the logic of Zapruder film alteration

[Sandy Larsen]

55 minutes ago, Sandy Larsen said:

Three important things I get from this interview are these:

 

Another important thing I got from Doug Horne's interview of Dino Brugioni is that NPIC didn't have an 8 mm projector available that he needed to do his job. He was lucky to get one from a store in the middle of the night.

To me, this is evidence that the coverup artists were NOT connected to the plotters. Some researchers believe that the coverup was designed as a part of the assassination plot. I don't believe that. I believe that the coverup artists -- consisting of the Johnson administration, FBI, and Warren Commission -- performed an ad hoc seat-of-the-pants coverup.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

21 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Quote

Sandy said: The answer is this: At first, when the coverup artists did the quick alterations, they hoped that that would be sufficient in convincing the public that the blowout wound was in the front and not the back of the head.

21 hours ago, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

That doesn't answer the question, which was about the masterminds' reasoning which supposedly led them to choose alteration over destruction.

 

I've answered your question repeatedly. Roger has answered your question repeatably. I refuse to answer it again.

 

[Paul Rigby]

It is a universally acknowledged truth that nothing betokens a commitment to the truth than strictly compartmentalized intelligence inspections of an assassination film. It becomes even truer when we realize that the NPIC’s two inspections of the Zapruder fake, even when combined, were fleeting and desultory by comparison with the amount of time and effort dedicated to the infinitely more important matter of…analysing a January 1966 article in Science & Mechanics magazine devoted to a Soviet propaganda film called Walk in Space. Yes, you read that right. “Fifty-eight Polaroid prints,” no less, “and four transparencies were generated during the study” (1). Now compare and contrast the level of detail contained within that report with that which emanated from both NPIC encounters with the Zapruder fake.

This fact is even more extraordinary than it may at first appear, as the author of the magazine piece, Lloyd Mallan (2), had previous with the CIA: His early 1959 piece for True magazine – in expanded form, to issue later the same year as a Fawcett book, [Russia and] The Big Red Lie (exposing, inter alia, the Soviet monster plot to pretend it had a space programme) - was subjected to a withering dissection by, yes, the Agency’s own analysts later that same year (3). The NPIC was thus set, in early 1966, to detailed scrutiny of the claims of a figure who was, at most generous, a nut, as his subsequent two books in the same year were to confirm: Russia’s Space Hoax (“Documented Proof That The Soviet Space Program Has Been Faked”); and the no less remarkable It Is Safe To Smoke (a Hawthorn book, no less).

The CIA authors of the Analysis of Russian Walk In Space Film – it was nominally attributed to the Chief of the Agency’s Technical Intelligence Division - were unabashed by the inspiration, cheerfully confessing that “this entire analysis seems to have been inspired by Mr Lloyd Mallan…with each point made by Mr Mallan…considered.” If only someone had bunged Mallan to write an article or book on the Dallas coup.

(1) ANALYSIS OF RUSSIAN WALK IN SPACE FILM

CIA-RDP80T01137A000500030001-2

(2) Noel Valis, Who Was Lloyd Mallan? (The Volunteer, 12 March 2023)

https://albavolunteer.org/2023/03/who-was-lloyd-mallan/

(3) The Big Red Lie (True, 2 January 1959):

CIA-RDP63T00245R000100290001-8.pdf

COMMENTS ON ARTICLE BY LLOYD MALLAN, ' THE BIG RED LIE ', PART II, TRUE MAGAZINE, JUNE 1959

cia-rdp67b00446r000100350003-0

Memo To Honorable Bob WIlson From John S. Warner, 19 January 1960:

CIA-RDP63T00245R000100290007-2.pdf

 

[Chris Bristow]

10 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Three important things I get from this interview are these:

1. There were no images between the sprocket holes.
   
   The extant Z film DOES have inter-sprocket images, which suggests that further, more involved alterations were done at a later date.
   
   While this would explain the miscellaneous anomalies we see in the extant film (for example, people on the grass exhibiting motion blur whereas their shadows don't -- an apparent impossibility), it begs the question then why the back-and-to-the-left movement wasn't removed.
    
2. There was a highly noticeable piece of the head flying up.
   
   No such piece can be seen on the extant film.
    
3. The time between frames on that camera would have increased as the spring wound mechanism slowed down over time.
   
   This means that there can be no meaningful timing comparisons between the three extant films, as anti-alterations say should be done.

 

I think the lack of motion blur on the Elm St shadows may have a logical explanation. I can't seem to remove attachments at the moment to free up space for an image but if you put Z frames 342 and 345 side by side they will illustrate my point.
 Z 342 has a lot of motion blur and 345 is sharp.  The motion blur in 342 is lateral and basically follows the direction of the limo as most of the blurred fames do. The blur on Bothun and Altgens show no vertical blur, evidenced by the sharp line across the tops of their heads. So the shadows should show little to no blur on the top and bottom(Along the length of the shadow). Any blur would be lateral and show mostly next to the top of the head and next to the feet. 
 The other visible evidence of motion blurring on Altgens and Bothun is in their shirt. coat, ties etc. But the shadow has no detail to show anything within, it is just black on black. So any lateral motion blurring is not discernible inside the shadows. 
 On the other hand, the shadow angle is about 15 degrees off of the motion blur direction so maybe it should show some blurring. But the length of the blur is very short and I would still not expect to see much blur, since it is mostly moving with the length of the shadow. That is just a guesstimate.
  I think it is important to take into account the fact that dark shadowed images are not actually images on the film in the camera. If the shadow has no detail within it then the shadow is simply a lack of light hitting the film. The light reflecting off the grass burns a real physical latent image onto the film, but the shadow leaves no image, it is just a lack of light. The location on the film that represents the shadow is just and unexposed area with no latent image.
 This makes a big difference with motion blur. Instead of  2 objects being overlapped like shadow over grass, there is just the image of grass and the shadow, or lack of light, adds no image to the grass.
The grass there might still appear darker than the grass next to it because of the lack of further exposure during the time the shadow, or lack of light, overlaps with the grass. That may resemble the overlap of two objects but is a little different. Depending on how long the shadow is overlapped and how bright the grass is, the shadow can completely disappear. 
 From another perspective consider a shadow that is motion blurred over a grass image. The lack of light lands on a location that is already been exposed by the light coming off the grass. The already existing image of the grass remains and the shadow is not seen.
 A comparison of the lamppost in Z frames 411 and 413 shows the canceling out effect. The right side of the lamppost in the 411 image is missing and that is why the lamppost is much skinnier than in 413. The right side has been overlapped with the image of the street behind it and that part of the lamppost is cancelled out because the street is so bright. On the grass most of the lamppost has been cancelled. But because the grass image is not as bright as the street there is sill some darkening of the grass where the the overlap was.
  I can't be sure how much the cancelling out effect plays a part in the image we see. It has a lot to do with how long the overlap lasted during the open shutter time and how bright the background is. But the lateral direction of the motion blur and the inability to discern any blurring within the shadows may explain why the horizontals shadows are sharper than the vertical people.

Edited February 16 by Chris Bristow

[Sandy Larsen]

16 minutes ago, Chris Bristow said:

I think the lack of motion blur on the Elm St shadows may have a logical explanation. I can't seem to remove attachments at the moment to free up space for an image but if you put Z frames 342 and 345 side by side they will illustrate my point.
 Z 342 has a lot of motion blur and 345 is sharp.  The motion blur in 342 is lateral and basically follows the direction of the limo as most of the blurred fames do. The blur on Bothun and Altgens show no vertical blur, evidenced by the sharp line across the tops of their heads. So the shadows should show little to no blur on the top and bottom(Along the length of the shadow). Any blur would be lateral and show mostly next to the top of the head and next to the feet. 
 The other visible evidence of motion blurring on Altgens and Bothun is in their bodies. But the shadow has no detail to show anything within it blurring, it is just black on black. So the lateral blurring is not discernible inside the shadows. 
 On the other hand, the shadow angle is about 15 degrees off of the motion blur angle so maybe it should show some blurring. But the length of the blurring is very short and I would still not expect to see much blur since it is mostly moving with the length of the shadow. That is just a guesstimate.
  I think it is important to take into account the fact that dark shadowed images are not actually images on the film in the camera. If the shadow has no detail within it then the shadow is simply a lack of light hitting the film. The light reflecting off the grass burns a real physical latent image onto the film but the shadow leaves no image. it is just a lack of light. The location on the film that represents the shadow is just and unexposed area with no latent image.
 This makes a big difference with motion blur. Instead of a 2 objects being overlapped like shadow over grass, there is just the image of grass and the shadow, or lack of light, adds no image to the grass.
The grass there might still appear darker than the grass next to it because of the lack of further exposure during the time the shadow, or lack of light, overlaps the grass. That may resemble the overlap of two objects but is a little different. Depending on how long the shadow is overlapped and how bright the grass is, the shadow can completely disappear. 
 From another perspective consider a shadow that is motion blurred over a grass image. The lack of light lands on a location that is already been exposed by the light coming off the grass. The already existing image of the grass remains and the shadow is not seen.
 A comparison of the lamppost in Z frames 411 and 413 shows the canceling out effect. The right side of the lamppost in the 411 image is missing and that is why it is much skinnier tan 413. The right side has been overlapped with the image of the street behind it and that part of the lamppost is cancelled out because the street is so bright. On the grass most of the lamppost has been cancelled. But because the grass image is not as bright as the street there is sill some darkening of the grass where the the overlap was.
  I can't be sure how much the cancelling out effect plays a part in the image we see. It has a lot to do with how long the overlap lasted during the open shutter time and how bright the background is. But the lateral direction of the motion blur and the inability to discern any blurring within the shadows may explain why the horizontals shadows are sharper than the vertical people.

 

Chris,

When I look at the shadows of people on the grass, and see that the "direction" of their shadows is close to the direction the limousine is traveling, I know that it will be difficult to make out the motion blur in the shadows. (That is to say, the motion blur due to the camera following the limo.)

I try to stay away from evidence that is subtle. So I have no interest in the motion blur of those shadows.

Now here's the thing that's bugging me. The reason I even mentioned motion blur of shadows in my post is because somebody (Keven?) posted a video a few days ago that showed a number of anomalies in the Z film. And the one that stood out -- because it was so simple and easy to understand -- was a shadow with no motion blur, even though the man causing the shadow did have motion blur. I recall that shadow being roughly VERTICAL... which is precisely the reason it got my attention. Problem is... their ain't no such thing! There are no vertical shadows, and it's driving me nuts! Because I swear I saw one. Argh.

I wish I could watch that video again.

 

[Sandy Larsen]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Three important things I get from this interview are these:

1. There were no images between the sprocket holes.
   
   The extant Z film DOES have inter-sprocket images, which suggests that further, more involved alterations were done at a later date.
   
   While this would explain the miscellaneous anomalies we see in the extant film (for example, people on the grass exhibiting motion blur whereas their shadows don't -- an apparent impossibility), it begs the question then why the back-and-to-the-left movement wasn't removed.

 

Of the three important things I got from Brugioni interview, I realize now (after reading some of Horne's stuff) that the conclusion I made from #1 (quoted above) is wrong. It doesn't suggest that "further, more involved alterations were done at a later date."

 

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Of the three important things I got from Brugioni interview, I realize now (after reading some of Horne's stuff) that the conclusion I made from #1 (quoted above) is wrong. It doesn't suggest that "further, more involved alterations were done at a later date."

 

Homer McMahon said that more work on the second set of boards was done after he left NPIC late Sunday evening.  Some frames he had enlarged were missing from the final boards, now at NARA.  Some frames he did not do were added. 

We don't know who did the extra work or when it was done.  We know Life/CIA had the film.  We also know from the results of the altering that the tools available were inadequate to completely change or obscure all of the incriminating details.  

[Roger Odisio]

11 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Another important thing I got from Doug Horne's interview of Dino Brugioni is that NPIC didn't have an 8 mm projector available that he needed to do his job. He was lucky to get one from a store in the middle of the night.

To me, this is evidence that the coverup artists were NOT connected to the plotters. Some researchers believe that the coverup was designed as a part of the assassination plot. I don't believe that. I believe that the coverup artists -- consisting of the Johnson administration, FBI, and Warren Commission -- performed an ad hoc seat-of-the-pants coverup.

 

So you think the murder was planned and carried out without a companion plan to blame someone else, cover their tracks, and get away with it. 

How did the White House Situation Room, run by McGeorge Bundy, send a message to the two planes coming back to DC that afternoon that Oswald had been caught and acted alone.  If Oswald as the patsy had not been the plan before the murder.

Why did the same Mr. Bundy prepare a draft of the changes in JFK's Vietnam policy, which became NSM 273, the day *before* the murder, which final version was signed by Johnson the day after JFK was buried.

Of course there were changes in the plans on the fly, as everything didn't go as expected.  But murdering the POTUS was no ordinary street crime.  There is no way in hell it happens without a plan in place to allow the murderers to get away with it.

[Keven Hofeling]

Uncovering the Probable Techniques Used to Alter the Zapruder Film in November 1963

Drawing inspiration from the groundbreaking research of esteemed Australian physicist John Costella, this video delves into a meticulous examination of the intricate processes possibly employed in the creation of the Zapruder film. By exploring the technological capabilities accessible to forgers during the pivotal year of 1963, we aim to provide a detailed and enlightening analysis of the potential methodologies utilized in crafting this historic piece of footage. Join us on a journey through history and technology as we uncover the secrets behind one of the most iconic films of our time.

 

Edited February 16 by Keven Hofeling

[Sandy Larsen]

2 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

So you think the murder was planned and carried out without a companion plan to blame someone else, cover their tracks, and get away with it. 

 

I think the desired goal was to have it look like Oswald was in cahoots with Russia and Cuba, and was paid a $6500 down payment for his team to kill Kennedy. This would create a pretext for invasion of Cuba, and/or first nuclear strike on Russia if the generals got so lucky to get their way.

When Oswald wasn't killed, McGeorge Bundy scrapped that plan and decided that only Oswald was involved. This resulted in the ad hoc seat-of-the-pants coverup that produced the Warren Report.

 

2 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

How did the White House Situation Room, run by McGeorge Bundy, send a message to the two planes coming back to DC that afternoon that Oswald had been caught and acted alone.  If Oswald as the patsy had not been the plan before the murder.

 

Yes, Oswald was the patsy from the start... not as a shooter, but as an assassination team leader. But he was supposed to be eliminated right after Kennedy was killed. Bundy changed the plan when he wasn't killed.

That's consistent with my theory above.

 

2 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Why did the same Mr. Bundy prepare a draft of the changes in JFK's Vietnam policy, which became NSM 273, the day *before* the murder, which final version was signed by Johnson the day after JFK was buried.

 

Just in case LBJ didn't order a Cuban invasion or a first strike on Russia. At least they would get their war in Vietnam.

Again, this is consistent with my above theory. In addition, my theory explains the Mexico City shenanigans.

 

2 minutes ago, Roger Odisio said:

Of course there were changes in the plans on the fly, as everything didn't go as expected.  But murdering the POTUS was no ordinary street crime.  There is no way in hell it happens without a plan in place to allow the murderers to get away with it.

 

Well if their primary goal was to blame only Oswald, the plotters didn't do a very thorough job. They even had to come up with a weapon for him... An afterthought. A second floor encounter with Officer Baker... an afterthought. A fake alibi... an afterthought.

 

[Paul Rigby]

On 2/14/2024 at 9:54 AM, Jeremy Bojczuk said:

Paul and Denise suggested that it was because the shooting had already started at the time of the car's turn onto Elm Street.

Er, no, I didn’t. Quite the reverse. The sequence of incremental newspaper fictions, designed to persuade readers that Kennedy was shot by Oswald from behind, could only work if the filmic turn from Houston onto Elm, present in the first version of the Z fake and showing no such shooting, was suppressed. That couldn’t be clearer. Nor is the presence of an organizing intelligence behind the reports of Herbers (NYT), Snider (Chicago Daily News Service), and Mandel (Life). So who was feeding the aforementioned reporters these lies about bullet strikes on Houston and/or the beginning of Elm?

To find a precedent for this kind of work, we need look no further than the reportage on the Bay of Pigs, as “headlines throughout the US recounted mass uprisings by the Cuban people against Castro, Soviet MIGs blasting the invaders, rebel capture of the Isle of Pines, the surrender of Castro’s brother. An eight-column banner in the Miami News screamed: CUBAN NAVY IN REVOLT.” One problem: All of these claims were invented, as Victor Bernstein and Jesse Gordon noted in their fascinating analysis, The Press and the Bay of Pigs (Columbia University Forum, Fall 1967, 5-13). So who was responsible for feeding this earlier string of progressively more preposterous fabrications to the US press? Again Bernstein and Gordon provide the answer:

“About the press coverage of the invasion itself, the less said the better. The chief source of information was a Mr. Lem Jones who, according to Arthur M Schlesinger Jr., in his A Thousand Days, “was putting out in the name of the [Cuban Revolutionary] Council press releases dictated over the phone by the CIA.” The CIA, Mr. Schlesinger intimates wryly, had not even bothered to inform the Council that Mr. Jones had been hired to do the invasion publicity. Who was Mr. Jones? In Haynes Johnson’s The Bay of Pigs, he is described this way: “The president of Lem Jones Associates, Inc., a Madison Avenue public relations firm …had done public relations work for such clients as a lay committee of the Armenian Apostolic Church and corporation stockholders waging proxy fights; but his present client, he told a reporter, was ‘a very serious thing, too.’

Mr. Jones was still in the proxy business, it appeared; this time he was proxying for the Cuban Revolutionary Council and the CIA. Largely on the basis of his news releases, headlines throughout the US recounted mass uprisings by the Cuban people against Castro…”

The CIA  had always, were possible, avoided blood on its collective pinny, so we may reasonably hypothesize that they used a cut-out or proxy, just as they had earlier with the Bay of Pigs, when it came to orchestrating their holding operation on the left turn from Houston onto Elm.  Did Lem Jones do double-duty? Or was it a different PR man, perhaps for Life (and Langley)? Identifying that figure would be very useful.

https://archive.org/details/pressbayofpigs00vict

[Sandy Larsen]

2 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

I recall that shadow being roughly VERTICAL... which is precisely the reason it got my attention. Problem is... their ain't no such thing! There are no vertical shadows, and it's driving me nuts!

 

Thanks for playing that video again, Keven.

I now see that the "more vertical" shadow I thought I saw is really an optical illusion. The shadow in question is much closer to the limo, actually "touching it," than the other shadows. And this made the shadow look less like it was oriented in the same direction as the motion of the limo.

So, my bad.

But there are other things in the video that seem wrong. Like the lamp post that appears to be stuck to the background rather than moving when the camera pans past it. I'd have to actually go outside and try that with similarly spaced objects to see if the lamppost really should move.

 

[Keven Hofeling]

13 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Another important thing I got from Doug Horne's interview of Dino Brugioni is that NPIC didn't have an 8 mm projector available that he needed to do his job. He was lucky to get one from a store in the middle of the night.

To me, this is evidence that the coverup artists were NOT connected to the plotters. Some researchers believe that the coverup was designed as a part of the assassination plot. I don't believe that. I believe that the coverup artists -- consisting of the Johnson administration, FBI, and Warren Commission -- performed an ad hoc seat-of-the-pants coverup.

 

That's an interesting observation Sandy (that the absence of an 8mm projector at NPIC, thus requiring Dino Brugioni to procure one by waking a local merchant late at night in order to project the Zapruder film, suggests that NPIC was not involved in the advance planning of the assassination).

I would say that it is more of an indication that the making of the Zapruder film was not a pre-planned event, but rather occurred by happenstance, which the conspirators later decided to exploit as an element of the cover-up.

There are other indications, however, that suggest that the photoreconnaissance resources of the intelligence agencies DID in fact play a role in the advance planning of the assassination.

If you accept that the genesis of the operational plans for the JFK assassination may be found in earlier operational plans to assassinate Fidel Castro -- and there are many indications that it is (some of which I will provide at the end of this post) -- then there are some documented indications that the photoreconnaissance resources of the intelligence agencies did participate in pre-assassination activities.

Interestingly enough, it is through Dino Brugioni, in a 1975 CIA Memorandum for the Record, that we first learn that  "PATHFINDER" was the code name given to the CIA contingency plan to kill Fidel Castro. The memo documents that Dino Brugioni informed the CIA top brass that three NPIC technicians who were assigned to the Miami, anti-Castro Cuban JMWAVE station recalled working on the PATHFINDER program that was an assassination plan to kill Castro, and that, in my view, provides us with an indication that CIA photoreconnaissance resources were utilized in pre-assassination planning, though not necessarily that of NPIC itself.

For more about the CIA memo mentioning Brugioni and the Pathfinder operation, see

'PATHFINDER - PARTS 1 - 5 THE PLAN TO KILL CASTRO REDIRECTED TO JFK AT DALLAS'

William Kelly | JFKcountercoup | Saturday, December 22, 2018 | https://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2018/12/pathfinder-parts-1-5-plan-to-kill.html

And with regard to indications that the JFK assassination was originally a CIA contingency plan to kill Fidel Castro that was redirected to kill JFK at Dealey Plaza, see the following:

SANTO TRAFFICANTE REVEALED MUCH IN CONFIDENCE TO HIS LAWYERS...

Listen to this video about Santo Trafficante confidentially providing the details about the origin of the S-Force to his legal counsel under the protection of attorney/client privilege. Trafficante did not do so to seek publicity or sell books. He only did so in the utmost confidentiality, expecting that it would never be divulged to anybody. Thus, the testimony is highly reliable. I've queued the video to the relevant segment for you.
----------------------------------------------------------
RE: THE S-FORCE

In 1960, once VP Richard Nixon came to believe he was going to win the presidential election and decided to send a hit squad after Castro, he called upon Howard Hughes on whose behalf Robert Mayheu contacted Johnny Roselli who contacted Santo Trafficante (because Trafficante was the Don over Cuba). Trafficante insisted upon proof that VP Nixon was authorizing it, so Nixon sent the CIA Chief of Security to a meeting with Trafficante and Roselli to confirm. They then assembled a 15-man team made up of anti-Castro Cuban mercenaries, Italian organized crime assassins (who had worked for Trafficante in Cuba), CIA operatives (such as Howard Hunt, Bernard Barker, Frank Sturgis, David Morales, etc.) and special forces operators. This "S-Force" was funded by a skim off Las Vegas casinos, and was trained on U.S. military bases and Clint Murchison's ranch in Mexico to conduct triangulated crossfire ambush assassinations, and they were deployed to conduct such an operation against the President of the United States during the weekend of November 22, 1963.

This information is primarily derived from what attorney Daniel Sheehan has divulged about the attorney/client privileged communications between James McCord and Santo Trafficante and F. Lee Bailey while Bailey was representing them on CIA retainer during the period of the Watergate Hearings.

Video is queued to 45:39 where Professor Sheehan describes Santo Trafficante's confidential attorney-client privileged explanation of the relationship between Operation 40 and the "S-Force" which was originally constituted under the auspices of VP Nixon to off Castro, but was instead ultimately deployed to assassinate President Kennedy:

https://youtu.be/ObB6IUtAk_0?t=2739

Also see detailed account of the origins of the S-Force as presented in Daniel Sheehan's autobiography via the following link: https://www.facebook.com/groups/politicalassassinationsresearchgroup/posts/6787297377992940/

________

"...When Nixon was vice president, he and then CIA agent Hunt were principal secret planners of the invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs that failed so miserably when later ordered by President Kennedy. Nixon and Hunt were key leaders of an associated— and also ill- fated—plot to assassinate Castro. For that mission, potential assassins were recruited from Mob ranks, so that if any of their activities were disclosed, organized crime could be blamed.

Helms as then director of the CIA’s covert operations was a key participant in the Castro assassination plots. The plotters also enlisted the support of billionaire Howard Hughes. Like Nixon, Hughes despised the Kennedys and had strong links to both the CIA and the Mob. The mysterious and reclusive Hughes had made large, secret payoff s to Nixon and his brother Donald over most of Nixon’s political career.

Fronting for Hughes, Robert Maheu approached mobsters Johnny Roselli, Sam “Mooney” Giancana and Santos Trafficante. One report says fifteen professional killers ultimately made up the “ultra- black” Castro assassination team, consistent with a typical Mafia hit, as summarized by author David Scheim: “A mob murder is usually a methodical job, performed by a coordinated team of specialists. Up to 15 gunmen, drivers, spotters, and other backup personnel, plus several cars, are used on some jobs.”

Maheu, a former FBI agent employed by both the CIA and Hughes, had many links with Nixon. To mention just two: In 1956, Maheu ran a Howard Hughes–bankrolled spying operation to protect Nixon against Republican “Dump Nixon” forces trying to block Nixon’s renomination as Dwight Eisenhower’s vice president. Also while Nixon was veep, Maheu worked for Nixon on a “dirty tricks” operation against Greek oil tycoon Aristotle Onassis.

Maheu helped the U.S. government sabotage a deal that had given Onassis a monopoly on shipping Saudi Arabian oil. As part of his mission, Maheu was reportedly even given a license—if necessary—to kill the Greek tycoon. After a meeting with Maheu about Onassis, Vice President Nixon shook Maheu’s hand and whispered, “And just remember, if it turns out we have to kill the bastard don’t do it on American soil.”

President Kennedy’s former press secretary, Pierre Salinger, said Maheu told him the CIA-Mafia plots against Castro were authorized by Nixon:

"I knew Maheu well. He told me [in 1968, when Salinger was soliciting Maheu’s boss, Howard Hughes, for a campaign contribution to Robert Kennedy’s White House bid] about his meetings with the Mafia. He said he had been in contact with the CIA, that the CIA had been in touch with Nixon, who had asked them to go forward with this project . . . It was Nixon who had him [Maheu] do a deal with the Mafia in Florida to kill Castro."

Nixon White House counsel John Dean confirms that Maheu was “the point of contact for the CIA’s effort to have the Mafi a assassinate Fidel Castro in the early 1960s.” Dean said he was told by fellow Nixon aide Jack Caufield that the Hughes empire “was embroiled in an internal war, with two billion dollars at stake, private eyes swarming, nerve- jangling power plays going on, and Mafia figures lurking in the wings.”

Longtime Mob lawyer Frank Ragano disclosed in the 1990s that the assassination plot against Castro was hatched in the summer of 1960. He reported that “Maheu’s search for mob killers began with John Roselli who brought in Sam Giancana, the Chicago boss, and Santo [Trafficante] . . . The CIA operatives told Maheu he could offer $150,000 to the assassins, and that Castro’s murder was a phase of a larger plan to invade Cuba and oust the Communist government.” Ragano also claimed he was the unwitting messenger in a July 1963 order from Teamsters boss Jimmy Hoffa to Trafficante and Marcello for President Kennedy’s murder.

Sam Giancana confided to his brother, Chuck, in 1966, that the CIA had offered him $150,000 to hit Castro. “I told ’em I couldn’t care less about the money. We’ll take care of Castro. One way or another. I think it’s my patriotic duty.”

Giancana said CIA Director Allen Dulles had come up with the idea, and that two top CIA officials— Richard Bissell and Sheffield Edwards—were chosen to make the arrangements. And he said the agency made contact with him through Maheu. Giancana designated Roselli as the plan’s Mafi a-CIA go-between.

Of that conversation with his brother, Chuck also mentioned a number of other conspirators in the plot on Castro’s life: “Mooney said he put Jack Ruby back in action supplying arms, aircraft , and munitions to exiles in Florida and Louisiana, while the former Castro Minister of Games, Frank Fiorini [also known as Frank Sturgis], joined Ruby in the smuggling venture along with a [Guy] Banister CIA associate, David Ferrie.”..." 

'NIXON'S BAY OF PIGS SECRETS'

History Reader | By Don Fulsom |  Posted on April 23, 2012 | https://www.thehistoryreader.com/military-history/nixons-bay-pigs-secrets/

________

'THE WHEATON INTERVIEW'

"...In this interview with Wheaton, conducted by William Law and Mark Sobel, Wheaton opened up to a limited degree about what he had witnessed. The following quotes are excerpted from the interview...

"Carl Jenkins was a retired high-level paramilitary specialist for the CIA..... He headed up the largest covert base in Laos during the secret CIA wars over there when the open war was going on in Vietnam..... [Jenkins] invited me to stay in their home..... In 1985 he [Jenkins] became my Washington representative when I took over as Vice President for a cargo airline called National Air..... I was like a brother to Carl..... Carl was the head recruiter and trainer of the Bay of Pigs invasion for the assassins and saboteurs that were going into Cuba for the pre-invasion to lay the groundwork for the Bay of Pigs..... He trained the 17, 18, 19 year old exiles and became their father figure..... Chi Chi Quintero became like a son to Carl..... He [Quintero] and two or three others, Felix Rodriguez, Nestor Pino, all went to Vietnam with him..... Chi Chi was a shooter. He was trained by I.W. Harper..... There was a CIA funded program to assassinate Castro and Carl was in charge of training the Cubans from Miami..... They were the ones that diverted the Castro assassination funds and training for their own agenda to snuff Kennedy..... They had a thing called a triangulation shooting team..... [Describing the Bay of Pigs and JFK backing off the air strike] They were furious and still are to this day..... And there was another clique above them..... they would reminisce about the past and what went wrong and what went right....."

'The Wheaton Lead: An Exploration'

by Larry Hancock and David Boylan, April 2020

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

 

Edited February 16 by Keven Hofeling

[Roger Odisio]

1 hour ago, Sandy Larsen said:

SL:  I think the desired goal was to have it look like Oswald was in cahoots with Russia and Cuba, and was paid a $6500 down payment for his team to kill Kennedy. This would create a pretext for invasion of Cuba, and/or first nuclear strike on Russia if the generals got so lucky to get their way.

RO:  Yes, there was a faction that wanted to use the murder as pretext to go after Cuba, and for some, the SU too. But that was going to be Johnson's decision as the next president. Everyone knew that. Johnson wanted no part of what a war with the SU would do to his administration, which was very likely even if they went after only Cuba. He said no, and gave the war monger faction a war in Vietnam in part as a pacifier.

SL:  When Oswald wasn't killed, McGeorge Bundy scrapped that plan and decided that only Oswald was involved. This resulted in the ad hoc seat-of-the-pants coverup that produced the Warren Report.

RO:  Bundy made no large decisions on his won.  He was a war hawk who was following orders.  Imagine Johnson as president sitting by and letting Bundy decide about war and peace in his administration.

The idea of having Johnson appoint 7 figureheads to preside over a fake investigation of the murder was surely discussed before the murder. And most likely agreed upon. Leaving Johnson the long time Washington denizen to pick the 7.

Btw, can you see the reasons piling up for why I believe Johnson had to be involved in the original plan?  He was going to be vital to its success.

SL:  Yes, Oswald was the patsy from the start... not as a shooter, but as an assassination team leader. But he was supposed to be eliminated right after Kennedy was killed. Bundy changed the plan when he wasn't killed.

RO:  Oswald was the patsy in part because he could be used in more than one scenario. Once the Cuba/Russia scenario was eliminated, the WC ended up with the loner with no clear motive story. I can't imagine the killers seeing Oswald as an assassination team leader. 

SL:  Well if their primary goal was to blame only Oswald, the plotters didn't do a very thorough job. They even had to come up with a weapon for him... An afterthought. A second floor encounter with Officer Baker... an afterthought. A fake alibi... an afterthought.

RO:  The killers' top priority above all else was to, as much as possible, make sure JFK didn't escape. That means multiple shooters from different locations in a place set up for that like Dealey Plaza.  Yet they chose to go with the single shooter story along with the plan to kill him before he could talk to a lawyer, insuring they would not have to prove anything in court.

Why such a glaring discrepancy between what happened and their story?  A few things off the top of my head.  They knew they could control the fake investigation and were confident they could control what the public learned through the MSM, at the time the dominant news source.  Killing one patsy raises less suspicions or problems than killing three or four. 60 years of history have so far ratified their choice.

Or maybe Salandria's explanation has some merit.  The killers had seized control of the state and intentionally left some holes in their story to send this message when found out: We're in control and there is nothing you can do about it.

 

 

[Chris Bristow]

16 hours ago, Sandy Larsen said:

 

Chris,

When I look at the shadows of people on the grass, and see that the "direction" of their shadows is close to the direction the limousine is traveling, I know that it will be difficult to make out the motion blur in the shadows. (That is to say, the motion blur due to the camera following the limo.)

I try to stay away from evidence that is subtle. So I have no interest in the motion blur of those shadows.

Now here's the thing that's bugging me. The reason I even mentioned motion blur of shadows in my post is because somebody (Keven?) posted a video a few days ago that showed a number of anomalies in the Z film. And the one that stood out -- because it was so simple and easy to understand -- was a shadow with no motion blur, even though the man causing the shadow did have motion blur. I recall that shadow being roughly VERTICAL... which is precisely the reason it got my attention. Problem is... their ain't no such thing! There are no vertical shadows, and it's driving me nuts! Because I swear I saw one. Argh.

I wish I could watch that video again.

 

I can't think of any photo of Elm St that was taken from the position necessary to capture a shadow that was vertical in the frame. Cancellare came the closest when he captured Wiegman. Z would have seen vertical shadows when his camera was pointing directly towards the Sun around frame 406, but there is nothing to create the long shadows. It would be interesting to see an image like that, let me know if you find it.
  I tested the shadows on the Franzen's by adding motion blur to a sharp Z Frame. They became very blurry but their shadows still appeared much sharper.  The, blurry witness with sharp shadows, alteration theory is an old one that has not stood the test of time and the advent of computer photoshop software.