DiEugenio, Cranor, and the mole (my mole) - 3/31/20

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/26/2022 at 7:23 AM, David Lifton said:

Hi Sandy:

As a close student of the Parkland record, and someone who interviewed the key Dallas doctors (going back to October 1966, and using a tape recorder), some comments and corrections are called for.

#1: I have always believed that the image(s) of the back of the head are false --either because certain autopsy photographs were altered (e.g., using a photo enlarger);  or (alternatively) because there was actual reconstruction at the rear of the head, before a particular photo was taken. Bottom line: there were two possible ways any false image could have been created. Take you choice.  This is discussed in B.E., Chapter 30.

#2: The Dallas record is clear that (at Parkland Hospital), there was a defect (a hole) at the bottom of the back of the head, in the occipital area..  As I recall, it was Dr. Jenkins (the anesthesiologist) who wrote (in his report dated 11/22 or 11/23/63), that "the cerebellum protruded through" the wound. If you will consult Grant's Atlas of Anatomy (or any comparable anatomy book), it will be obvious that that JFK sustained a head wound that was located at the bottom of the back of his head (in the occipital area), in order for the cerebellum to have "protruded" through the wound. At the time (Jan 1967, approx) Jenkins specified (to me) that the hole at the back of the head was the size of an egg (emphasizing that he was referring to type you'd buy at a supermarket).

#3: The Bethesda X-ray (one of the lateral X-Rays) shows no defect at the back of the head; and the occipital bone is plainly visible.  Rather, the defect is located towards the front of the head. A clear conflict.  However the image alteration was accomplished, that image bears little relationship to what was observed at Parkland, and has obviously been falsified.

#4: I published these "official" images in the 1988 Carroll & Graff edition of Best Evidence, and in the mass paperback edition that followed, some years later.

 

David,

You are replying to a post I made quite a while back and I don't recall what it was that made me think that you didn't think the photos, etc., were altered. I apologize for the misinformation I wrote, I'm glad that you corrected it, and I'm also glad that you agree with my beliefs! LOL

 

On 4/26/2022 at 7:23 AM, David Lifton said:

#5: Addressing your assertion: "The body alteration, on the other hand, occurred so early on and quickly that it seems to have been planned before the assassination."  You might be more specific and spell out precisely what you mean by asserting it was planned "before the assassination."

 

It seems to me that the body alteration must  been part of the assassination plot. Otherwise how could it have been pulled off without any time for planning it?

To be honest, this position is a problem for me. Because a lot of other evidence makes me believe that the goal of the plotters (CIA) was to tie the assassination not only to Oswald, but to an assassination team that included Oswald. And that Oswald was representing the team when he was down in Mexico City talking to Kostikov and collecting $6500 initial payment for the hit. (All this was Mexico trip was a CIA fabrication. There is no credible evidence Oswald was in Mexico City. David Josephs has discredited the bus ride evidence.)

If I'm right about this, then it makes no sense for he CIA to make Oswald look like a lone nut. Rather, they were trying to make it look like a conspiracy between Russia, Cuba, and Oswald's group.

BTW, just a few days ago I became aware of even more evidence supporting my theory. Following is part of a conversation heard by an operator when she was completing a supposed collect call between Ruth and Michael Paine not long after the shooting:

(Ruth calls Michael.)
Ruth:  Will Lee get the bonus loot?
Michael:  What are you calling me, and don't mention my name on the phone. Kennedy has to be dead for to get the bonus.
Ruth:  He is dead. They've just announced it on the radio.
(Operator calls Ruth back to check her number (for the correct number charge).)
Ruth:  Don't you call here again. You will be contacted. They are not suspicious of him, no. [Ruth thought she was talking to Michael still.]

See, someone (the CIA plotters) were even trying to connect the Paines to Oswald's (fake) assassination team.

The operator who overheard this (faked) conversation had a lawyer save her written account, which was opened upon her death. It completes the story of how Oswalds (fake) assassination team was to be paid the "bonus loot" upon Kennedy's death. This story is documented in pp. 6-7 of:

http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg Subject Index Files/F Disk/Fensterwald Bernard 1990/Item 004.pdf

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[George Govus]

On 4/27/2022 at 6:45 AM, Sandy Larsen said:

a supposed collect call between Ruth and Michael Paine not long after the shooting

Sandy, I read the article about the phone operator's inadvertent eavesdropping on the collect call placed 22 November 63. Thanks for sharing that, another angle new to me.

From what is written there, I don't understand why you characterize the call as "faked." Could you elaborate? Were the speakers Ruth and Michael? Were they being impersonated? Wilderness of mirrors!

[Michael Crane]

Interesting tile.

 

 

[Micah Mileto]

1 hour ago, Michael Crane said:

 

Cool photo! Is that Father Oscar Huber or the other clergyman who was there?

Edited April 28, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Michael Crane]

Father Oscar.

[Sandy Larsen]

14 hours ago, George Govus said:

Sandy, I read the article about the phone operator's inadvertent eavesdropping on the collect call placed 22 November 63. Thanks for sharing that, another angle new to me.

From what is written there, I don't understand why you characterize the call as "faked." Could you elaborate? Were the speakers Ruth and Michael? Were they being impersonated? Wilderness of mirrors!

 

George,

My understanding is that the operator figured that the call was between Michael and Ruth Paine based on the telephone numbers given. Ruth for sure. Here's the conversation again:

(Ruth calls Michael.)
Ruth:  Will Lee get the bonus loot?
Michael:  What are you calling me, and don't mention my name on the phone. Kennedy has to be dead for to get the bonus.
Ruth:  He is dead. They've just announced it on the radio.
(Operator calls Ruth back to check her number (for the correct number charge).)
Ruth:  Don't you call here again. You will be contacted. They are not suspicious of him, no. [Ruth thought she was talking to Michael still.]

If it was a real conversation, that would strongly imply that the Paines were aware of a conspiracy to kill Kennedy, involving Oswald, who would be paid a large sum of money ("bonus loot") in the event Kennedy didn't survive.

I don't believe it was a real conversation between Michael and Ruth. Because I have a slowly developing assassination theory that contradicts it being real. I do update my theory to accommodate new information, but this conversation is too far off the reservation to consider real.

On the other hand, this new information fits perfectly into my theory as it stands now, if the conversation is considered faked.

My conspiracy theory is close to what many researchers believe, that Oswald was set up by the CIA to be in a conspiracy with the Russians and Cubans to kill Kennedy... in other words, a false flag operation designed to implicate the Russians and Cubans in the killing. Where my theory differs from others is that they believe that Oswald alone was set up. In contrast, I believe that Oswald and his GROUP OF (AMERICAN) CONSPIRATORS were set up. The reason I believe this is because it solves a lot of mysteries. For example, why it is that Oswald was allowed by his CIA handler to walk around, even outside, during the shooting. It's because he was meant to be the ringleader, not a shooter. (Remember how he was supposedly given a $6500 down payment in Mexico City?)

This latest information -- a (faked) call between the Paines -- fits perfectly into my theory. It sets up the Paines as a part of Oswald's group. They are discussing whether or not they will get the "bonus loot."

This phone call was faked by the CIA conspirators just like the Mexico City trip was faked. It would be easy to do so given that it was easy to tie into telephone lines back then. Even I did that sort of thing back when I was a kid. For some reason the telephone company brought a bundle of telephone wires into our house where it was hidden in the basement wall. I discovered the wires and was able to listen in on others' calls. I could have talked too, but of course didn't (except on our own line). I had a telephone handset but no dial, but nevertheless could place a call by carefully tapping on a Morse code key at the correct rate.

BTW, I don't know why the CIA plotters wanted to implicate Ruth and Michael. Perhaps to blackmail them into setting up Oswald even more.

 

Edited April 29, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[Denny Zartman]

That's an interesting theory, @Sandy Larsen. There's such an incongruity between the conspirators setting it up for Cuba and the USSR to take the blame and those that engineered the cover-up to blame it on a lone nut with no motive.

Have you factored in the Odio and the Parrot Jungle incidents? I'd be curious how they fit into your theory and what what you think they reveal about the mechanics of the plot.

[Sandy Larsen]

13 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

That's an interesting theory, @Sandy Larsen.

 

Thank you, Denny.

 

13 hours ago, Denny Zartman said:

Have you factored in the Odio and the Parrot Jungle incidents?

 

My theory, like all CIA-done-it theories, paints Oswald as pro-Castro, whereas the Odio and Parrot Jungle incidents paint him as anti-Castro. So they don't seem to be compatible at all. It makes me wonder if the CIA had also created an anti-Castro plot (featuring Silvia Odio) that they could switch to if the pro-Castro plot didn't work out. I'd like to know how other researchers  explain the Odio incident.

 

[James DiEugenio]

Sandy where did you get that alleged conversation between Mike and Ruth?

Is it not very different from the one in other books about we know who is responsible?

I have not seen that one before, would like to know the source.

And how can you determine if one is fake and one real.

Edited May 1, 2022 by James DiEugenio

[Sandy Larsen]

On 4/29/2022 at 4:11 PM, James DiEugenio said:

Sandy where did you get that alleged conversation between Mike and Ruth.

 

Greg Doudna recently informed forum members of the alleged telephone conversation. Apparently a telephone operator had accidentally overheard a short conversation when transacting a collect call. I think maybe she was a afraid to report it. So she wrote her account of it and gave it to her lawyer to have it released upon her death.

The account is published on page 6 of this document:

Open... Upon My Death  (see page 6)

 

On 4/29/2022 at 4:11 PM, James DiEugenio said:

And how can you determine if one is fake and one real.

 

I figured it was probably faked (that is, the conversation did occur, but it was between Ruth and Michael impersonators) because that fit easily into my running conspiracy theory. If, on the other hand, it was a conversation between real Ruth and Michael, that would mean they knew Oswald was going to kill the president. And it would mean that I'd have to re-figure most of my conspiracy theory.

 

Edited May 1, 2022 by Sandy Larsen

[James DiEugenio]

For whatever reason I cannot link through to the Hood College document.

Is there any other way to see it?

[Sandy Larsen]

32 minutes ago, James DiEugenio said:

For whatever reason I cannot link through to the Hood College document.

Is there any other way to see it?

 

I fixed the link. Here it is:

Open... Upon My Death  (see page 6)

 

[James DiEugenio]

Thanks Sandy.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

I was going to reply to Denny Zartman's latest post, but it has disappeared.

I just checked and the last post I made (which is in a different thread/topic) is gone too.

Presumably there are other disappeared posts too. Hope they all reappear.

 

[Greg Doudna]

Sandy (and Jim D.), just a heads-up on that "bonus loot" phone call, as the "discoverer". At first I thought that it was (and wrote of it as) an operator's overhearing or mishearing of the Paines' phone call following the assassination. But I pretty quickly realized that was not correct since the Paines' numbers are known and the operator's specific exchange information on that call, which she wrote, shows different numbers. Also, the Paines' call was originated by Michael (collect call to Ruth's Irving phone) whereas the "bonus loot" call was originated by a woman in Irving.

So the facts indicate this call is unrelated to the Paines and that is a red herring (a mistake I introduced actually, before correcting it on the other thread). Sandy has a theory that it was a fake phone call by Michael and Ruth impersonators. Without meaning disrespect to Sandy's attempt to propose an explanation, I see the weak point in that being that it was never publicized. (i.e. a lot of work to fabricate a private phone call that no one was known to have heard.) 

With the Paines out of the picture in that phone call, as I came to see, I returned to the question of what that phone call was. Here I have some partial possibilities of something. It would best be taken up in its own thread (as a working man I just lack time to do everything all at once). But I will give the gist of it here. 

The key may be in the strange story of the Marion Meharg documents and an article discussing those documents by Lee Farley (https://reopenkennedycase.forumotion.net/t585-the-case-of-the-nuisance-phone-calls-redux). After working through that material it looks to me in agreement with the FBI that Marion Meharg was behind a series of nuisance phone calls that followed, but Lee Farley may have been stunningly on the money on a possibly extraordinarily significant phone call to the Dallas police from Marion Meharg overheard by operator Alveeta Treon the day of the assassination (before the nuisance phone calls in the weeks following). 

Here is how extraordinary this is: this only came to light in 1978 when HSCA was asking Alveeta Treon about the "John Hurt" phone call of Oswald on the eve of Nov 23. Alveeta Treon had notes and written records, so this was not an issue of created memory. From an HSCA document in 1978:

"Alveeta Treon, who worked as a telephone operator at Dallas City Hall on Nov. 22, 1963, had told me [HSCA investigator Harold Rose] on a prior occasion that on the night of the assassination, a man called the Dallas Police Department several times and wanted to report that there was a second assassin but she said that the P.D. dismissed it as a prank call. Mrs. Treon told me that she copied the information down and would try to locate it and call me. On this date [5/15/78], she called and stated that the man that called never gave his name, but he gave the name of the man that he said was the second assassin. The man's name was David Miller and that he fired the second shot. He carried the rifle with him when he exited out of the rear of the TSBD. David Miller then left in a car bearing Texas license plates T W 1784. This car was reportedly listed to David Miller's wife Mildred. Mrs. Treon stated that the original notes she took are in her hand writing and we have them if we wanted."

Note the significance of this (as noted by Lee Farley): this is a version of the Roger Craig station wagon story, which was also seen by others, phoned in to the Dallas police by a caller with no knowledge of that story. Although Craig's identification of the man he saw running and getting into that wagon as Oswald is disputable, the event of a man running and getting into that vehicle is a fact (others saw the same thing). Yet in all this time no one has been able to identify that vehicle or who owned it or drove it beyond this and that conjecture.

As Lee Farley pointed out, this may be a witness who recognized that vehicle--as a 1956 green and white Chevrolet station wagon which belonged to his ex-wife and her new husband. 

The point here is that that 1956 green and white Chevrolet station wagon belonged to Mildred Meharg and Marion Meharg was claiming that the running man was the man who his wife ditched him for. Farley suggested this was a real identification preceding whatever followed in the Marion Meharg saga. 

And Mildred Meharg's mother, Bernice Click, as well as Mildred's brother and where Mildred and David Miller hung out before moving to Georgia, lived in Irving. Think of it: a verified (from the Meharg FBI documents) existence of a green-and-white 1956 station wagon, the same color Roger Craig later insisted he had seen, so similar to the color and age and appearance of Ruth Paine's station wagon, in Irving, except that it is not Ruth Paine's station wagon.

In short, that Ruth Paine-like station wagon could be the Shasteen barber's sighting of a mistaken "Oswald" driving what Shasteen thought was Ruth Paine's station wagon. And Roger Craig saw that very station wagon and he too thought it looked like "Oswald". 

And by an accident the ex of the woman who owned title to that station wagon, her husband (the one who looked enough like Oswald to be mistaken for Oswald both in Dallas [Craig] and in Irving [Shasteen]), saw the same thing Roger Craig did, but he recognized who it was, his wife's car and her new husband! And not only that, he phoned it in, or tried to, to the Dallas Police that same day, but his phone call was blown off by the police, either not investigated at all or if it was, quickly covered up so as to look like it had never been investigated, one or the other.

There is the Irving connection to the Roger Craig running-man/TSBD sighting. There is the confusion of the vehicle with the similar-appearing Ruth Paine station wagon. There is what may be someone involved in the assassination possibly identified. And I suggest the overheard "bonus loot" phone call initiated by a woman in Irving, whatever that was about, may be related to these same people in Irving.

That's the gist of what I see possible here.