Greg Doudna

2 hours ago, Claude Barnabe said:

Took awhile but here goes.

Greg, the narrative you have presented for the summer of '63 in NO  has Oswald as a willing or unwitting intel asset. Further, if he was being directed, whoever was directing LHO, IMHO knew what was coming in November.
First, the inception of the FPCC. The Fair Play for Cuba Committee (FPCC) was an activist group set up in New York City by Robert Taber in April 1960. The beginning of the FPCC had some organizational issues. The issues were solved with the help of the SWP and CPUSA. This from an article by Bill Simpich in CounterPunch mag 2009: "The Socialist Workers Party and the Communist Party were able to work together within the FPCC......Within six months, the FPCC had 7000 members in 27 “adult chapters” and 40 student councils on various college campuses with emerging student leaders..." You may recall in the backyard pictures LHO is holding a copy of the Worker and Militant, publications of SWP and CPUSA. NOTE: was he already planning his FPCC chapter? By the summer of '63 the FPCC was already in a downward spiral. This is from a forum topic: "Why was the FPCC being targeted in the summer of '63". Posted by Greg Parker: From The Party: The Socialist Worker's Party 1960-1988, VOL 1: The Sixties: by Barry Sheppard
At the convention [the July, 1963 SWP national convention], a meeting of pro-Cuba activists discussed the situation in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. Cubans living in the United States who supported the July 26 Movement had helped us build the FPCC. Now most of them had returned to Cuba. In most areas, the FPCC had dwindled down to supporters of the SWP and YSA. Since we did not want the FPCC to become a sectarian front group, the meeting decided to stop trying to build it. The FPCC then existed for a while as a paper organization, until the assassination of President John Kennedy.
An article published in Kennedy and King by Paul Bleau in August  entitled 'Exposing the FPCC Part 1' summarizes the same sentiment. The FPCC in the summer of '63 was defunct. The US travel ban to Cuba, the migration of M26 Cubans back to Cuba and the Oct '62 missile crisis all contributed to its demise.
The above explains why LHO words on the radio debate and follow-on letter to the CPUSA did not matter. So what was he really up to? I'll draw your attention to the Warren Report Chapter 7 subsection 'Interest in Cuba'. In July '63 LHO convinced Marina the family should return to Russia and at his behest Marina wrote a letter to the Soviet Embassy asking for an expedited visa so Rachel could be born in Russia. Marina gave the letter to Lee to mail. Unknown to her Lee placed a separate note to the embassy asking that his visa application be considered separately. LHO had no intention of returning to Russia, at least not immediately. From the report, "Marina Oswald testified that her husband engaged in Fair Play for Cuba Committee activities "primarily for purposes of self-advertising. He wanted to be arrested. I think he wanted to get into the newspapers, so that he would be known." According to Marina Oswald, he thought that would help him when he got to Cuba. He asked his wife to help him hijack an airplane to get there, but gave up that scheme when she refused."
During the summer of '63 LHO practiced dry firing the MC on the porch of their apartment (WCR 382). He contacts  Arnesto Rodriguez of the Modern Language Institute to continue his education in the Spanish language. He also contacts Dean Andrews to enlist his aid in reversing his dishonorable discharge from the Marine Corps. Delgado and LHO spoke about how an Honorable Discharge from the Marine Corps could afford them an officer rank in the revolutionary corps. Recently I re-read Kerry Thornley's WC testimony. It reinforces the Delgado testimony, in fact Thornley took part in some of the Cuba discussions with Delgado and Oswald.
LHO knew the revolution was over in Cuba, but Castro had begun to export his revolution to other Latin American and South American countries. Delgado in his testimony mentioned they could export the revolution to other oppressive regimes.
When LHO's bid to get a Cuban visa in Mexico City failed,  he must have been open to other options. If you objectively look at the final acts of LHO on 11/22, bringing a rifle to the TSBD (discussed in 'What's the Package, Lee' thread), leaving Marina $179 cash, about a months pay, exchanging his wedding ring for his USMC ring and leaving his wedding ring with Marina, these are the actions of a man who was involved in the conspiracy that killed JFK.
The forum has become an echo chamber for 'poor innocent Lee, the patsy'. Members are critical of the Warren Commission and its conclusions. While I disagree with their conclusion of LHO as sole assassin, I do agree with their characterization of LHO's personality traits. After all the commission had the time, money, resources to research a man's life like never before. Virtually everyone LHO came into contact with was interviewed. If you take the time (and it's considerable) to read the various testimonies you begin to assemble a picture of who Oswald really was. In short the Commission 'nailed' it.

Claude, thanks very much for the thoughtful response. A first point is I don’t agree with the reasoning that if Oswald was an informant or agent provocateur in Aug 63 New Orleans that his agency would necessarily know about or be involved in the assassination in Dallas on Nov 63; non sequitur. 

Second there was a CIA message to the FBI just at the time Oswald was getting his visa to go to Mexico City informing FBI of an operation designed to discredit the FPCC in some area where FPCC had support. Since that operation is not otherwise identified, and since it occurs at the time the New Orleans CPUSA connected head of the FPCC chapter decided to go to Mexico City, was that anti-FPCC operation related to Oswald? It looks like it. 

Third, if FPCC by mid 1963 was a paper or shell organization dying a natural death, doesn’t that CIA-FBI message alerting to a new imminent anti-FPCC false flag (or similar) operation indicate ongoing active operations to subvert that organization, which Oswald’s behavior looks closely like?

And fourth, I believe Canadian political scientist Gary O’Brien in “Oswald’s Politics” justly criticizes the Warren Commission’s treatment of Oswald’s motivation in psychological terms. O’Brien says Oswald aligned with the anti-Castro JURE would agree very well with Oswald’s writings and political views. 

And fifth, I agree Oswald’s behavior on Nov 21-22 indicates Oswald was involved in something but there are other possibilities than that he was intending either to shoot Kennedy personally or go to Cuba. 

I believe sources for the “real Oswald” in the 1959-1963 period are: his personal papers and writings other than his letters; the Delgado WC testimony you note; Titovets’ book on Oswald in Minsk; de Mohrenschildt’s “I’m a Patsy!” Manuscript; and his Aug 63 Spring Hill College address in Alabama. 

But that other things of Oswald reflect persona not the real Oswald, such as some of his letters, behaviors, and, in the case of the Backyard Photographs, photographs.

I don’t think it is necessarily certain the real Oswald of 1963 underneath persona would be pro-Castro. As for joining in revolutions in other Latin American locations, there is no evidence in Oswald’s writings of an advocacy for, love for or romanticization of revolutionary violence.

4 minutes ago, Mike Aitken said:

www.familytreenow.com has 34 listings for George Hayes and most are outside of the age range you’re looking for.  Any other information your friend may have, like where he was originally from, exact age, wife’s name, etc. would help in narrowing it down even further.

I called "R" again. He says now he thinks it was probably 1966 or 1967 when George Hayes told him that, he doesn't think it was as late as 1968. He says George Hayes was not married, no wife in the picture that he knew of, when he knew him. He did not know George's age, said his best guess would be about the same age as R was, which was 23 in 1966. By that estimate George Hayes' birth year would be estimated ca. 1943 plus or minus a few. However since he said he worked in radar with Oswald when Oswald was at Atsugi, that would be 1958-1959, and I would think someone in the armed forces would have to have been at least 18 by 1959, which would mean a birth year no later than ca. 1941. Therefore putting the two together it sounds to me like best estimate for year of birth would be ca. 1940-1942. I asked if he knew where George Hayes grew up and did he mention brothers or sisters or parents and he said he did not know on those questions, they just discussed current events.  

1 hour ago, David Von Pein said:

I'm confused about something here....

There are conspiracy theorists who seem to want to believe that the "red Ford" [6 H 453] that was in front of witness Domingo Benavides at the time of Officer Tippit's murder was, in fact, the red Ford Thunderbird owned by Igor Vaganov.

And there are apparently some conspiracists who also want to believe that Igor Vaganov was the person who actually killed J.D. Tippit.

So my question is: How could Vaganov have shot Tippit at the exact same time he was driving down Tenth Street in his red Thunderbird?

All of the witnesses said that Tippit's killer was walking on the sidewalk just before the shooting. Nobody ever said the killer was shooting from a moving car.

Please, Greg D. (or anyone else), help me understand this strange set of beliefs that some CTers seem to possess.

Are there some CTers who think Vaganov shot Tippit from the sidewalk and that somebody else was driving the Thunderbird? And was the Thunderbird supposedly the "getaway car" that Vaganov then jumped into after the shooting?

P.S. / BTW / FYI / FWIW....

For a look at the two-page endnote concerning the topic of Igor "Turk" Vaganov in Vincent Bugliosi's book "Reclaiming History", CLICK HERE.

David since this has nothing to do with what I said about Vaganov I have no idea why you are addressing your question to me as to why someone else might think something else. 

In fact I wonder why you are making this comment at all after quoting me. It is completely nonresponsive.

It has the effect of making a careless reader lump me in with the objects of your ridicule. 

You quote me, and then first words "I'm confused about something here" and go off on your tangent as if that has anything to do with what I wrote.  

This isn't going anywhere. I think I've lost interest in further engagement here.  

I talked to “R” again. He says George Hayes did speak of seeing two MOS’s on the same paystub of Oswald, one of which had to do with Russian language. R who is himself a veteran said his own paystubs only had one MOS so that seemed unusual. He said George Hayes told him that in ca 1967-1968, reconstructing that timing based on toward the later part of R’s own time at Cal State LA ‘65-‘68. He said he and George Hayes took a trip to Esalen once. He said George Hayes was a major in psychology (field of study). He remembered George as about maybe 5’10”, clean shaven, military bearing. 

I’m half hoping some grandchild or family member may see this, recognize their family member, and say if George Hayes said or wrote anything about this to the family. 

Steve Roe, nothing you cite has relevance to my interpretation of Vaganov, who was not at the Tippit crime scene, was not a gunman, did not shoot Tippit, and had not the least thing to do with the killer’s abandoned jacket. I am quite familiar with the Esquire article. Salandria’s involvement and views have no relevance. The facts of Vaganov are what are relevant, and something that was not raised in that Esquire article or in earlier discussions of Vaganov: the identification of the red car seen by mechanic White as Vaganov’s car, bearing the license plate number of a contact of Tippit.

The fact that Fonzi, Thompson, Salandria et al found nothing on Vaganov to confirm their suspicions does not really explain the facts of the location, timeline, and movements of Vaganov adequately. And that is apart from the startling license plate number on his car that day. That Mather license plate number seen on the red car by mechanic White ties Vaganov to the Tippit case, the only issue being in what way. I suppose it was Vaganov was an intended driver for Craford, and the license plate covert switching and then switching back business was preemptive of plates that would be traceable to Vaganov if reported. Are you aware of a satisfactory alternative explanation for Mather’s plate number on a red non-Mather car in Oak Cliff in the hours of the Tippit killing? 

Do you conclusively exclude that red car seen by mechanic White was Vaganov’s? It fits the time frame Vaganov was away from his Oak Cliff apartment that day, it occurred only several blocks from his apartment, it is a car seen acting suspiciously by White at the time… what better explanation of the startling license plate number on that car than to connect it to Vaganov’s strange behavior with his red car?

David, I was focusing on JFK but as you note Tippit weighs mightily on it. Therefore I would make an all-out robust defense of Oswald’s total innocence on Tippit, citing well-known witness fallibility on the Markham, Callaway et al lineups (lots of data on that), and unlike with JFK, making a robust case on Tippit for a different solution: that it was a luring of Tippit to that planned location and time and then ambush for a killing by a self-confessed experienced hitman working for Ruby, namely Craford. 

And here is the smoking gun the Oswald-killed-Tippit in an unplanned killing narrative has something seriously amiss: it’s that license plate number seen on Vaganov’s car in Oak Cliff that belongs to Tippit’s friend Carl Mather of Collins Radio who doesn’t live anywhere near Oak Cliff. Nobody on the Oswald LN side has explained that. Myers doesn’t. I doubt you have (willing to be corrected if you have). Vaganov looks like he was sent down by some mob boss in Philadelphia, Bruno probably, to just be helpful. Vaganov by his own account spent time in the building Craford lived, of all places in Dallas, the day or two before the Tippit killing. A car matching Vaganov’s red car description was sighted in front of Ruby’s apartment a few blocks away from the Tippit crime scene, at approximately the time Tippit was killed by his killer seen arriving walking from the east as if coming from Ruby’s apartment which agrees with that is where the car-less Craford could have been the night before since he was last seen with Ruby the previous night. 

Mather was close socially to Tippit, and Tippit looks like he was known to Oswald via the Dobbs House and then apparent looking for Oswald on Nov 22. Mather’s plates without Mather’s knowledge were taken from his car surreptitiously and put on Vaganov’s. Then Vaganov hightailed driving his red car to Philadelphia the day after the Tippit killing, just like Craford hightailed it for Michigan the same next day after the Tippit killing. Vaganov parked the car in covered enclosed storage out of sight in Philadelphia, then returned to Dallas again within hours in a different car. 

The license plates of Mather on a car in Oak Cliff that wasn’t Mather’s, but does appear involved in the Tippit killing, is fact, and the car those plates were on is the color of and can be identified as Vaganov’s car. 

And that Tippit was lured out of his car by being flagged by someone from the sidewalk, not Tippit motioning a suspicious unknown pedestrian on a sidewalk over to talk to him through his vent window, is a second fact.

And the killing of Tippit looking like a killing of a hitman, a contract hit, is a third fact, none of these three facts consistent with Oswald. 

The prints were lifted from the right front passenger door where the killer’s hands and arms were according to the witnesses who saw the killer talking to Tippit, and Oswald was excluded as a match to those prints. I would cite all that, and lack of sworn testimony establishing the shell hull chain of custody, and the paper-bag revolver find and its coverup as linked to a likely recent murder weapon disposal never otherwise identified; of the same kind of weapon that killed Tippit; plausibly tossed out a car window by Craford hours before he split Dallas for Michigan; and that paper-bag revolver as the true Tippit murder weapon not the revolver found on Oswald which was a framing. So the argument.

Tippit would have been a witness and/or alibi for Oswald, it would be argued, if he had not been executed by the identical mob/Ruby related ones who would be shown to have appeared to stalk and have intended to kill Oswald.

I would show a solution to the Walker shot, a solution to the Tippit killing, but not a solution to the JFK assassination. But with Oswald shown innocent on the other two, then as Chief Curry said, although Oswald’s rifle was in the building, and Oswald was in the building, Oswald could not be placed as the shooter of that rifle.

I would reinforce that with character references for Oswald; his love for JFK and lack of motive to kill JFK; the gunshot residue tests’ failure to find evidence on his cheek that he shot a rifle that day; his total lack of practice shooting in the runup; and the widespread testimonies of sniper experts finding it surprising at best (not believable at worst) that Oswald could be that accurate in shooting. I would press the point of why, if it was Oswald and his overriding desire was to succeed in killing Kennedy, he would not shoot before the limo turned on to Elm. There is only one explanation that explains that: an ambush involving more than one shooter at the 6th floor window was planned and it wasn’t for there. 

I would show the contrast between the actual lone nut assassins in history who took credit proudly for ideologically-motivated killings, and Oswald who did not do that, while also having no other established motive to kill JFK. 

Somebody or somebodies got to JFK, and set up Oswald for it, the argument. By a choice to fix upon Oswald, who had no more intent to kill JFK than he did Walker when Surrey was standing right with him when that shot was fired with Walker not in line of fire, the true killing of JFK goes unsolved.

So would be the summation to the jury. 

An older man, 80-plus, I have run into and become acquainted with in a coffee shop, like a lot of retirees who settle here from elsewhere, sometimes have interesting stories, and this was one. I will call him "R". What I recount happened earlier today, Sunday afternoon. 

R told me he knew a man long ago at Cal State LA, in East Los Angeles, where they were both students, who told him he had served with and knew Oswald at Atsugi, Japan, both doing radar work. This man had completed his term of service and was now at Cal State LA.

This man told R he had seen a paystub of Oswald. All the paystubs had on them the person's "MOS", Military Occupational Specialty designation, which in this man's and Oswald's case was radar something.

But this man told R he personally saw Oswald's, unlike his own paystub, had a second MOS listed for Oswald on Oswald's paystub, which was "Russian" language, which struck him as odd at the time. The MOS could affect pay scale.

This was at a time before Oswald supposedly learned Russian on his own in the Soviet Union. And I do not believe the Marines or military ever confirmed training Oswald in Russian.

R told me the name of this fellow service person with Oswald at Atsugi: "George Hayes". (R spelled it for me; that is the spelling as R told me.)

I asked if George Hayes had told this or been interviewed, and R said no, not that he knew of, he never went public with it. And I cannot find any reference to a "George Hayes" as a fellow serviceperson with Oswald, etc.

R said he did not keep in touch with George Hayes after those college days and they went their separate ways, no idea what became of him. R said George Hayes told him that in the cafeteria at Cal State LA where they ate.

Unfortunately the name "George Hayes" is sufficiently common that I am pessimistic he could be identified today. If he was identified, the next question is would he still be alive, and could he be interviewed on videotape for some historical record for whatever that might be worth. But even then, a witness telling what they remembered seeing on a document sixty years earlier is nothing to go on, impossible to verify.

But it is one of those random accidental wisps of life that happen now and then ... sixty years later... who knows the truth of these things. 

I would establish that the Walker shot was staged for publicity by Oswald and Walker people; that Oswald's FPCC activity in New Orleans and letters to national communist leaders were for purpose of discrediting the FPCC as an operative; and that Oswald thought he was part of a third such illusory operation, to incriminate Castro in what he thought was going to be a staged failed assassination attempt, not a real assassination, blamed on Castro in order to provide a popular mandate and casus bellus for invasion and regime change of Cuba.

Even if only the first two of the above could be proven, but not the third (the assassination attempt to be blamed on Castro), it would establish reasonable doubt as basis for the jury to find a verdict of not guilty in the case of the third.

Oswald would admit the "marked rifle" was his, deny that he was on the 6th floor at the time of the shooting or that he fired the rifle, admit he fled the workplace, deny that he killed Tippit, would name names, claim his communist persona in the U.S. following his return from the Soviet Union was a sham, and testify that he lied to maintain cover after his arrest because he had been asked to do so temporarily by ATTU agent Ellsworth and/or FBI Hosty until intervention would get him released, but had been hung out to dry.

I would subpoena and compel testimony from Ellsworth and members of the Dodd committee concerning the "marked rifle" and how Oswald was enlisted in the service of Dodd Committee investigations.

I would not focus on Zapruder, autopsy, medical, witnesses to the President being hit, number of shots, claims of other locations of shooters, or evidence of conspiracy, for that is beside the point of finding my client--correctly and truthfully to my belief as defense counsel--innocent, as in, "he didn't do it". I would make no attempt to establish who did the assassination, only that Oswald did not murder the president or conspire to murder the president.

I've been watching a lot of old Matlock reruns lately. Matlock knew how to turn things around in a courtroom in cases of people framed who are actually innocent.

Does that answer your question David? 🙂 

5 hours ago, Claude Barnabe said:

Greg, the WC had difficulty attributing a motive for Oswald's actions on 11/22/1963. I believe Oswald's obsessive desire to join the Cuban revolution (as shown in Delgado's testimony and his actions in '63: attempt at repatriating Marina and the kids to Russia, request for Cuban visa in MC et al) provided the conspirators a path to ensnare him in the plot. For Oswald, assisting in killing JFK was not an 'end' but a means to an 'end'. I think someone or a group promised him passage to Cuba.

Thank you Claude. The narrative of Oswald liked Castro, dreamed of going to Cuba ... in continuity from Delgado 1959 through Nov 1963 ... I understand the picture you are presenting... 

But Oswald started his FPCC chapter and went on the radio in New Orleans against the wishes of the FPCC national, and Oswald speaks of "we" as if he is a spokesman, even though not authorized by anyone in FPCC. Speaking in the name of FPCC he denies, denies, denies that the FPCC is connected to any communist party or control, in agreement with FPCC self-representation which federal agencies were deadset on proving otherwise to discredit and disrupt the FPCC.

Meanwhile he is writing letters to the Communist Party USA including to the governing Central Committee of the CPUSA addressing them as "Comrades" as if he is an equal (!--with no prior Party experience or having attended a single Party meeting!), documenting in writing that he, as a FPCC chapter head, is directly intent on promoting the party's communist party objectives and taking directions from them (!). Documenting in writing everything publicly denied, the FPCC leadership's worst nightmare, creation of evidence in exact agreement with what federal agencies were seeking to discredit the targeted FPCC.

And of course the Backyard Photos, if they had been released in connection with his FPCC activities would have been fatal to the FPCC. A picture is worth a thousand words--think of the impact of that visual if it had appeared in a national press story on the FPCC's representative in New Orleans! 

And this from an Oswald who according to his own personal writings had no love for the Communist Party USA, would be predicted to not like the Soviet-Cuba alliance, and condemned the CPUSA's support for the Soviet Union.

I am wondering how this works with the prevailing narrative of Oswald as a sincere pro-Castro believer/supporter in 1963.

When his actions, if not directly COINTELPRO, could hardly better serve what COINTELPRO was intent on doing, to discredit and subvert the FPCC, the most effective organization in America lobbying for the US to follow a nonaggression policy toward Cuba.  

How could Oswald be a sincere Castro supporter in 1963, when his actions are so destructive of the FPCC, and when he is personally a libertarian socialist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), which would be predicted to be opposed to the Castro of 1963, would be predicted to be a JURE/Manual Ray anti-Castro type rather than a pro-Castro supporter in 1963?

Delgado says both his and Oswald's liking of Castro in 1959 began before Castro was realized to be communist and before Castro's alliance with the USSR. It is true that Delgado says Oswald did not break from Castro after Castro started publicly going communist and pro-USSR and the news of Castro's executions, etc. were in full force that alienated Delgado. Delgado says Oswald basically expressed denial, said that was hostile US propaganda at the time. But if Oswald's personal writings are reflective of the real Oswald, it would practically be predicted that Oswald also, just as Delgado even if not quite as quickly, would break from support for Castro for the same reasons that Delgado did. 

What Oswald was doing with FPCC in 1963 looks so much like COINTELPRO, which seems inconsistent with the narrative that Oswald was actually, sincerely enamored with Castro in 1963, even if he was for real in 1959 as was Delgado for real in 1959, in the first bloom of Castro coming to power, is the logic here.

I'm having trouble seeing how these factors are reasonably folded into a narrative in which Oswald in 1963 is a true-blue pro-Castro idealist. 

(I am hoping you will push back, if you're willing to do so!)

Got it on CE 705 re the Sheriff’s Dept radio transcript Michael, thanks on that. 

Question remains, if you or Bill can answer, who is car #109? I am wondering if that could be Bill Courson, who according to Sneed says he was in the area and radioed in about that time, which would be a compatible match. He says he was in a marked patrol car even though in plain clothes, and radioed in at around Jefferson, followed by going to the library. It sounds like it could be him?

Also, in reading the Sheriffs Dept transcript I was startled to see this, in light of Tippit’s patrol car being Dallas Police 10. Is the “10” below a different patrol car, Sheriff’s Dept 10, that same patrol car number as Tippit being coincidence? 

- - - START transcript excerpts - - -

12:53 PM.

36.

36–go ahead.

Ask 10 where he would like me to go?

10?

36–10 is evidently out of his car 36–.

(…)

(after 1:00)

36–Have you heard anything from 10 or Sts 1?

Negative.

- - - END transcript excerpts - - -

Bill, who is Dallas Sheriff's Deputy Unit #109? (Name of officer.)

Do you have a link to a transcript of the Sheriff's Department radio on that? I don't find anything about that on the Dallas Police radio, and I'm wondering where you are getting that. 

3 hours ago, Bill Brown said:

Remember, Dallas Sheriff's Deputy Unit #109 reported that he was very nearby once news of the Tippit shooting went out over the police airwaves. 

On 6/12/2024 at 12:47 PM, Bill Brown said:

The Dallas County Sheriff's Department (no doubt monitoring the city police radio) put out the same information over their airwaves.  Shortly after Bowley's report, a Sheriff's Deputy (unit 109) reported to his dispatcher that he was at the intersection of Tenth and Jefferson, just one block east of the bus stop located at Marsalis and Jefferson; the same stop which for Oswald's transfer was good.

David Josephs, it’s not about govt vetting as you misquote me, but scientists’ vetting in science journals peer reviewed. 

When you say “what’s impossible” is to see a “peer-reviewed journal” willing to “actually say what the rest of us know”, 

… THINK David … can you think real hard of why that might possibly be? 

On the seven anomaly arguments/frames you want me to explain, do each of those specific seven have wide consensus inside this bubble as being proofs of alteration? Or not? Just to know the status or weight of these claims you have set forth before a lot of wheel-spinning?

What is Zavada’s response to the seven, if you know?

Honestly, I am sure I could put my life on hold and spend 24/7 for six weeks in crash immersion courses on film technology preparatory to researching the seven frames you ask/demand me to explain. I don’t have that kind of time or motivation, as opposed to the quicker triage of energy route of judging which experts are most credible to trust on technical questions always attempting to steer clear of confirmation bias. Hence, peer reviewed science journals.

And what if I did hundreds of hours of research and came back with findings on those seven frames that differed from your conclusions? Would you listen? Would you consider? Would you have a thoughtful give and take polemic-free discussion, open to change and learning? Would you be open to new information? Would anything I might say matter to you? Are you really interested in knowing of plausible non-alteration explanations if such exist to your seven frames? Have you yourself searched to find such rebuttal explanations in a way that you are capable of accurately understanding and describing the other side of some of these arguments? Why don’t you give the rebuttal arguments yourself if you know them? 

Just for one example, you start right off the bat asserting splicing—“this depiction of the ‘original’ film—spliced 6 times being 7 pieces…” as proof of alteration.

And you present that as consensus belief inside this bubble, and me as ignorant for being too dense not to know what everyone else inside, but no one outside, this bubble claims to know. 

I checked, and found this:

”But Zavada found no evidence of splicing, and instead saw the tell-tale fogging that occurs when a movie camera paused with film in its gate.”

But I’m sure you must already have known that from Zavada (did you?). What is your response to that, not from ignorant me, but to that finding of Zavada who does appear to know what he is talking about?

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I'd be happy to accept that the film was altered if the case for alteration were submitted to an appropriate scholarly journal, subjected to peer review, and approved by independent experts with appropriate qualifications. As far as I'm aware, this has not yet happened. In fact, as far as I'm aware, no-one who claims alteration has even bothered to submit an article to a reputable journal.

That's what I meant too, not hypothetical individual well-qualified experts voicing support, but solid and convincing argument that is published in a top-tier peer-reviewed journal, followed by it being convincing to a significant sector of insiders in the relevant fields and holding up well over time in followup discussions and analyses. As you say, there is no sign that has happened or seems likely to happen.

18 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

I've found this apparent rebuttal online, in which someone claims to have done what Greer appears to have done:

https://jfkassassination.quora.com/Some-have-argued-that-Agent-Greer-s-head-swiveled-impossibly-fast-in-F315-317-Some-say-that-his-head-turned-from-150-l

This page contains links to a number of articles which refute various alteration claims:

http://www.jfk-info.com/moot1.htm

Thank you.

Sandy hit the nail on the head: the prior issue to this entire discussion is a question as simple in formulation as it is seemingly extraordinarily difficult to resolve conclusively: is there conclusive evidence--not possibility, not could-be, not maybe, but conclusive, unambiguous evidence--that the existing Zapruder film copy generations have been altered or tampered with in their origin.

If there IS--"if"--conclusive evidence of early-origin tampering or alteration in the film--THEN, since it did happen (as proven by the conclusive evidence that it did), one looks to find the when, where, how, and why. It would have to have been about the first weekend, and as Jeremy admits, nearly anything in the end is possible that is not specifically airtight excluded--it could be some form of this Hawkeye and Brugioni story. Doesn't matter that there is not documentary evidence, or positive evidence for it from that weekend, IF it is conclusive on film examination grounds that there WAS deception/alteration done on that film at the origin of today's copies.

But how are questions of allegations of tampering or forgery on something of this nature to be determined? What is the correct method to find a correct answer to the question?

Many probably won't like this but this is the only best-practices workable and reasonable method: via peer-review of specialists in the relevant fields of expertise, in the scientific journals publication process and system.

But in the case of the Zapruder film, there are sweeping claims--I have no idea whether any might be true or not--but what I can see is none have been vetted through published peer review in any substantial way. To claim there are experts with evidence unpublished for decades in their hip pockets which they have still not published--but trust them, they say they have it--this is a recipe for gullibility. 

I think most in the non-alteration camp would be open to proof of alteration of Zapruder if proof were shown in a form, not sufficient to convince a lay or amateur reader (like most of us reading this), but sufficient to persuade experts in the relevant fields who will state for the record that they are convinced. I don't see that happening in any significant way. It comes down to a question and judgment of evidence and proof.

With that in mind, I would like to end with a personal specific question on one alteration allegation claim. It is the claim that the existing Zapruder film shows the driver, Greer, turning his head back and forward too rapidly beyond human ability to move that fast. 

I have seen that allegation many times. Can Jeremy or anyone who is more up to speed on these issues, direct to a refutation or rebuttal of that allegation, if it has been rebutted or refuted? Or if not, give a brief, one-paragraph, version of a rebuttal here? (Without meaning to derail this thread?) I would appreciate it (I assume a few others listening in might too)--thanks.

48 minutes ago, Michael Kalin said:

The timestamps are nominal for reasons already described. I'm not going to repeat them.

If you want to make a serious argument based on timestamps you must first establish their validity.

They were spoken and recorded by the dispatchers in real time Michael, and are on the police tapes. No idea what you mean by calling dispatchers noting times for the record in real time only “nominal”, whatever that is supposed to mean. 

Nobody who listens to those tapes says those dispatchers’ 1:16 and 1:19 recorded times are not there, or that the citizens’ radio calls from the Tippit crime scene are not in between the 1:16 and the 1:19.

4 hours ago, Claude Barnabe said:

IMHO the Delgado testimony provides the motivation for the participation of LHO on 11/22/63. It explains LHO desire to learn Spanish and his desire to reverse his undesirable discharge.

Claude, could you elaborate further on how you see Delgado's testimony of his and Oswald's early interest in going to Castro's Cuba (dropped by Delgado, continued by Oswald) sheds light on or background or further understanding of what Oswald was doing on Nov 22, 1963? 

I too am struck by the continuity between Delgado's Oswald in 1959 and Oswald in 1963 at Spring Hill; also Oswald's proficiency in Spanish.

1 hour ago, Michael Kalin said:

The notion that the radio tapes show that Bowley's call occurred at 1:18 has already been comprehensively refuted. No need to go through it again. 

If you are saying the existing best recordings of the police calls do not have the citizens' calling in on Tippit's radio telling of the fallen officer after 1:16 (i.e. no argument of altered or tampered police tapes), that is just plainly untrue. Here is what I understand is considered the best transcription of the existing police tapes, the Ferrell, Kimbrough, Bonner, Shearer edition: http://www.billdrenas.com/articles/dpd01-00.pdf.

Just check on that transcript, item #816, time check 1:16. Then items #899-919 (after 1:16 pm), the citizens calling in from Tippit's car the first report that Tippit has been shot, and police reacting to that information. 

Therefore, after 1:16 pm. 

Then item #930 has a time check 1:19.

Therefore the Bowley et al radio calls occurred between 1:16 and 1:19.

I think you are substituting bluster for substance in asserting a post-1:16 call time on the existing police recordings, for when those first citizens radioed in Tippit was shot, has "already been comprehensively refuted". 

1) The Dallas Police tapes have Bowley's radio call at 1:18, which overrides transcription discrepancies. Unless the police radio tapes themselves--the copies from the dictabelts--are from forged substituted original dictabelt police tapes, that overrules and practically renders irrelevant any and all conflicting witness claims of a time earlier than 1:15 give or take a minute or two at most. 

2) Both Dallas newspapers as well as newspapers across the nation drawing from wire services were reporting in their Sat Nov 23 print editions that Tippit's time of death was 1:15 based on the 1:18 timed police transmission of Bowley. This means any theory of forgery or substitution in the originals of the police tapes, in order to create a false time compatible with incrimination of Oswald (i.e. to remove an exonerating ca 1:10 true time), had to have been done by Friday night when those stories were filed and put into print.  

And that would be before anyone had actually walked and timed from the Beckley rooming house to Tenth and Patton to know for sure there was a problem that forgery of the police tapes would be needed to solve. 

(That seems like a bit of a stretch to me.)

3) Bowley's memory of his watch reading 1:10 is first attested Dec 2, fourteen days later. Helen Markham's "1:15" bus she would walk to, the more I think about that I doubt she was referring to any specific bus time. Since the buses came every ten minutes, she did not need to remember or time in terms of which bus. Just be there at 1:15, catch the next bus, arrive at the Eatwell Cafe downtown in good time for her shift starting 2 pm.

I have taken buses, and if the bus pickups at the stop are 30 or 60 minutes apart, then I pay attention to the times. But if it is a bus that comes by every 10 minutes, who cares about the times, just show up and get on the next one. "1:15", a time in mind to show up at the bus stop in order to ensure getting to work on time.

The ca 1:15 pm time of death of Tippit from the police tapes does not prove Oswald's innocence or guilt either way.  

Some possible points in support of an alteration argument: 

• Scally's outstanding article, encyclopedic breakdown of the copies and chain of custody of the originals, "The Dallas Police Department's Channel 1 Radio Dictabelts: The chain of possession," https://www.jfk-assassination.net/scally.htm
• Washburn, "The Tippit Tapes: A reexamination", https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-tippit-tapes-a-re-examination  

Additional witnesses and documents in support of the 1:15 time in addition to the police tapes.

• Myers, "When J.D. Tippit was gunned down", https://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2017/11/when-jd-tippit-was-gunned-down.html

In a sense, arguments for alteration of the Dallas Police tapes are analogous to the debates over alteration of the Zapruder film: arguments from anomalies plus motive, combined with weak but conceivable possibility of means and opportunity for alteration.

1 hour ago, Gil Jesus said:

Consider this: Helen Markham was on her way to catch her "1:15 bus" that was scheduled to arrive at the corner of East Jefferson and Patton Ave. at 1:12 pm.

If this murder occurred  at 1:17 or 1:18 pm as Mr. Brown suggests, then Helen Markham never saw it. Because she had already caught her bus and was on her way to work.

So either the murder happened before 1:15 and Markham witnessed it, or it happened after 1:15 and Markham never saw it. Since the preponderance of the evidence indicates that Markham was present and witnessed the murder, therefore it had to have occurred BEFORE 1:15.

Gil I understand your point but there is another way to look at this. The fact is there was no “1:15” bus yet that is what Helen Markham said. “1:15” could be the time Helen had in mind she should be there, in time for the 1:22 actual bus time. 

Since the time she gave is not any actual bus time, either she was mistaken (which could agree with either 1:12 or 1:22 actual bus times) or she had in mind a time she needed to be there (which would be for the 1:22, not the 1:12).

I realize interpreting her “1:15” as referring to 1:12 is a better fit with the time she says she left her apartment. That would seem to be the real argument for her “1:15” meaning the 1:12 bus. 

Against that however are the other arguments in favor of the ca 1:15 time of the shooting, and the more recent information reported by McMahon from the Markham family that she was at 10th and Patton earlier than normal that day due to being asked by her son (the gang leader) to be present to witness something happening of a meeting of Tippit with gang members. 

Because much of the hearsay collected by McMahon from these family members is difficult to believe at face value, it is easy to blow this one off as family urban legend in genre. However there is this: (1) Jimmy Burt, one of the gang associates, told the FBI of a peculiar way he parked his car next to Tippit’s, which independently agrees with credible witness Frank Wright reporting seeing that same car parked the same odd way at the Tippit crime scene there at the time of the killing; and I don’t think (going from memory) McMahon relates or mentions that; and (2) independent argument that Tippit had been lured into an ambush, rather than it being the random accidental stop of a pedestrian that turned out badly of the WC/Myers interpretation.

I believe these two things correlate and explain each other. The ambush was set up for Tippit based on a fixed meeting time for which Tippit appeared. The car of Burt parked the wrong way on the wrong side of the street becomes the helpful signal to Tippit of where to pull over. Tippit pulls over, a man (his killer) appears from the sidewalk gesturing to him, says something through the vent window enough to get Tippit out of his car, then professionally and cold-bloodedly kills Tippit.

Jimmy Burt and William Smith in Burt’s car I believe saw this from only feet away outside Burt’s car, not being party to or having advance knowledge of the murder. They drove off, then both came to deny they and Burt’s car was ever there (except for when Burt told the FBI it was). Not only did Frank Wright see Burt’s car there but a lady in a house across the street also said she witnessed Tippit’s car pull up behind a parked sounding like another witness of Burt’s car there at the time of the killing.

According to McMahon’s article and research (going from memory), according to the Markham family the Markham son’s gang knew Ruby. And separately McMahon found Scoggins’ grandson with his grandfather’s story that a Ruby person asked Scoggins to be where he was at the time he was that day. 

In this reconstruction neither Helen Markham nor Jimmy Burt or Scoggins would know in advance there was to be a murder, but also would be terrified in the aftermath. If they recognized the killer (not necessarily but unknown) there would be motive not to say so, out of fear for their lives. (Recall Ruby stopping by Helen’s workplace at a counter later that day asking for her. Helen wasn’t there at the time but would have been told.) 

Then the fractured echoes of that come through the generations and decades later in the Markham family stories of what Helen privately told of that day. 

If so, this could explain two other minor details: either time, 1:12 or 1:22, seems “early” compared to when her shift began; and her “1:15” not matching any actual bus time possibly could be because that day she was walking earlier than she was used to. 

I also think I have an idea why Tippit was killed in a contract killing that day.  It was because Tippit was a contact or conduit for Oswald to convey something regularly—written, recording, something—to someone with whom Mather at Collins Radio was a courier or contact. Mather enlisted his friend Tippit to be the one actually meeting Oswald or receiving whatever from Oswald, via both being at the Dobbs House in mornings, that being where Tippit was regularly even though out of his district and no obvious reason why he would be a regular there—except it was next to Oswald’s rooming house and Oswald went there for coffee too.

Tippit was killed because of his knowledge of contacts with Oswald. At one of the meetings in which courier Mather had driven in to meet Tippit, the bad people spotted that and borrowed Mather’s license plate off his car without his knowledge, substituting another for it, and used those plates of Mather on Vaganov’s car. Which sounds outlandish except it happened with the changed license plate witnessed. I do not think Vaganov was at the scene of the crime but was set to be a driver for the car-less killer of Tippit, Craford, though that did not happen. 

And I think Tippit, far from being involved in either the assassination or any intention to kill Oswald, following the assassination of JFK, which came as a surprise, tried his level best, frantically but unsuccessfully, to find Oswald and head him off before Oswald went to the Texas Theatre where Tippit may have known Oswald’s life would be in extreme danger. 

Steve, yes Oswald was involved with some intentional associations with right-wingers in New Orleans, never in-person with leftists or communists as friends or in-person attendance of meetings, which belies the notion that he was a sincere communist acting on his own, with what can hardly be interpreted as other than intentional sabotage by Oswald of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, e.g. this 1986 Third Decade article of Melanson, https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=48731#relPageId=3. 

I am not disputing that kind of association in principle, also those Miami "Oswald" claims call for explanation (one individual known to have looked like Oswald who is also known to have been involved with those circles in gunrunning, though not known to have been in Miami, would be John Thomas Masen--is it possible the "Oswald" in Miami was a mistaken identification and not an impersonation?). 

My only point is I cannot see any point or anything substantial to an Alabama connection of Oswald in that connection, and all elements of Oswald's Alabama trip are satisfactorily explained in terms of the existing story. My default theory is that Oswald's Alabama speech might be as close or as good as it gets to the "real" Oswald's personal political views, as opposed to Oswald prevaricating for purposes of infiltration or surveillance of extremist groups which, by coincidence, were being targeted by the FBI and related alphabet agencies at the time. This would be in line with Simpich's conclusion that the "real" Oswald was not a communist, not a right-winger, but a pro-American liberal working for the U.S. 

I have recently begun to question whether Oswald was supportive of Castro in 1963 as commonly and so strongly assumed, 100% by LNers, and by a majority of WC critics too. It was possible to be a liberal politically and anti-Castro in 1963, as e.g. the group Oswald was sighted with on Sept 25, 1963 at Silvia Odio's front door, JURE led by Manual Ray, who had some support from RFK--Ray and JURE were left-wing and anti-Castro. Oswald's own writings have him as basically anti-authoritarian socialist which which would agree with opposition to Castro from the left. And Oswald was pro-Kennedy and the Kennedys were liberal (in domestic politics) and working to overthrow Castro. In that context it is not unimaginable that Oswald could be working wittingly in opposition to Castro on behalf of U.S. interests. 

And it has received little attention but the exemplar of LNism interpretation of Oswald--Patricia McMillan in the bestselling Marina and Lee--says Oswald had turned away from Castro and Castro's Cuba in Oct and Nov 1963, disenchanted says McMillan, never said a favorable word of or had any further interest in Castro in all of Oct and Nov 1963 according to McMillan. McMillan's source for that of course was Marina, but McMillan personally endorsed and presented it as true in her book. That's not what most people think, but that's what McMillan says was the fact in Oct and Nov 1963 for Oswald. 

How real is someone's overt persona of pro-Castroism in 1963 when the person has no known personal friend or acquaintance who is pro-Castro (apart from Marina his wife); when there is no known personal live attendance at a pro-Castro meeting; when the persons with whom one does associate or seek to associate in person are anti-Castro Cubans, never pro-Castro; when one's alleged overt pro-Castro activity (Oswald's one-man FPCC show in New Orleans against the expressed wishes and without approval of the national FPCC organization) looks for all the world like a COINTELPRO operation to discredit the FPCC...

The difficult task is to distinguish Oswald the prevaricator (in the service of possible surveillance or operative work) from Oswald's "real" views politically. But this is a larger topic and question.  

1 hour ago, Steve Thomas said:

Greg,

It's possible that Oswald's visit to the Jesuits had less to do with the Jesuits, and more to with Oswald's efforts to infiltrate Alpha 66 in Fairhope and Mobile, AL.

See my posting on p. 3 of this Forum Thread:
Bolton Ford -- What REALLY happened there in 
By Jim Hargrove

https://educationforum.ipbhost.com/topic/27593-bolton-ford-what-really-happened-there-in-1961/page/3/#comment-453775

Steve Thomas

Steve I read your link but I’m having trouble seeing an Oswald/Alpha 66 connection in Mobile or Fairhope Alabama as plausible related to his Spring Hill lecture. You bring out (a) Jerry Buchanan lived there who claimed he was in a fistfight with Oswald in Miami; (b) Carlos Bringuier lived there in 1976 according to an FBI interview address; and (c) Alpha 66 had an office and was active in that city.

I do not see that as enough to conclude a connection to (d) Oswald’s acceptance of his cousin’s invitation to speak at Spring Hill where the (non-Alpha 66 related) cousin was a student.

Among other things it seems Oswald as a passenger in other people’s car on that trip and with Marina and his cousin with him and hosts around him all the time, would likely account for his time and logistics during his visit leaving little opportunity for clandestine contacts there or whatever. How it looks to me anyway. 

The author doesn't know much about Oswald and did not research this very well.

Says Oswald was "almost functionally illiterate"--pure nonsense. Oswald read a lot, wrote a lot, showed no difficulty in reading comprehension or writing sensibly and coherently and grammatically.

Says "Oswald, who could barely read..." -- pure nonsense. Oswald checked out many books from public libraries and read them, Marina said he was always reading. De Mohrenschildt wrote of Oswald reading Russian classical authors in Russian. Under other circumstances, Oswald would have been easily capable of completing a college degree or a master's degree if he chose. His dyxlexia and spelling was pretty bad, but supposedly JFK had the same disability and no one has ever accused JFK of being stupid or illiterate.   

The author says Oswald's talk "was obviously not a success" as if somehow the author knows that -- also coming from left field, unsupported from accounts of those who were there. Contrary to this author's description, my impression is Oswald's talk at the seminary at Spring Hill was well-received, and on the basis of Oswald's notes and writing which appear to have been in preparation for it, he said nothing outlandish or unreasonable, but was informative. His basic message was a sympathetic discussion of respective problems in both the Soviet and western systems and he thought the best path forward was to take the best of both, Western freedoms and economic prosperity, and universal medical care coverage and better race relations in the Soviet Union.

From all accounts, Oswald was respectful of his audience, a good guest, told of experiences and knowledge of the Soviet Union of interest to those in the audience. There were no arguments, just thoughtful discussion, the way ideally talks should go in that kind of setting.

1 hour ago, Tom Gram said:

Do you have a link to that FBI report? Is it CE1953? I don’t recall ever seeing a conclusion from the FBI on the Walker case. How did you find down-to-the-hour accuracy on the submittal time? 

I thought the Surrey investigation was done in response to the same 5/20/64 letter from Rankin I linked in my last comment, and became a part of CE1953, but I could be misremembering. 

Here it is Tom, last page of a 6/16/64 FBI document: "our investigation did not establish whether Oswald did or did not make the attempt on General Walker’s life". The timing of delivery of the FBI investigation to the Warren Commission at 9 am on the day Surrey's questioning was to begin at 10 am is in the paragraph too. https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59602#relPageId=23 

Sandy your later quote from Jenkins does not contradict or repudiate his earlier reported OBSERVATION of gaping around a laceration running on the TOP of the head. Your quote doesn’t even mention the top of the head. You are reading this later from Jenkins as repudiating the truthfulness or accuracy of his earlier reported OBSERVATION which Jenkins is not doing nor does he intend the reader to read him that way. This is basic reading comprehension. 

That’s like saying person X never saw Y on the top of the head as he said he did, proven because over here he said ABC about the back of the head. It is a logical non sequitur.

And I did read the rest of the book, and the rest of the book supports Jenkins was not describing a personal hallucination in describing SEEING gaping along a laceration on top of the head. The reason this can be known not hallucinated by Jenkins is because he refers to the autopsists seeing those lacerations and Jenkins suggests that was the cause of a mistaken interpretation by the autopsists that there was a hole on top. 

Something was there. Jenkins and the others all saw it. Jenkins’ point is he says the observation was misinterpreted, not that it was hallucinated.