Did the Dallas Radical Right kill JFK?

[Paul Trejo]

3 hours ago, Bart Kamp said:

L. Hall

https://www.archives.gov/files/research/jfk/releases/docid-32295879.pdf

Bart,

Of special interest on the topic of Loran Hall, please see the extended interview of Loran Hall by Jim Garrison in 1967.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Jason Ward]

7 hours ago, Paul Trejo said:

Jason,

I received a new email from Harry Dean today about Guy Gabaldon -- which may be of interest.

I have for years now, relied on Bill Simpich (2014) and him alone for my belief that David Morales was the Telephone Impersonator of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico CIty on October 1, 1963.   In my opinion, Simpich proved his case for the top secret CIA Mole Hunt, so I relied on his genius for further guidance.

Yet I must admit -- if I'm required to prove the claim that David Morales was the Telephone Impersonator, I could not do it -- because Bill Simpich only suggests the possibility -- he doesn't confirm it as a fact.

So -- here's Harry Dean's current thinking on the topic (and actually, Harry suggested something along this line to me a few months ago, and only reminded me of it today, because of your diligent work, Jason).

(1)  Guy Gabaldon knew a little bit of rudimentary Russian language.

(2) Guy Gabaldon had made his intentions quite plain to Harry Dean, Loran Hall and Larry Howard -- that he himself, Gabaldon, would be in Mexico City during the final week of September, 1963, and he expected Loran Hall and Larry Howard to drive Lee Harvey Oswald to his DACA office in Mexico City.

(3)  Guy Gabaldon made it plain to Harry Dean that he himself, Gabaldon, would make final arrangements for Lee Harvey Oswald to be the Patsy for the JFK assassination.

(4) Since the CIA reports that the Telephone Impersonator had very broken Russian, Guy Gabaldon is the more likely suspect, since he told Harry that he would be in Mexico City -- with this general intention. 

Of course, this also suggests that Guy Gabaldon had not only Radical Right contacts in Mexico City, but also some spies at the Russian Embassy (if not a secret rogue inside the CIA) because the Telephone Impersonator of Oswald knew about the KGB Agent Valery Kostikov.

One could argue, furthermore, that a member of the Mexican Military -- a Radical Rightist -- could easily befriend a "movie star" like Guy Gabaldon, who was also a well-known Anti-Communist at the time -- and this Mexican Military Radical Rightist might also have Mexican spies inside the Russian Embassy.

(By the way, a Radical Rightist in Mexico was eve more severe than a Radical Rightist in the USA, because in Mexico, being a Communist was already illegal -- e.g. already justifying the beating interrogation of Sylvia Duran).

THEREFORE -- instead of seeking a connection between Guy Gabaldon and David Morales (which is not impossible, since they were both Latino Americans, and had common interests) it is more straightforward, to use Occam's Razor, and focus on Guy Gabaldon exclusively -- based on Harry Dean's ear-witness account of the events.

Bill Simpich has no such ear-witness account to work with.

Again -- according to Harry Dean -- he did not feel obligated to visit the FBI directly after the General Walker meeting in John Rousselot's office -- but it was this bizarre behavior of Guy Gabaldon that made Harry feel obligated to visit the FBI.

So, there is Harry's latest, Jason.   Guy Gabaldon was possibly (or likely) the Telephone Impersonator of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City -- from the Cuban Consulate telephone, to the USSR Embassy, fishing for info about KGB assassin Kostikov, on October 1, 1963, over the most wire-tapped telephone on earth.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

All very interesting, Paul.

A few thoughts, but not arguments:

• Guy Gabaldon is I thought either living full time in Mexico City in 1963 or has a house, office, and substantial presence there

 

• The CIA is allowed to tap embassy phones in part because they agree to share intelligence with the Mexicans.  So the Mexicans largely know what the CIA knows about the Soviet  Embassy.  It is in fact the Mexican phone company that logistically facilitates the taps.  The Mexicans know about Kostikov.  It is not automatically true that knowledge of Kostikov implies a CIA connection - the Mexicans know about him as well.

 

• If David Morales is calling the Soviet Embassy impersonating Oswald, this is exceedingly reckless.  If he is calling the Soviet Embassy impersonating Oswald with knowledge that the president is about to be killed and Oswald blamed, this is nothing less than suicidal.  On top of the uncertain security of the Mexican sharing agreement, Morales would be risking having his voice on tape heard by everyone in the US intelligence community and the top level government executives - who, despite the belief system on this forum, are about half Democrats and half Kennedy supporters.   I think it's very reasonable to theorize Morales hired Alvarado to say Oswald took $5k to kill Kennedy - but maybe Gabaldon hired Alvarado.  Maybe they both did?   But I wonder if a competent true CIA employee like Morales is going to put his voice on this tape.

 

• LITAMIL-9, which today we know as Luis Alberu Soeto, Cuban Cultural Attache in Mexico City, was a perfect example of the prodigious sourcing that the CIA (and Mexicans) had in Cuba's Mexico City Embassy.   There is a large and fruitful LITAMIL family of spies making a living off both the CIA and Castro such that 100% of everything Cuban in Mexico City is crossing the desk of the CIA and the Mexican president/Mexican intelligence (DFS).   Whatever the Soviets told the Cubans, they also told the CIA and the Mexican DFS.

 

• One detail CIA staff knew, but which maybe the Mexicans did not, was that the CIA employed a non-CIA subcontractor for language help in the LIENVOY project, which was the multi-decade CIA wiretap operation in Mexico City.   The unusual and valuable Russian-English-Spanish trilingual translation ability was hard to come by, so the CIA relied on a husband and wife team to process the rough intelligence from the wiretaps.    Hardway and Lopez correctly pinpointed this husband and wife interpretation team as potential witnesses NOT bound by CIA official or ideological bonds of loyalty and interviewed them in depth.   They knew everyone worth knowing by voice alone.   If the voice on the tapes was someone known to the CIA in Mexico City, we would have had the caller's identity in 1963.

 

• Yes indeed the Mexican Establishment is considerably more reactionary than the US government establishment.  In the US there are left wing Democrats, mainstream Democrats, and non-aligned moderates who are somewhere between Democrat and Republican in every level of government including the FBI and CIA - but in Mexico of the day there were only hard right wingers in power at the high levels.

 

• Gabaldon hiring Loran Hall and indeed Loran Hall's presence in the assassination story should be enough for anyone not trapped in 1968 Garrison-think to maybe allow themselves to toy with the idea that the CIA is not running the show here.  The CIA doesn't hire clowns like this.  

 

• Does the actual voice on the phone really matter that much?  I'm not sure I care whether it was Morales or Gabaldon or one of the very few random people in 1963 Mexico City who can speak and switch between English, Spanish, and Russian.  What I really care about is who hired the voice on the phone - it's either Gabaldon or Morales in my mind at this point.

 

• Bill Simpich is 100% correct that the CIA has no idea what Oswald is doing in Mexico City and that the CIA cannot identify the voice on the phone.   Where Bill ends his certainty on this point is where those interested in true research might begin - who directed Oswald and the Oswald impersonator in Mexico Ciy, and, most of all, who hired Alvarado to say Oswald took $5k from the Cubans to kill Kennedy?    To my CIA-obsessed Garrison disciples, if Oswald is CIA, why wouldn't they just have Oswald himself make the calls to the Soviet Embassy?   

 

• Harry Dean is far mare valuable than generally given credit for; everything he's said leads us closer to the truth in my view.

 

 

Jason

 

PS - - for a brief moment, Hoover seems ready to jump aboard the commie-did-it narrative advertised by Alvarado...LBJ shuts him down fast:

 

 

(many thanks to my sometime boss Rex Bradford)

 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Ernie Lazar]

In case anybody missed it -- there was another NARA release of JFK-related documents on last Friday:

https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/nr-18-10

New Group of JFK Assassination Records Available to the Public
Press Release ·Friday, November 17, 2017

Washington, DC

In the fifth public release this year, the National Archives today posted 10,744  records subject to the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992 (JFK Act).   

All of the documents released today are from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).  Of the documents released today, 8,336 documents are released in their entirety and 2,408 are released with limited redactions.  Also, this is the first release for 144 of the documents.  Released records are available for download.

The versions released today were processed by the FBI and, in accordance with the President’s guidance, are being posted expeditiously in order to make the documents available to the public, even before the March deadline established by the President on Oct. 26, 2017.  Any information that has been redacted from the records in this public release remains subject to further review by the FBI and the National Archives in accordance with the President’s direction.

The National Archives released 13,213 documents on Nov. 9, 676 documents on Nov. 3, 2,891 documents on Oct. 26, and 3,810 records on July 24. 

The National Archives established the John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection in November 1992, and it consists of approximately five million pages of records. The vast majority of the collection has been publicly available without any restrictions since the late 1990s. 

Online Resources:
The President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
Documenting the Death of a President
JFK Assassination Records Review Board
The work of the Kennedy Assassination Records Collection
JFK Assassination Records FAQs
Warren Commission Report

[Paul Trejo]

On 11/20/2017 at 5:41 AM, Jason Ward said:

All very interesting, Paul.

A few thoughts, but not arguments:

1. Guy Gabaldon is I thought either living full time in Mexico City in 1963 or has a house, office, and substantial presence there
2. The CIA is allowed to tap embassy phones in part because they agree to share intelligence with the Mexicans.  So the Mexicans largely know what the CIA knows about the Soviet  Embassy.  It is in fact the Mexican phone company that logistically facilitates the taps.  The Mexicans know about Kostikov.  It is not automatically true that knowledge of Kostikov implies a CIA connection - the Mexicans know about him as well.
3. If David Morales is calling the Soviet Embassy impersonating Oswald, this is exceedingly reckless.  If he is calling the Soviet Embassy impersonating Oswald with knowledge that the president is about to be killed and Oswald blamed, this is nothing less than suicidal.  On top of the uncertain security of the Mexican sharing agreement, Morales would be risking having his voice on tape heard by everyone in the US intelligence community and the top level government executives - who, despite the belief system on this forum, are about half Democrats and half Kennedy supporters.   I think it's very reasonable to theorize Morales hired Alvarado to say Oswald took $5k to kill Kennedy - but maybe Gabaldon hired Alvarado.  Maybe they both did?   But I wonder if a competent true CIA employee like Morales is going to put his voice on this tape.
4. LITAMIL-9, which today we know as Luis Alberu Soeto, Cuban Cultural Attache in Mexico City, was a perfect example of the prodigious sourcing that the CIA (and Mexicans) had in Cuba's Mexico City Embassy.   There is a large and fruitful LITAMIL family of spies making a living off both the CIA and Castro such that 100% of everything Cuban in Mexico City is crossing the desk of the CIA and the Mexican president/Mexican intelligence (DFS).   Whatever the Soviets told the Cubans, they also told the CIA and the Mexican DFS.
5. One detail CIA staff knew, but which maybe the Mexicans did not, was that the CIA employed a non-CIA subcontractor for language help in the LIENVOY project, which was the multi-decade CIA wiretap operation in Mexico City.   The unusual and valuable Russian-English-Spanish trilingual translation ability was hard to come by, so the CIA relied on a husband and wife team to process the rough intelligence from the wiretaps.    Hardway and Lopez correctly pinpointed this husband and wife interpretation team as potential witnesses NOT bound by CIA official or ideological bonds of loyalty and interviewed them in depth.   They knew everyone worth knowing by voice alone.   If the voice on the tapes was someone known to the CIA in Mexico City, we would have had the caller's identity in 1963.
6. Yes indeed the Mexican Establishment is considerably more reactionary than the US government establishment.  In the US there are left wing Democrats, mainstream Democrats, and non-aligned moderates who are somewhere between Democrat and Republican in every level of government including the FBI and CIA - but in Mexico of the day there were only hard right wingers in power at the high levels.
7. Gabaldon hiring Loran Hall and indeed Loran Hall's presence in the assassination story should be enough for anyone not trapped in 1968 Garrison-think to maybe allow themselves to toy with the idea that the CIA is not running the show here.  The CIA doesn't hire clowns like this.  
8. Does the actual voice on the phone really matter that much?  I'm not sure I care whether it was Morales or Gabaldon or one of the very few random people in 1963 Mexico City who can speak and switch between English, Spanish, and Russian.  What I really care about is who hired the voice on the phone - it's either Gabaldon or Morales in my mind at this point.
9. Bill Simpich is 100% correct that the CIA has no idea what Oswald is doing in Mexico City and that the CIA cannot identify the voice on the phone.   Where Bill ends his certainty on this point is where those interested in true research might begin - who directed Oswald and the Oswald impersonator in Mexico Ciy, and, most of all, who hired Alvarado to say Oswald took $5k from the Cubans to kill Kennedy?    To my CIA-obsessed Garrison disciples, if Oswald is CIA, why wouldn't they just have Oswald himself make the calls to the Soviet Embassy?   
10. Harry Dean is far mare valuable than generally given credit for; everything he's said leads us closer to the truth in my view.

Jason

11.  PS - - for a brief moment, Hoover seems ready to jump aboard the commie-did-it narrative advertised by Alvarado...LBJ shuts him down fast:

(many thanks to my sometime boss Rex Bradford)

Jason,

Here's my opinion by the numbers.

1.  Guy Gabaldon (Gabby) lived in Southern California, near the place he was born in Los Angeles.  He is married and has several children (though in a nicer neighborhood).

1.1. Gabby owns his own small airplane.  He uses it to travel to Mexico City at least twice monthly.

1.2.  Gabby is head of his own Radical Right group named DACA, which has offices in L.A. and in Mexico City.

2.  I appreciate knowing that the CIA shared it's data with the Mexican Government.  It makes good sense, though I didn't connect the dots that way before.

2.1.  Since the Mexican Government knows about Kostikov, this makes it much easier for Gabby to learn about Kostikov in one day.

3.  It is now obvious that if CIA agent David Morales IMPERSONATED Lee Harvey Oswald over the telephone in Mexico City, that his voice would have been recognized immediately.

3.1.  Therefore, he couldn't risk it, and the Noble guess by Bill Simpich was mistaken after all.

4.  I will skip the LITAMIL topic until I get more data.

5.  The Mexico City CIA husband and wife translation team -- Boris and Anna Tarasoff -- were professionals at voice recognition as well as Russian and Spanish translation into English.   They would have recognized the voice of CIA agent David Morales, who was well-known in Mexico City.

6.  We agree firmly, Jason, that in the Mexico of 1963 there were only Rightsts in power -- so that Free Speech was limited to the National Enquirer level of public dialog.  The Communist Party was simply illegal, and that was that.  A simple story.  This made it far easier for a Radical Rightist (one prone to violent means) to thrive in Mexico than in the USA.

7.  I agree with you again -- Jason -- that Loran Hall's presence at numerous stages of the JFK Assassination story requires a backward-thinking leader like Gabby (or Edwin Walker) to be in charge.  Sadly, the CIA during the early Fidel Castro period was not very careful about the people it hired to assassinate Fidel.  Even the Mafia was hired.  That's how low they went.  But when it comes to assassionation of the POTUS, I agree that professionals would have spent a lot more money and been far more careful than to hire clowns like Lee Oswald or Loran Hall.

8. Because CIA agent David Morales confessed to a role in the JFK Assassination, and because he was a regular presence in Mexico City and Latin America, and because he was also Latino-American and ex-military like Gabby, and because both were Radical Rightists -- it makes sense to me that Gabby and David Morales would meet in Mexico City, have a few beers and make a few pacts.  DACA records are probably gone with the wind by now -- but one wonders.

9. I, too, agree with Bill Simpich 100% correct that the CIA is clueless about Oswald's intention in Mexico City, and about the JFK plotters telephone impersonation of Oswald. 

9.1.  Your discovery, Jason, of CIA documents that link Gabby with Alverado, is a breakthrough, in my opinion.  It is one giant step closer to solving the JFK Assassination with players named by Harry Dean in 1965. 

10.  However, Jason, I would not use the phrase, "everything he's said," with reference to Harry Dean and a positive step toward resolution of the JFK Assassination resolution. 

10.1.  There remains one key point upon which Harry Dean and I have always disagreed, namely, his Mormons-did-it CT of the JFK Assassination. 

10.2.  And no, I'm not a Mormon.

10.3.  When Harry Dean and I agreed to co-author a book in 2013, namely, "Harry Dean's Confessions," we agreed to shelve the Mormons-did-it CT until hell freezes over.

10.4.  Aside from that, however, I fully agree with your statement on Harry Dean -- Harry is the single most underestimated CTer in the past half-century.

11.  Hoover hoped for a Commie-did-it CT (e.g. as advertised by Alvarado) probably because he is a cop at heart, and the Dallas Police preached a Commie-did-it CT as hard as they could.  Hoover wanted to believe them at first.

All best,
--Paul Trejo

Edited November 26, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Jason Ward]

1 hour ago, Paul Trejo said:

...

4.  I believe will skip the LITAMIL topic for now...

 

 

Paul, as it happens the LITAMILs are a large component of the 2017 document release.  

I've spent most of August-October reading, cataloging, and summarizing the LITAMIL and LIENVOY intelligence held secret so long.  This was kept secret because 100s of Cubans were and are working for both Castro and the CIA - a life-threatening situation.  95% of the withheld documents have nothing to do with Kennedy.  Probably a movie could be made of this intelligence effort in Mexico against Cuba and the Soviets - or anyway, at least a Netflix movie.  I should play Kostikov because I am a man of action and feared violence - you might play Morales since you are secret and conspiratorial, and we'll get Edward Norton or The Rock to play Oswald, just for celebrity value.

95% of the LITAMIL intelligence is uninteresting to an assassination researcher.  But two conclusions are incumbent to anyone who dares read the entire LITAMIL and LIENVOY production from beginning to end (or in my case from 1963 to 1965ish.)

LIENVOY is the cryptonym describing perhaps the most massive and successful wiretap operation in CIA history - the de facto ability of the US to tap at will any phone in Mexico.   I read transcripts of the Mexican president's phone calls, when he is talking with the Cuban and Soviet amabassadors.  LITAMIL is a family (not biological, but topical familly) of spies in the paid employ of BOTH the CIA and the Cuban government.

Plenty of implications exist for assassination researchers, but, to keep it pithy I will highlight two:

1. In 1963, the United States has 100% visibility into all Cuban diplomatic missions in Mexico including the first hand reports of dozens of Cuban diplomats - on a daily basis.  This is supplemented by 100% visibility into what was then the extent of electronic communication - wired and wireless traffic to Havana, to the Mexican government, and to the general public contacting Cuban government offices in Mexico.
2. Nearly 100% of Soviet electronic communication is visible to the US from KGB and diplomatic missions in Mexico; although there is the distinct possibility that they had other, still unknown, channels of communication with Moscow.

So, the whole Mexico City episode needs to be reconsidered in terms of these facts, IMO, by almost all kinds of conspiracy theorists.   Assume everything that happens at the Soviet and Cuban embassies are almost the equivalent of happening at CIA headquarters in Langley in terms of US visibility into what is taking place.

 

Jason

- - -

- - -

- - -

For those interested in what excellent research analysis and reasonable conclusions based on primary sources looks like; I offer a taste of the raw documents and how the sublime intellect of Bill Simpich composes the mosaic into a picture we can all understand:

 

{LI is CIA shorthand referring to LITAMIL intellgence product; LITAMIL-4 remains unmasked afaik, probably because they are still alive.  LI-2 is likely Carlos Maristany, a Cuban ambassador and CIA agent.}

 

 

{The redactions here shown as [     01     ] were this year revealed as LITAMIL-9, the CIAs most valuable agent at the MC Cuban Embassy; Cuban diplomat Luis Soeto.}

 

{The CIA's go-to man in the Cuban Embassy is LITAMIL-9, Cuban diplomat Luis Soeto, a proud Cuban but also a great friend of the United States}

            ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ notice the saturation coverage of the Cuban Embassy the CIA enjoys in 1963^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

...

...

...

 

Bill Simpich's Book State Secret is available free at the Mary Ferrell website:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146586

Edited November 21, 2017 by Jason Ward

[Ernie Lazar]

http://crosscut.com/2017/11/john-f-kennedy-assassination-files-seattle-trump-release-shooters/

MONDAY 20, NOVEMBER 2017

The JFK assassination files lead back to Seattle by Rick Anderson

Not unexpectedly, the latest release of government records collected from the investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy did little to silence conspiracy theories, according to news reports. That includes a Seattle surgeon’s claim, which is reflected in the newly released records, that one of the doctors who operated on Kennedy confided he misled the Warren Commission about one of the president’s wounds.

In a nutshell, former University of Washington physician and professor Dr. Donald Miller Jr. says that the late Dr. Malcom Perry, the Dallas surgeon who tried to save Kennedy’s life on the Parkland Hospital operating table Nov. 22, 1963, questioned whether Lee Harvey Oswald fired all the bullets that struck Kennedy’s motorcade.

Miller, who later worked and taught with Perry at the University of Washington School of Medicine in the 1970s, says Perry told him there were entry wounds from both behind and in front of Kennedy, contradicting what he told the commission under oath. Perry confided similar details to an Alaska doctor as well. 

“He took that to his grave,” Miller, a UW professor emeritus, says today. He claims that Perry, during a private conversation the two had in the late 1970s, said he’d been pressured to change his story and agree with the government’s theory that all entry wounds came from behind the motorcade. Perry had moved to Seattle in 1974 with Dr. Tom Shires, Parkland Hospital’s Chief of Surgery, who became Chairman of Surgery at the UW. Shires brought Perry and several other Parkland surgeons to the UW, including Dr Jim Carrico, the first doctor to examine Kennedy in the ER.

Records of Perry’s testimony and public comments, and Miller’s recollections of the private talk they had, are contained in the more than 20,000 JFK-assassination documents released by the National Archives over the past few weeks, including a fresh batch released Friday. Though some of the documents had already been released over the years, they were heavily redacted; the newest releases are, by comparison, lightly censored.

For the most part, the documents and an additional 52,387 searchable emails from the government’s Assassination Records Review Board recently posted on muckrock.com add to the widely accepted yet endlessly debated finding that Oswald acted alone. 

But more than a half-century later, Miller says he, like Perry, doubts that’s true. He says Perry told him that a bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck was an entrance wound, despite having told the Warren Commission it was an exit wound.

If it was an entrance wound, that bullet would have been fired from the front of the president’s motorcade as it passed the now-infamous grassy knoll in Dealey Plaza.

Oswald, of course, was found to have fired at the motorcade from a rear position, the sixth floor window in the nearby Texas School Book Depository. Perry, who died in 2009, suspected there was more than one shooter, the Seattle doctor says.

“He told me in confidence,” says Miller, “and I waited until years after he died to tell anyone else.”

It was likely easier for Perry to go along with the mainstream theory, he says. But he was hardly alone in thinking there was a second shooter. The public was divided and even the government split on the question of who killed JFK: The Warren Commission found no evidence of another gunman, while the U.S. House Select Committee on Assassinations in 1979 concluded the shooting was a conspiracy and “probably” involved a second gunman. 

Critics questioned both conclusions, claiming the commission and Congress were swayed as much by politics as by facts. True-crime books came to opposite conclusions, and critics raised questions about possible government destruction or manipulation of records and photographic evidence.

Elmer Moore, a Secret Service agent who worked with the commission and was later transferred to the service’s Seattle office, admitted he was ordered to pressure Perry to refute the two-gunman theory, according to a University of Washington graduate student who interviewed Moore and eventually testified at government hearings.

Perry had long been at the center of the controversy, and may have unintentionally started it. He performed a tracheotomy on Kennedy and also attended Texas Gov. John Connally who was wounded by a wildly ricocheting bullet that was said to have passed through Kennedy. Two days later, Perry also tended Lee Harvey Oswald, who bled to death after being shot by Jack Ruby in the Dallas Police Department basement. 

At a press conference following Kennedy’s death, Perry said he used an existing wound on the president’s throat to perform the tracheotomy, since it was the precise location for access to the breathing tube. News reports stated that Perry indicated the site was a frontal entrance wound, which in addition to an entry wound in Kennedy’s back and the fatal rear head-and-brain shot, suggested there were two shooters firing at least three bullets from front and rear angles.

“The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat,” Perry told the media. For that to happen, “The bullet would be coming at him [from the front],” he said.

The Warren Commission concluded Oswald, alone, fired three shots, all from the rear, with one of them missing the motorcade and landing nearby.

Perry, appearing at his first major press conference and tasked with making sense of what would become perhaps history’s most disputed assassination, later admitted he was rattled, calling the press event “bedlam,” and saying he didn’t know for sure if the throat wound was entry or exit.

He told friends he was pressured by government officials and the Secret Service to back away from the entry wound claim, since the official autopsy showed it to be an exit wound.

And that may have indeed been what happened. All Perry had done was express some doubts. But that wasn’t the message deep government wanted to hear.

University of Washington graduate student James Gochenaur, who spoke with Secret Service agent Moore in a 1970 interview, subsequently told the House assassination committee and the Church Committee, chaired by Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, that Moore admitted to putting the squeeze on Perry after the press conference.

Gochenaur said Moore, who died in 2001, called Kennedy a “traitor” for being soft on the Russians, and suggested that it was too bad people had to die but maybe it was a good thing for the U.S., and that the Secret Service had quickly made up its mind that Oswald acted alone.

“I did everything I was told, we all did everything we were told, or we’d get our heads cut off,” Gochenaur quoted Moore. He was remorseful for badgering Perry but had no choice, Gochenaur recalled him saying.

Some of the newly posted e-mails collected by the assassination review board expand on Moore’s role in badgering Perry and even getting him to flip and challenge others who argued there were two shooters. (The review board was an independent agency that examined assassination-related records for public release from 1994 until 1998, then transferred its records to the National Archives.)

In 1964, Perry appeared to confirm his belief of a sole shooter during testimony before the Warren Commission. A transcript shows he initially said he did not know whether the wound was exit or entry. But under the intense questioning of commission counsel (and later Republican senator) Arlen Specter, he came around.

“Based on the appearance of the neck wound alone,” Specter asked, “could it have been either an entrance or an exit wound?” Either, Perry responded.

Specter laid out an elaborate shooting scenario that included the likelihood that a 6.5 mm. copper-jacketed bullet fired from a rifle up to 250 feet away and having a muzzle velocity of approximately 2,000 feet per second could have passed through the president’s back and exited from the neck.

Assuming those facts to be true, Specter asked, would the neck hole be consistent with an exit wound?

“Certainly would be consistent with an exit wound,” Perry said, based on that scenario.

“A full jacketed bullet without deformation passing through skin would leave a similar wound for an exit and entrance wound,” he added, “and with the facts which you have made available and with these assumptions, I believe that it was an exit wound.”

Critics questioned how, based on some forensic findings, a bullet fired from the sixth floor to the ground level entered Kennedy’s back and then traveled upward to exit through the throat. Perry apparently wondered, too. Three years after the surgeon’s death, Miller claimed in a little-noticed 2012 blog post that Perry doubted the scenario. The author of three books and a frequent writer on current medical and political topics, Miller wrote:

“Fifteen years [after the shooting], Dr. Perry told me in a surgeon-to-surgeon private conversation that the bullet wound in Kennedy’s neck was, without question, a wound of entrance, irrespective of what he had told the Warren Commission.

“This seasoned attending trauma surgeon had seen a lot of gunshot wounds at Parkland Hospital and knew what he was talking about. Dr. Perry also told this ‘off the record’ truth to another physician, Dr. Robert Artwohl, in 1986.”

Artwhol, an Anchorage surgeon who wrote an online post about their conversation, stated that Perry told him that “[o]ne of the biggest regrets in his life was having to make the incision for the emergency tracheotomy through the bullet wound… Speaking with Dr. Perry that night, one physician to another, Dr. Perry stated he firmly believed the wound to be an entrance wound.”

But, Miller said in his blog that after agent Moore and others pressured Perry to alter his story, “This otherwise bold surgeon backed down and obligingly changed his testimony to suit the politically ordered truth that Oswald did it.”

That’s pretty much how history sees it today, as well. Of course, that’s debatable

[Michael Clark]

On 11/18/2017 at 3:37 PM, Michael Clark said:

Robert Welch, founder of the John Birch society,... "...... identified as Communists who took their orders from Moscow Eisenhower’s brother Milton, then president of Johns Hopkins University; his secretary of state, John Foster Dulles; Dulles’s brother, Allen, then director of Central Intelligence; and former secretary of state George Marshall, among others. In a note Buckley sent Welch along with the returned manuscript, he said that he found the charges against Eisenhower “curiously — almost pathetically optimistic.” If Communist infiltration of the American government was as extensive as Welch claimed, Buckley argued, changing presidents would not relieve the situation. Nor would political organizing. “Reaching for rifles” might be a better approach, Buckley argued." 

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448774/william-f-buckley-john-birch-society-history-conflict-robert-welch

 

[Michael Clark]

In case there might be confusion or infusion from the Ward-Trejo camp, the previous post refers to William F. Buckley Jr., and the YAF. The Radical Right.

 

Edited November 23, 2017 by Michael Clark

[Ernie Lazar]

The John Birch Society's analysis of the release of thousands of JFK-related documents---and the Warren Commission:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wednesday, 22 November 2017
Thousands More Warren Commission Docs to be Released; Will They Be Informative?
Written by  Kurt Hyde

https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/27436-thousands-more-warren-commission-docs-to-be-released-will-they-be-informative 

  
The National Archives announced on November 17 that it was releasing another 10,744 Warren Commission documents that had been previously withheld. The total released so far this year is 34,334 documents. If there is a comprehensive analysis of this voluminous collection of documents it would be a herculean task. But will it shed more light on the Kennedy assassination and subsequent killings, or will it just result in the continuation of confusion regarding the planning and committing of the crimes?

The whole idea of putting Chief Justice Earl Warren in charge of the investigation into Kennedy's assassination was flawed from the start. Warren was quoted in the New York Times the day after the assassination as having said, “A great and good President has suffered martyrdom as a result of hatred and bitterness that has been injected into the life of our nation by bigots.” Had Warren kept his remarks solely to expressions of grief, he would have been in adherence to the U.S. Constitution. But his remarks regarding his opinion of the cause were unconstitutional for two reasons. First, as a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, which might have heard any of the murder cases had any rights been infringed in the lower courts, he prejudiced his position by claiming publicly that he knew the cause of a crime. Secondly, he was in Washington, D.C., and the shootings took place in Dallas. He had no direct observation. The only basis he had was hearsay evidence at best.

It’s notable that Robert Welch, founder of The John Birch Society, was quoted in the same New York Times article having said in a message to Mrs. Kennedy: “On behalf of the council of [the] John Birch Society and our members and myself, I wish to express our deep sorrow at so untimely a loss to our nation of its youngest elected President and to convey more particularly to you and to all members of President Kennedy’s family our sincere and heartfelt sympathy in your overwhelming personal loss.” Mr. Welch’s remarks were an example of what Chief Justice Earl Warren should have said, if he had said anything.

Furthermore, the Warren Commission’s genesis was suspect, as noted in the February 1964 Bulletin of the John Birch Society:

The assassination of President Kennedy was on Friday, November 22. On Tuesday, November 26, the Midweek Edition of The Worker, the official publication of the Communist Party, USA, issued an insistent demand — backed up by a long editorial which began on the front page — that President Johnson appoint a special investigating committee, headed by Chief Justice Warren. On Friday, November 29, through executive order 11130, President Johnson complied with this Communist demand by appointing such a committee and naming Earl Warren as its chairman.

The Warren Commission violated the constitutional separation of powers in two ways. First, the investigation of a crime should be accomplished by law enforcement, which is part of the executive branch of government, not the judicial branch. Second, it was a federal intervention into a state matter since murder is constitutionally under state jurisdiction. There were at least three related killings to be investigated: The assassination of the president, the killing of Dallas Police Officer J.D. Tippet, and the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald. Some suggest there were other suspicious deaths as well. The investigations of these crimes should have been conducted by detectives, not politicians.

As an aside, it should be noted how well the Dallas Police Department gathered evidence and reacted to the assassination. Officers of the Dallas Police Department had arrested Oswald about an hour and 20 minutes after the assassination, and did so while obeying the U.S. Constitution as well as the Constitution of the State of Texas.

It would have been constitutional for agencies of the federal government to assist the Texas Attorney General, the Texas Rangers, and the Dallas Police Department. Certainly federal agencies had evidence, whether it be evidence of guilt or evidence of innocence, because the number one suspect in the assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald, had defected to the Soviet Union, had lived in the Soviet Union, was married to a foreign national, and had crossed a number of state lines during the months prior to the assassination. Oswald visited Mexico in September of 1963 where he reportedly applied for a transit visa to Cuba. Clearly, the U.S. Departments of Defense, Justice, and State could have assisted state and local law enforcement.

The Warren Commission had no constitutional authority to tell state and local law-enforcement agencies to cease investigating these killings. Robert Welch noted in the John Birch Society Bulletin for January of 1964: “His threat to resign as chairman of that Commission, unless the Attorney General of Texas ceased all investigation of two murders committed within the state of Texas, undoubtedly is extremely pleasing to the Communists, under the present circumstances. But it ought to frighten half to death any patriotic American who wants to save our whole Republic from becoming just one more administrative province in a world-wide Communist empire.”

The Warren Commission was touted as being bipartisan in the establishment news media because the commission included a number of Republicans. As previously stated in this article, murder investigations are better accomplished by detectives than politicians. Also, noticeably absent from appointments to the Warren Commission were likes of such genuinely conservative Republicans as Senator John Tower (R-Texas).  Senator Tower took umbrage with the image being portrayed by some in the news media that the assassination was a psychological product of politically conservative thinking. Tower disagreed strongly and was quoted in the Dallas Morning News of December 1, 1963: “‘They have said and are still saying, that there is something wrong in our society that breeds men like Lee Harvey Oswald. These people overlook the simple fact, or they refuse to admit it, that Oswald was not fashioned by our society,’ Tower said in his weekly radio broadcast to Texas stations.”

Tower said Oswald’s mind had been fashioned by the propaganda of communism and he had renounced his American citizenship to express loyalty to the Soviet Union. The senator said he had refused to help Oswald when the latter wrote him from the Soviet Union, seeking assistance in returning to the United States. Thankfully, Senator Tower didn’t take the bait. One can only imagine how the liberal news media would have spun this as a half-truth proof that the Kennedy assassination was a right-wing plot had Senator Tower unknowingly helped Lee Harvey Oswald in any way.

Further evidence that the Kennedy assassination was not a right-wing plot can be found by listening to the recording of Lee Harvey Oswald on WDSU Radio in New Orleans on August 21, 1963. The radio show was recorded and sold on 33 1/3 RPM records and entitled Oswald Self-Portrait in Red. It starts with Lee Harvey Oswald proclaiming “Yes. I am a Marxist.” In the ensuing interview, Oswald went on to explain how he was trying to start a chapter of The Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans. But even more telling is the critique afterward by Edward Butler of INCA (Information Council of the Americas) as he analyzed Oswald’s statements pointing out a heavy influence of Marxist ideology and considerable debating skills.

The 34,334 documents thus far released may seem spicy as news material because they are flavored with the distinction of having been previously classified material. But now that they have been declassified and released to the public, it remains to be seen whether they are meaningful documents or are just a product of political posturing by some Washington, D.C., insiders. It may well be that the real evidence has been hidden in plain sight all along, as pointed out by Robert Welch in the aforementioned John Birch Society Bulletins for January and February of 1964.

One way to look the assassination and relating killings is to consider who would have benefitted from the aftermath. For instance, state and local police were pushed aside in favor of a federal commission. The Second Amendment was violated because these killings help lead to the passage of federal gun-control laws. There was a federal law passed making it a federal crime to kill or threaten to kill a president, as well as other presidential cabinet-level people. Republican Senator Barry Goldwater gaining popularity up until November 22, 1963, and there was a real possibility that he would have defeated Kennedy in the 1964 presidential election. But in the ensuing emotionalism following the assassination, Goldwater and many other conservative political candidates, tainted by insinuations that conservative political thinking shaped Lee Harvey Oswald’s mental attitude, lost their elections. Liberal, Marxist policies were advanced, breaking down state power and furthering consolidation of power into federal hands

In other words, following the Kennedy assassination, the liberal agenda was advanced as a result of the emotional reaction of the American public. Frequently, during times of high emotions, the logical side of people’s thinking is overcome and they forget to consider the constitutionality of the government reaction. It was during such a time in 1963 that an unconstitutional commission was formed and it did a poor job of investigating the Kennedy assassination and the subsequent killings. Will the declassification and release of 34,334 additional documents change anything? Don’t hold your breath

[Paul Trejo]

Bill Simpich's milestone eBook, State Secret: Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) is available free at the Mary Ferrell website:

https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146586

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Paul Trejo

[Paul Trejo]

The reason I want to promote this milestone eBook by Bill Simpich, State Secret Wiretapping in Mexico City (2014) is because of my interpretation of his historic discovery of a top secret CIA Mole Hunt seeking the CIA Insiders who blatantly impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald over the most wiretapped telephone on earth at the time.

Surely any CIA agent would have known that the Mexico City telephone between the Cuban Consulate and the Russian Embassy would have been watched like a hawk.  

Yet a CIA agent who knew about that telephone, told others who were politically motivated about this phone, because they wanted to impersonate Lee Harvey Oswald using that telephone in particular -- to guarantee that the CIA would be listening!   There was a special message these politically motivated people wanted the CIA to hear!

The CIA figured out their game within one hour -- except one thing -- WHO were these people?   That's what the CIA wanted to find out.

To make a very long story very short, my interpretation is that the CIA didn't know who impersonated Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City because the CIA had no part in the JFK Assassination plot!

This is, in my opinion, a strong reason to drop the CIA as a suspect, and focus all our energies on the Radical Right as the most likely suspect in the JFK Assassination.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

 

Edited November 26, 2017 by Paul Trejo
typos

[Michael Clark]

12 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

the most wiretapped telephone on earth at the time.

A phone line can only be used 24 hours a day at, best. It can be only tapped 24 hours a day, at best. It wasn't in use 24 hours a day. Your repeated claim, suggests that this was the only phone line in the world that was tapped 24 hours. It's a stupid claim.

15 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

would have been watched like a hawk.  

Your platitudes spill out of you like Junk off a garbage truck. Hawks do the watching.

17 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

Yet whatever CIA agent knew about that telephone

You just told us that "surely any CIA agent would have known that".... More recycled, throwaway plattitudes, from Paul Trejo.

21 minutes ago, Paul Trejo said:

... the CIA didn't know who impersonated Oswald in Mexico City because the CIA had no part in the JFK Assassination plot.

This is, in my opinion, a strong reason to drop the CIA as a suspect,

A pile of garbage logic, Paul Trejo. 

[Paul Brancato]

There is no good logic to dismissing the possible culpability of high level CIA or JCS.

[Paul Trejo]

19 hours ago, Paul Brancato said:

There is no good logic to dismissing the possible culpability of high level CIA or JCS.

Unless you have utterly no evidence of that culpability.

On the other hand, by obsessing over culpability of Allen Dulles in the JFK Assassination without evidence for a half-century, you have effectively allowed the real culprits to get away.

Regards,
--Paul Trejo

[Michael Walton]

On 11/20/2017 at 7:44 PM, Paul Trejo said:

9. I, too, agree with Bill Simpich 100% correct that the CIA is clueless about Oswald's intention in Mexico City, and about the JFK plotters telephone impersonation of Oswald. 

I'm a strong proponent of Simpich's SS story. But I also believe that there was no real reason for Lee Oswald to be in MC. And David Josephs has done a good job documenting this alleged "fake" trip:

https://kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/mexico-city-part-1

The goal for MC and for Oswald's alleged trip there was for one reason and one reason only - to make it appear that he was cavorting with Russian assassins and to plan his escape after he (the patsy) kills JFK. That's all. They had him giving out leaflets in NO; they had him stirring up trouble and getting a TV interview and of him stating he was a Marxist. Check off the crazed Marxist assassin from the list. Then they needed a little bit more - to get him planning an escape and possibly talking to a Russian murderer down there.

But Oswald was no dummy. Even he may have figured it out that if he had actually been down there saying these things he'd have said "WTF! I'm being set up." *** So he didn't go and someone else could have easily called in, said he was "Oswald" and planted that manufactured evidence. I think this whole plot boils down to one thing - kill Kennedy, blame it on the Communists and invade Cuba for revenge. We mustn't forget what happened several years before when American interests down there were lost when Castro took over. And the BOP caper was already on the drawing board before JFK was elected.

And FWIW - I don't think Morales would have ever been taken the risk of using his own voice during the calls. And why is it that to this day - at one of the most guarded and photographed facilities in the world - NO photos of Oswald were ever taken?

This is why, too, Paul Trejo, that I really don't think your RIGHT WINGERS DID IT theory holds much water. There is simply no way that a bunch of Birchers and right wingers could have been able to pull off something this deep and off the books.

*** - this is also why I think the BYP of Oswald holding the guns, the Marxist newspaper are highly dubious. It's almost as if the planners went overboard in their planning. They probably wanted that slam dunk to prove he was the assassin. Oswald admitted it himself that he knew how these photos were faked because he said he knew how photography worked. But he was not stupid - would the planners really have gone that far and asked him "Oh, Lee, by the way, we need your wife to take a few photos of you holding a rifle up [one that he never owned], a pistol and a Marxist paper."  THAT would have set off alarm bells in his head.