What Are the Correct Questions to Ask About the JFK Assassination?

[Thomas Graves]

Question: If Oswald wasn't involved in killing JFK, is studying Oswald germane to studying the JFK assassination? (h/t Cliff Varnell)

My answer: Yes and no. Yes to the extent studying Oswald reveals why he was framed. No to the extent studying Oswald is a pursuit of dead-end pathways.

I believe Oswald was framed because whoever framed him knew that neither the CIA nor the FBI would investigate him openly and honestly and thereby knew the CIA and FBI would be boxed in a corner. If I'm correct, the party who framed him knew well how the CIA and FBI worked at leadership levels. That party was either a real intel pro, sure of his reckoning, or a highly placed U.S. insider. I'd bet a real intel pro.

Jon,

James Jesus Angelton was a real intel pro with real carte blanche.

--Tommy

Edited March 14, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Yes, Tommy. Each was an intel pro. The U.S. was penetrated in 1963 by other intel pros. USSR. Turkey, Israel, Iran, and so on.

Framing Oswald would have been relatively easy, given the disinclination of the CIA and FBI to investigate him honestly.

[Thomas Graves]

Yes, Tommy. Each was an intel pro. The U.S. was penetrated in 1963 by other intel pros. USSR. Turkey, Israel, Iran, and so on.

Framing Oswald would have been relatively easy, given the disinclination of the CIA and FBI to investigate him honestly.

I edited it. Read it again.

[Greg Parker]

Question: If Oswald wasn't involved in killing JFK, is studying Oswald germane to studying the JFK assassination? (h/t Cliff Varnell)

My answer: Yes and no. Yes to the extent studying Oswald reveals why he was framed. No to the extent studying Oswald is a pursuit of dead-end pathways.

I believe Oswald was framed because whoever framed him knew that neither the CIA nor the FBI would investigate him openly and honestly and thereby knew the CIA and FBI would be boxed in a corner. If I'm correct, the party who framed him knew well how the CIA and FBI worked at leadership levels. That party was either a real intel pro, sure of his reckoning, or a highly placed U.S. insider. I'd bet a real intel pro.

I believe it is very germane. In any murder case, the background of the victim and main suspect are of supreme importance. In this case, it leads not just to the frame, but to the real plotters of the assassination and some of the players in it.

I agree that the FBI and CIA were pretty much snookered by the use of Oswald as the patsy. The party you refer to at the end is a highly placed insider with lots of intel connections.

Most of the answers are not in the box we've been told we can play in. Most are outside that box. There were no shortage of potential false sponsors - and no shortage of some willing to push those false sponsors... and here I include both pro-Castroites and anti-Castro exiles among others, not least being the "mob".

LBJ either knew what was happening and did nothing to stop it, or found out after, and quickly jumped on board the cover-up. His "millions will die" pleadings to Warren is the give-away... it was a line used to produce another cover-up in an earlier historical event... and this case is filled with such historical borrowings by the cover-up artists.

[Mark Knight]

According to the late Gerry Hemming, there was much about Oswald, the Carcano rifle and its ammunition, and even the particular revolver Oswald allegedly carried to make both the CIA and the FBI shout "INCOMING!" and circle the wagons, rather than conduct an actual open-ended investigation. [EDIT: Actually, it was Tom Purvis who used the term "INCOMING!", but Hemming echoed that analysis]

Unfortunately, much of what he said [to me and to others] was a bit cryptic. I gathered that what Hemming knew was more from things he figured out than from foreknowledge, but I often wonder HOW he figured it out. I'm guessing that his sometimes cryptic answers are what allowed him to live as long as he did.

[Thomas Graves]

Question: If Oswald wasn't involved in killing JFK, is studying Oswald germane to studying the JFK assassination? (h/t Cliff Varnell)

My answer: Yes and no. Yes to the extent studying Oswald reveals why he was framed. No to the extent studying Oswald is a pursuit of dead-end pathways.

I believe Oswald was framed because whoever framed him knew that neither the CIA nor the FBI would investigate him openly and honestly and thereby knew the CIA and FBI would be boxed in a corner. If I'm correct, the party who framed him knew well how the CIA and FBI worked at leadership levels. That party was either a real intel pro, sure of his reckoning, or a highly placed U.S. insider. I'd bet a real intel pro.

I believe it is very germane. In any murder case, the background of the victim and main suspect are of supreme importance. In this case, it leads not just to the frame, but to the real plotters of the assassination and some of the players in it.

I agree that the FBI and CIA were pretty much snookered by the use of Oswald as the patsy. The party you refer to at the end is a highly placed insider with lots of intel connections.

Most of the answers are not in the box we've been told we can play in. Most are outside that box. There were no shortage of potential false sponsors - and no shortage of some willing to push those false sponsors... and here I include both pro-Castroites and anti-Castro exiles among others, not least being the "mob".

LBJ either knew what was happening and did nothing to stop it, or found out after, and quickly jumped on board the cover-up. His "millions will die" pleadings to Warren is the give-away... it was a line used to produce another cover-up in an earlier historical event... and this case is filled with such historical borrowings by the cover-up artists.

I think parts of the CIA and FBI snookered the rest of both organizations, and made it look like they themselves had been snookered, too.

--Tommy

[Greg Parker]

Question: If Oswald wasn't involved in killing JFK, is studying Oswald germane to studying the JFK assassination? (h/t Cliff Varnell)

My answer: Yes and no. Yes to the extent studying Oswald reveals why he was framed. No to the extent studying Oswald is a pursuit of dead-end pathways.

I believe Oswald was framed because whoever framed him knew that neither the CIA nor the FBI would investigate him openly and honestly and thereby knew the CIA and FBI would be boxed in a corner. If I'm correct, the party who framed him knew well how the CIA and FBI worked at leadership levels. That party was either a real intel pro, sure of his reckoning, or a highly placed U.S. insider. I'd bet a real intel pro.

I believe it is very germane. In any murder case, the background of the victim and main suspect are of supreme importance. In this case, it leads not just to the frame, but to the real plotters of the assassination and some of the players in it.

I agree that the FBI and CIA were pretty much snookered by the use of Oswald as the patsy. The party you refer to at the end is a highly placed insider with lots of intel connections.

Most of the answers are not in the box we've been told we can play in. Most are outside that box. There were no shortage of potential false sponsors - and no shortage of some willing to push those false sponsors... and here I include both pro-Castroites and anti-Castro exiles among others, not least being the "mob".

LBJ either knew what was happening and did nothing to stop it, or found out after, and quickly jumped on board the cover-up. His "millions will die" pleadings to Warren is the give-away... it was a line used to produce another cover-up in an earlier historical event... and this case is filled with such historical borrowings by the cover-up artists.

I think parts of the CIA and FBI snookered the rest of both organizations, and made it look like they themselves had been snookered, too.

--Tommy

Given that neither the CIA nor FBI pulled this off at an institutional level, you could well be right.

[Jon G. Tidd]

Greg Parker,

You write:

"Given that neither the CIA nor FBI pulled this off at an institutional level, you could well be right."

I'm amazed and respectful that someone in Australia gets this correct about the U.S.

Thanks.

[Thomas Graves]

Question: If Oswald wasn't involved in killing JFK, is studying Oswald germane to studying the JFK assassination? (h/t Cliff Varnell)

My answer: Yes and no. Yes to the extent studying Oswald reveals why he was framed. No to the extent studying Oswald is a pursuit of dead-end pathways.

I believe Oswald was framed because whoever framed him knew that neither the CIA nor the FBI would investigate him openly and honestly and thereby knew the CIA and FBI would be boxed in a corner. If I'm correct, the party who framed him knew well how the CIA and FBI worked at leadership levels. That party was either a real intel pro, sure of his reckoning, or a highly placed U.S. insider. I'd bet a real intel pro.

I believe it is very germane. In any murder case, the background of the victim and main suspect are of supreme importance. In this case, it leads not just to the frame, but to the real plotters of the assassination and some of the players in it.

I agree that the FBI and CIA were pretty much snookered by the use of Oswald as the patsy. The party you refer to at the end is a highly placed insider with lots of intel connections.

Most of the answers are not in the box we've been told we can play in. Most are outside that box. There were no shortage of potential false sponsors - and no shortage of some willing to push those false sponsors... and here I include both pro-Castroites and anti-Castro exiles among others, not least being the "mob".

LBJ either knew what was happening and did nothing to stop it, or found out after, and quickly jumped on board the cover-up. His "millions will die" pleadings to Warren is the give-away... it was a line used to produce another cover-up in an earlier historical event... and this case is filled with such historical borrowings by the cover-up artists.

I think parts of the CIA and FBI snookered the rest of both organizations, and made it look like they themselves had been snookered, too, by each other, and / or by the self-serving constraints of a top-secret "mole hunt".

--Tommy

Bumped

Edited March 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Jon G. Tidd]

Tommy Graves,

If you picked today who killed JFK and why, whom would you pick?

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy Graves,

If you picked today who killed JFK and why, whom would you pick?

You tell me, Jon.

You're the former Intelligence Agent.

I don't have a clue, and if I did, why should I tell you?

So you could tear it down on this forum?

Who wants to be corrected or trivialized in public by a former Intelligence Agent?

I think JFK was killed by an Odd Duck who was "spotted" by the plotters about ten years before the assassination. LOL

Respectfully,

--Tommy

Edited March 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Thomas Graves]

Tommy Graves,

If you picked today who killed JFK and why, whom would you pick?

You tell me, Jon.

You're the former Intelligence Agent.

I don't have a clue, and if I did, why should I tell you?

So you could tear it down on this forum?

Who wants to be corrected or trivialized in public by a former Intelligence Agent?

Okay, Jon, I'll tell you. I think JFK was killed by someone who bore an uncanny resemblance to an Odd Duck who was "spotted" by the plotters about ten years before the assassination. LOL

Respectfully,

--Tommy

edited and bumped already

Edited March 15, 2015 by Thomas Graves

[Cliff Varnell]

I believe it is very germane. In any murder case, the background of the victim and main suspect are of supreme importance.

Lee Harvey Oswald was the "main suspect" for political reasons only.

The cat was buying a goddamn soda when JFK was shot, wasn't he?

At Bethesda 11/22/63 there was a promising but brief official investigation based on a lead developed at the autopsy.

Logically, the lead that was pursued that night deserved follow-through.

The autopsists were "at a loss" to explain how JFK could have a wound of entrance in his back with no corresponding exit wound and no bullet.

They speculated JFK was struck with a high tech weapon which wouldn't show up in the autopsy.

They asked the FBI guys if such a weapon existed.

FBI SA Sibert agreed to call the FBI Lab to find out if such weaponry existed.

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA Francis O'Neill's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

Some discussion did occur concerning the disintegration of the bullet. A general

feeling existed that a soft-nosed bullet struck JFK. There was discussion concerning

the back wound that the bullet could have been a "plastic" type or an "Ice" [sic]

bullet, one which dissolves after contact.

(quote off)

From autopsy-attendee FBI SA James Sibert's sworn affidavit:

(quote on)

The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic).

(quote off)

The fact is, according to Charles Senseney, a civilian employed by the US Army Special Forces Division out of Ft Detrick, MD, the FBI had been briefed as to the existence of weaponry which employed blood soluble flechettes to deliver paralytics and toxins which wouldn't show up in an autopsy.

There was a shadowy entity testing the weapons called the Staff Support Group which involved both Army and Air Force personnel but was actually a CIA front.

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_6_Senseney.pdf

http://www.aarclibrary.org/publib/church/reports/vol1/pdf/ChurchV1_1_Colby.pdf

Since there was an official FBI inquiry which pointed to the Staff Support Group as legitimate Persons of Interest I'd have to disregard LHO as a "main suspect" and look for the "Air Force colonel and Army colonel" Senseney fingered as the Staff Support Group.

In this case, it leads not just to the frame,

Which frame -- the Oswald as an agent of Fidel frame or the Oswald as a Lone Nut frame?

but to the real plotters of the assassination and some of the players in it.

Are you sure these folks weren't themselves groomed as back up patsies?

What did the killers of JFK need to know about Oswald?

What did the men assigned to kill Oswald need to know about the assassination other than time and place?

I agree that the FBI and CIA were pretty much snookered by the use of Oswald as the patsy. The party you refer to at the end is a highly placed insider with lots of intel connections.

Most of the answers are not in the box we've been told we can play in. Most are outside that box. There were no shortage of potential false sponsors - and no shortage of some willing to push those false sponsors... and here I include both pro-Castroites and anti-Castro exiles among others, not least being the "mob".

LBJ either knew what was happening and did nothing to stop it, or found out after, and quickly jumped on board the cover-up. His "millions will die" pleadings to Warren is the give-away... it was a line used to produce another cover-up in an earlier historical event... and this case is filled with such historical borrowings by the cover-up artists.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Cliff Varnell

[Robert Prudhomme]

"The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic)."

Even if a bullet completely disintegrated into a cloud of metal powder in the top of JFK's right lung, this cloud of metal powder would still show up on an x-ray. Does anyone but me find it odd that the x-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, maintyained to the ARRB that JFK's lungs had been removed before he was able to take chest x-rays of JFK, and that only a handful of personnel were present when they were removed?

Sounds like Sibert got played just like everyone else.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Robert Prudhomme

[Cliff Varnell]

"The doctors also discussed a possible deflection of the bullet in the body caused

by striking bone. Consideration was also given to a type of bullet which fragments

completely....Following discussion among the doctors relating to the back injury, I

left the autopsy room to call the FBI Laboratory and spoke with Agent Chuch [sic]

Killion. I asked if he could furnish any information regarding a type of bullet that

would almost completely fragmentize (sic)."

Even if a bullet completely disintegrated into a cloud of metal powder in the top of JFK's right lung, this cloud of metal powder would still show up on an x-ray.

There was no metal powder in the flechettes developed at Ft. Detrick.

Does anyone but me find it odd that the x-ray technician, Jerrol Custer, maintyained to the ARRB that JFK's lungs had been removed before he was able to take chest x-rays of JFK, and that only a handful of personnel were present when they were removed?

Sounds like Sibert got played just like everyone else.

He got played by Killion at the FBI Lab who said the Magic Bullet was coming in from Dallas.

This does not in any way diminish the possibility JFK was struck with blood soluble rounds which wouldn't show up on x-ray.

Edited March 16, 2015 by Cliff Varnell