Matt Cloud
-
Posts
286 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Matt Cloud
-
-
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.
-
1 minute ago, Chris Bristow said:
the "baseline" is all the other photographic images. If the Z film is false it was made to match all the other images of the sign and lamppost. Willis 5, Beltzner, Bothun, Rickerby, Nix, 2nd Towner segment, several reporters 16mm footage from seconds after the assassination, and others as well.
I think the Z film was altered but the positions of everything in the plaza is consistent in every piece of photographic evidence of the lamppost or the sign.
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.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.
-
4 minutes ago, Benjamin Cole said:
Matt-
You ask a fair question...but on the other hand Hunt was sending sealed weekly pouches (purses holding paper documents) to Helms while Hunt worked in the WH. The WH was unaware of this.
JFKA researcher Prouty claims that Hunt told him that Butterfield was also undercover CIA. Hunt and Butterfield deny this.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/07/17/archives/hunt-denies-linking-butterfield-cia.html
"But Colonel Prouty, also interviewed by CBS, stuck by his earlier account that Mr. Hunt had named Mr. Butterfield as a White House C.I.A. contact during a conversation in the office of a Washington consulting firm that has longtime associations with the intelligence agency.
“The name that they mentioned was Butterfield,” Colonel Prouty said. “The only name that I heard in the office was Butterfield.”
---30---
There is another fishy angle to the Watergate tale.
So...before Nixon get the boot, the vice president Agnew just happens to get the boot? Really?
Aging old plain-vanilla corruption charges are dredged up and brought against Agnew, and then WC'er Gerald Ford is brought in?
And then Nixon is eased out?
Don't get me wrong---what Nixon did in Laos alone is enough to turn my stomach (BTW, the CIA murdered 40,000 Vietnamese civilians under Operation Phoenix). Agnew was likely an old-fashioned crook-pol.
In my view, the CIA effectively deposed four US presidents in the postwar era, being JFK, Nixon, Carter and a president with a name that begins with a "T."
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.
-
1 minute ago, Chris Bristow said:
"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."
I think there are hard facts that show the lamppost would not have appeared with DCM.
1.) Z's field of view looking east on Elm, then looking at the wall behind the lamppost, and the later view of the Fort Worth sign, all show a narrow field of view of around 11 degrees.
(Speculation about what lens he used is not needed because we have those 3 examples of his 11 degree field of view.)
2.) The positions of the lamppost and Stemmons sign match in all photographic evidence of them taken during the assassination, just after, and the weekend of 11/22. When adjustments for perspective are taken into account, photos like the Nat Geo photo, are consistent with the other evidence. That evidence puts the lamppost 20 degrees away from DCM as seen from Z's position on the pedestal. That can be measured on the survey map and tested in Google Earth too if you go through the hassle of finding the pedestal under the trees and use the original position of the lamppost.
So Z's field of view was very narrow and only extended out 5 to 6 degrees to each side. The photographic evidence puts the Lamppost 20 degrees to the right from Z's position. Adjusting for vertical and horizontal perspective is required when comparing all those different photos taken from different positions. Unless there is a case to be made for the photographic evidence being wrong, there is no reason to think the lamppost should be visible anywhere near the sign or DCM. .
The 3D plaza you linked from the Smithsonian has a serious and easily documented flaw regarding the lamppost. (I know that sounds like the type of cheap rhetoric people spout without evidence, but this is provable.) I added a frame of the 3D view below too my previous comp image(bottom right.)
Smithsonian used the white silhouette at the bottom to represent Z. Notice the sign is just slightly misaligned with the record building windows when compared to the Z film. The Z line of sight has to be moved to about 2 ft in front of the pedestal to correct that. It is a small error.
The lamppost however is way way off. The Z film shows it at the far right end of the wall where the peristyle meets the wall. The 3D recreation shows the lamppost only half way down the wall. That is a 30 ft difference along the wall. When you line up the lamppost in the 3D to its actual background in the Z film, the camera position is 20 ft left of Z. The 3D is completely contradicted by the lines of sight in the actual Z film, provably wrong when it comes to the lamppost location.
I'm just repeating what I stated earlier now. So if you have a specific case to make about the inaccuracy of the photographic evidence from the weekend of 11/22, or I have a mistake in my analysis I am open to hearing it.
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.
-
25 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:
Matt:
At that time, no one knew anything about the CIA and the Mullen Company.
In fact, Bennett reported to his CIA control agent that he was spinning Woodward away from that story and onto Nixon.
The Woodward/Bernstein/Bradlee tidal wave was so powerful that it engulfed the Ervin Committee en toto.
The only place one will see anything like what really happened was in the minority report penned by Fred Thompson and Howard Baker. Which no one read. ANd Nixon did not realize that the Mullen Company was a CIA front until near the end.
For an overview read this, in this one we beat the MSM to the story.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/obituaries/the-mysterious-life-and-death-of-james-w-mccord
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.
-
1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said:
It was Bennett, who many think was really Deep Throat, or part of that composite character.
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.
-
22 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:
The Smithsonian recreation h ad it about right, imo. You can see the placements here:
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.
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:
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:
So what's the point here?
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Chris Davidson said:
So what's the point here?
-
1 minute ago, James DiEugenio said:
That isn't bad Matt.
Helms had planted Hunt and McCord in strategic places in order to place a possible check on Nixon.
One thing that Helms really did not like was the Huston Plan.
If you don't know what that is, you should look it up.
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.
-
14 minutes ago, Kevin Balch said:
What was Helms problem with Nixon? Was it Nixon’s overtures to China and detente with the Soviets? Nixon’s de-emphasis of the CIA from his belief that the CIA had their thumb on the JFK side of the scale in 1960? Nixon’s post-election reorganization plans of the federal government?
Any connection between the CIA and the Moorer/Radford spy ring out of the Pentagon?
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."
-
10 hours ago, Chris Bristow said:
I'm glad you clarified that before I responded. The direction that photo is taken from is not going to give an accurate measurement of the distance in question. If the camera was directly above the sign we would get a correct measurement, but the camera is at about a 35 degree angle and cuts the visible distance down by more than half.
Since we can make out the vertical dimension of the Stemmons sign through the trees it can be used to find where the bottom of its poles meet the ground. As you can see in the color "Rickerby" photo the poles are about 1/3 longer than vertical dimension of the sign. Using that you can find where the poles meet the ground in the photo from the map. The blue horizontal lines show the size of the sign and where the poles should meet the ground. I have done that on both the map photo and an FBI recreation film on the left.
That is a truer representation of where the sign is mounted into the grass but the distance from there to the lamppost along the sidewalk is still cut almost in half due to the 35 degree angle of the camera in the 6th floor window. We can't use the sign or the people standing there to help measure the distance along the sidewalk because they are vertical and the sidewalk lays on a horizontal surface. They have different angular perspectives
But we can use the Lincoln in the FBI photo on the left. The car lays on the same horizontal surface/angle as the sidewalk and is at a point in the road where the distance is very close to the sign and lamppost. You can see in that FBI image that the distance along the sidewalk from where the Stemmons poles meet the ground to the base of the lamppost is just slightly longer than the length of that Lincoln (It was not a stretch limo like JFKs car, it was jus 18 ft long.). That comparison takes all the perspective issues into account and shows the distance from the base of the sign to the lamppost was just over 18 ft.
HERE IS A SIMPLER PROOF:
You may disagree with my placement of the sign and poles but the Rickerby photo itself is proof the lamppost is almost 18 ft from the sign. Since that photo is almost perpendicular to the lamppost's length, you can use it to measure the distance along the sidewalk to the Stemmons sign. The line along the sidewalk from the lamppost to the sign is at a bit of an angle to the camera so its length is minified some. But even the 13 or 15 ft high lamppost length in the Rickerby photo is shorter than the minified gap between it and the sign. Two very solid proofs in the Rickerby photo alone that puts the lamppost about 18 ft west of the sign. I would say even before any measurements it very evident by just looking at the rickerby photo that the lamppost is well west of the sign.
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.
-
4 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:
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!
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.
-
9 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:
I have never seen any photographs or film of the plaza that contradicts the position of the lamppost on Elm or of the Dark Complected Man. Willis 5 can make it look like DCM, the Stemmons sign and the lamppost are close together but Willis' angle to those objects cut the distance between them in half, perspective wise. DCM was about 22 ft east of the lamppost and from Z's view the lamppost was 20 degrees to the right of DCM. But Z's camera being at full Zoom is showing no more than a 15 degree field of view to background objects. Z would not have seen DCM and the lamppost in the same frame. Where Z does see it relative to the wall above matches the map and Google Earth overheads of the plaza.
The West Roberdeau map is very good and shows the correct positions of willis, DCM, the Stemmons sign and the lamppost and matches all the images of these objects I have seen. Here is the map at below .
Regarding the darkness of the shadows I can't say that it is not just due to the ASA of Z's film. Dark objects that were not in direct Sunlight like the front of Bothun's and Altgens suit pants also lack detail. I think I see some variation of the yellow grass vs green grass in the shadows. But then looking at frame 341 the running guy behind Bothun has what appears to be a large patch of yellowed grass around him which is not there in frames 340 or 342. You could call that an artifact of alteration of a defect in the processing of that frame. I don't know what it is but it does nor appear in the Groden version.
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.
-
-
"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.
-
4 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:
Arrogance is unnecessary. In my view, I must know that the CT Tippits have something to do with the Dallas Tippits before I care what the Ct Tippits did or who they worked for.
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.
-
30 minutes ago, Matt Cloud said:
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."
"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.
-
28 minutes ago, Richard Bertolino said:
It is interesting that Jack Tippit's son, born in Texas, had essentially the same middle name as Charles Allan Tippit, born 1.5 years before, in Texas, of course. There's more suggestion that the two Tippit families weren't all that distant at one time.
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:
-
19 hours ago, Bill Simpich said:
Whoever imitated Oswald on the telephone in Mexico City on September 28 (and again on October 1) knew that such a paper trail would be a powerful way to blackmail the involved CIA and FBI officers after November 22 into deep-sixing any serious investigation of the assassination – even an internal inquiry that could be hushed up on the grounds of “national security”...
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.
%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){kind=link}
Mark Groubert Asks: Who Really Is Bob Woodward?
in JFK Assassination Debate
Posted
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.