RFK Ambassador Hotel Video 4mins 28 secs, anyone recognise the face? Or faces?

[Guest]

Hi guys, 

I just watched this video and one person in the comments points out this one guy, centre screen at 4mins 28 secs, who seems to be the only one in the crowd not enjoying himself. His behaviour is a stark contrast to everyone else cheering. Those of you who have done extensive research; does he look like anyone you have seen before? This could just be random, as you look at a crowd of 100 people and someone is always depressed or angry, no matter what is going on. Are the guys behind him also with him? Is that David Morales also looking about? I am looking at images of Eugene Hale 'Jim Braden' Brading too. This video is 244p, very hard to see but, eyes distance apart, hairline and facial features look similar. 
 

Cheers

Chris 

[Guest]

I've just seen this which is much higher res:


https://riversong.wordpress.com/rfk-the-other-kennedy-assassination/

[B. A. Copeland]

I believe that is the same dark skinned man that O’Sullivan (and others) photographically ID’ as Morales but we’re in error it seems? 

Personally he is unidentified. I don’t even know if research has been done to attempt to learn where Morales (or Robertson, etc) was on that terrible day but I’d definitely guess that, as the Cuban pilot implied, in my mind anyway, to Wayne January, that Bobby was hated more than JFK and at the minimum I’d say Morales disliked Bobby as much as he disliked Jack.

Edited January 20, 2021 by B. A. Copeland

[Larry Hancock]

Some things just never go away.... this was researched and debunked years ago...

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_The_BBCs_Flawed_RFK_Story.html

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Larry Hancock said:

Some things just never go away.... this was researched and debunked years ago...

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_The_BBCs_Flawed_RFK_Story.html

 

The BBC report also was apparently wrong about David Morales, a swaggering paramilitary expert known for his counterintelligence network in Cuban Miami and for his hatred of both John and Bobby Kennedy. Family members insisted that the man caught on TV news cameras at the Ambassador was not Morales, pointing out that the man in the news footage looked more like a light-skinned African-American than a Mexican-American. The man said to be Morales appears only in the background of video footage from a TV camera on the other side of the hotel ballroom. The image is both small and blurred making reproduction, comparison and indentification difficult. New photos of Morales, taken in the late 1960s and early 1970s, shows a distinctly different-looking man than the one in the Ambassador footage, with grayer hair and the strong Indian features that gave Morales his nickname, "El Indio."

This is a compelling debunking? If so, then any refutation is acceptable. If we dismiss the alleged statement from Morales that he was there when we got the little b******d, what did you find convincing about he article you attached in regard to Morales. 

[James DiEugenio]

No, the idea that Morales was not there was later proven by David Talbot and Jeff Morley.

O'Sullivan later admitted he was in error in his book.

BTW, when Talbot started that investigation, he was really convinced it was Morales. I know because i talked to him at that time.

[Larry Hancock]

I think this is probably a good example of why I should stop responding to these sorts of posts...of course I did talk with Jeff about their research and did a variety of other work on the subject as well as have lengthy talks with Shane about the information Talbot and Morley turned up.  As Jim says, Talbot himself determined that the identifications were  wrong and had been convinced in the beginning. As far as Shane is concerned he did admit to me in exchanges that he had decided he was wrong as well but he didn't ever really issue a retraction of any sort that I'm aware of so its still in his book.

What I was really trying to do was point out this whole issue had been explored before and that it was ultimately debunked to the satisfaction of all those involved at the time.  I should have just said what Jim did.

Hopefully I'll remember and just restrain myself from commenting when these sorts of things come up again, as they do periodically.

 

 

 

 

[B. A. Copeland]

@James DiEugenio@Larry Hancockgreat response by you both. Any idea if any research has been done on Morales’ whereabouts on that tragic evening?

Edited January 21, 2021 by B. A. Copeland

[Larry Hancock]

He was assigned overseas at the time,  at that time he would have been Chief of Base at Pakse...with his family...he came out of Laos to Vietnam circa 69/70 and out of Vietnam in 1971.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

I think this is probably a good example of why I should stop responding to these sorts of posts...of course I did talk with Jeff about their research and did a variety of other work on the subject as well as have lengthy talks with Shane about the information Talbot and Morley turned up.  As Jim says, Talbot himself determined that the identifications were  wrong and had been convinced in the beginning. As far as Shane is concerned he did admit to me in exchanges that he had decided he was wrong as well but he didn't ever really issue a retraction of any sort that I'm aware of so its still in his book.

What I was really trying to do was point out this whole issue had been explored before and that it was ultimately debunked to the satisfaction of all those involved at the time.  I should have just said what Jim did.

Hopefully I'll remember and just restrain myself from commenting when these sorts of things come up again, as they do periodically.

 

 

 

 

You don't need to stop responding, was the admission by Morales made up, fiction to sell a book? I can't remember which book I read it in now. hat part of the video looks ominous. I am sure I have seen another clip where he same dark skinned gent is behind a reporter or something, earwigging after the assassination. 

Edited January 21, 2021 by Chris Barnard

[Larry Hancock]

As far as I know Morales was deceased by the time this came up,  I don't recall his family stating anything about his admitting anything about RFK and I was close to a researcher who was close to them and have some of that correspondence relating to his wife - which has nothing of the sort. Certainly his family was aware he had done things he did not talk about - his wife had been with him on Latin American assignments and in SE Asia.  Up to the point of this RFK claim she had been open to some dialog.  Personally I had much more communication with his friend Reuben and that was all about JFK.

As Jim said those involved in the RFK research were quite interested but that faded once they really dug into it, and checked out some of David's sources against others.  As I said, Talbot ultimately was convinced it was not a valid claim but its hard to go back and correct books or even have a forum for retraction so that didn't really get circulated.

As far as responding to posts on new leads, its a fine line for me as I have been at this so long and down so many false trails that initially looked promising or even sensational but just chewed up time - sometimes years worth - that I've become more than a little jaded and also very cautious about photo identifications.  Not to mention that at my age I've become opinionated and grumpy - well at least according to my wife - so I need to watch myself.

What I've found which I feel is valid and corroborated as far as JFK is in Tipping Point - on RFK its in my book length monograph published on the MFF site as "Incomplete Justice".  The RFK material should be joined soon by John Hunt's book on the RFK assassination, which should be published posthumously this year.  Its now though a huge edit thanks to an immense amount of work Gary Murr and the manuscript is now with Lancer for final formatting for publication.  As is Ian Griggs massive work on the DPD.

 

 

 

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

As far as I know Morales was deceased by the time this came up,  I don't recall his family stating anything about his admitting anything about RFK and I was close to a researcher who was close to them and have some of that correspondence relating to his wife - which has nothing of the sort. Certainly his family was aware he had done things he did not talk about - his wife had been with him on Latin American assignments and in SE Asia.  Up to the point of this RFK claim she had been open to some dialog.  Personally I had much more communication with his friend Reuben and that was all about JFK.

As Jim said those involved in the RFK research were quite interested but that faded once they really dug into it, and checked out some of David's sources against others.  As I said, Talbot ultimately was convinced it was not a valid claim but its hard to go back and correct books or even have a forum for retraction so that didn't really get circulated.

As far as responding to posts on new leads, its a fine line for me as I have been at this so long and down so many false trails that initially looked promising or even sensational but just chewed up time - sometimes years worth - that I've become more than a little jaded and also very cautious about photo identifications.  Not to mention that at my age I've become opinionated and grumpy - well at least according to my wife - so I need to watch myself.

What I've found which I feel is valid and corroborated as far as JFK is in Tipping Point - on RFK its in my book length monograph published on the MFF site as "Incomplete Justice".  The RFK material should be joined soon by John Hunt's book on the RFK assassination, which should be published posthumously this year.  Its now though a huge edit thanks to an immense amount of work Gary Murr and the manuscript is now with Lancer for final formatting for publication.  As is Ian Griggs massive work on the DPD.

 

 

 

Hi Larry, thank you for the in depth reply. I am certain the research work is exhausting and it takes you down a lot of blond alleys. I'll try to think which book it's in or where I read it. It was along the lines Morales becoming more loose tongued as he got older and disenfranchised. The quote allegedly from Morales lips was asserting that he had been in LA at the time of the RFK assassination. The person relaying this also alleged the death of Morales may not have been an accident. From memory the person went into detail about Morales trips using a black card or something which enabled him to hop on flights, to go here and there. I am not well versed like you and Jim in all this, in my case its having read 10-15 books with fresh eyes. What has occurred to me is, if you have a government organisation that is killing people, silencing them, that could even possibly have been involved in the killing of a president, then virtually anyone who is smart and has survival instincts keeps their trap shut. That includes wives, sons, daughters etc etc. So, what I was curious about is whether there was concrete evidence that he was elsewhere at the time (Morales). I wouldn't necessarily take a spouse as credible or family member. The reason being is, we have seen the same thing play out with the mob, nobody talks or hardly anybody, because there can be repercussions. These repercussions seem evident in the JFK case in particular, whether you look at Belzer's book or, latterly people due to speak at the HSCA hearings. We can assume the family of Morales had a rough idea or perhaps a crystal clear idea of what he did for a living. The only exceptions to this in terms of behaviour of he relatives is usually when they have no next of kin and nothing to lose by going public or you have an idealist like Mary Pinchot Meyer. 

Is there a way with computer we can up res video stills of the chap that we're saying is not Morales and compare them to actual images of morales, taking features into account and being scientific about it. I am sure I have seen another clip where this dark skinned gent is listening in behind people after the assassination of RFK, though he seems like he is trying to stay out of he line of cameras. 

Chris

[Paul Brancato]

Identifying him, whether it’s Morales or someone else, seems like a good idea.

[Larry Hancock]

I'm familiar with some of that material on Morales...like the special credit cards...I heard that from his friend Reuben.  Just don't know about that remark on being in LA.....although I have to say he did have family in the area and did occasionally visit them, I do know that.   On his death, certainly Reuben thought it was suspicious - and also knew that Morales was concerned about his and his familie's security - over threats from people he had worked with during his career.

As to the photo imaging, it might be interesting for you to contact Morley and see if they did any image enhancement in their work....although I seem to recall they actually located the men who had been identified as CIA including Morales and verified that they were indeed at the Ambassador at the time.  You should be able to get in touch with Jeff...don't know if he is a member here or not.

I did write about Morales's career in Shadow Warfare, taking it beyond 1963 and I can tell you that his position in Laos, where he did move his family, was a very demanding one.....by 1968 he and the base were under seriously increasing military pressure.  

[Larry Hancock]

If you dig into Morley and Talbots work they did identify both real world individuals and confirmed their presence at the Ambassador.  I'm not going to recall any more from memory but I think that was part of what convinced them.