New medical winess? RFK aide John Nolan interviewed by Lamar Waldron

[Richard Price]

39 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

I'd love to see some proof and if it could be corroborated it would indeed explain a lot of things

Thank you for your well considered responses.  That is exactly what I was alluding to in my earlier posts.  I had/have hopes that you or some of the other excellent researchers doing the slog through all the background documents and players might have some nugget of information or document that might tie into the contingency planning and produce results.  I do not have the necessary tools, experience or resources at this late date to help much.  I, like you would love the see the proof.  When you mentioned the "contingency plan", it was like a flash bulb in my mind and tied so many things together.  I will continue reading, watching and delving as deeply as I can for clues to tie it all together and I hope others with more resources and skills will also.  This, if any documentation exists, (and I think it must*), may just finally provide the fingerprints of the assassination's lead planners. 

*  I think it must exist if the plan existed because it was not brought into existence for the assassination, but for averting war.  I don't have a clue how the government files or keeps documentation of what would have to be "TOP SECRET" operation.  In order for it (the contingency plan) to be executed when the situation called for it, someone or group at a top national security level would have to have access to it and knowledge of it.  Anyone below the applied security level would just be informed that what they were doing was a matter of national security.

[Micah Mileto]

Is there any chance that Lamar Waldron is lying?

[Larry Hancock]

As I noted above, the effort to create a contingency plan is documented and even covered in the media.  As to RFK at Bethesda, I highly doubt Lamar would lie about it but he may well have built a scenario that outruns the facts that have emerged over following years - as in the case of his scenario involving AMWORLD and the idea of an imminent invasion of Cuba, both of which were proven wrong by further research. 

[Micah Mileto]

3 hours ago, Larry Hancock said:

As I noted above, the effort to create a contingency plan is documented and even covered in the media.  As to RFK at Bethesda, I highly doubt Lamar would lie about it but he may well have built a scenario that outruns the facts that have emerged over following years - as in the case of his scenario involving AMWORLD and the idea of an imminent invasion of Cuba, both of which were proven wrong by further research. 

I mean about what John Nolan allegedly said about the autopsy. I have a hard time believing that this is anything other than Waldron's "tr0ll reveal" that will forever put his credibility in jeopardy. He should've worn a wire.

Edited January 9, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Larry Hancock]

Well yeah, on that I have to fall back on the practice that if you get something that explosive you either need get an affidavit from the source or better yet get them to sign something you can put in an appendix or otherwise make available.  Better yet it should have been in a taped interview, voice or video with a transcript.  That is what Noel Twyman did and I did it with John Martino's son. And of course such key remarks  should be exactly quoted in the book - unfortunately I no longer have a copy of Lamars book so I can't check out some of the things in this thread myself. 

[Micah Mileto]

7 minutes ago, Larry Hancock said:

Well yeah, on that I have to fall back on the practice that if you get something that explosive you either need get an affidavit from the source or better yet get them to sign something you can put in an appendix or otherwise make available.  Better yet it should have been in a taped interview, voice or video with a transcript.  That is what Noel Twyman did and I did it with John Martino's son. And of course such key remarks  should be exactly quoted in the book - unfortunately I no longer have a copy of Lamars book so I can't check out some of the things in this thread myself. 

His books might be on libgen.is

[Larry Hancock]

Or I could just buy one on EBay...but if I get the time I want to do some searching in my own materials.  I would say that if anyone wanted to break some new ground in this taking a detailed look at state Department documents on Cuba for 1963 would be a suggestion, another would be to review the meetings of the InterAgency Coordination Commitee for Cuba - the group RFK was meeting with - or to take a looke at the ARRB's final report to see if they turned up anything on contingency plans dealing with attacks on Americans.

[Micah Mileto]

Okay, so is Lamar Waldron just a crazy old man who likes to lie? Actually asking. Pretty groundbreaking information to come across in the early 90's, only to save it for a random podcast in 2021.

[Kirk Gallaway]

Micah: Okay, so is Lamar Waldron just a crazy old man who likes to lie? Actually asking. Pretty groundbreaking information to come across in the early 90's, only to save it for a random podcast in 2021.

As a professional courtesy, I don't think you're going to get Larry to say, "Yes Waldron's a li-r." As he says, I think there's always a danger of researchers trying to make a leap to connect the dots.

i certainly have problems seeing Bobby, a laymen,  5 hours after his Brother's death, directing the autopsy with Burkeley and no other people around. How would he know what to do?, Outside of perhaps butchering the body beyond any definitive analysis.I suppose.

 

I haven't read any of the Waldron books. But I think Waldron has always contended that the Kennedy's didn't discontinue Operation Mongoose, I believe.  He said he first believed the Castro coup plan was not actual. I did a little research. As for the time lag. Waldron contends he had to put off the publishing of his book because while corroborating Nolan's sources with a General Oliva , when he mentioned Almeida offer for a Castro coup,  was told sternly he must never mention Almeida's name again because he's still alive and there's an ongoing relationship and uttering his name could cause Hartmann and Waldron to be tried for treason. So Waldron waited 12-15 years to mention Almeida and the coup attempt.

For whatever it's worth.

 

[Eddy Bainbridge]

I can see a 'middle way' with reference to RFK's involvement in the autopsy. If all concerned are aware of 'the contingency plan' for the assassination of officials, and RFK is part of that plan, then you can see the autopsy controllers deferring to RFK, in order to confirm the presidential family will go along with the actual procedures. In this scenario RFK is not running the autopsy, but he is influencing it, and associating himself with the cover-up.

How is Burkley's conduct explained? Why did he appear to want to blow the conspiracy, but then back down?

[Larry Hancock]

All I can offer is my very detailed exploration of events not only at Bethesda but over the first 72 hours that is in SWHT 2010 - I would challenge anyone to read that and then characterize what happened as part of a tightly controlled plan.  The fact that three autopsy reports had to be prepared, all of which were in conflict with the first recorded remarks by FBI agents observing the autopsy pretty strongly speaks to the lack of a prepared plan.

As to Burkley, actually he does provide some sign that a containment effort was at least attempted, simply by his trying to prevent a full autopsy, telling the officers in command at Bethesda that the assassin was in custody and they only needed to retrieve the bullets as evidence.  His effort was rejected and an autopsy ordered, and RFK signed off on a full autopsy protocol.  If anything Burkleys involvement and his apparent retention of some autopsy materials offers one of the few immediate indications that we have - the actions of SecDef McNamara to constrain any military response represent another.  However RFK shows no obvious effort to insert himself into a containment program that afternoon before his arrival at Bethesda. 

Actually Burkley, as with many others, asked to put forth his information to the HSCA and when he received on immediate response and he watched the whole thing morph from what had started to be an aggressive criminal investigation I suspect he decided nobody really wanted to hear what he had to say - he certainly was not the first witness to do so.

The only other thing I would say is its important to separate the first 72 hours which was pure chaos and some containment from the following weeks when the story of a lone nut was put into place and all evidence to the contrary either removed or simply managed so as not to become an issue for the media to generate conspiracy headlines.

[Micah Mileto]

11 hours ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

I can see a 'middle way' with reference to RFK's involvement in the autopsy. If all concerned are aware of 'the contingency plan' for the assassination of officials, and RFK is part of that plan, then you can see the autopsy controllers deferring to RFK, in order to confirm the presidential family will go along with the actual procedures. In this scenario RFK is not running the autopsy, but he is influencing it, and associating himself with the cover-up.

How is Burkley's conduct explained? Why did he appear to want to blow the conspiracy, but then back down?

Paul O'Connor said he remembered Burkley telling the pathologists to not probe or dissect the throat wound because it was "just a tracheotomy".

Edited January 9, 2022 by Micah Mileto

[Eddy Bainbridge]

4 hours ago, Micah Mileto said:

Paul O'Connor said he remembered Burkley telling the pathologists to not probe or dissect the throat wound because it was just a tracheotomy.

Micah, does your research tell you anything about Burkley's actions prior to the formal autopsy. Did he have opportunity to look for bullets? ( Larry is saying above that Burkley wanted the autopsists to focus on this). 

Larry, I think your interpretation of Burkley's motives is very plausible. I was completely unaware that the direction of the HSCA would be an influencing factor.

[Micah Mileto]

52 minutes ago, Eddy Bainbridge said:

Micah, does your research tell you anything about Burkley's actions prior to the formal autopsy. Did he have opportunity to look for bullets? ( Larry is saying above that Burkley wanted the autopsists to focus on this).

You mean before the body was first placed on the autopsy table? Unless somebody wanted to argue that the body was taken out of a casket, put on the autopsy table, put back into a casket, then taken out again and put on the same autopsy table again. for a second time after that? It depends on who you believe really witnessed the beginning of the autopsy. Some witnesses were reportedly asked to leave the room for the taking of the x-rays. Some statements suggest that Sibert and O'Neill didn't exactly have the "front row tickets" they claimed they did. But then again, Sibert and O'Neill were the ones who originated a lot of the strangest artifacts of evidence regarding the beginning of the autopsy (the body wrappings, surgery of the head statement, no honor guard, etc.).

 

Some statements suggest that a surgical probe was used on the throat wound during the autopsy, which was something not reported by the pathologists - they only reported using a probe in the back wound. More statements suggest that the organs of the neck were dissected and/or removed, again not reported and in some cases denied. Several statements suggesting the trach incision was differently shaped at the autopsy (or on the autopsy photos) than it left Parkland.

[Guest]

Thank you very much for sharing this.