Leslie Sharp

24 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:

Sean's original email inquiry to me had nothing to do with the figure we refer to as PrayerPerson. He was looking into the Altgen's photo and the peculiarity of Lovelady within it. He asked for my help and I supplied him with the frame from a 2005 documentary, in 2007. At a later junction(don't know how much later) the hypothesis was formed. This was/is not grasping at straws to advance/revitalize a conspiracy theory as there is a very good argument that it is Oswald. 

But, I wouldn't bet the farm on it either.

Think there might have been a better chance approx 12/15 years ago. Just my opinion.

@Chris Davidson I wasn't familiar with your key role in the process.

Will you share specifics that cause you concern and prevent you from betting the farm?  Do you see holes in the argument?

FWIW, @Roger Odisio contrary to those who might allege I'm solidly in the camp that scoffs at PM simply because I'm posing questions, I'm on the fence but leaning toward the conclusion Oswald couldn't be effective standing outside.

@Roger Odisio @Chris Davidson

On that note, I want to repeat what Lafitte writes in his '63 datebook on November 9:

On the wings of murder, the pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee. Clip clip his wings.

This is a phrase used by La Cagoule assassins in reference to a patsy being set up for the crime — and who will then be eliminated.

@Chris Davidson Sean and others developing the theory that the person was possibly Oswald should have kept quiet about it until after they actually acquired the better quality copies. In other words, they inadvertently tipped off the wrong people. End of story.

Thanks for this historical insight and perspective, Chris. I think @Roger Odisio is arguing that NBC was never going to release the footage, which begs the question: why has the PM movement been successful in persuading a contingency this is Oswald based on the blurry photo? I accept that pursuant to the blurred photo, they went in search of evidence to support, but that suggests a flawed approach to the overall investigation into who killed JFK. I seem to recall at least one PM virtually screaming, (paraphrasing) I don't give a goddamn who killed Kennedy; I'm here to prove Oswald innocent.

Did the PM hypothesis fill a void at a critical juncture? Grasping at straws to advance conspiracy hypothesis, so Oswald outside the building served as a touchstone, a revitalization of the conspiracy argument?

On 6/20/2023 at 11:58 AM, Joe Bauer said:

Agree.

AG Kennedy had moved a case to Tulsa which was underway in October/November involving Dallas mob figures; despite the indictments, Captain Pat Gannaway continued to insist organized crime was virtually non-existent in the city.

When RFK received Hoover's call about Jack, he was having lunch with Morgenthau to discuss the mob-related case against Roy Cohn who would later serve as Trump's business and political mentor. Cohn was a signatore along with Robert Morris of the John Birch Society of the original "America First Committee".

If RFK Jr. were to land the nomination and run against "America First, a.k.a. MAGA" Trump, could there be a more stunning instance of High Strangeness and Synchronicity? Perhaps then, historians will sit up and pay attention to the continuity of the coup in Dallas.

On 6/17/2023 at 12:24 PM, Bill Simpich said:

I think it is fair to say that Emerald Robinson is a complete nut.  Everything Joe said about her jibes with what I have seen written by her own hand.

At the same time, I think Tom Lipscomb may have a good book on hand.  I provided him with some sources and I believe he is one of the good guys.  He told me some fascinating stories.  Let's see what he's got.

 

 

Another perspective on Lipscomb? He is himself a nut.  I can share the disgusting (in my case, misogynistic) assaults he makes on any who venture into the territory of Otto Skorzeny, a psychopath he once interviewed with the possibility of publishing his memoirs.  Lipscomb made the inexplicable mistake of taking a young Jewish editor along on the trip.  Needless to say, the effort didn't result in a publishing contract. The last I heard, he had yet to identify a publisher for his manuscript (odd, considering his decades-long professional history); I believe he was holding out for the highest bidder.

There is a growing body of research, specifically QJ/QWIN to support the details laid out in the Pierre Lafitte datebook which points to Otto Skorzeny as the strategist for the assassination planned for Dallas. We now recognize that the name "Rudel"* also appears in the record. With these two names, added to Rene Lafitte's attestation that Rexist Party leader Leon Degrelle (ensconced in Madrid with Skorzeny) wanted to chip in on the expenses because he detested Kennedy so much (read: he knew that Kennedy might not interfere with his extradition to Israel let alone object to abduction similar to Eichman), we now see additional clues to continue to argue this plot was international and fascist-driven in scope.

*Hans-Ulrich Rudel, Hitler's ace pilot and post war neo-N a z I politician who along with Skorzeny created the underground-escape apparatus following the war, Kameradenwerke. 

2 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

@Roger Odisio (responde in BOLD)
LS:  I'm not sure why you take issue with "stressed"; but how about "insisted". Why didn't he insist he was standing outside?  If you were arrested and later realized you were being interrogated for the murder of the president as he passed by your workplace, would you not repeat over and over, and over, "I was outside!  Just ask the guy standing near me!"

 

RO:  I've already explained why he rightly decided not to talk about his alibi in brief snatches with reporters in the hallway before talking to a lawyer, which the authorities made sure he didn't get before they murdered him.

 LS. The question isn't limited to the incident with the reporters; he had several hours prior that he could have "screamed out" repeatedly that he was outside.  If he was completely innocent it would be the natural, logical reaction. Instead, you say he screamed out for a lawyer.  And on the question of lawyer, you're well aware that he sent Nichols away, indicating he was familiar with Dallas hierarchy. 


LS:  I've stood in that "corner", and whoever stood there could see nothing more than a few seconds as the limo rounded onto elm, especially if others were in front, so why did he bother stepping outside?

 

RO:  So have I.  To see what was happening.

LS: What did you see?

LS:  You're projecting when you argue "he probably surmised ... He could not expect " and you contradict your previous acknowledgement that Vicky Adams did indeed provide him an alibi.  Memory serves, Frazier didn't hang him out to dry either, nor did Shelley?  I'm prepared to be corrected on the latter.

 

RO:  Vicki Adams, and even more so, her supervisor Dorothy Garner, importantly contradict the WR claim that Oswald came down those steps when it says he did.  They changed Adams' testimony without her knowledge to discredit her, and ignored Garner who could corroborate Adams, and more importantly could have told them she remained behind on the 4th floor, saw Truly and a cop arrive there, without ever seeing Oswald.  

 

Why would you claim I contradicted what I previously said about Adams?

LS: Correct me if I'm mistaken: didn't you reference the fact that Oswald would have known he couldn't count on anyone to substantiate his alibi?  yet, your invoking Adams.

LS:  I thought you said all of the notes had been destroyed, or did you mean only those kept by Hosty who was directed to destroy his?  I believe Fritz kept scribbled notebook notes, but he didn't file a formal report?

 

RO: Why would you say this?  Hosty's notes *weren't* destroyed and are in NARA files, as I said.
LS: Hosty was told to tear up notes.  You're saying he made notes later and those ended up in NARA?  After the fact? And you trust them?  Does he mention partner Odum beyond the innocuous reference to his being a sidekick in certain aspects of the investigation?  Why do you avoid a discussion of Odum if you're genuinely interested in determining who DID Kill Kennedy rather than who didn't?

LS:  Right from the time he was apprehended in the theater, Oswald had been screaming for a lawyer to tell his story to.  I thought he was mostly "screaming" that he didn't have a gun?

 

RO; One thing does not preclude the other.

LS: are you saying he did scream, "I was outside", at the time of his arrest, or en route to the station, or while he was in custody at any time other than a mild, "out with Shelley in front".

 

 And, what "story" do you think he was going to tell the lawyer?  

 

RO:  His alibi.  Which the lawyer would then investigate.

LS: fair enough. So, he turns Nichols away, asks for Abt.  Doesn't get Abt. Then what? 

 

LS:  Aren't you building the case that Oswald was privy to aspects of the plot, and slowly realized he was "the patsy"?

 

RO: I'm obviously not.  I've already said I don't know how much he knew.

LS: I respect that you admit you don't. I believe his behavior indicates that he knew a good deal, and I also realize the burden is on us.

 

LS: Re. the reporters: Oswald never had any problem or discomfort in dealing with the press, so why then?

 

RO:  This is really off the wall.  Who said Oswald's not talking about his alibi to the reporters in the hall was due to some discomfort in dealing with the press? I gave what I think his reason was.

LS: and I challenged your reasoning. He said "I'm just a patsy." Why didn't he follow with "I was standing outside!"  Wasn't he aware he was the suspect in the assassination?

LS:  I think you argued that the pickle he was in dawned on him at the theatre when he was "screaming for a lawyer to tell his story."  I'm intrigued what story that might have been.

 

RO  You are mistaken. Initially he was only charged with the cop killing.  I said over time it dawned on him that this was about the JFKA, one reason being that the reporters kept asking him about that.  I don't know when or how fast he figured things out.

LS: Are you in the camp that "I'm just a patsy" was related solely to his time in the Soviet Union, and that it wasn't indicative of him realizing he was the "pigeon" as described by Lafitte - a preferred designation used since the war by LaCagoule assassins.

 

All of this leads to an overriding question, Leslie.  Why have you worked so hard to try to discredit the possibility that Oswald was Prayer Man?   And gotten so much wrong in the process.  Does it seem to you to be incompatible with the story you are working on in Coup in Dallas?

 

LS: I can see that you are now getting testy.  It was my understanding that you are, ultimately, in search of who did kill Kennedy.  You're approaching the investigation from a different angle - via Oswald outside the building - which I respect in spite of having grave doubts he would be an effective patsy caught on film outside the building. For the record, once and for all, I am not attempting to "discredit" the PM movement but to establish positively that Oswald was the patsy as he acknowledged and as indicated in the 1963 Lafitte datebook.  Any weak link in that argument does all of us a disservice  and I'm concerned PM is a seriously weak link.  Others on our team are willing to concede that he could be outside and still serve as a moderately effective patsy given the chaos that ensued.

7 hours ago, Michael Crane said:

I went there yesterday but only got something like this.

 

Right.

I can copy paste into a message if you you're not able to open the link I shared.

I'm surprised it's so difficult to access. There was a time when it was high on the algorithm. 

25 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

LS: Can you expand on whether Oswald stressed during interrogation  that he was out front of the depository building at the time of the shooting?  

 

RO:  "Stressed" is a loaded and unnecessary term.  Since there is no transcript, we have no way of knowing context:  what was asked, in what sequence, what was discussed more fully than other things, etc.  What we do know is that Hosty's interrogation notes did show that Oswald said after lunch he "went outside to watch the p. parade".  

 

LS:  Also, if he had insisted that he wasn't inside the building, wouldn't he have provided them with the names of the coworkers who were standing near him outside?  

 

RO:  Understand the situation.  Oswald came outside late compared to others and probably stayed briefly. He stood on the top step on the left in back, Few would have noticed him as the parade approached and the shots rang out.  Fritz's notes also apparently did quote Oswald as saying he was "out with Bill Shelley in front".  I don't find his naming of his boss to be compelling.  To me, the most important point is that he probably surmised that there was no point in naming others.  He could not expect his coworkers to contradict the story of the authorities to help him. The intimidation and repression were rapidly becoming thick.

 

LS:  I recognize the pertinent notes are said to have been destroyed,

 

RO:  No they haven't been.

 

 LS: but wouldn't an innocent Oswald have seized the opportunity with reporters to clearly state, "I was standing outside!"

 

RO: No, he wouldn't have.  Right from the time he was apprehended in the theater, Oswald had been screaming for a lawyer to tell his story to.  He was savvy enough to understand that reporters in the hallway looking to get the story of the century and screaming did you kill the president were no substitute.  He knew, e.g., anything he said to them could be used against him in court. 

 

Shouting I'm just a patsy to the reporters as he was dragged into an elevator, was probably one of the best things he could have done instead. Did you notice how many of those reporters, and the media in general, took that claim seriously and investigated it?  That shows how useless, even probably counterproductive, it would have been to start shouting about his alibi in the hallway to reporters.

 

LS:  Instead he focused on the Soviet Union? This suggests to many of us that he was processing and rapidly realizing he had been maneuvered for weeks if not months and years.

 

RO:  He didn't focus on the SU.  Initially he tried to use his defection as a reason why the cops picked him up.  But it didn't work and was quickly lost in the shuffle.  Yes, the pickle he was in was dawning on him. I don't know how rapidly, or how far he got before he was silenced.

 

I'm not sure why you take issue with "stressed"; but how about "insisted". Why didn't he insist he was standing outside?  If you were arrested and later realized you were being interrogated for the murder of the president as he passed by your workplace, would you not repeat over and over, and over, "I was outside!  Just ask the guy standing near me!"

I've stood in that "corner", and whoever stood there could see nothing more than a few seconds as the limo rounded onto elm, especially if others were in front, so why did he bother stepping outside?

I've had a similar argument with PM folks about Oswald's wording "out with Bill Shelley in front" so I won't belabor the point in this exchange.

You're projecting when you argue "he probably surmised ... He could not expect " and you contradict your previous acknowledgement that Vicky Adams did indeed provide him an alibi.  Memory serves, Frazier didn't hang him out to dry either, nor did Shelley?  I'm prepared to be corrected on the latter.

I thought you said all of the notes had been destroyed, or did you mean only those kept by Hosty who was directed to destroy his?  I believe Fritz kept scribbled notebook notes, but he didn't file a formal report?

No, he wouldn't have.  That's pure speculation, Roger, as is my suspicion he would have "insisted" he was outside if he had been. We will need to resolve this specific to make any progress

Right from the time he was apprehended in the theater, Oswald had been screaming for a lawyer to tell his story to.  I thought he was mostly "screaming" that he didn't have a gun?  And, what "story" do you think he was going to tell the lawyer?  Aren't you building the case that Oswald was privy to aspects of the plot, and slowly realized he was "the patsy"?

Re. the reporters: Oswald never had any problem or discomfort in dealing with the press, so why then?

I think you argued that the pickle he was in dawned on him at the theatre when he was "screaming for a lawyer to tell his story."  I'm intrigued what story that might have been.

8 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

LS:  The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

 

To try to answer your question, begin with the fact that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The killers certainly used one or more trained assassins, not him.  He wasn't on the sixth floor.  He was somewhere else. 

LS: Agree, so we factored in the question: would the strategy not have calibrated the possibility he would wander the building at lunchtime?  

 

RO:  I think it was calibrated in the sense that they decided not to try to control his movement for fear of alerting him to what they were up to.  How could they control his movement to the extent it would have mattered without alerting him?  Who would have done that?  

Even though the story they had prepared was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window. 

LS: Did the strategist determine that by the time shots were fired, chaos would ensue and no single individual — other than Oswald himself — could testify to his movements.

 

RO: More likely they knew that once Oswald was so quickly identified as the assassin, few would step forward to say, wait a minute I saw him on the steps.  Those whose statements did not comport with the official story were either ignored (like 3 of the 4 women on the 4th floor) or, like Vicky Adams, had her testimony changed without her knowledge to discredit her claim that she and one of the others were on the steps about the same time as Oswald was supposed to be.  Adams did not find out her testimony was changed until more than 40 years later when Barry Ernest told her.

 

So where was he?  Or better, if you were running the show what would you want to do with him?

 

LS: I wouldn't want him to be caught on film outside the building when the shots were fired.

 

RO: That was the lesser evil and they've shown they could handle the problem it created.  So far. 

 

The last thing you would want is for Oswald to figure out, or even sense, that he was being set up to take the rap.  He would run and the whole project probably would collapse.

 

LS: Ergo, he had to know just enough to guarantee he would follow his daily pattern. "Just go about your business, we'll do the rest."

 

Here's where the hypothesis diverges from the two primary camps, one arguing Oswald was clueless, and the other insisting that he fired the shots. Lafitte leads us to conclude that Oswald was in some way cognizant he was being maneuvered: Barnes (prime candidate for the codename T) says he's an idiot but will be used anyway; plotters are anticipating he will go through with potshots at Walker; he had a "caretaker" (not de Mohrenschildt); he knew he was going to meet with Tom Davis in Mexico City; he was upset on his return to Dallas; caretaker had to deal with the issue; later, Volkmar [Schmidt] and Everett [Glover] stepped in as did a business colleague of deM by the name of Stanley; and the final Oswald entry, “on the wings of murder. the pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee. Clip Clip his wings.”(a variation on a phrase used by LaCagoule for those set up to be "the patsy" or pigeon.)

 

RO:  I don't know how much Oswald knew or suspected.  Strikes me that is extremely difficult to know with any certainty.  But if it can be established Oswald didn't do it I think it matters much less than who did do it, other than if Oswald's ties to those guilty can help lead to them. 

 

So you do nothing with him.  You let him go through his day as usual.

 

LS: That still begs the question: how could the strategist risk that he might not show up for work, or that he might duck out to the post office, or lunch early.  Again, the only plausible argument is that he knew enough about the operation that he stayed in the building.

 

RO:  What were the strategists going to say?  Hey, Lee, make sure you go to work on Friday.  Don't ask why.  I'm pretty sure they weren't that stupid. They knew that once Oswald was dead, they were in the catbird's seat, pinning the murder on him and controlling the coverup.

 

LS:  If he is innocent of any foreknowledge, why didn't he rush down the hill to observe or stick around while authorities stormed the building, or any reasonable variation? Does his behavior comport with that of a completely innocent bystander?

 

RO:  I don't know if he was completely innocent of any foreknowledge, as I said.

 

You confiscate cameras, the media tells the public only what you tell them to say (classic example from Lifton--the next day a Dallas paper reports JFK died in the 6ht floor operating room at Parkland--which was the original plan before they changed it on the fly.   No one corrected the story for  the stenographers). You begin an intimidation of witnesses on a massive scale.  You quickly grab Oswald after the murder--you know where to find him--and ask for his alibi so you can begin destroying it. You claim you didn't record or take notes at Oswald's interrogation, and order anyone who did take notes to destroy them.  Hosty disobeys because he wants to write a book.  His notes end up at NARA, but it takes until 6years ago before anyone really focuses on them and Oswald's alibi. 

 

LS:  How do you know where to find him?  Jack Crichton comes in play, as does Bardwell Odum, the prime candidate for "caretaker."

 

RO: The fact they caught him so quickly sending all of those cops to the theater indicates they knew where he was

 

LS:  (from what I've seen, I doubt Hosty was on his toes to the degree he thought ahead to a book deal! :-))

 

RO:  I think most of the primary players were thinking about writing a book to cash in.  Hosty wrote his in '95 after JFK the movie came out stirring up interest again in the murder. Then he donated his papers with his interrogation notes to NARA!

 

And most important you have a plan to kill Oswald quickly--before he can talk to a lawyer--so he can't defend himself. The original plan doesn't work so you have to bring in Ruby to do an emergency job.

 

LS: Agree. But Ruby wasn't an afterthought.  Lafitte knows of him early in the year. Remember that Lafitte pens a note that is the near image of a note made in Ruby's diary related to "bond" on the same day. 

 

Somethings go wrong of course.  What bad luck to have Oswald filmed on the steps around the time of the murder.  But you have NBC to protect you.

 

LS:  A bridge too far, in my opinion. 

 

RO:  I don't think so.  NBC has a corporate policy to support the official Warren Report story, as that actor (name escapes me) found out when he wanted them to run a piece he did on the murder.

 

The killers conclude that all of this is preferable to avoid tipping off Oswald. They are right.

 

LS:  The conclusion is that Oswald knew he was involved in something quite serious and failed to eject himself (in spite of those who argue he sent out alarms).

 

RO:  Maybe.

 

So, if we've moved closer to an agreement that Oswald was the designated patsy, are you prepared to pursue - once and for all - who killed JFK?

 

RO:  Always have been.

 

14 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

LS: Yes, I meant Sean Murphy who I believe withdrew from the debate long ago.
 

Murphy's last post on EF was on the 50th anniversary of the JFKA in 2013.  He had meticulously built the thesis and exhaustively answered all questions thrown at him.  Some speculated he felt he had done all he could do at that time to establish the idea that figure on the steps likely was Oswald.  The date of his exit probably was no accident.

 

Murphy had been asked to write a book so his ideas would not be lost.  He did not.  But Stan Dane did and published the material as Prayer Man: Out of the Shadows and into the Light, detailing Murphy's work.

That comports with what I've been heard, but I've also been told that he cut off all communication with those who had followed his research closely. Rumors abound.

How did Murphy gain access to the original image??

I encountered Stan Dane as well as several of the early advocates years ago on Morley's jfkfacts.   Employing ridicule, threat and intimidation to advance one's hypothesis is pathological. At one point, a household member was on the verge of contacting the FBI. Presumably we've all matured.

 

@Roger Odisio @Jeremy Bojczuk 

Can you expand on whether Oswald stressed during interrogation  that he was out front of the depository building at the time of the shooting?  

Also, if he had insisted that he wasn't inside the building, wouldn't he have provided them with the names of the coworkers who were standing near him outside?  

I recognize the pertinent notes are said to have been destroyed, but wouldn't an innocent Oswald have seized the opportunity with reporters to clearly state, "I was standing outside!" Instead he focused on the Soviet Union? This suggests to many of us that he was processing and rapidly realizing he had been maneuvered for weeks if not months and years.

16 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

We're pursuing a line of inquiry that could identify the teams responsible for confiscation and intimidation in the immediate aftermath, but it sounds like this was a fairly straight forward instance of an employ keeping his employer happy? Has anyone nailed down the timing? When did Darnell or NBC executives realize they "had something" in that footage of the front of the depository building; wasn't this inquiry triggered by a researcher who realized not all on the steps had been identified? (apologies that I've forgotten a level of detail.)

 

RO:  Seems clear to me that NBC knows what is in the film. Scooping it up that weekend (tho I don't recall where learned that) indicates they either knew its contents or wanted to see them before anyone else could.  Stonewalling inquiries ever since is another indication.  I don't believe they would have refused to let anyone else see the film without knowing what it showed.

 

NBC knows why they are being asked to see the film.  If that figure isn't Oswald they would have told the world already.  NBC is one of the major villains in the whole coverup, but that's another story.

 

Darnell died in I think 2017.  He had been contacted before that and had refused to talk about the film at all.  Apparently a loyal employee following corporate policy to the end.

 

Do you mean Sean Murphy?  He did most of the heavy lifting developing the Prayerman thesis mostly right here on EV, and he was the one who named the figure on the steps.

 

LS:  Imposing FCC license requirements sounds to me like a solid tack.  Curme must be investing tens of thousands in this effort alone.

 

RO:  The FCC renews licenses every 8 years, and the local Dallas affiliate was renewed a couple of years ago.   I don't know if a TV station has ever been denied renewal because it failed to meet its public interest standard in this way, but this seems to be a clear case of suppressing news its viewers have a right see.

Curme?

 

 

2 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

Woo Hoo!!  Grab and save.

@Michael Crane I think this is a better / more accurate version of the original essay.

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.assassination.jfk.uncensored/c/T3t7SdZ9cys 

5 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Hey Leslie  😉

https://groups.google.com/g/alt.conspiracy.jfk/c/qfKEtzcGR7o

 

 

Woo Hoo!!  Grab and save.

13 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

I don't think that there is any question that I got Bartholomew mixed up with that George Wing guy.I've seen both guys now and I remember seeing a picture of George Wing driving the car.The picture was taken on George's left side.I certainly hope that you find it.I know that I will be looking also.

Professor Wing bought the car. He was UT Spanish and Portuguese department. He parked the Rambler on campus on a daily basis with a copy of the Life mag cover from November 22 prominent in the backseat (writing from memory so I may have the magazine wrong.)  Memory serves, Richard thought it rather odd and went in pursuit.

I spent weeks researching Wing.  I was interested because former Gov. Allan Shivers was later Regent.  Shivers was closely associated with Clint Murchison and worked on the Tidelands case. He despised Kennedy, to the degree he left the state the day the Kennedys arrived in Houston; somehow he ended up in Wash. DC for arrival of the casket Friday evening.  There's a good deal more to the story, including his role on the board of Neil Mallon's Dresser Industry, infamous for having given GHWB his start in the oil industry and in Texas Republican politics.  by chance, Shivers created the Shivercrats - Dems for Ike Eisenhower. The state slowly turned Deep Red.

36 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

To be honest...I read it last night...and now...I can't find that thing.

I'm not sure on how that happens.

Trust me,I'm telling the truth.

Happened to me as well.
Next time, I'll tag it and file away.

3 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Oh my Leslie,

What I read has my head spinning.I'm going to have to read that thing again probably 3 times.So much information to absorb.Baffling I tell ya.

Thanks!

Glad you were able to locate it; I went in search for you but got distracted. The last time I searched, it had been buried fairly deep. 

7 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

I'm more familiar with Darnell but I think the Wiegman story is similar. Jimmy Darnell worked for a local Dallas TV station that has changed its call letters several times since. The station is owned by NBC, which became an entertainment conglomerate by combining with Universal Pictures and is now owned by Comcast.  That means the people at Comcast are making the decisions about the film today.

 

Most researchers believe that very weekend NBC took the original film to its headquarters in New York.  That tells me they likely knew what it showed.  When for example Greg Parker asked NBC to see the film, they did not deny they had it.  Nor did they claim it was lost, destroyed, etc.  Of course that doesn't preclude them from saying that now.

 

I'm hoping a favorable decision in the MFF lawsuit will allow Bill and Larry to get the help of NARA to take the film from Comcast as a JFKA record. Seems to me the case for that is stronger than the taking of the Zapruder film from the family by the ARRB, since NBC is a "news" organization and its local affiliate has an FCC license that requires it to serve the public interest.

Thanks, Roger.

We're pursuing a line of inquiry that could identify the teams responsible for confiscation and intimidation in the immediate aftermath, but it sounds like this was a fairly straight forward instance of an employ keeping his employer happy? Has anyone nailed down the timing? When did Darnell or NBC executives realize they "had something" in that footage of the front of the depository building; wasn't this inquiry triggered by a researcher who realized not all on the steps had been identified? (apologies that I've forgotten a level of detail.)

re: NBC
You may be aware, but a respected member of the JFK forensics community and author of peer reviewed articles for medical journals was in the NBC studio and was shown (briefly but long enough for certain details to register) a copy of the original Z film before it was tampered with.

Imposing FCC license requirements sounds to me like a solid tack.  Curme must be investing tens of thousands in this effort alone.

Off the top of my head / word association and a study in propinquity that might be of interest: Ethel and Edgar Stern owned NBC affiliate WDSU in New Orleans; Ethel's father Julius Rosenwald founded Sears-Roebuck whose CEO Gen. Robert E. Wood was a cofounder of American Security Council whose board included AF Captain H. Victor Williams, an executive of global real estate concern Previews Inc. which provided cover for Ilse (Mrs. Otto) Skorzeny. Williams was from New Orleans and his father was an executive in Southern Cotton. Ethel's father made a fortune in cotton brokerage in NOLA.  Previews Inc. established an office in Dallas/Oak Lawn in spring of 1963, a stone's throw from Ruby's Vegas Club, Lucas B&B, and Stoneleigh Hotel; six months later, Ilse met with Hitler's former "Favorite Banker", uncle Hjalmar Schacht at the Old Warsaw restaurant in Maple/Oak Lawn neighborhood on November 7 along with "T" a.k.a. Tracy Barnes to discuss $$. Previews was cofounded before the war by a group of NY art and literature personalities including Archbold van Beuren who was Wild Bill Donovan's Chief of Security during the war.  It was van Beuren who investigated the Amerasia case which is said to have helped kick off the Cold War propaganda machine. No doubt NBC played a role.

According to Lafitte, the Previews NY Headquarters was used as a meeting site for teasing out details of the Dallas operation. Gen. Charles Willoughby is scheduled to attend at least one of those meetings.

(Note: Gen. Willoughby is well-recognized as Gen. MacArthur's favorite little fascist; America First Committee cofounder and Sears executive Gen. Robert E. Wood advocated for MacArthur's presidential candidacy, as did H. L. Hunt of Dallas who poured $$$ into the effort; Willoughby and Hunt were connected both ideologically and financiallyl Hunt backed the efforts of General Edwin Walker as well.  Both Willoughby and Walker appear in Pierre Lafitte's notes.)   
 

2 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

*Full credit to Robert Ward Montenegro for bringing these documents to my attention...

 

 

 

• https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/2023/104-10120-10347.pdf

 

This first document clearly states that roughly after 21 September 1962, the CIA's Records & Services Division provided Chief, Readiness & Plans, Domestic Operations Division Support, Directorate of Plans, (C/R&P/DODS/DD/P), Everette Howard Hunt Jr. with false US Army "...military cover backstop..."  

Specifically, the US Army unit that C/R&P/DODS/DD/P Hunt was operating under was called "...US Army Element, Composite Operations Group..." 

It should be stressed that a one "...James N. Franklin, Chief, Military Cover, Central Cover Branch..." of CIA was involved in the authenticating and approval process for these documents, so the military unit C/R&P/DODS/DD/P Hunt was hiding in may have been a product of CIA proper.

This document may be a very strong indicator that Everette Howard Hunt Jr. was hiding covert operations under official United States Army intelligence traffic.

Meaning simply that, all of these document hounds wailing over the release of CIA documents are squawking up the wrong tree.

Perhaps, as a research community, we ought to be screaming for US Army intelligence documents, not CIA... 

 

Great find. This could very well solve a number of conundrums. Kudos to Monty!

@Roger Odisio Roger,  Do you know who, specifically, confiscated the Wiegman and Darnell films?

3 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

Yeah,I believe that Jay owned it after Bartholomew.Bartholomew was driving it to a Texas University?

Either or....the bottom line is it was taken to a scrap yard if everyone is telling the truth.

Bartholomew spotted it on the campus of UT I believe. He tells a fascinating story well worth the read. He and Jay were 'partners' in the investigation; Jay maintained copious notes on a DAT which he kept updated. The information stored on that tape is likely invaluable; it passed through my hands to Duke University and hopefully remains in a safe until someone figures out how to lift the data without destroying the tape.

5 hours ago, Joseph Backes said:

Do we really need to summarize John Newman's book, and Jefferson Morley's and Gaston Fonzi's, and the Lopez report, and a few hundred documents in this thread before it dies?

What did Jane Roman know about Jean Souetre, known to the agency for having attempted to assassinate de Gaulle in August 1962; she processed the reports of his meeting in Lisbon requesting "additional" support; she processed the Paris Legat request for clarification of Souetre's whereabouts and whether he had been expelled immediately after the assassination.

This line of inquiry is germane to the thread, not only because Roman (purportedly) skewed the Oswald/MC documents, but Souetre passed through Mexico City according the the private records of the project manager for the Dallas plot, Pierre Lafitte.

Oswald was not a known assassin. Souetre was.

5 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

AsI recall, J Morley and another researcher did talk to Roman,  and she confirmed records were monkeyed with. 

@Benjamin Cole Only when trapped did she come clean as it were.

I'm interested because her name is also on documents related to Jean Souetre, both in the spring of 1963 and March of 1964 when French intel asked if Souetre had been expelled.

If Roman, as liaison between Angleton and the FBI, was aware of Souetre — and before the Oswald Legend took complete hold of the investigation  — why didn't "someone" ask her about the OAS and the possibility Souetre —  a legend within the agency for having attempted to assassinate de Gaulle in August 1962 (remember SDECE Vosjoli was Angleton's best bud by then) — was in Dallas on November 22?

Instead, questions directed at Roman pertained to the patsy.  How very ironic.

Where are the Bailey and Norwood official INS reports?

19 minutes ago, Michael Crane said:

The vehicle has been taken to the scrap yard & scrapped.Can't remember which year.

Like I have said before on this forum,there is video footage of this car being worked on in a secret location.

You might be interested in Bartholomew's monograph on the subject, "Byrds, Planes, and Automobiles." He spent years figuring out the provenance, and I'm almost certain he and Harrison purchased the car before it was sold as scrap.

4 hours ago, Roger Odisio said:

LS:  The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

To try to answer your question, begin with the fact that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The killers certainly used one or more trained assassins, not him.  He wasn't on the sixth floor.  He was somewhere else.  Even though the story they had prepared was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window.  So where was he?  Or better, if you were running the show what would you want to do with him?

The last thing you would want is for Oswald to figure out, or even sense, that he was being set up to take the rap.  He would run and the whole project probably would collapse.

So you do nothing with him.  You let him go through his day as usual.

You confiscate cameras, the media tells the public only what you tell them to say (classic example from Lifton--the next day a Dallas paper reports JFK died in the 6ht floor operating room at Parkland--which was the original plan before they changed it on the fly.   No one corrected the story for  the stenographers). You begin an intimidation of witnesses on a massive scale.  You quickly grab Oswald after the murder--you know where to find him--and ask for his alibi so you can begin destroying it. You claim you didn't record or take notes at Oswald's interrogation, and order anyone who did take notes to destroy them.  Hosty disobeys because he wants to write a book.  His notes end up at NARA, but it takes until 6years ago before anyone really focuses on them and Oswald's alibi. 

And most important you have a plan to kill Oswald quickly--before he can talk to a lawyer--so he can't defend himself. The original plan doesn't work so you have to bring in Ruby to do an emergency job.

Somethings go wrong of course.  What bad luck to have Oswald filmed on the steps around the time of the murder.  But you have NBC to protect you.

The killers conclude that all of this is preferable to avoid tipping off Oswald. They are right.

 

LS:  The "problem" with Prayer Man remains, how can he be an effective patsy if he's filmed standing outside the building at the time of the shots?

To try to answer your question, begin with the fact that Oswald wasn't one of the shooters. The killers certainly used one or more trained assassins, not him.  He wasn't on the sixth floor.  He was somewhere else. 

Agree, so we factored in the question: would the strategy not have calibrated the possibility he would wander the building at lunchtime?  

Even though the story they had prepared was Oswald shooting from the 6th floor window. 

Did the strategist determine that by the time shots were fired, chaos would ensue and no single individual — other than Oswald himself — could testify to his movements.

So where was he?  Or better, if you were running the show what would you want to do with him?

I wouldn't want him to be caught on film outside the building when the shots were fired.

The last thing you would want is for Oswald to figure out, or even sense, that he was being set up to take the rap.  He would run and the whole project probably would collapse.

Ergo, he had to know just enough to guarantee he would follow his daily pattern. "Just go about your business, we'll do the rest."

Here's where the hypothesis diverges from the two primary camps, one arguing Oswald was clueless, and the other insisting that he fired the shots. Lafitte leads us to conclude that Oswald was in some way cognizant he was being maneuvered: Barnes (prime candidate for the codename T) says he's an idiot but will be used anyway; plotters are anticipating he will go through with potshots at Walker; he had a "caretaker" (not de Mohrenschildt); he knew he was going to meet with Tom Davis in Mexico City; he was upset on his return to Dallas; caretaker had to deal with the issue; later, Volkmar [Schmidt] and Everett [Glover] stepped in as did a business colleague of deM by the name of Stanley; and the final Oswald entry, "on the wings of murder. the pigeon way for unsuspecting Lee. Clip Clip his wings." (a variation on a phrase used by LaCagoule for those set up to be "the patsy" or pigeon.)

So you do nothing with him.  You let him go through his day as usual.

That still begs the question: how could the strategist risk that he might not show up for work, or that he might duck out to the post office, or lunch early.  Again, the only plausible argument is that he knew enough about the operation that he stayed in the building.

If he is innocent of any foreknowledge, why didn't he rush down the hill to observe or stick around while authorities stormed the building, or any reasonable variation? Does his behavior comport with that of a completely innocent bystander?

You confiscate cameras, the media tells the public only what you tell them to say (classic example from Lifton--the next day a Dallas paper reports JFK died in the 6ht floor operating room at Parkland--which was the original plan before they changed it on the fly.   No one corrected the story for  the stenographers). You begin an intimidation of witnesses on a massive scale.  You quickly grab Oswald after the murder--you know where to find him--and ask for his alibi so you can begin destroying it. You claim you didn't record or take notes at Oswald's interrogation, and order anyone who did take notes to destroy them.  Hosty disobeys because he wants to write a book.  His notes end up at NARA, but it takes until 6years ago before anyone really focuses on them and Oswald's alibi. 

How do you know where to find him?  Jack Crichton comes in play, as does Bardwell Odum, the prime candidate for "caretaker."

(from what I've seen, I doubt Hosty was on his toes to the degree he thought ahead to a book deal! :-))

And most important you have a plan to kill Oswald quickly--before he can talk to a lawyer--so he can't defend himself. The original plan doesn't work so you have to bring in Ruby to do an emergency job.

Agree. But Ruby wasn't an afterthought.  Lafitte knows of him early in the year. Remember that Lafitte pens a note that is the near image of a note made in Ruby's diary related to "bond" on the same day. 

Somethings go wrong of course.  What bad luck to have Oswald filmed on the steps around the time of the murder.  But you have NBC to protect you.

A bridge too far, in my opinion. 

The killers conclude that all of this is preferable to avoid tipping off Oswald. They are right.

The conclusion is that Oswald knew he was involved in something quite serious and failed to eject himself (in spite of those who argue he sent out alarms).

So, if we've moved closer to an agreement that Oswald was the designated patsy, are you prepared to pursue - once and for all - who killed JFK?