Matt Cloud

Let me add: If the contention is that there are CIA persons in the Nixon White House, then I have no disagreement with that. At all. If anyone wants to get into just who they may be and what they may have been doing there, have at it. Is James McCord among those? Yes. Did he purposefully sabotage the break-in? Probably so. What could be the motivations? I have ideas. As to say Fred Thompson and James Baker, yes, they knew all about it -- or eventually did. So did Terry Lenzner on the majority side. So did almost everyone of significance in the media. Howard Hunt had my father's internal TIME magazine cable on North Vietnamese troop movements in 1971 in his safe. It was among the things that Pat Gray was supposed to destroy, what Dean said should never see the light of day. You can read about it here: https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,943542,00.html Oh my. What could that mean? Was TIME magazine working with persons inside the White House to bring Nixon down through a two-prong strategy both domestic (Watergate) and foreign (Vietnam)? Yes. Was The Post involved too? Yes. Had Kay Graham urged Moynihan to set up The Plumbers in the first place? Back in 1969? Yes.

And of course, in one of the what? Altgens pics? Altgens 5 I think ... Mr. Chism is shorter than the 77 highway sign underneath the Stemmons sign. Very odd. Very odd.

I don't rule out alteration across many or even all of the images, including those you cite, to create a uniform appearance more or less as between the sign and the post in one versus the rest. Going over that however is too cumbersome in this format. But I will say the Smithsonian re-creation -- which was done by someone in Scandinavia if I am not mistaken, not the Smithsonian itself -- was evidently quite painstakingly worked over. Based on a large amount of data. And as you and I both agree, it is quite substantially different in the placement of at least those objects. I would go in and critique the methodology used there, first, before simply asserting that because the Smithsonian recreation does not look like the pictures, it is therefore wrong in its placements. The rest of what you write, here ...: "As to the size of the sign it was a 4x8 piece of plywood. Knowing the Z field of view as 11 degrees and the distance to the sign as 50 ft, confirmed by all that other photographic evidence, you could test the size of the sign. If the sign is fake it still is the correct size in the Z film. Goggle Earth, the West map, and the Cutler map can all be used as a baseline and they match all the other photographic evidence." ... is completely circular in logic (you circle back to other images that may be suspect) except for when it is entirely speculative. Where for example do you get the dimensions of the sign from? Or the material? Where do you come by the Zapruder field of view? However the case, there are many indications of anomalies across many images. It is a problem for identifying any baseline. One interesting example: Here: https://time.com/3430022/never-before-seen-photos-of-jfks-final-minutes-in-dallas/ Scroll down to the bottom and find the image looking down Elm Street right in line almost with the lamp posts. You can see the Stemmons sign. What's interesting about it? The "P" in the "KeeP Right" has lost it's paint evidently. That's on Sunday. Other pics on Sunday don't show that. A pic from later in the week also shows it, IIRC. Anyway, spending time on these photos only highlights problems; it doesn't resolve them. That's a bad sign, pardon the pun.

What was my question? Whatever it was you have not answered it. No one has established any issue here. It's not clear at all what people are responding to or even attempting to engage with me on, except seemingly to show-off little tid-bits of details they may think they are especially privy too. I know all about the Butterfield story. Butterfield is how Moynihan -- his nightly drinking buddy during the WH years, and even after -- learned of the taping system, which went in, right after Moynihan's departure in Feb 71. That is the key piece of info that Depp Throat had to know. Mark Felt did not know that. Felt was not Deep Throat. Nor was Haig. It was Moynihan. There.

You're not following. You can't use the Zapruder film to show that the Smithsonian re-creation is in error because the issue is whether the Zapruder film is accurate at all. That goes for both the Stemmons sign -- overly large in my opinion -- as well as the placement of the lamp-post. You have not established any baseline and the Z-film -- which, again, is the main piece of evidence at issue, cannot provide that.

What is "at that time?" Which time are you referring to? I'm talking about today -- or if you prefer, anytime after Mullen's name broke in connection with the story which was when? Sometime early 1974? Maybe before? And yes, it is said Bennett steered Woodward away from the story. If so, he was joined in that by Roswell Gilpatric (who had been deeply involved in DIem and was now GC at TIME) who was simultaneously steering Haldeman and others toward Felt as the one leaking to Woodward and also Sandy Smith of TIME, who was thereafter rendered out-of-the-loop in Watergate coverage. So what? That is not the name that is redacted from the CIA memo I presented you, I contend. I'm quite familiar with what really happened. Moynihan was Deep Throat. Moynihan was Woodward's primary source. There you go. You missed it too.

Well that doesn't work. Bennett is elsewhere identified by name in that memo. Not redacted. And everybody already knew Bennett and Mullen & Co. relationship. No secret there. Seems like somebody else. Publisher Roger W. Strauss? Helms putting in Hunt and McCord is unsubstantiated. Can you support that claim? What about Butterfield? Who put him there? In any case, what is the point of this exchange? Do you want to get at the identity of Deep Throat? Do you want to say he was a composite? Neither Bennett not Felt were Deep Throat.

Finally, perhaps, Zapruder had a 9-27mm lens on his B&H 8mm camera, which could be set to wide or normal. If he was fully zoomed in, at normal, at the 27 mm length, the FOV would roughly correspond to that of a 35mm lens on a 35mm still film camera. (A 1.3 crop factor between 8mm film and 35mm film translates into 27 x 1.3 = 35.1.) He had a medium-wide lens in other words, even at it's narrowest setting; Zapruder wasn't even shooting with a 50 mm standard equiv. lens. Nothing even approaching a tele-photo lens. Alas, however, unless and until someone re-inserts the Stemmons sign in the correct location and erects a lamp post at its correct location, it's pretty much untestable. Perhaps that's why both are no longer where they were on 11/22.

The Smithsonian recreation h ad it about right, imo. You can see the placements here: https://www.google.com/imgres?q=zapruder's spot dealey plaza&imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fth-thumbnailer.cdn-si-edu.com%2FS7kWaVctUOtm4Q3RMLGUeDIz4t4%3D%2F1000x750%2Ffilters%3Ano_upscale()%3Afocal(235x125%3A236x126)%2Fhttps%3A%2F%2Ftf-cmsv2-smithsonianmag-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Ffiler%2F20131122100105JFK-3d-model.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.smithsonianmag.com%2Finnovation%2Fan-interactive-3d-model-of-the-jfk-assassination-site-grassy-knoll-and-all-180947812%2F&docid=M96XmXZf_58shM&tbnid=sZb8XSCkwnWuGM&vet=12ahUKEwi5rcWRw5KGAxVyEFkFHcD1AtAQM3oECGIQAA..i&w=470&h=251&hcb=2&ved=2ahUKEwi5rcWRw5KGAxVyEFkFHcD1AtAQM3oECGIQAA Also, FWIW, Sylvia Meagher, in Accessories After the Fact, 1967, p. 33, thought the Stemmons sign had been moved. And later authors thought it happened the night of the assassination. There are many inconsistencies in the Stemmons sign between pictures taken on 11/22 and 11/24. There may even be the possibility that the lamp post itself was moved in this time frame. Sidewalk alterations (newer concrete) still visible today indicate the lamp post at issue, when positioned on the curb, was in two different places at two different times. The point remains, I contend, that from Zapruder's field of view it would be impossible to frame a shot with a normal lens that had the Stemmons sign on the left of the frame and not have the lamp post also in the frame, on the right, if not more towards the center. That's the issue.

The image you've provided, the B&W at bottom left, is what you'd expect to see, yes. When the Stemmons sign is on the left side of the frame, the lamp post should be on the right. But that's not what the Zapruder film shows. Not even close. It takes two seconds between the Stemmons sign disappearing from the field of view and the lamp post entering the FOV. And yet the camera was panning to the right, tracking the limo. In addition, at this point roughly Zapruder changes framing, from the limo being centrally positioned in the FOV to the limo being at the bottom of his FOV. It's as if a post-production tele or zoom has been applied.

So what's the point here?

Wow. Thanks. The Huston Plan. Fascinating. Problem is Helms isn't the one who twisted Mullen's arm pretty hard to hire him; someone else did. Who was that? P. 4, bottom 'graf. https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/(EST PUB DATE) WRAP-UP OF[15816480].pdf And weren't Helms and Liddy at WH in the first place because of Moynihan and his deputy Krogh's anti-heroin operations? If you don't know what that is, you should look it up. Or just ask.

Nixon was prying into "the whole Bay of Pigs thing." He had his staff demanding from CIA materials relating to that and the assassinations of Kennedy and Diem. But with Nixon campaign money run through the Cubans, via Dahlberg to Stans (who had had budgetary authorities over covert funding in the 50s), money which ended up in Bernard Barker's Watergate break-in account, Nixon attempts to declassify such materials were crippled. Once injected into the Nixon bloodstream, the $$ that ends up in Barker's account is what obliges Nixon to go to Helms and say I see what's going on here, surely you see what's going on here, why don't we cool it on the Mexico angle lest this is going to go places neither of us wants to go. "The whole BoP thing."

None of this is here or there. Dark complected man was standing closer to the lamp post than he was to the sign. He was in the street. Therefore when we see Dark Complected man in the Z-film, we should also see the lamp post. We do not. It takes about two-seconds of elapsed film time, even while panning to the right in the direction of the limo, for the lamp post to appear. That's the issue. In addition, I would point out that Zapruder was shooting with a standard, normal lens, a 50 mm, the stock lens for the bell & Howell camera. He was not using a tele lens that could have zeroed in on the space between the lamp post and the sign. In other words, if Zapruder got the sign in his frame of view at the left, he should have also gotten the lamp post in his frame of view, albeit at the right. That doesn't happen. As an aside, it is one of the more curious aspects of the dimensions and layout of Dealey Plaza that the sign/lamp post position issue occurs right at the s-curve in the sidewalk, a "feature" which encourages you might say all sorts of perspective issues. Sometimes the sign and lamp post appear in line; sometimes further apart. But again zaprder's position was between them both.

The Stemmons sign is hidden behind the trees, but it's right by where the guys are standing on the grass. Right next to the lamp post.

Is this a joke? In any case - geez it's unbelievable the way people here want to argue with those supporting their points -- um ... at the very bottom of that very imformative picture you posted you can see the B&W pic that shows the lamp post relative to the Stemmons sign. They are almost lined up with each other, as you can see. That alignment is not reflected whatsoever in the Zapruder film. Thanks!

Two points; 1. In addition to the sharp shadows, many of the shadows are deep black, "crushed blacks" as videographers say without seemingly any detail left on the ground overwhich the shadows lie. The Charles Brehm shadow for instance is particular egregious in this regard. This suggests some persons were simply cut and pasted-in and their shadows drawn-in, in black. 2. About ten feet beyond the Stemmons Freeway sign was a lamp post all the way out at the edge of the curb. "Dark-complected man," when he waves/signals his hand, based on some still images, stands evidently between the sign and the post. But the Z-film, at frame 232 for instance, shows no lamp post although it would be expected to be seen at the right-hand edge of the frame by about that frame at least. It's not until frame 261 that the lamp post finally enters the picture. Of course, today, the Stemmons sign is no more, having been taken down in spring 1964. All of the lamp posts have been moved from their 1963 positions, back away from the curb edge to now on the grass edge. (The entire width of the sidewalk at least in other words.) That positioning of the lamp post at issue, now, not surprisingly, corresponds much better to where the Z-film shows it, but of course that is not where that lamp post was on 11/22/63.

https://www.newspapers.com/article/2483198/stephen_allen_tippit/

"Arrogance" -- whether by me or anyone -- has nothing to do with anything here, and hasn't been on display. You write a thread about inconsistencies and mysteries surrounding the Tippits. I added to the list. You acknowledge such. Then you come on and say I need to know the answer before I can say any more. That's not what this forum is about. It's about developing information that has so far gone undeveloped and analyzing it. You're ruling out possibilities, and your own ability to look further into new questions, because of, well, what? You don't like where it might lead? Sorry. Any connection between the Tippits of CT and those of TX are obviously highly secret and obscured given that they would probably tend to blow a large chunk of the events of that day out of the water. Saying that you haven't been given anything to suggest otherwise -- which is flatly untrue -- is disingenuous. That's the issue; not arrogance.

In other words, you must be told the answer before you acknowledge the possibility. Got it. In any case, I already gave you a connection -- quite a few in fact. And you began this go-around by stating -- by acknowledging -- "there's more suggestion" that they may not have been so distant. Totally bizarre exchange, again.

"Daniel Kendrick came out of nowhere in 2013 to claim he was standing on the north side of Elm St. on 11-22-63. It seems possible, then, that he was the boy standing with Smith. (11-22-13 BBC US and Canada article by Mark Mardell, found online)." Is Daniel Kendrick related to James M. Kendrick?!

What you go off on is up to you. You're the one that wrote "There's more suggestion that the two Tippit families weren't all that distant at one time." In any case, as the FBI memos about the anonymous call to the Tippits of CT records, Jack D. Tippit of CT claimed J.D. Tippit of TX was a "distant relative," but they asked evidently the Norwalk Hour newspaper not to print that connection. The Hour did anyway. The Tippits of CT are relevant for many reasons, many of them highlighted in that memo. They receive a call about a back-story of Oswald; they turn that over to FBI; Warren Commission does not investigate. Tippits say caller was Eastern European and Spanish, implicating the two nations already implicated in assassination. The paper says they are relatives; the cartoonist Tippit worked directly for the Air Force Secretary (recall Oswald may have been set-up to take blame for "leak" of U-2 info). Son dies in strange circumstances in case never solved; sot from distance 2x at gas station. In Lubbock. George Bush's home district. In any case, have a look yourself. I'm not obligated to feed you.

It only gets better the closer you look. Stephen Allen Tippet marries daughter of USAF Lt. Col. James Moore Kendrick, stationed in Izmir, Turkey, from 1961-63, where Jupiter missiles were based during Cuban Missile Crisis. Kendrick had been with Von Braun in missile development and renaissance and possibly Aquatone (U-2). J.D. Tippit of Connecticut (after coming from Texas) worked for Air Force Secretary Harold Brown in 1965, at least, in Washington. No mere "cartoonist."

See post related to Stephen Allen Tippit, here:

This is exactly correct. But how did whoever this person or persons was or were know that, in your loose terminology, because "a molehunt had been done with the Oswald file in the past,' if Oswald were to be blamed for the assassination it would deep-six any serious investigation, lest the "mole-hunters" be blamed for not having caught the mole in time before the assassination. The person or persons must either be within CI/SIG itself -- which may be your view -- or there must be a leak from CI-SIG to the person or persons indicating that CI-SIG has bitten on Oswald, the "poisoned dwarf," rendering themselves impotent. The source of the leak could be a double-agent or indeed even the alleged Mole himself. (And those are two different things by the way -- double-agent as against mole.) That's the required analysis.