Jump to content
The Education Forum

Hugh G. Aynesworth and the Assassination of JFK


John Simkin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hugh G. Aynesworth played an important role in the media cover-up of the assassination of JFK. He contacted me a few weeks ago and complained about what I had written about him on my website. I invited him to join the Forum where he would be free to point out where I had gone wrong. I has yet to accept the invitation.

Aynesworth went to work for the Dallas Morning News in 1960. This is what he had to say about Joachim Joesten's Oswald, Assassin or Fall Guy? in the Dallas Morning News on 1st August, 1964:

If you would listen to this one, he would have you thinking that Lee Harvey Oswald was a polite little misunderstood youth who just got mixed up in the wrong company...

Oh how terrible, says Joesten (an ex-German who became a U.S. citizen in 1948 and must wonder why), poor little Lee Harvey was the victim of a ruthless plot headed by Dallas police leaders, District Attorney Henry Wade and his staff and a few "bad guys" from the FBI.

Joesten further states that Oswald was an agent of both the FBI and the CIA (how's that for a 24-year-old who couldn't spell "wrist"?).

It's the same old tripe with some new flavoring....

The tip-off is the foreword, wherein Joesten dedicates his book to "Mark Lane... the brilliant and courageous New York attorney...." Lane is the troublemaker who spent two day's in Dallas in January on his "investigation" and now pretends to be an expert on all aspects of the weird tragedy.

Aynesworth was a strong supporter of the "lone assassin theory" and led the attacks on Mark Lane and his book on the Warren Commission, the pioneering Rush to Judgement (1965).

In May, 1967 Aynesworth published a critical article of Jim Garrison in Newsweek: "Garrison's tactics have been even more questionable than his case. I have evidence that one of the strapping D.A.'s investigators offered an unwilling "witness" $3,000 and a job with an airline - if only he would "fill in the facts" of the alleged meeting to plot the death of the President. I also know that when the D.A.'s office learned that this entire bribery attempt had been tape-recorded, two of Garrison's men returned to the "witness" and, he says, threatened him with physical harm."

Jim Garrison responded to this article in his book, On The Trail of the Assassins (1988). He argued that: "As for the $3,000 bribe, by the time I came across Aynesworth's revelation, the witness our office had supposedly offered it to, Alvin Babeouf, had admitted to us that it never happened. Aynesworth, of course, never explained what he did with the "evidence" allegedly in his possession. And the so-called bribery tape recording had not, in fact, ever existed."

James DiEugenio has argued: "With the work of the Assassination Records Review Board, many more pages of documents have been released showing how tightly bound Aynesworth was with the intelligence community. It has been demonstrated that Aynesworth was - at the minimum - working with the Dallas Police, Shaw's defense team, and the FBI. He was also an informant to the White House, and had once applied for work with the CIA. As I have noted elsewhere, in the annals of this case, I can think of no reporter who had such extensive contacts with those trying to cover up the facts in the JFK case. And only two come close: Edward Epstein and Gerald Posner."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 75
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Aynesworth, Dave Perry and Gary Mack once organized

a "debate" before local researchers which pitted Mack against

Beverly Oliver, in which they hoped to discredit Oliver's claim

to be the "Babushka lady". The result was increased credibility

for Oliver, who presented information they were not prepared

to debunk.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugh Aynesworth's book is usually at the top of the page when I open up the foum, so I think of him every time I click on.

While Mark Lane may have only been in Dallas two day, Aynesworth is ubiquious, all over the place. I mean, he was either in the motorcade or at Dealey Plaza, he's the first reporter at 10th & Patton, he's at the Texas Theater during the arrest and there when the chief suspect is murdered by Ruby, a guy he knew.

CIA records indicate, as with Priscilla Johnson McMillan, that he applied for a job with the CIA but, like PJM, was not hired. But PJM, a neighbor of Cord Meyer, who undoubtedly vouched for her, was assigned a CIA contact, who she met with over the years, and worked with/for the Harvard Russian Research Institute and the North American Newspaper Alliance (NANA), which was owned by former OSS/MI6 Ernest Cuneo and Ivor Bryce and included Ian Fleming as chief editor.

In the same vein, I see that Hugh Aynesworth is currently Dallas bureau chief for the Washington Times, the Mooney paper.

I do hope Mr. Aynesworth would join the forum and answer a few questions, beginning with whether he considers the accused assassin Lee Harvey Oswald a misguided, disgrunted, low life misfit who couldn't hold a job, beat his wife and wanted to make a name for himself, or was he a covert operative and assassin?

Besides Aynesworth and PJ McMillan, other journalists who have trouble answering this question, E.J. Epstein and Max Holland, seem knowledgeable about intelligence affairs, yet insist on ignoring the intelligence network that the accused assassin worked for, as I suspect their financial support stems from the same tree.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think of Aynesworth as credible, but misguided. Like a lot of Dallas residents, he went into a knee-jerk defense of his city after the assassination. He just never stopped and came up for air. I hope he joins the Forum, and is treated with respect.

When I wrote chapters 5 thru 9 of my webpage last year, compiling all the eyewitness statements I could locate, I was surprised to find that Aynesworth's statements fail to support the currently popular LN theory, which holds that the last shot came 5 seconds after the one just before. Instead, his statements suggest the last two shots came close together. As studies show that time slows down for people focused on an event, his statements suggest the last two shots were bang.....bang, and not bang............................................................................

................................................................................

ang.

From chapter 5 at patspeer.com:

Hugh Aynesworth (11-21-93 Reporters Remember Conference, as quoted in Reporting the Kennedy Assassination) “I went over to the area around Elm and Houston Streets and was there when the three shots rang out. Three definite shots. Total chaos. I still have trouble putting it all together, how it happened.” (No More Silence, published 1998, p.21-40) “There was no particular reason why I went to Elm Street other than the crowds were larger along Main Street, two or three deep, and I wanted to get a clearer view. Locating myself in the middle of the street a little toward the curb, had I looked up to my right I could have seen Oswald up there... The first shot I wasn’t sure was a shot. I thought it might have been a backfire from one of the motorcycles since there were several in the vicinity. When you hear one, you listen more closely, and when I heard a second and third very clearly, there was no doubt in my mind that they were shots and that they were from a rifle…Immediately, people started jumping and running and some were throwing their kids down.” (JFK: Breaking the News, 2003) “when I saw a couple of familiar assistant district attorneys standing in front of the jail building near the corner of Houston and Elm, I walked over to join them…I was standing with my lawyer friends maybe 10 feet from the curb. As we watched the big blue Continental glide by—I vividly remember Governor Connally’s grin—a huge black woman nearby burst into shouts…At 12:30 we heard the first loud pop. At first I assumed a nearby police motorcycle backfired.…(Secret Service Agent Roy) Kellerman turned in his seat just as two more shots were fired…” (Interview in film Oswald's Ghost, 2007) "As he goes by, two or three seconds later I hear a pop. I think it's a motorcycle backfire because a motorcycle had just gone by. But then, suddenly, a second or two later another and then another. Three shots."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gary Mack has complained to many email correspondents that I inaccurately

portrayed Hugh Aynesworth as a member of the group which challenged Bev

Oliver to a debate. He is correct. Mack and Perry were the ones who issued

the challenge, and when they showed up at the barbecue site chosen for the

meeting, they were joined at a table by Aynesworth. The debate arose when

Mack and Perry repeatedly challenged Oliver's identity as the Babushka Lady

in Jim Marrs' JFK study group at UTA. Someone in the group of researchers

arranged for the debate meeting and sent out postcards. About two dozen

researchers showed up, plus opponents Mack, Perry and Aynesworth. Bev had

an attorney friend with her. Marrs, who had no part in setting up the meeting,

served as emcee/moderator. As I recall, I sat near Jean Hill. I had provided

lots of slides for Beverly to show, which in sequence showed her movements

around the plaza. Of particular interest were her shoes, which she said she

still possessed. I do not remember who arranged and publicized the meeting;

it may have been the late Larry Howard. I should not have implied that

Aynesworth had anything to do with setting up the debate.

Jack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to think of Aynesworth as credible, but misguided. Like a lot of Dallas residents, he went into a knee-jerk defense of his city after the assassination. He just never stopped and came up for air. I hope he joins the Forum, and is treated with respect.

When I wrote chapters 5 thru 9 of my webpage last year, compiling all the eyewitness statements I could locate, I was surprised to find that Aynesworth's statements fail to support the currently popular LN theory, which holds that the last shot came 5 seconds after the one just before. Instead, his statements suggest the last two shots came close together. As studies show that time slows down for people focused on an event, his statements suggest the last two shots were bang.....bang, and not bang............................................................................

................................................................................

ang.

From chapter 5 at patspeer.com:

Hugh Aynesworth (11-21-93 Reporters Remember Conference, as quoted in Reporting the Kennedy Assassination) “I went over to the area around Elm and Houston Streets and was there when the three shots rang out. Three definite shots. Total chaos. I still have trouble putting it all together, how it happened.” (No More Silence, published 1998, p.21-40) “There was no particular reason why I went to Elm Street other than the crowds were larger along Main Street, two or three deep, and I wanted to get a clearer view. Locating myself in the middle of the street a little toward the curb, had I looked up to my right I could have seen Oswald up there... The first shot I wasn’t sure was a shot. I thought it might have been a backfire from one of the motorcycles since there were several in the vicinity. When you hear one, you listen more closely, and when I heard a second and third very clearly, there was no doubt in my mind that they were shots and that they were from a rifle…Immediately, people started jumping and running and some were throwing their kids down.” (JFK: Breaking the News, 2003) “when I saw a couple of familiar assistant district attorneys standing in front of the jail building near the corner of Houston and Elm, I walked over to join them…I was standing with my lawyer friends maybe 10 feet from the curb. As we watched the big blue Continental glide by—I vividly remember Governor Connally’s grin—a huge black woman nearby burst into shouts…At 12:30 we heard the first loud pop. At first I assumed a nearby police motorcycle backfired.…(Secret Service Agent Roy) Kellerman turned in his seat just as two more shots were fired…” (Interview in film Oswald's Ghost, 2007) "As he goes by, two or three seconds later I hear a pop. I think it's a motorcycle backfire because a motorcycle had just gone by. But then, suddenly, a second or two later another and then another. Three shots."

I tend to think of Aynesworth as credible, but misguided.

Personally, I consider Hugh to be both credible as well as being highly informed.

At least he knew (or at least was informed of) many things long before it was ever opened up to this forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I consider Hugh to be both credible as well as being highly informed.

At least he knew (or at least was informed of) many things long before it was ever opened up to this forum.

Did he reply to your letter? The theory expressed in your letter is very vague. Would you like to share your theory with the rest of the forum?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I consider Hugh to be both credible as well as being highly informed.

At least he knew (or at least was informed of) many things long before it was ever opened up to this forum.

Did he reply to your letter? The theory expressed in your letter is very vague. Would you like to share your theory with the rest of the forum?

Which "theory" was that?

As regards the forensic; ballistic; pathological; and physical evidence, there is very "little" here that constitutes "theory"!

As regards the WHY? of LHO shooting JFK, there is considerable "theory" here, which due to the failures of the WC (&others), will now most likely never be answered.

As regards the WHY? of Jack Ruby shooting LHO, there is actually less "theory" here than the "WHY" of exactly why did LHO shoot JFK.

The first prerequisite to "WHO DONE IT", is usually to resolve exactly "HOW IT WAS DONE".

Chasing mythological creatures when one has no factual basis or foundation for the existence of such creatures is somewhat like looking for either the Golden Fleece or the Fountain of Youth.

Secondly, one can not mix apples, oranges, and persimmons into a single mixture and expect to be able to cook a sweet tasting apple pie.

That the WC is not the truth does not even require a "smart" person to figure this out.

However, it does in fact take some effort to resolve exactly why it is not the truth!

That LHO was involved in some form of deception which ultimately ended with the death of JFK, also requires little effort to recognize.

As to who was behind the actions of LHO is entirely another item.

That Jack Ruby was not merely another "lone nut" who had nothing better to do than shoot LHO, also does not stand up to too much scrutiny.

That however does not mean that Ruby was even aware of the "why" that LHO needed to be shot, as well as the "who" was actually directing such actions.

Due to time and the deaths of those who could have, if properly questioned, fully answered many of these questions, history is now most unlikely to make the final ties of:

1. Exactly who was behind the initial actions of LHO, and were these actions ultimately directed at JFK or were the actions pointed at someone such as Castro, and did LHO take it upon himself to ultimately "change his target" to JFK for some reason.

2. Exactly who was behind the actions of Ruby, and were these actions a "reactionary" event due to the possibility that LHO may be ultimately pointing the finger/blame at those who in fact played no part in the assassination of JFK, or were the actions an ultimate part of the plan to insure that LHO would never reveal exactly HOW he received his directions, as well as from whom?

3. If, and when, true researchers into the assassination cease to chase mythological creatures and figments of the imagination, which never existed in the first place, then perhaps they just may begin to concentrate on those single questions which will shed new light on exactly WHO was responsible for LHO and Jack Ruby.

4. And, in event that said researchers continue to attempt to group the entire aspects of the WC lies; LHO; and Jack Ruby into the same "Pie", then they will never get to the actual reasoning behind each of the seperate and distinctive events in which each has it's own specific reasons.

Or, one can, if they so desire, remain lost in rabbit holes for another 40+ years!

Especially considering the number of new holes which have been dug during this time period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugh!

In the event that you are still out there!

Without digging back into those boxes which have been hauled back into the shed, and which I have yet to find the drawing for the third shot impact anyway.

Have a nice day!

K.I.S.S.

Keep It Simple Stupid!

As was always originally determined and reported, the first shot/aka CE399, merely lodged a short distance into the back of JFK.

As has been presented and discussed (virtually to death) here and elsewhere, the "logic" as to how a bullet loses so much of it's velocity to do so, has been thoroughly discussed and presented.

Not to mention the fact that the Department of Justice as well as the FBI were long ago "Challenged" to disprove the simple facts of CE399.

Just perhaps someone was smart/sneaky enough to insure that it was "in the record"!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now!

In event that one will follow through on ALL of the witness testimony (which includes those statements found in the Dallas PD Archives) they will find that there existed, by the preponderence of accounts, a longer delay between the first and second shot, as opposed to that short delay between the second shot and the third shot.

Some 5.6 to 5.8 seconds after the first shot (aka CE399) struck JFk in the back, the second shot struck him in the very top of the back of the head.

This has become known as the "cowlick" entry, and for reasons which will not be gone into here, was completely missed by the autopsy surgeons.

(primary reason being that the skull bone fragments which contained this bullet entrance had been blown off the skull and were not present when the autopsy surgeons first/initially examined JFK's head wounds.

Due to the "tangent' manner in which this bullet encountered the bone of the skull, it abnormally tore the bullet into multiple fragments, of which one fragment went forward striking JBC in the right wrist, while other fragments struck the inside windshield and probably the chrome molding.

Note: For those who are unaware of the 10cm/4-inch difference in wound entry location as determined by the autopsy surgeons and as compared with the wound entry location as determined by the HSCA, a thorough review would be in order.

Basically, the HSCA determined that the wound which they could see (on the anterior/posterior X-ray) was located in the top rear of the head, approximately four inches from where the three autopsy surgeons reported an entry into the skull.

Furthermore, autopsy photos showed what appeared to be an entry wound of the scalp which corresponded with the HSCA "Cowlick" entry.

Furthermore, the HSCA determined that the physical measurements of the skull entry wound which they saw did not match in size the physical measurements of the entry wound which the autopsy surgeons had measured.

OHHHHHHHH! This is so hard to figure out!

Almost gives one a headache trying to resolve exactly why wounds in the skull are some 4-inches apart and do not even have the same measurements in size.

With one being located in the top rear of the skull, and another being located at the bottom rear of the skull.

Almost makes one thing that we are discussing totally seperate bullet entrance holes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugh Aynesworth did pen stories introducing the possibility that Oswald did not act alone. One such piece was published in 1964 and it focused on General Walker who Aynesworth quoted as saying that the Warren Commission was a 'white-wash'.

Another curiosity was a 1964 story Aynesworth did about a French aviator named Jean Dabry who along with other European flyers was in Dallas as part of a nationwide tour. Aynesworth reported that Dabry had said most Europeans believed that Oswald had accomplices and that it was most 'strange' that Oswald was himself killed.

There is also the question about the publishing of excerpts from Oswald's diary under Aynesworth's byline. Jesse Curry claimed that he had the diary locked up and did not share any details it contained. Who leaked the information would be of great interest.

FWIW.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hugh Aynesworth did pen stories introducing the possibility that Oswald did not act alone. One such piece was published in 1964 and it focused on General Walker who Aynesworth quoted as saying that the Warren Commission was a 'white-wash'.

Another curiosity was a 1964 story Aynesworth did about a French aviator named Jean Dabry who along with other European flyers was in Dallas as part of a nationwide tour. Aynesworth reported that Dabry had said most Europeans believed that Oswald had accomplices and that it was most 'strange' that Oswald was himself killed.

There is also the question about the publishing of excerpts from Oswald's diary under Aynesworth's byline. Jesse Curry claimed that he had the diary locked up and did not share any details it contained. Who leaked the information would be of great interest.

FWIW.

James

"Hugh Aynesworth did pen stories introducing the possibility that Oswald did not act alone. One such piece was published in 1964 and it focused on General Walker who Aynesworth quoted as saying that the Warren Commission was a 'white-wash'."

Any person of even the least common sense and logic would, provided they actually studied the information, come to the conclusion that the WC, for whatever reason, was not the factual truth.

Unfortunately, far more have taken this as a "sign" of some evil giant conspiracy which was directly in relation to the actual assassination, without searching for alternative and far more logical answers as to the WHY? of the WC's obfuscations.

When everyone somewhat "forgot" to check out the WC witnesses for themselves and thereafter fell into the same pitfall as most, which stated that Z313 was the last shot fired, then they had, by nature and virtue of the beast, committed themselves to the highly unlikely probability that a "lone shooter" could have accomplished the task.

And, once having entered this highly incorrect pathway into the labyrinth, there was little hope of finding one's way out without completely "backtracking" to the beginning.

"Another curiosity was a 1964 story Aynesworth did about a French aviator named Jean Dabry who along with other European flyers was in Dallas as part of a nationwide tour. Aynesworth reported that Dabry had said most Europeans believed that Oswald had accomplices and that it was most 'strange' that Oswald was himself killed."

Actually, as JFK reportedly stated, "we are entering "nut" country". Therefore, on the surface, there is not that much strange about it.

However, when one "cracks" the nut and finds that to a relatively high degree of probability, Ruby was to an extent "stalking" LHO, along with the similarities associated with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, and the connection to Robert McKeon, then the Jack Ruby/Lone Nut assassin of LHO begins to lose it's credibility just as does the misconception that LHO was just some Lone Nut who had nothing better to do on 11/22/63 than shoot the President of the US.

"There is also the question about the publishing of excerpts from Oswald's diary under Aynesworth's byline. Jesse Curry claimed that he had the diary locked up and did not share any details it contained. Who leaked the information would be of great interest."

I am not personally familiar with this. However, when one takes into consideration that DPD Officers were quite obviously "lifting" LHO photo's, while at the same time attempting to keep one of those three shell casings found on the sixth floor of the TSDB, then it becomes quite obvious that much was amiss with the DPD.

After having pretty well screwed the investigation up, there is little about the actions of the DPD that would suprise me that much.

But then again, the US Secret Service was potentially even more negligent.

From limited recall of our conversation(s), if recalled correctly, Hugh Aynesworth is/was of the opinion that LHO was the shooter, but that he was in fact merely a "Lone Nut".

However, I would have to find those notes which I long ago scribbled down during our conversation, prior to absollutely commiting on Hugh's position.

I do know that Hugh, not unlike most, was completely unaware of the evidence which has clearly demonstrated that the Z313 impact WAS NOT the last shot fired in the shot sequence.

Hugh, by all means, please feel free to step in here and correct anything which an aged memory gets wrong.

Tom

P.S. Barbara (Ainsworth) says hello!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now!

In event that one will follow through on ALL of the witness testimony (which includes those statements found in the Dallas PD Archives) they will find that there existed, by the preponderence of accounts, a longer delay between the first and second shot, as opposed to that short delay between the second shot and the third shot.

Some 5.6 to 5.8 seconds after the first shot (aka CE399) struck JFk in the back, the second shot struck him in the very top of the back of the head.

This has become known as the "cowlick" entry, and for reasons which will not be gone into here, was completely missed by the autopsy surgeons.

(primary reason being that the skull bone fragments which contained this bullet entrance had been blown off the skull and were not present when the autopsy surgeons first/initially examined JFK's head wounds.

Due to the "tangent' manner in which this bullet encountered the bone of the skull, it abnormally tore the bullet into multiple fragments, of which one fragment went forward striking JBC in the right wrist, while other fragments struck the inside windshield and probably the chrome molding.

Note: For those who are unaware of the 10cm/4-inch difference in wound entry location as determined by the autopsy surgeons and as compared with the wound entry location as determined by the HSCA, a thorough review would be in order.

Basically, the HSCA determined that the wound which they could see (on the anterior/posterior X-ray) was located in the top rear of the head, approximately four inches from where the three autopsy surgeons reported an entry into the skull.

Furthermore, autopsy photos showed what appeared to be an entry wound of the scalp which corresponded with the HSCA "Cowlick" entry.

Furthermore, the HSCA determined that the physical measurements of the skull entry wound which they saw did not match in size the physical measurements of the entry wound which the autopsy surgeons had measured.

OHHHHHHHH! This is so hard to figure out!

Almost gives one a headache trying to resolve exactly why wounds in the skull are some 4-inches apart and do not even have the same measurements in size.

With one being located in the top rear of the skull, and another being located at the bottom rear of the skull.

Almost makes one thing that we are discussing totally seperate bullet entrance holes.

Just in the event there are those who have not fully studied the "anomoly" of the 'moving" bullet entrance wound.

Here is the HSCA's concept as to the Z313 impact.

Which by the way, based on the evidence which they saw, is quite accurate and correct.

Edited by Thomas H. Purvis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now!

In continuation, for those who have not followed the confusion and misconceptions of the assassination, this entry point into the skull of JFK has become known as the EOP (External Occipital Protuberance) V.

Cowlick (entry) debate.

In which the HSCA, based on their examination of the evidence, determined that the autopsy surgeons (all three) had made an approximately 4-inch error in location of the entry wound into the skull of JFK.

For another "First" on this forum, let it be known that the actual discrepany far exceeds the 10cm/4-inches which the HSCA determined.

The HSCA based their information relative to the actual penetration into the skull, as reported and testified to by the autopsy surgeons, and as they determined from review of the available X-Ray & autopsy photographs.

When, in actuallity, the entry wound into the scalp of JFK which was observed by the autopsy surgeons as well as FBI & SS personell, was actually located at the lower edge of the hairline.

And, in later explanations to the HSCA, it was explained that although the missile/aka bullet entered at the lower edge of the hairline, the bullet had passed "upwards" through the soft tissue at the base of the neck before actually striking the skull.

Which, if ballisticaly correct for the Z313 impact, (which it most certainly is not) would mean that someone would have had to be hiding in the trunk of the Presidential Limo and fired this shot in order for it to have struck JFK in the edge of the hairline, traversed "upwards" through the soft tissues of the back of the neck, and thereafter struck the skull in the EOP region.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...