said:

Dr John Newman - The CIA, the Army, and the Pentagon: The Veciana Misdirection 3.0 - YouTube

I look forward to watching this. Thanks for posting. 

5 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

Benjamin - I appreciate your thoughtful and serious presence here. Yes the nitrate test is not foolproof. But accounting for LHO in the sniper’s nest requires a lot of belief. Was the MC his rifle? How strong is the evidence that he brought it to work?  How was he able to extricate himself from the building so quickly? I could keep going. 
Two main points - Oswald doesn’t have to be involved in any way except as a convenient patsy in order for your theory to work. If you need another shooter missing on purpose fill in the blank. As for Phillips, you are aware that the evidence placing him with Oswald in Dallas rests on Veciana, who I think John Newman has proved was a prevaricator. Again, Phillips may have been involved, might even have been running Oswald, but that doesn’t prove that Oswald was on the 6th floor. I’d rather just look at Phillips on his own, rather than tying him to Oswald. Plenty to wonder about there. He was an excellent propagandist. Others here have tried to use his manuscript as proof of something. I think that’s a rabbit hole.
I also think that Oswald might have been a Soviet agent, or a double agent of some kind with unclear ties. But if Woolsey is right that does not implicate the Soviets in the assassination unless Oswald was the assassin, or at least one of them. He was a very poor choice of assassin, but an excellent choice as a patsy. i personally believe that Oswald himself is the ultimate rabbit hole, since so much JFK research history revolves around who he was and what part he may have played. It’s caused all of us to take our eyes off the ball. If he didn’t do it, and that is a widely held view here, whether he fired or not, then Who did? Very little attention is given to that most important question. 
 

Paul--

Yes, thanks for your sentiments and comments, and I enjoy your presence as well. Conversation, and not contention, is the way to go. 

OK, first let me say I am trying to get to the true story, regardless of whether it fits any particular narrative, be it left-wing, or right-wing, or anti-CIA, or pro-CIA, pro-globalist establishment, etc, etc. 

Ponder this scenario: Yes, LOH was a CIA-intel agency asset, but then lost his mind and shot JFK. This "absolves" the CIA and the globalist-establishment in many regards, but also explains the long cover-up.

Reasonable scenario? 

I don't buy it---the Zapruder film, I contend, shows separate shots hitting JFK, then Connally, and then JFK, in too-rapid succession for the rifle we are told LOH had. I see that with my own eyes. (In addition, as witnessed by Connally, his wife, and the three Secret service men in the follow-car). 

OK---so at least two gunman, or one gunman with a different rifle from the one LOH had. The M-C rifle could not have done it. 

Where was LOH when shots rang out?

About all we can say with a modicum of certainty is that no one saw LOH at the time of the shooting. That much seems clear. Beyond that, the witness accounts are so jumbled, and the FBI/WC so polluted affidavits and testimony, that we are left with ciphers. 

IMHO, there was time for LOH to purposely shoot and miss, then stash his rifle in a pre-arranged hiding spot, and walk quickly down the stairs to encounter Officer Marion Baker. Was there another lady going down the stairs? Maybe, but the timing is not certain. Suppose LOH and the lady were but one floor apart? So what?

I suspect I share with you a belief that more important than who pulled the trigger is, "Who organized the shooting?" 

Yes, my JFK assassination version comes down to relatively low-level Cuban CIA assets, who were leaked to by an unknown higher-up CIA figure, maybe intentionally and maliciously, maybe not. 

There was no grand conspiracy by the establishment-globalist, multinational-military-intel blob (a group I detest, btw). 

However, what is true is true. Some anti-Trumpers wanted to believe Brian Sicknick was murdered by a MAGA mob. That became the working narrative. I say, you can despise Trump, that is fine, but you still have to say what is true. 

Add on: Even without the JFK assassination, the damage the multinational-globalist-military-intel blob has done to America (and parts of the world) is incalculable. First, they hid the truth on the JFK assassination, and that is that CIA assets did it. 

Then, they got the US into Vietnam, followed by Iraq, Afghanistan and too many other ventures to recount. They created a mercenary military to do their bidding, when draftees no longer would. Prosperity for ordinary Americans counted much less than prosperity for the multinationals, let alone the horrible carnage wrought. They perverted modern media beyond recognition---and now are moving to silence all voices except their own, through copious de-platforming and so on. 

PS. I do not know what to think on the Veciana-Phillips-LOH meeting. Veciana is on the record and taped, and said it happened. I tend to believe him. 

The very intelligent Newman is working with paper records, that can be backdated, forged, or disappeared. Even in 1963, there were airplanes, and Phillips could spend part of a day in Dallas, no paper trail left today. CIA assets often worked through other entities, such as Army or Air Force, or private-sector. So Veciana was detailed to the Army but worked for the CIA.  

One does not have to be Sherlock Holmes to suspect the CIA paper record is intentionally obfuscatory, when it is not intentionally misleading. 

Anyways, in a couple of weeks I will (drum roll, then trumpets) present my article here. I think it holds water. 

---Best regards

17 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

But what good is it if it doesn't fit the facts?

Thanks for your comment. 

I assume you mean there is no evidence LOH was in, or not in, the so-called sniper's nest. Yes, I assume he was in the nest, and fired twice, intentionally missing. The Tague shot comes to mind. 

A bigger drawback to my theory is that LOH's cheek was famously clear of nitrates. But that test is a bit dicey, both false positives and negatives. 

I have fashioned my explanation to fit the facts, at least as I know them. 

I will in a couple of weeks post my article here. I think it withstands criticism, and holds water.  I look forward to your comments.

No, I cannot say my views "proves" anything, anymore than saying "Dulles ordered the JFK hit," proves that version. 

I will say my theory is more plausible than ones with a lot of actors and moving parts. 

19 hours ago, Chuck Schwartz said:

Benjamin, on your pet theory, who was Del Valle and others working for? Who approved their hit(s)? The US military would have known of the CIA plot and maybe they took JFK out ( or approved it)?

Chuck-

Thanks for your question. 

In my pet theory, LOH was run by DA Phillips, in a false flag fake assassination attempt. My guess is Phillips had to get tacit agreement from higher-ups and did so, no paper trail. 

OK, someone inside CIA either intentionally or maliciously leaks details of the false-flag operation to CIA assets in the Cuban exile community. 

The exiles show up in Dallas, perhaps drop names and convince LOH they are there to help him. Or maybe Del Valle just sneaks into the TSBD, while another colleague hides in/around Grassy Knoll. They wait for sound of gunfire, then commence shooting in earnest.  

I suspect the exile on Grassy Knoll area was a diversion, and just had a snub-nose .38 to release a lot of smoke and noise. Just two guys in whole operation though---no large conspiracy. 

So, in the whole world, only Phillips, LOH, and the two exiles (and the leaker) even had a clue to what happened. LOH correctly thought he was a patsy, and Phillips might have thought LOH shot in earnest, and the leaker might not know much either. Only that he leaked. 

I will explain more fully in long post in a couple of weeks. 

I like my explanation of events, as I prefer conspiracies with very few actors and moving parts. 

The real conspiracy was after Nov. 22, the cover-up. Then, people fall in line with the official story. 

3 hours ago, Cliff Varnell said:

Really?  “Going all in” was never part of the BOP planning, Bissell never exerted any pressure on JFK to commit US forces, Dean Rusk gave Cabell a chance to plead that case D-Day -1 and Cabell demurred.

Robert Lovett (Brown Brothers Harriman banker) and Joe Kennedy tried to get Ike to fire Dulles.  Richard Bissell was brought into government service by Averell Harriman.  Dean Rusk and McGeorge Bundy were recommended by Lovett.

Lovett, Harriman, Bundy were Skull & Bones, while Bissell was tapped but turned it down.

Joe Kennedy was on the phone with his son throughout the BOP fiasco.

Joe Kennedy soon after the BOP: . "I know that outfit, and I wouldn't pay them a hundred bucks a week. It's a lucky thing they were found out early."

https://www.historyextra.com/period/20th-century/bay-of-pigs-invasion-kennedys-cuban-catastrophe/

<quote on>

That the United States had been behind the operation was soon reported by the press and revealed in the United Nations. Unaccustomed to setbacks in what had so far been a charmed political life, Kennedy was devastated by the Bay of Pigs disaster. An adviser who peeped into the White House bedroom as the operation was failing observed JFK crying in the arms of his wife Jackie. He called his father for advice every hour, yet did not receive the paternal support he had anticipated. “Oh hell,” Joseph Kennedy told his son,“if that’s the way you feel, give the job to Lyndon [Vice President Johnson].”

<quote off>

Sure looks to me like Old Joe and the Yalies sabotaged the BOP in order to get rid of Dulles. 


 

Interesting interpretation. 

1 minute ago, Paul Brancato said:

Why do you think Oswald shot at anything that day? What would have motivated him to do so? 

Thanks for your comment.

Well, maybe I will do a whole post on my pet theory. 

Short version: LOH was run by DA Phillips. Phillips planned a Nov. 22 false-flag assassination attempt on JFK, by LOH. He was to shoot and miss, which explains the Tadue shot. Public outrage would ensue (heavily boosted by CIA presstitutes), and then "something done about Cuba." 

That was the plan. 

Eladio Del Valle, and perhaps others, somehow got wind on the project, and piggy-backed on it to shoot in earnest. 

Why did LOH participate? He was working for Phillips and Phillips told him to. LOH was a CIA asset. LOH wanted to advance up the ranks of CIA assets and this stunt would vault him to the top. 

7 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

I'm confused. Isn't this false flag fake assassination theory you've proposed a CIA plot intended to fail?

Yes, I contend there was a PR-stunt false-flag assassination attempt, but it was piggy-backed on by CIA elements. 

I do not think the CIA intended Bay of Pigs to fail---they intended to corner JFK into going "all in." 

I am confused also, but that happens a lot...

7 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

And as Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry said "No one has ever been able to put him in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand.” If Oswald had lived to see trial, he would not have been obligated to prove his innocence. It would have been up to the prosecution to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Just because there are no witness on record saying they were with Oswald doing innocent things at 12:30 PM doesn't mean that he was in the sixth floor sniper's nest. It does not take a witness at the time of a crime for someone to be convicted of a crime or to be absolved with an alibi. The possibility that he could have been up there is not the same as a probability, of course.

Oswald was seen on the 2nd floor at 12:25 PM. According to the official story, he was again seen on the 2nd floor at 12:32 PM. At that time, he was reported as not noticeably perspiring or being out of breath. In my opinion, that alone is compelling circumstantial evidence suggesting it is most probable that he remained on the lower floors during the interval of time in question. When one adds the other factors (lack of nitrates, ect.) the probability of Oswald being up in the sniper's nest at 12:30 PM lessens even further, I believe.

I think you've made this statement before. There seem to be a significant number of assassination researchers who believe Oswald was photographed outside the building during the assassination.

Denny-

Thanks for your comment.

Yes, some people say there might be photographs of LOH on the TSBD steps. I have looked the photos. Some are too blurry to say anything. 

Others have been more or less confirmed as being of a fellow named Lovelady. Besides that, no one on the TSBD steps says they saw Oswald on those steps. As I said, no one says they saw LOH when shots rang out. He was invisible at the moment of the assassination. 

My take on that is that LOH was shooting at the President and intentionally missing, the Tague shot for example, which some people have estimated went 20 feet over the top of the limo. 

Amos Lee Euins witnessed the "real" shooter.  I never understood the way Euins has been buried by everybody. 

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/euins.htm

That's my best guess. 

18 minutes ago, Dan Rice said:

Disinformation still lives.  David Atlee Phillips would be proud.

Dan Rice-

Thanks for your response.  

But if anything, the PR-intelligence apparatus of today is even more-powerful than in the 1960s, or the 1950s when Eisenhower delivered his famous warning. 

David Atlee Phillips would be proud---and very, very impressed. 

OK, as James DiEugenio has pointed out, there has been a spate of articles, and a recent book by former CIA Director James Woolsey, that either characterize the JFKA community as QAnon nut-types or worse, or again muddy the waters surrounding Nov. 22.

So why? Why now, at this late date, does there appear to be yet another PR campaign to sabotage any serious effort to understand the events of 1963? 

Over at JFK Facts, Jeff Morley's blog, we get a possible clue.

This is interesting.

Four years ago, President Trump promised to release all the files on JFK, and evidently there are still 15,834 CIA files not open to the public. Then Trump reneged, and left those files secret, but with a mandatory review in four years. I guess Trump wanted leverage over the CIA. 

OK, so then Trump loses the presidential election and Biden wins.

But the mandate is still in place, and the review is due this October.

So...now President Biden in October will decide whether to make the CIA files, approaching 60 years old or more, public. Morley more or less less considers that Biden is creature of the Deep State, and won't make the files public.  

So, in this light---the October mandate---it appears efforts are again being made to make the JFKA community look like a bunch of kooks. Besides that, an ex-CIA director, who should know, contends the real story was that Oswald was a Moscow asset anyway. 

This latest PR campaign will allow Biden to breeze through October, with no reckoning, or even little questioning, as to why such old files are still being kept away from the public. 

https://jfkfacts.org/cia-director-bill-burns-will-advise-biden-on-secret-jfk-files/#more-30908

BTW, a few years back I wrote about President Nixon trying to get Bays of Pigs files from the CIA, and getting stonewalled. 

President Trump CIA Nixon-word.docx

JFK (and his brother) served in WWII, when actual citizens served in the military, and not a   mercenary class. 

There were advantages to the draft military, and one was citizens like JFK who were not cowed by brass and titles---JFK had been in the military, and nearly killed in various events.  

The Bush Jr.s , the Obamas, and Trumps, the Bidens are at a disadvantage. 

I have never been comfortable with a mercenary military, for various civil and moral reasons.  

Perma-wars are one result. The insulting misnomer of an "all-volunteer" military is ubiquitous. But not accurate. 

I do not begrudge anyone seeking economic security in the shredded US economy, nor do I malign any individual's patriotism. These guys in the US military could be me, with a turn of events here or there in my life. 

But a citizen-soldier draft military is the true US tradition (although the US Constitution goes even further, and suggests (unpaid) volunteer citizen militias are preferred). In fact, founding father George Mason refused to sign the US Constitution as it did not have an actual prohibition on a standing army. 

The modern professional military-intel-foreign policy-globalist blob is not a US tradition nor true to our heritage, nor good for average US citizens and taxpayers.

 Don't look for Biden to shake it up.