Michael Griffith

I believe that some of the plotters intended to use Oswald's real/alleged MC activities to implicate Russia and Cuba. However, Hoover clearly was not on board with this effort--he very quickly took steps to squelch it. (I believe that Hoover had some knowledge of the plot and did nothing to stop it.)

I lean toward the view that LBJ at least suspected there was a plot brewing. He, like Hoover, took immediate steps to squelch the idea that the Soviets and/or the Cubans were behind the assassination. 

20 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna @Michael Griffith

This is a photo of Hank Albarelli's good friend and godmother to his grandson, Viola June Cobb, approx 85 yrs., taken with brothers Jasper Jr. and Tom in Houston.

Michael, you might want to share the photo with Mary?

Yes, will do. Thanks.

On 9/27/2023 at 7:55 AM, David Whelan said:

I strongly advise you all not to engage with Michael Griffith. He is a patronising pest. Don't give him what he wants, IE, attention. 

Humm, if I said that about you, I'm pretty sure I'd get a moderator warning.

Anyway, I think it is embarrassing that this thread is still going. The case for a John Lennon assassination conspiracy is ludicrous--it is built on reading miles between the lines and on choosing to see dark, sinister implications in meaningless discrepancies in the reports/accounts on the shooting.

The most balanced and comprehensive analysis that I have seen of JFK's civil rights policies is Dr. Stephen Knott's analysis in Coming to Terms with John F. Kennedy. Any analysis that denies that JFK's initial civil rights moves were somewhat timid and halting is peddling mythology. That being said, critics from both ends of the spectrum usually ignore the fact that a few months before he died, JFK, at great political risk, openly threw the full might of his presidency behind bold civil rights reform. 

25 minutes ago, Michael Griffith said:

We must, must, must ditch this demonstrably false myth, sooner or later. The Pentagon hawks did not get "the full war in Vietnam they wanted." Not even close.

After taking office, LBJ told the Joint Chiefs he wanted to cut defense spending. He told South Vietnam's leader that he hoped U.S. forces could be withdrawn. Even in the face of severe Communist provocations in 1964 that killed numerous Americans in South Vietnam, LBJ either did not respond or responded with milk-toast pinpricks. 

Only when Hanoi vastly escalated their war effort in early 1965, an escalation that dwarfed their 1961 escalation--only then did LBJ reluctantly agree to send in combat troops, and he nearly dallied too long. What's more, the LBJ White House tapes and other records show that LBJ hoped the deployment would be brief. 

Even when LBJ, again with great reluctance, approved the sending of more combat troops and the launching of air raids, he put insane, absurd restrictions on our military operations, especially on our air operations, that justifiably infuriated the Joint Chiefs and other Pentagon hawks (as well as conservative members of his own party, such as Senator Stennis). The Joint Chiefs and other hawks viewed LBJ's war effort as dangerously handcuffed, incompetent, weak, and as aiding the Communist assault on South Vietnam.

These facts are a matter of well-documented history. Among many other books, they are documented in H. R. McMaster's widely acclaimed masterpiece Dereliction of Duty, in George Herring's book LBJ and Vietnam, in Michael Hunt's book Lyndon Johnson's War, in General Phillip Davidson's book Vietnam at War, and in Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp's seminal book Strategy for Defeat.

I forgot to include the fact that the record shows that LBJ repeatedly indicated deep concern that escalating the Vietnam War would interfere with his domestic agenda, especially with the Great Society.

I just finished reading Knott's book. Technically, yes, it does challenge the Camelot legacy, but only parts of it. Overall, on balance, the book is quite pro-JFK. More often than not, Knott challenges conservative and liberal attacks on JFK. He challenges conservative attacks on JFK regarding the Berlin Crisis, the "missile gap," the space program, Laos, etc., and he answers liberal attacks on JFK regarding his initially weak and halting support for civil rights, his handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis, his resumption of nuclear testing, and his overall handling of the Cold War. 

Knott cautiously and somewhat tepidly comes down on the side of the extreme minority viewpoint that JFK was going to unconditionally withdraw from Vietnam after the election. He allows that the case for this view is "not a slam dunk" and that JFK may well have continued to provide military and economic aid to South Vietnam after the withdrawal. He even says he might be wrong about JFK's intention to withdraw. But, he does make it clear that he personally strongly leans toward the unconditional-withdrawal position.

His chapter on the assassination is curious and maddening. He adamantly and repeatedly argues that it is beyond question that Oswald shot JFK, that there was no conspiracy, and that anyone who believes otherwise deserves to have their credibility questioned. However, he also spends considerable time taking certain conspiratorial arguments seriously, such as the argument that the Mafia killed JFK. He acknowledges that Oswald associated with David Ferrie, and that Silvia Odio was credible. He calls David Kaiser's book The Road to Dallas "reputable."

Knott's bottom line is that JFK was a good president, even one of the top ten best presidents, in spite of his sordid personal life. 

On 12/7/2023 at 3:54 PM, Roger Odisio said:

They did get the full war in Vietnam they wanted, which paved the way for almost continuous war since.

We must, must, must ditch this demonstrably false myth, sooner or later. The Pentagon hawks did not get "the full war in Vietnam they wanted." Not even close.

After taking office, LBJ told the Joint Chiefs he wanted to cut defense spending. He told South Vietnam's leader that he hoped U.S. forces could be withdrawn. Even in the face of severe Communist provocations in 1964 that killed numerous Americans in South Vietnam, LBJ either did not respond or responded with milk-toast pinpricks. 

Only when Hanoi vastly escalated their war effort in early 1965, an escalation that dwarfed their 1961 escalation--only then did LBJ reluctantly agree to send in combat troops, and he nearly dallied too long. What's more, the LBJ White House tapes and other records show that LBJ hoped the deployment would be brief. 

Even when LBJ, again with great reluctance, approved the sending of more combat troops and the launching of air raids, he put insane, absurd restrictions on our military operations, especially on our air operations, that justifiably infuriated the Joint Chiefs and other Pentagon hawks (as well as conservative members of his own party, such as Senator Stennis). The Joint Chiefs and other hawks viewed LBJ's war effort as dangerously handcuffed, incompetent, weak, and as aiding the Communist assault on South Vietnam.

These facts are a matter of well-documented history. Among many other books, they are documented in H. R. McMaster's widely acclaimed masterpiece Dereliction of Duty, in George Herring's book LBJ and Vietnam, in Michael Hunt's book Lyndon Johnson's War, in General Phillip Davidson's book Vietnam at War, and in Admiral U.S. Grant Sharp's seminal book Strategy for Defeat.

2 hours ago, Michael Griffith said:

The money order was purchased on March 12, so, yes, I should have said JCS, not TSBD. 

Now, the post office did not open until 8:00 AM. Oswald's timesheet shows that he checked in by 8:00 AM. The trip to the post office would have taken him at least 30 minutes--15 minutes there and 15 minutes back equals 30 minutes, and that's assuming he did not have to wait in line and assuming that the purchase transaction took only a minute or two. A 30-minute timesheet fudge is quite a fudge. 

Now, of course, if one assumes that Oswald went straight to the post office before going to work, that would have put him at work at around 8:17, assuming he was first in line at the post office and that the money-order purchase only took two minutes. 17 minutes is still a significant timesheet fudge, and showing up 17 minutes late would likely have been noticed by someone at his work. 

Moreover, there is the thorny problem of how Oswald could have afforded to spend $21.45 on a mail-order rifle when he only had $16 to spend. In the seven weeks before he bought the money order for the rifle, he finished paying the $396 balance that he owed the State Department. State Department records show that his debt was cleared on March 9, three days before he bought the $21.45 money order ($205 in today's dollars, no small amount). But during those seven weeks, Oswald only made $490, and his rent alone was $68, leaving him only $16 to provide for his family (Anthony Summers, Not in Your Lifetime, pp. 193-194). So how could he have paid for a $21.45 money order with $16? How did he and his family eat and pay their other bills during those seven weeks?

20 hours ago, Steve Roe said:

You're mistaken again. First of all, it was JCS, not TSBD. JCS did not have a punch clock timecard, like Reilly Coffee or Leslie Welding. The "clock-registered" time on the handwritten job timesheet refers to the actual times entered on each job, I.E 9:15 to 10:00 (Sam Bloom), 10:00 to 10:15 (Sears) for example.  Each job had to agree in sequence so they could payroll can account accurately what to pay the employee. 

Oswald could have very easily fudged his written timesheet. From the GPO to JCS was only a 15-minute walk. 

The money order was purchased on March 12, so, yes, I should have said JCS, not TSBD. 

Now, the post office did not open until 8:00 AM. Oswald's timesheet shows that he checked in by 8:00 AM. The trip to the post office would have taken him at least 30 minutes--15 minutes there and 15 minutes back equals 30 minutes, and that's assuming he did not have to wait in line and assuming that the purchase transaction took only a minute or two. A 30-minute timesheet fudge is quite a fudge. 

8 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I don’t think any of these other issues you raise Michael Griffith are relevant to the interpretation of the Kleins money order’s lack of a bank stamp. 

But, distinct question and issue, yes I think Oswald had the rifle. Both Marguerite and Marina testified that on Nov 22 Marina showed Marguerite a photo or photos of Oswald holding a rifle which sounds like BYP, and that Marina concealed it or them in her shoe. The next day both Marguerite and Marina testified Marina destroyed it or them by fire in a hotel room at Marguerite’s urging. I think that weighs in favor of the BYPs existing. The BYPs held up to forensic examination by the HSCA panel of experts which could not find evidence of forgery or alteration.

I don’t know why he did it by mail order and alias instead of an in person purchase but he was witnessed interested in mail order advertisements of rifles in New Orleans as well, and a lot of researchers have conjectured his mail ordering could have involved informant activity. 

The lack of ammo or rifle cleaning equipment found in Oswald’s belongings, and separately, lack of any recent practicing, with the rifle prior to Nov 22 I believe is weight against him shooting JFK on Nov 22, distinct issue. It also—this is less noticed—is weight to me weakening notions of widespread evidence fabrication since ammo would have been planted in Oswald’s belongings if so. 

I don’t know why Oswald was lying about having that rifle or mail ordering it when interrogated. It’s what a defense counsel would say was not helpful to his case. But that doesn’t prove he shot the rifle which is a distinct issue and some pretty compelling evidence argues he didn’t. 

I think my paper on Oswald repairing and reinstalling the crappy original scope and base mount on the rifle on Nov 11 at the sport shop in Irving has brought new information and finding of fact to the table which simply must be considered and integrated in any interpretation proposing to solve the case, missed in most prior discussions. 

But again, none of those things have anything—anything—to do with the specific and answerable narrow question of whether the lack of a bank stamp on the back of the Kleins money order indicates or establishes that that money order was never processed for payment.

I was responding to DVP's odd, illogical comment to Sandy that any sensible, reasonable person would have to believe that Oswald bought the mail-order rifle. 

I doubt that Oswald had the rifle or that he ordered it. I'm inclined to believe his denials on those issues. His denials make sense. The idea that he was foolish enough to order a rifle by mail, and was also unbelievably stupid enough to have himself photographed holding it, strikes me as unlikely and illogical. 

Regarding the HSCA experts' examination of the backyard rifle photos, they ignored clear signs of forgery and omitted key evidence from their exhibits and analyses, as I discuss in The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos.

2 hours ago, David Von Pein said:

Which is the only conclusion that any sensible and reasonable person could possibly reach.

Oh yeah, of course. It's only "sensible and reasonable" to believe that instead of just going to a local gun store, buying a rifle, and leaving no paper trail, Oswald, who was highly intelligent, decided to order a rifle by mail so that it could be traced back to him. Moreover, we are asked to believe, he even had Marina take pictures of him holding that mail-order rifle, and, to top it off, he informed the police that his belongings were in Ruth Paine's garage, apparently not caring that the police might find the backyard rifle pictures! Oh, yeah, that makes total sense. Entirely logical and reasonable. You bet. 

And just never you mind that Oswald supposedly somehow bought the money order for the mail-order rifle at a post office while he was actually at work (and the TSBD required that timesheets agree with the clock-registered times). 

And just never you mind that not a single round of ammo and not a single piece of gun-cleaning equipment (pull-through cord or metal pole, cotton swabs, oil, small brush, etc.) were found among Oswald's possessions. Gee, one would almost surmise from these facts that he didn't own a rifle or that he never used it.

And just never you mind that the only two gun stores in the Dallas area that sold ammo suitable for the Carcano rifle both insisted that Oswald had never been a customer. And, again, not a single bullet was found among Oswald's possessions. 

Nah, never mind all that. 

On 12/3/2023 at 10:08 PM, Miles Massicotte said:

I am seeing this crop up a lot on this forum, especially in regards to certain topics where conflicting eyewitness evidence is the norm, including: the medical evidence (Parkland vs. Bethesda). . . .

But most of the Parkland and Bethesda witnesses described seeing the same large right-rear head wound that Clint Hill observed up-close for several minutes as he rode on the back of the limousine on the way to the hospital. Naturally, there is some minor variation in their descriptions, but their accounts describe a large wound in the rear part of the head and not a huge wound over the right ear. 

3 hours ago, Richard Booth said:

This is what I believe - that his proficiency was such that he could carry on conversations and also read Russian. That is very impressive for a 20-24 year old self taught person. Very impressive.

I have read the Norwood piece. I think a great deal of Armstrong's research material both on his site and the Baylor archive is incredibly valuable and find myself having to put a disclaimer that this doesn't mean I buy his "two Oswalds and two mothers" theory.

Funny how nuance gets lost on forums when people want to argue--surprised someone has not flamed you for posting the Norwood piece saying "omg that idiotic two Oswald theory"

Yes, and that is pretty much how I view Armstrong's research and the other material on his website. Much of his stuff is valuable and solid. I do believe that Oswald was being impersonated. I think that's clear. However, I'm not at all sure about Armstrong's two-Oswald theory.

Regarding Oswald's Russian DLPT score, I have the advantage of having taken the DLPT many times in Arabic and Hebrew when I worked in signals intelligence in the military. Anyone who claims that Oswald could have guessed his score is either blowing smoke or doesn't know what they're talking about. 

4 hours ago, Leslie Sharp said:

@Greg Doudna i’ll respond to your wild assertions shortly. This now transcends logic. We’re entering new territory.

@Michael Griffith if you’re in contact with Mary, would you ask if she is willing to take my phone call? 

Leslie,

I can certainly ask Mary about taking a call from you. Please email me to work out the details. michael.t.griffith@gmail.com.

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I cannot speak regarding today's banking practices and laws. But for the full span of the 20th century, the law required that checks and postal money orders submitted to a Federal Reserve Bank be endorsed. (That's another way of saying they needed bank stamps.)

AFAIK there was no law requiring regular banks to process only properly endorsed checks. But if a bank did so, they would be held liable for a bad check. That is to say, they would not collect the cash they handed out to whoever cashed the check.

But Federal Reserve Banks, by federal law, required checks and PMOs to be endorsed.

Instead of engaging in saying what seems right to you, why not just read what the law stated. I will link to that below. But first let me note that I got the laws as they were presented in "circulars." Circulars are what bank officials would read. When one of these says that something "should" be done, that doesn't mean that it's optional. "Should" is just a less formal way of saying "shall." (Circulars always use "should" over "shall.")

Following is a link to the relevant law. Read just the parts I highlighted in red... it is very simple and doesn't require a law degree.

 

 

Nice work, Sandy. Very nice work. The whole rifle-ordering affair has always struck me as smelling bad, sounding fishy, and making no sense. Why bother with getting a money order and postage and filling out an order form, when you can just walk into any gun store and buy a rifle in a matter of minutes--and without leaving a paper trail?

2 hours ago, Greg Doudna said:

I hope you realize Michael that nothing I wrote about Albarelli's June Cobb was intended to contest what you note here. Until evidence is presented showing otherwise, I assume at this point that Albarelli's June Cobb of early 2010s was no more June Cobb than Leslie Sharp is Leslie Sharp. I think Albarelli's June Cobb was an imposter pure and simple, with no bearing on the argument of Haverstick's work.  

Turning directly to what you note, I believe the case is very strong for the identification, referring to ca. 1959-1963. 

However in the interests of accuracy a couple of comments.

On that left-clavicle scar published in a medical journal article with photos in the early 1950s for June Cobb, I know that author Haverstick asserts unequivocally that she saw a scar of similar description in the same location on Jerrie Cobb, practically stand-alone decisive if true, and publishes a photo of Jerrie Cobb's neck in the book ... but, for what it is worth, try as I might I fail to see any scar in the photo Haverstick has published. I see only neck and the neckline of a dress. I am not necessarily questioning Haverstick's claim it was there, only that I cannot see it in the published photo.

On the left-forearm "62" scar as identifying Jerrie Cobb with Catherine Taafe (interestingly, Haverstick notes that John Newman separately, earlier, and independently had presented at a conference argument that CIA operative persona Catherine Taafe who was succeeded by CIA operative persona June Cobb may have been one and the same person...):

Yes, that is extremely convincing. But note this: Haverstick publishes a contemporary newspaper photo from a contemporary newspaper story telling of an assault on "Catherine Taafe" and a carved "62" in her forearm by her Castro-Cuban assailants (apparent purpose: so that that person could never again infiltrate Castro-Cuban circles without being identified as a spy).

The "62" on the forearm of the contemporary published newspaper photo is not the same as the much larger "2" plus an indeterminate small circle scars actually on Jerrie Cobb's forearm, clear photo published by Haverstick. 

The match of the highly striking and unique carved "2" into both left forearms (even if different in sizes and appearance) establishes the identification. Jerrie Cobb was that CIA operative at that time going by the identity of "Catherine Taafe" (which as you note from Haverstick, was distinct from a real Catherine Taafe whose body, per prediction, if exhumed would not be found to have a "62" scar on her forearm).

But someone appears to have put out for publication a misleading photo at the time of a different "62" on a forearm of "Catherine Taafe", differing in appearance from the larger "2" and small circle actually carved into Jerrie Cobb's forearm and remaining on her forearm for the rest of her life until witnessed and photographed by Haverstick. And following that reported assault on "Catherine Taafe", CIA quickly ended further use of "Catherine Taafe" and instead the same operative (Jerrie Cobb per thesis) began use of persona "June Cobb".  

That is Haverstick's argument. 

Unexplained what became of the real June Cobb; was she lost in the Amazon, remains never found? Did she die of a jungle disease? Can any family members of verified identity be found who can speak to when they or other family members last knew and saw their family member the real June Cobb?

Or maybe the June Cobb said to have died in 2015 and to be buried now in an unidentified cemetery somewhere in Kentucky is after all the real June Cobb (who never was the 1959-1963 CIA spy or Albarelli's June Cobb imposter)?

A sizzling investigative story waiting to be done for some motivated journalist to run down all this. (Won't be me.) 

Thanks, Greg. For some inexplicable reason, I mistakenly typed "69" as the number carved into the left forearm--it was 26, not 69, as I stated in the first post of the thread. 

Mary Haverstick recently told me that she has a lot of information that she had to omit from the book for the sake of space. She would be glad to present this additional information in podcasts. I'm trying to arrange some podcast appearances for her. If anyone here does a podcast and would like to have Mary on as a guest, please message or email me.

57 minutes ago, Richard Booth said:

Because he got the first and last name of his interview guest wrong. That was funny.

So was his dumb question "do you still think Oswald was involved?"

What exactly was dumb about asking Jim if he still thought that Oswald was involved? What? This was a TV interview for a general audience, not some specialized JFK assassination forum. And Brian posed the question in a neutral, non-combative manner. Indeed, it came across almost as a leading question. 

I suspect the main reason you're so hard on Brian is that he is a conservative journalist who works for Fox News.

On 12/1/2023 at 1:48 PM, Greg Doudna said:

The late Hank Albarelli, who passed away in 2019, wrote that he interviewed June Cobb twice-weekly for a two-year period in the early 2010’s. It is possible that a prominent author such as Albarelli interviewing one of the JFK assassination’s potentially most important witnesses, a celebrated spy who never gave an interview or was heard from for decades prior to that, for hundreds of hours over a two year period might have photos and tapes.

There are plenty of photos of Jerrie Cobb of Tampa, Florida in her later years. All it would take is for Albarelli photos of his June Cobb—if he took any photos, such as himself standing with her—to be disclosed. I have no idea who has Albarellis photos of June Cobb and Leslie Sharp does not seem inclined to respond well to being asked.

But that would be the most obvious and simplest way to check this and it could be done tomorrow if whoever has those photos would release a couple, maybe post one or two here if they know of someone on this forum willing to do so for them.

It would also be nice if somebody could identify where June Cobb is buried and if she has a tombstone. The Wikipedia article on June Cobb cites hearsay from a family member who said she’s buried in some county in Kentucky but no cemetery or gravesite identified, and there seems to be no public record documentation online that can assist in resolution of that little mystery.

So far as I can tell, there was no New York Times notice or obituary, or any other news reporting notice of any kind, at the time of the death of one of America’s most fascinating women spies, New York City’s June Cobb, announcing that fact.

A simple photo of June Cobb with Albarelli would clear up forthwith whether Albarellis June Cobb was Jerrie Cobb or not (my guess is not).

Assuming it wasn’t Jerrie Cobb Albarelli was dealing with (probably wasn’t), then all that would be needed to be done would be to verify Albarellis June Cobb of no announced death and unknown burial spot was the same CIA June Cobb of 1959-1963 (and find out why June Cobb was totally silent in the intervening decades). Then this little mystery would be cleared up.

Supposedly Albarelli at the time of his death had a manuscript on June Cobb from those hundreds of hours of late-life first-ever interviews of one of America’s most important Cold War woman spies.

That manuscript is controlled in high secrecy by somebody unknown whose identity Leslie is not disposed to disclose. Leslie has resolutely refused to either confirm or deny she is that person herself.

Lots of secrecy surrounding the celebrated Cold War spy who may have had knowledge of some Mexico City CIA operation involving Oswald in 1963, Ms. Cobb. 

(Or is this some rabbit hole Albarelli was lured into by some agency’s idea of an elaborate practical joke?)

Who knows. But the first step would be to ask the gatekeeper of Albarellis photos of June Cobb, whoever that might be, for permission to post one or two.

Maybe that could be done over the next few days if a gatekeeper might permit it.

One, I repeat that Jerrie Cobb had the same left-clavicle leishmaniasis scar that the CIA June Cobb had, and had the same left-forearm "26" scar [not "69" scar, as I mistyped earlier] that Catherine Taafe had.

Two, as Haverstick explains in the book, there was a real June Cobb and a real Catherine Taafe, and their identities were used by Jerrie Cobb.

Three, the long list of remarkable similarities between the life actions and movements of Jerrie Cobb and the CIA June Cobb defy all odds of coincidence. 

Four, John Newman also interviewed a woman who claimed to be the CIA June Cobb, and she even sent Newman a photo. However, Fortuna Calvo-Roth, who knew the CIA June Cobb very well, said that Newman's photo of the CIA June Cobb was not the CIA June Cobb that she had known; but, Fortuna said that the two photos of Jerrie Cobb that Haverstick showed her were photos of the CIA June Cobb. 

On 12/2/2023 at 10:24 PM, Richard Booth said:

This has to be the dumbest interviewer I have ever seen.

Watching this made me feel smart. And let me tell you, the bar is pretty low on that:

 

He starts out calling Jim the wrong first name and butchering his last name (Which I might add is put together in such a way as to be easy to guess how to say)

Then he asks Jim "so do you still believe Oswald was involved?"

Jim handled it with class. 

Hilarious. 

I'm not sure why you're being so hard on the interviewer, Brian Kilmeade. Brian was not hostile at all toward Jim, and Brian's intro was fair and even-handed. Moreover, Brian's question about echoes and a grassy knoll shot indicated that Brian does not buy the theory that the sound of gunfire from the knoll was just a result of echoes. 

Yes, Brian mangled Jim's name, but he quickly corrected "John" to "Jim" for the rest of the interview. 

I notice that no one is nit-picking the fact that Jim said the WC posited four bullets (starting at 2:00 in the interview), but you jump all over Brian Kilmeade for initially mangling Jim's name and for asking Jim if he believed that Oswald was involved in the shooting. Why was this a "dumb" question? Why did asking this perfectly valid, and helpful, question make Brian "dumb"? 

FYI, Brian Kilmeade is not a lock-step WC apologist by any stretch. This should be obvious just from his interview with Jim.

On 12/2/2023 at 8:14 AM, Richard Booth said:

Has anyone on this forum read Norman Mailer's book "Oswald's Tale" ?

I have not read it and do not have a copy. My understanding is that Mailer obtained access to some of the apartment KGB surveillance of Oswald -- but perhaps my recollection is wrong. I know he [Mailer] spent time in Russia writing the book and I seem to recall something about him getting access to this material.

At any rate--I wanted to ask forum members about this and if someone has read that book, and does it offer any insight as to what language Oswald spoke to Marina in, in Russia?

I recall reading somewhere or another that when Oswald was put in the hospital after the fake suicide attempt, the doctors there felt that Oswald could understand their Russian speaking and that he was feigning an inability to understand Russian.

To me, this remains one of the biggest enigmas in this case:

If Marina could not speak English, then that means Oswald had to have spoken to her in Russian. However, it is said that when he was in Russia, Oswald did not speak Russian at all. When John Armstrong visited one of the couples who knew Oswald and Marina in Russia he asked them "how was Oswald's Russian?" and they were shocked by the question, confused perhaps, saying that No, No, he did not speak any Russian.

Then you have Marina saying she was impressed with Oswald's Russian, thinking he might be a native speaker from one of the Baltic states. How do you reconcile this comment with the others in Russia who said he never spoke Russian when he was there?

Then you have this gentleman in Texas who signed a statement or endorsement for Oswald, saying that he could speak the language well enough to serve as a translator.

What do people here think about Oswald's Russian language abilities, whether or not he spoke Russian or concealed that ability when in Russia, and for that matter how do you think that Oswald and Marina communicated? 

Oswald's DLPT score alone indicates that his Russian during his time in the Marines was decent, and this was before he went to Russia. James Norwood presents statements from a number of Russian speakers who knew Oswald and who said he spoke very good Russian:

Oswald's Russian Language Proficiency (harveyandlee.net)

Last night I finished reading Mary Haverstick’s new book A Woman I Know: Female Spies, Double Identities, and a New Story of the Kennedy Assassination. I believe Haverstick has uncovered some truly historic information, and that her book is a serious work of scholarship that should be read by anyone who is interested in the JFK assassination.

I decided to create a new thread on the book because the other thread is unfairly dismissive and was started by someone who apparently had not even read the entire book and seemed to rely mainly on a brief article about it.

Here are the most important things that I get from the book:

-- Haverstick definitely proves that Jerrie Cobb was the CIA agent who used the identities of June Cobb and Catherine Taafe.

She proves, with photographic evidence, that Jerrie Cobb had the same “26” scar on her left forearm that two of Castro’s thugs carved into Catherine Taafe’s left forearm in February 1960.

She proves, again with photographic evidence, that Jerrie Cobb had the same circular, two-ring leishmaniasis scar on her left clavicle that June Cobb had on her left clavicle.

She proves that CIA records and other sources show an amazing activity overlap and checkerboard-like synchronicity between the lives of Jerrie Cobb and June Cobb and Catherine Taafe. Consider the amazing parallels between Jerrie Cobb and June Cobb:

Both came from Ponca City, Oklahoma. They were the same height and weight. Both lived for a time in Norman, Oklahoma. Both were in the Civil Air Patrol, a rare thing for women back then. Both were fluent Spanish speakers. Both lived extensively in Latin America. Both left home in their twenties for South America. Both lobbied on behalf of the Indigenous tribes at the Amazon headwaters. Both visited the isolated Andes mountains in the early 1950s, when almost no white people had ever been there. Both advocated for causes related to the coca-leaf-chewing habits of the Andean natives. Both exited the jungle from their expeditions burdened by a lifelong jungle-borne disease (leishmaniasis).

Once in South America, both worked for aviation firms serving identical countries—Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, and Peru. Both traveled into dark corners of the Amazon jungle, and both got there by flying with a new love who was also a pilot. Both considered their respective affairs to be the love of their lives, and both relationships ended tragically.

Both traveled the same geographic circuit of cities in perpetual motion. Both had indications of wealth but no visible means of support. Both disappeared for extended periods of time during their lives. Both were well connected to the national and international press.

Both opposed some of John F. Kennedy’s policies. Both were in Mexico City six weeks before Kennedy was killed. Both intersected with events surrounding Kennedy’s death.

-- Haverstick interviewed a person who knew the CIA June Cobb well, Fortuna Calvo-Roth. She showed Fortuna nine photos that included one alleged photo of the CIA June Cobb and two photos of Jerrie Cobb. Fortuna identified the two photos of Jerrie Cobb as the CIA June Cobb. When Haverstick asked her about the photo of the CIA June Cobb, she said it was not June Cobb.

-- Haverstick discovered that Jerrie Cobb was an experienced target shooter, and that she had excellent marksmanship skills.

-- Haverstick makes a strong case that Jerrie Cobb was QJWIN. No other proposed candidate for QJWIN comes close to Cobb’s qualifications for being QJWIN.

-- Haverstick makes a plausible case that Jerrie Cobb was the Babushka Lady.

Haverstick’s ID of Jerrie Cobb as the Babushka Lady is strengthened by Cobb’s admission to her that she was the pilot of the suspicious plane at Redbird Airport on 11/22/63. The ID is also strengthened by Jerrie Cobb’s statement to Haverstick that June Cobb knew who killed JFK.

-- Even if one rejects Haverstick’s Cobb-Babushka identification, she makes a very good case that the Babushka Lady’s conduct during and after the shooting was unusual and suspicious.

-- Haverstick’s theory that the Babushka Lady was holding a gun disguised as a camera is entirely plausible and feasible.

-- Haverstick’s research on Cobb’s use of multiple identities and on Cobb’s pretending to be pro-Castro and pro-Soviet gives us useful insight into Oswald’s pro-Castro/Soviet posturing.

-- Haverstick makes a credible case that the ZR/Rifle program’s primary target was JFK, and that William Harvey and Arnold Silver were two of the main drivers behind it.

-- Haverstick's segments on Oswald's activities in Mexico City and elsewhere, Ruth Paine, Michael Paine, and false defectors are valuable and insightful.

Haverstick’s knowledge regarding the intelligence-related aspects of the JFK case is superb. However, her knowledge of certain other aspects of the case is somewhat faulty. She makes a few mistakes regarding non-intel elements of the assassination. She assumes that the initial police description of the sixth-floor gunman closely resembled Oswald. She appears to think that Oswald may have fired shots at JFK. And she assumes that Oswald shot Tippit. But, these errors constitute a very small segment of the book and do not detract from the historic information that she presents regarding Jerrie/June Cobb and the ZR/RIFLE angle of the assassination.

We should keep in mind that Haverstick knew little about the JFK case before she became interested in Jerrie Cobb’s identity as June Cobb. And, again, her mistakes on non-intel aspects of the case are understandable, brief, and relatively unimportant compared to all the other information in her book.

Mary Haverstick's background should cause any serious researcher to give her a fair hearing. She is a successful film director and writer. She has directed four movies, including the 2008 movie Home starring Oscar winner Marcia Harden and the 2018 movie The Last Horsemen of New York starring Oscar winner Liam Neeson.

Another thing that makes her JFK research worth a fair hearing is that she had no interest in the JFK case for most of her life and only became interested in the case accidentally as a result of her work on a film about Jerrie Cobb’s aviation career.

On 11/29/2023 at 12:57 PM, Pat Speer said:

And you want the most blithering drool on the floor theory possible, where everything is switched and faked for no reason. The M/C rifle found in the depository was inadequate to fire three accurate shots in the timing required. It had prints on it that went unidentified, and a print that was supposedly lifted that is as suspicious as heck. When you add in that it was too long to fit in the bag in which it was supposedly transported, without being broken down, well, then, the rifle is actually a strong piece of evidence for Oswald's defense. 

And that's not even to mention that the very men you rely upon to claim the rifle was a Mauser, were still in the area when what you say was a different rifle was photographed by Alyea. So, in your pretending their first recollections are unimpeachable, you are simultaneously making them out to be dolts. 

As seems to be your habit, you once again misrepresent my arguments and ignore contrary evidence. I have never said, or even implied, that "everything is switched and faked." 

And once again you sound like a WC apologist making their strawman argument of "it was not a perfect conspiracy so there was no conspiracy because a conspiracy would have made no mistakes." 

A Mauser murder weapon would have made the three shells conveniently left in plain even more suspect. 

You brush aside the fact that Weitzman carefully examined the rifle, the same rifle that, according to you, had "MADE ITALY" and "CAL. 6.5" clearly stamped on it, but somehow, say you, mistook it for a 7.65 German Mauser. 

Again, swapping the rifle would have taken a matter of a few seconds. 

The CIA did not bring down Nixon. Congressional Democrats, corrupt Democratic lawyers, Judge John Sirica, and the media brought down Nixon. The CIA had nothing to do with it. 

Nixon chose Ford to replace Agnew because Ford was the House Minority Leader and was well respected in the party. On balance, Ford was a decent, honorable man, and he actually did a moderately good job as President. 

3 hours ago, Benjamin Cole said:

One thing I never understood. 

Almost the minute JFK was assassinated, the intel-military community dropped Cuba like a hot potato, and went gungho into Vietnam. 

This is not what happened. We were already in South Vietnam and were actively trying to ensure that the country did not fall to Communist rule. Cuba had already come under Communist control, and we had no troops or bases in Cuba (except for the tiny toe hold of Guantanamo). 

Also, the record is clear that LBJ had no desire to massively escalate our Vietnam involvement. He wanted to increase our support for the Saigon government and to put more military pressure on North Vietnam, but he had no desire to deploy hundreds of thousands of U.S. combat troops. He wanted to focus on his domestic agenda and was worried that a major war effort in Vietnam would endanger his domestic policies. If you doubt this, read H. R. McMaster's book Dereliction of Duty. 

LBJ only--and with great reluctance--agreed to a large deployment of combat troops in response to Hanoi's massive escalation in early 1965, a situation that JFK never faced.

11 hours ago, Jonathan Cohen said:

In case people have not seen it yet, it can be viewed here. This is one of the most thorough, interesting and well-researched presentations I have seen on an assassination-related topic in many years. Regardless of where you stand on the identity of the Prayer Man figure, it's refreshing to see new work presented by people who are serious about resolving key issues in the case without simply claiming every piece of evidence is fake or altered.

Nobody claims that "every piece of evidence is faked or altered."

I should add that your side never hesitates to claim that pro-conspiracy evidence has been faked or doctored when you cannot deal with it otherwise. I have lost count of how many witnesses you guys have accused of fabricating their stories for fame and/or gain. You guys have accused some of the medical witnesses of purposely producing false wound diagrams (while claiming that the other troublesome wound diagrams are "mistaken"). You guys claim that the "Dear Mr. Hunt" letter was forged. You guys claim that Jim Garrison and his staff fabricated interview reports (such as Lou Ivon's report on his last interview with David Ferrie). You guys claim that Garrison's office and/or Officer Habighorst fabricated the "Alias: Clay Bertrand" entry on Clay Shaw's fingerprint card. You guys claim that the Lafitte datebook is a hoax. And on and on we could go.

So, it's not that you rule out the possibility of faking and tampering with evidence in all cases. You only rule it out when it comes to evidence you like.