Benjamin Cole

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

I look forward to watching this. Thanks for posting.

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

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.

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.

Interesting interpretation.

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.

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...

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.

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.

Well, enough evidence had been concocted over previous months to make LOH into a public and known leftie-commie. So, as long as the Mannlicher-Carcano-Mauser rifle could be traced back to him, then the cover story that a "leftie-loser-Castroite LOH took a pot shot at the President but missed" would hold water. My guess is LOH was offered a safe house, new ID, more-glamorous undercover assignments, etc. The heat would be intense for a while, but "no harm no foul" and the incident would blow over eventually. However, you may be right. Every organization makes mistakes, hatches bad plans. There are Edsels everywhere, and I have crafted some of my own. Still, what you are proposing is a very dangerous plan---frame a loyal asset, who might sing like a bird after a few years in prison. Or sooner. How would other loyal assets react to this? I can't say I know a lot of intel-police types. I know the LAPD is very tight and never crosses its own. Are there other examples of the CIA setting up their own loyal officers or assets to be framed for murder?

My take is no one saw LOH at the very moment shots rang out. Not one person ever said, "Yeah, I was talking to LOH when shots rang out." Or, "We were loading boxes and heard gunfire." LOH was not photographed anywhere. As an aside, I always mention the testimony of Amos Lee Euins, a contemporaneous eye witness who says he saw the "bald" assassin (or one of them), and who (of course) was shunted aside by he WC. But the JFKA community should pay more notice. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/euins.htm

That is my understanding too. The CIA believed it had cornered JFK into providing air support but JFK could not be cowed, and instead fired CIA leadership after the debacle, as I am sure you know. But did the CIA actively plan for and devise a sure-to-fail mission? They may have been deluded, but they expected to prevail in Cuba.