‘The role of certain CIA officers in the events of 1963’

Richard writes about “CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files”

“You’ve done yeoman’s work on this one and a great service to the research community. Those of us who have followed this case for decades owe you a great debt of gratitude in so many ways.”

Thanks Richard. Its people like you who kept me going, kept me thinking, kept me looking for one more person who knew something of the events of 1963. While the book has a wealth of details about the role of certain CIA officers in the JFK story, I hope that it will also enable readers to see the Big Picture more clearly: CIA officers acting with guilty knowledge of Oswald’s Cuban antics.

Certainly the agency’s last assassination files, due in October 2017, will help.

Please share your review on Amazon. Just go here and look for the stars. Five will do wonders for spreading the story. Grazie.

 

 

 

 

223 comments

  1. Photon says:

    There is no “there” there. In fifty years there has been zero evidence that the CIA was in anyway involved with the assassination of JFK. In fifty years there has been zero evidence that Oswald had any connection with the CIA aside from being poorly monitored as a failed defector. In fifty years the only Conspiracy “research” that has implicated the CIA in even the remotest associations with the assassination has only demonstrated an Agency attempt to limit release of information on programs CREATED and RUN by the WHITE HOUSE, ie. JFK and his brother.
    There will be nothing in the files to be released that will change that.
    Why don’t you bring up some recent news, like the ongoing scam to get CT donations known as ” The Parkland Doctors”?

    • Bogman says:

      The first 40 years no one knew the CIA ran an operation against the HSCA, putting the lead officer in charge of the DRE to “look for records.”

      Let me repeat that: The CIA ran an illegal, domestic operation against our own Congress to subvert an investigation into the assassination of a US president. And refuses to give up records or explain itself to this day.

      On another note, Photon, it’s been remarkable to see you avoid the Hardway declaration:

      http://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Hardway-Declaration.pdf

    • Arnaldo M Fernandez says:

      Since the CIA station in Mexico City inexplicably erased the tapes of phone conversations involving an American citizen who visited both the Cuban and the Soviet Embassies there, while Langley misinformed about LHO in the so-called “Cables of October”, all before the assassination, and after the assassination started put into play a variety of misinformation, there is some evidence that at least some CIA officers were involved, although the quantum of proof is not enough to put the institution itself in the stand.

      • Bogman says:

        I think there’s absolute proof that the highest echelons of the CIA knew Joannides was subverting the Congressional investigation into the assassination of JFK.

        Helms appointed him just the year before for the expressed purpose of managing the DRE.

        If their ruse had been discovered, guarantee you the American people would’ve wanted their heads on a platter.

        And Photon maintains they risked their lives, their honor and their sacred fortunes on protecting JFK and his brother. Right.

        • Photon says:

          How do you know that periodically erasing the tapes was not a standard procedure? Is it evidence of conspiracy to avoid finding out the causes of airliner accidents if the ” black box” recordings are recycled every 30 or 45 minutes? Exactly how was Joannides subverting the Congressional investigation? I would like some one to actually give proof that Joannides did not give the HSCA exactly what they requested or gave them false information.Despite all of the claims of all of the CTers who KNOW that the CIA was involved NOBODY has posted a shred of evidence that Joannides even knew who Oswald was prior to Non. 22,1963. Nobody has posted ANY evidence that he was even aware of the confrontation between Oswald and members of a chapter of an organization that received occasional checks from the CIA-do you honestly believe that he would be aware of every aspect of every chapter that he had no direct contact with?
          Facts do matter.

          • Tom S. says:

            http://jfkfacts.org/22725-2/#comment-883409
            John Rowell June 23, 2016 at 12:13 pm

            Is this what you described as a scam? Could you please justify your label?

            https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-parkland-doctors-john-f-kennedy#/

            By the way, thank you. I was unaware of the effort.

            Furthermore, in reference to a request made by you further down the thread, I’d like to offer the following reply:

            It’s a little ridiculous in my opinion for you to demand from us the very information Mr. Morley seeks to uncover in his lawsuit against the CIA.

            http://jfkfacts.org/22725-2/#comment-883246
            Photon June 22, 2016 at 4:08 pm
            ……
            Why don’t you bring up some recent news, like the ongoing scam to get CT donations known as ” The Parkland Doctors”?

            Note- The comments coding does not include an option to move or position a comment. I can accomplish that only by posting a screen shot of a comment, but links in the image are not clickable. I deleted the content of my comment and quoted John’s comment submitted earlier today to position the information he offers, as close as possible to Photon’s comment.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Photon you have proof Joannides was subverting the HSCA and did not give them exactly what they wanted.
            Read Dan Hardway’s recent statement.
            He was there. Are you questioning his word?
            They were making progress. When Joannides was called out of retirement they were stonewalled.

          • Photon says:

            Give me facts Ronnie. Prove to me unequivocally that Joannides had any knowledge of who Oswald was prior to Nov. 22, 1963. As Hardway bought into Talbot’s false story of Allen Dullas being responsible for JFK’s murder and claims that JFK and Dulles had an adversarial relationship ( disproved by documents in the Mudd Manuscript Library @ Princeton-which Talbot apparently ever researched) I do not find him credible

          • Bogman says:

            Facts do matter and your post isnt even worth debating because its fact less and just another dodge to confuse the issue at hand when you have no real answer to the CIA’s subterfuge in this case.

            BTW, Photon, I hope you and everyone who’s a regular on this site buys Jeff’s ebook and gives him a solid five stars for his effort.

          • Photon says:

            Big man proves my point. Asking for specifics is a “dodge” to confuse the issue, when the fact is that there is NO EVIDENCE proves that there is no issue at all- only unsubstantiated speculation.
            Give me facts, not talking points. Prove Joannides knew about Oswald prior to Nov. 22, 1063.

          • ed connor says:

            Photon, I don’t know what LHO was up to in 1063, but the Norman Conquest occurred three years later, in 1066.
            Duke William of Normandy defeated King Harold II at the Battle of Hastings, and was crowned as King William I on Christmas Day in Westminster Abbey.
            Some British “buffs” contend that Harold II was assassinated by a group of Norman knights. We know he died from an arrow in the eye, but was it an entrance wound or an exit wound?

          • John Rowell says:

            I can’t. The Holy Roman Empire hasn’t released all their assassination-related records.

          • PaulM says:

            Here are some facts-
            Joannides was the paymaster for the DRE
            After the assassination DRE published accusations against Oswald. The very next day in fact.
            Joannides ran the DRE for CIA. It would be a stretch that he was unaware of DRE Oswald propaganda.

          • Brian Joseph says:

            You are right Photon. There isn’t any proof that Joannides knew of Oswald prior to November 22, 1963 but I think it is likely that he had heard of him at least in a small way. Joannides by all accounts was very good at his job. As the case officer for DRE it is highly unlikely that he would not have known of Oswald after the pamplet scene and the radio debate. I certainly don’t think Joannides was involved in the plot to take out JFK.

            He was however not forthright in disclosing his relationship with DRE to the HSCA. Accounts from HSCA investigators are that he was also not as cooperative as they had wanted. I think that there were reasons for both not disclosing his previous connection to DRE and for not being as cooperative as some HSCA investigators desired. I think that chief among those reasons is that Joannides was doing what he saw as his job and was doing it well. It was not an accident that the agency requested that Joannides come out of retirement to be the liaison to the HSCA. It wasn’t random. He was a damn good case officer who could be counted on. He may ( yes, I said may) have also had knowledge of Oswald pre November 22, 1963 but he most certainly had information about Oswald in the days immediately following November 22, 1963. He was the case officer of DRE and after that date there would be a lot of interest in Oswald by Joannides because Oswald had had contact with members of DRE. Part of Joannides job would have been to find out as much as he could about Oswald.

            It isn’t a stretch to think that Joannides was participating in a cover up. That doesn’t mean that cover up was a cover up of the assasination or that it was done in any way to protect anyone who conspired to hit JFK.

            There may have been some very sensitive agency operations that were unwittingly entangled into what happened on November 22, 1963. Joannides may have been helping to cover up sensitive agency operations or even a sensitive agency failing.

          • Photon says:

            Yes Brian you have discovered what CTers have refused to admit for decades-that sensitive intelligence assets were inadvertently destroyed by the actions of the Warren Commission when they were made public.
            Those assets were in no way associated with the assassination, Oswald or Ruby. They were extremely valuable during a period of Cold War tensions, particularly in regards to Cuba when it was actively involved in exporting Revolution and fulfilling “Internationalist” duties in Africa. The fact that Oswald had a confrontation with DRE members is reflective only of one fact-that the Marxist Oswald detested the opponents of his idol Fidel Castro. That confrontation is the only evidence whatsoever that The DRE and Oswald ever came into contact.
            More than likely they considered him a solitary nut of no consequence.
            How many similar confrontations with solitary disrupters across the country happened and wer never recorded?
            Why wouldn’t the Agency try to protect other sources from similar exposure during the HSCA, particularly if there was no connection between those sources and the assassination?

          • Tom S. says:

            Support even one of your unreasonable claims with a link. Aside from any CIA front group financed and operating domestically counter to the CIA’s charter, support with a link your claim that sources or methods were
            actually compromised by Warren Commission disclosure of investigatory details at any time in the 1960s. You continue to offer a steady stream of unsupported claims and other opinion, all under a pseudonym and without
            a trace…..you provide no means to contact you, whoever you are.

            DRE was a CIA financed contrivance at a cost of $51,000 per month to operate where, doing what? Can you offer any detail aside from members of DRE policing Oswald in a U.S. city? Oswald also claimed he was a patsy. If you accept and assert he was a Marxist, why do you not take him at his word, in custody at the DPD HQ?

          • Photon says:

            The mere fact that the Warren Commission disclosed the CIA intel capabilities at the Mexico City Cuban embassy destroyed those capabilities. One of the cardinal rules of spycraft is to never reveal your capabilities; after the Commission revealed the photographic capabilities and telephone monitoring at the Cuban embassy those capabilities were neutralized. I cannot tell you more but once an adversary becomes aware of a monitoring technique they always take measures to render that technique harmless. The most egregious example of this was Nixon disclosing to David Frost that the NSA was intercepting the microwave transmissions from Brehznev’s limo phone-apparently Nixon was unaware that this source was still producing valuable information. I was told by Navy cryptologists that that source of information evaporated within 24 hours of becoming common knowledge. The point is that assuming that an intel source compromise will become common knowledge is simply not correct.

          • Bogman says:

            “Oswald also claimed he was a patsy. If you accept and assert he was a Marxist, why do you not take him at his word, in custody at the DPD HQ?”

            Grrreat point, Tom S.

          • Jean Davison says:

            This wasn’t addressed to me, but…

            “DRE was a CIA financed contrivance at a cost of $51,000 per month to operate where, doing what?”

            I don’t know what the money was used for but can you show that Bringuier received any of it? Here’s a CIA document mentioning him:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=13988&relPageId=4&search=bringuier_AND CIA

            “Oswald also claimed he was a patsy. If you accept and assert he was a Marxist, why do you not take him at his word, in custody at the DPD HQ?”

            Are you saying that if he said one thing that was true, everything else he said was true? How does that follow?

          • DB says:

            I agree that was well put by Tom S and I think partially summarizes a key difference between lone nut vs conspiracy.

            Individuals that support the LN theory generally speaking take the WR as gospel and do not support any evidence that may be viewed as contradictory

            While CT have a difficult time with the contradictory evidence and generally view the WR as prosecutor brief that was created to convict LHO. Evidence just don’t seem to add up and want more information to help plug in the gaps.

            And I mean reasonable individuals and not the nuts found on both sides and quite frankly there does appear to be far more nuts on the CT side, lol. However having said it seems that if an individual does study the facts/ evidence in the case I feel a materially higher % become CT believers.

            And in terms of new information I do feel Mr. Morley lawsuit and The information produced regarding Joanides , the DRE , its connection with LHO their role with the media immediately after the assassination and Joanides HSCA liaison role is really a treasure trove ( game changer ) of information that the CIA would have never allowed to see the light of day and frankly it’s breathtaking on how connected all parties are with the assassination.

            Personally I would like to know what Jean and McAdams feel regarding these possible connections and whether they support additional information to allow further research as it’s incredibly interesting ( for all IMO) – particularily given the lengths to which the CIA went to prevent this material information from being disclosed. Joanides role as a psych warefare and DRE’s significant role in establishing LHO as a bona fide Pro Castro supporter appears to be more than a coinidence , particularly given the CIA brought GJ out of retirement to act as its liaison to the HSCA (incredible IMO) . Do LN’s want to evaluate this information as I think even they can safely conclude that this new information is possibly material to the assassination ? ( it does seem possible the DRE used LHO for psych purposes pre and post assassination – was GJ involved in these act ? )

            The CIA 2013 historical review report was fascinating but the information provided by congressional investigators regarding GJ and DRE seems multiple times more relevant ( and fascinating lol ).

        • Bogman says:

          Photon, instead of you hijacking the conversation with your orders, why don’t you respond to what I wrote about Helms and knowledge of the Joannides ruse at the highest levels.

          o Do you think the CIA should’ve let the WC and HSCA know about Joannides and its relationship with the DRE during incursions with Oswald?

          o If you don’t believe that was pertinent to the investigation, HSCA Chief Counsel Blakey and the ARRB’s Tunheim disagree. Posner, Bugliosi and other LNers also agree that the subterfuge was wrong and the documents released.

          o What is the plausible reason why Helms et al would allow Joannides to serve as liaison to Congress?The CIA had signed an agreement to NOT use agents associated at with its Cuba operations from that time.

          o Why would upper echelons of the CIA try to hide Joannides very existence for the next 3 decades after the HSCA?

          You give me answers to those questions first, then I’ll provide mine.

          While you’re at it, you can back-up your assertion that the CIA’s obstruction of the JFK investigation was based on protecting the reputation of the POTUS.

          • Photon says:

            Ed, John, Bogman-give me one shred of evidence that Joannides knew who Oswald was prior to Nov. 22, 1963. Ed, Godwinson’s eye wound had to have been an entrance wound-he pulled it out according to some.
            Bogman give me one shred of evidence that the DRE had any involvement with the Kennedy assassination and why a chance altercation between Oswald and a few members of the NO chapter demonstrates anything but Oswald’s contempt for opponents of Castro.
            Give me one shred of evidence that Joannides was even aware of the confrontation. Without any of that these Joannides claims are nothing but hot air.

          • Bogman says:

            Again, you dodge my question, so I won’t be answering yours, Photon.

            Do you believe Helms and other high-level CIA officials knew Joannides was the case officer for the DRE when he was appointed liaison to Congress?

            Do you believe the agency institutionally covered up Joannides’ role with the DRE for decades following the HSCA and hoped to have his role lost to history?

            If you don’t believe the above, state your fact-based reasons why you don’t.

            If you do, then you have to provide a reason why the CIA chose to break the law and skirt others to keep the DRE/Joannides relationship quiet for 40 years.

            Good luck trying to provide an innocent explanation or one that doesn’t include the CIA covering up a huge blunder or worse.

      • Langley misinformed about LHO in the so-called “Cables of October”,

        You need to explain this. What was the misinformation, and was it intentional, and how does it indicate any conspiratorial goings on?

        after the assassination started put into play a variety of misinformation,

        Again, you need to explain this.

        • Greg Arious says:

          When Oswald went to Mexico City the CIA station there cabled HQ to ask for info on him. HQ cabled back that the latest info they had on him was from 1962 and innocuous. Cables declassified many years later showed this to be not true; in fact they had full information on his New Orleans FPCC capers. Yet they made a conscious decision to not share intel about said capers with the Mexico City station.

          The obvious and fair question is: Why?

          • Yet they made a conscious decision to not share intel about said capers with the Mexico City station.

            Unless the person who wrote the more innocuous account got the folder when the other documents were being used by some other analyst.

            “Why” is a good question. You need to think about that.

            Why would the CIA need to conceal that? If Oswald was being “sheep dipped” as part of a conspiracy, the FPCC stuff would have been part of that.

            Why conceal that?

          • Greg Arious says:

            “Unless the person who wrote the more innocuous account got the folder when the other documents were being used by some other analyst.”

            Wow, that’s some really weak sauce there. If you can’t explain it, just say so. A “rebuttal” like that just makes you look bad.

            No idea what you’re talking about re the “sheep dipping” comment. Wasn’t that a Garrison thing? I didn’t write it so maybe you got confused and thought you were replying to someone else.

          • Wow, that’s some really weak sauce there. If you can’t explain it, just say so. A “rebuttal” like that just makes you look bad.

            The fact that you can’t produce any halfway plausible reason why Langley would want to conceal Oswald’s public pro-Castro activities (which were all over the media in New Orleans) from MEXI makes you and all the buffs which push this look bad.

            Why not tell the Mexico City station about that?

          • Greg Arious says:

            Uh, wut?

            Hey pal, it’s not my job to explain why CIA HQ concealed info from their Mexico City station about the guy later accused of murdering a U.S. President. It’s theirs. Or maybe yours? Definitely not mine.

          • Hey pal, it’s not my job to explain why CIA HQ concealed info from their Mexico City station about the guy later accused of murdering a U.S. President. It’s theirs. Or maybe yours? Definitely not mine.

            Nonsense.

            You folks try to pretend that anything that seems odd to you must mean “conspiracy.”

            But in the real world, odd things happen all the time.

            If you want to claim it’s conspiratorial, you explain how it might indicate a conspiracy.

            If you can’t come up with any halfway plausible theory, you have nothing.

          • Bogman says:

            Don’t you get the professor’s reasoning, Greg?

            The CIA, an intelligence allegedly in service to democracy, doesn’t owe the Americsn people any explanation for anything. Ever.

            Anyone who doesn’t agree with that just doesn’t love America.

            Did I get that right, perfessor?

          • Don’t you get the professor’s reasoning, Greg?

            The CIA, an intelligence allegedly in service to democracy, doesn’t owe the American people any explanation for anything. Ever.

            Anyone who doesn’t agree with that just doesn’t love America.

            Did I get that right, perfessor?

            Translation: you simply can’t explain how the cable that failed to mention Oswald’s U.S. pro-Castro activities could possibly be part of any conspiracy.

            So you huff and puff about how you need an “explanation.”

            In the first place, you would not accept any explanation you did not like.

            In the second place, how do you think any agency can explain everything in half-century old files, especially when everybody connected with the files is dead?

            You are doing the usual buff thing: huffing and puff because you can’t answer a simple question:

            How would the cable promote or be part of any conspiracy?

            Quit huffing and puffing, and answer the question.

            And if you can’t, you have no argument.

            And more huffing and puffing on your part will simply underline that.

          • Greg Arious says:

            “Nonsense”

            Nonsense? Oh, ok. That sounds perfectly reasonable. Let’s *not* ask why CIA HQ was hiding info about Lee Oswald from its Mexico City station when they requested info about him during his strange visit there.
            No point in asking that question, huh?
            uh huh.

          • Greg Arious says:

            “You are doing the usual buff thing: huffing and puff because you can’t answer a simple question”

            Hmm, you sound confused again. I’m not a huffer or a buff or puff the magic dragon.
            I’m asking a basic question about some facts and you’re unable to answer. That’s ok, you likely don’t know, or maybe it’s past your bedtime and it’s difficult to put thoughts together.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Bogman, 6/29, 9:10. “The CIA…in service to Democracy”…
            I came across this relevant quote in the book I’m reading.
            1983. In his book Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CI officer Ralph W. McGehee states:
            The CIA is not now or has it ever been a central intelligence agency. It is the covert action arm of the President’s FOREIGN POLICY ADVISERS. …while reporting “intelligence” justifying those activities. …and the American people are the primary target audience of its lies.
            I Dare Call It Treason. Servando Gonzales. Pg. 70.

          • I’m asking a basic question about some facts and you’re unable to answer. That’s ok, you likely don’t know, or maybe it’s past your bedtime and it’s difficult to put thoughts together.

            Don’t you think it’s obvious to everybody by now that you can’t begin to explain why Langley would want to conceal Oswald’s pro-Castro activities from the Mexico City station?

            And it’s obvious that you just continue to bluff, evading the question, because you know you can’t provide any conspiratorial explanation that makes any sense?

            So keep huffing and puffing, and ignore my question.

            Deep down, you know you have no sensible conspiratorial explanation.

          • ask why CIA HQ was hiding info about Lee Oswald from its Mexico City station

            You don’t know that they were “hiding” it.

            Don’t state as true stuff you don’t know.

            Why “hide” stuff that was in the New Orleans papers, and fit perfectly with the image of Oswald as a pro-Castro leftist?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            John, as frequently as you post I have to wonder if at times it might be to make other posts disappear from the most recent comments. Like mine above your last one.
            Then again, I’m a Conspiracy Realist.

          • DB says:

            Great stuff Greg and I think you ask a critical question . Why did HQ not send the requested info on LHO to MC? especially concerning an embassy incident and even possible impersonating. Very unusual actions here and Romans comments about a keen interest in LHO makes this info snafu even more interesting IMO

            I’m assuming the mole hunt by the agency to determine who was impersonating LHO ( as theorized in State Secret ) is not a possibility due to the timing of the cables ?

            Personally I’m going to go ahead and eliminate file time management as Not having led to this information mixup . I’m assuming this response was a joke ? Was quite funny actually , who says this can’t be fun 🙂

            Finding out which Agency dept’s and which officers were using LHO and for what operative or intelligence purpose is a key to unraveling the LHO mystery and your pointing out of this likely deliberate action was quite a nice find and also provides further evidence of LHO being handled by senior officers .

    • John Rowell says:

      Is this what you described as a scam? Could you please justify your label?

      https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-parkland-doctors-john-f-kennedy#/

      By the way, thank you. I was unaware of the effort.

      Furthermore, in reference to a request made by you further down the thread, I’d like to offer the following reply:

      It’s a little ridiculous in my opinion for you to demand from us the very information Mr. Morley seeks to uncover in his lawsuit against the CIA.

      • Photon says:

        Read comments from aprolo1 and Bob Truitt and maybe the scales will fall from your eyes.
        This scam was marketed as getting enough funds to release the film in Nov 2015. They raised the desired amount by Sept 21,2015.
        And nothing happened.
        It is a scam.

        • Photon says:

          I see that this project is still requesting donations-without any explanation why perks promised ” next Monday” 3 months ago have never materialized.
          Notice the complete silence from them on this site-even after Morley encouraged donating to them.

    • Paulf says:

      There is a many times more “evidence,” as photon defines it, that the CIA was involved in the assassination than Oswald was. All the evidence against Oswald, such as it was, was circumstantial, based on his background and attributing motives to things that happened in his life previous to Nov. 22, 1963.

      If we can view Oswald’s actions as suspicious, and attribute guilt based on suspicion, then to be fair one would have to view the CIA’s non-cooperation and outright sabotage of the investigation in a similar vein, not to mention the links with the agency and the Cuban Bay of Pigs crowd.

      In the end, the Cubans and certain CIA elements had more motive and a hell of a lot more resources than Oswald did to pull off such an act.

      • Photon says:

        Alright Paulf, give me a single piece of physical evidence that puts a CIA assassin in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963.
        Who shot JFK?
        What evidence can you post that in ANY way ties the CIA to ANYBODY shooting ANYBODY in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963?
        Time to cut out the BS, time to cut out the innuendo. Give me names. Give me evidence.
        There is absolutely none.

        • “Give me names.”~Photon

          Ochabod Crane, Ahab the Arab, Annie Oakley and Robert Tredford.
          \\][//

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Angleton. We never did establish an alibi for Hunt did we?

          • Photon says:

            Nor any evidence that he was involved except the claims of a drug using son trying to sell a book.

        • Paulf says:

          Photon, thanks for ignoring my point. By your own standard that you cite for ignoring circumstantial evidence against others, including the CIA, there is not a single shred of physical evidence against Oswald.

          That’s the point. You scoff at circumstantial evidence against some yet use it to convict Oswald (in your own mind).

          There is no physical evidence against ANYBODY at this point. Any theory against anybody is circumstantial. So stop pretending otherwise.

          • There is no physical evidence against ANYBODY at this point.

            You mean aside from a bullet and two fragments that can be matched to Oswald’s rifle, to the exclusion of all other weapons.

            Aside from his prints on a paper bag, of the right size to hold the rifle, found in the Sniper’s Nest.

            Aside from four spent cartridges found at the site of the Tippit killing, matched to Oswald’s revolver to the exclusion of all other weapons.

    • Paul Turner says:

      Photon, explain why you think it’s an “ongoing scam”.

  2. George Simmons says:

    Thank you Jeff Morley for your excellent work in respect of this angle of the JFK assassination, namely George Joannides.
    In my opinion, it is tremendously important.
    It reveals a shocking level of deceit by the CIA towards an official investigation into the death of JFK.

    Whatever Joannides was doing in 1963 as case agent of the DRE, he considered it important enough to risk obstruction of congress, a felony, to keep it secret.

    George Blakey said, “He, the (DRE) case agent, denied that there was a case agent and that they could not find the DRE file”
    But why was Joannides so outrageously deceitful? Was it to protect CIA operations, sources etc? Or was it something more sinister, such as CIA involvement in the assassination of JFK? It may be too early to say, because over 50 years after the assassination the CIA documents relating to Joannides have still not been released.

    But one thing I think is true. This shows that a thorough and independent investigation of the assassination has yet to take place. It is a farce to allow a suspect ( the CIA) to decide what documents the investigation can and cannot see. Neither the WC or HSCA knew that the DRE were CIA assets, or knew of the role of Joannides in 1963. This angle was not even investigated because they did not know. For me this makes their investigations incomplete, and therefore their conclusions unreliable.

    I believe that only the blind or hopelessly prejudiced can downplay the importance of George Joannides and what his deceit naturally suggests – ie CIA involvement in or knowledge of the assassination.
    All people who are genuine pursuers of the truth, whatever it may be, will want to know why George Joannides lied to and mislead the HSCA.

    • Bogman says:

      Yes, we can rule out simple embarrassment over having coincidentally having a relationship with the group that interfaced with Oswald. Everyone knows that now, so no reason to continue to keep files. Also, don’t think it’s enough to take the risk of obstructing Congress.

      Protecting sources or methods doesn’t add up 50 years hence with most of the principals no longer around.

      All that’s left is:

      o A criminal negligence charge that the agency was using Oswald in a propaganda operation and he killed POTUS

      o One of the CIA’s assets, the mob or the Cubans or both, hijacked Oswald for the murder, or at least the frame, and the CIA was left holding the bag

      o CIA officers are implicated in the assassination itself

  3. DB says:

    Photon, counsel of both the HSCA and AARB stated that the CIA obstructed justice with regards to CIA contact/knowledge of LHO prior to the assassination.

    This includes specifically failure to inform the congressional investigators about Joaniedes role as the CIA’s liaison with the DRE, an organization that had direct contact with LHO and was also the source to the media for what turned out to be false information regarding LHO.

    These are all written statements released to the public.

    These two written statements by government lawyers are separate statements but nearly identical in describing the witnessed crimes of obstruction of justice and fraud to the committee and/or its staff.

    We should note the CIA has admitted in writing the committing of such crimes- fraud (deceit and dishonest act) and obstruction of justice- to a congressional committee.

    Please clarify your position on the CIA committing fraud and/or obstruction of justice to the murder investigation of JFK. Do You disagree with the CIA’s written admission of guilt to such crimes? and if you disagree with their admission of guilt, what evidence supports your position.

    Thank You and you do not have to respond however I will view that as accepting the CIA position that they committed such crimes.

    • Photon, counsel of both the HSCA and AARB stated that the CIA obstructed justice with regards to CIA contact/knowledge of LHO prior to the assassination.

      Exactly what “contact/knowledge” do you have in mind?

      • “Exactly what “contact/knowledge” do you have in mind?” ~McAdams

        Are you saying you still haven’t read the Hardway Declaration?

        http://jfkfacts.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Hardway-Declaration.pdf

        \\][//

        • Yes, I read it, and he just bitches about Johannides. What “contact/knowledge” did you have in mind?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            He just bitches about Joannides. No he does not. Go ahead and try to kill the messenger. Jeff and Mr. Lesear have been seeking the known Truth about the potential Joannidies – Oswald contacts for years.
            FREETHEFILES.

          • Bogman says:

            Tell me, John, do you think there’s any possible way Helms, Phillips or anyone above Joannides at JMWAVE didn’t know he ran the DRE when he was enlisted as the CIA’s liaison to the HSCA?

            If you believe they knew, why did the let the deception occur?

            If you believe they didn’t know, please explain how that would be possible?

          • do you think there’s any possible way Helms, Phillips or anyone above Joannides at JMWAVE didn’t know he ran the DRE when he was enlisted as the CIA’s liaison to the HSCA?

            I thought this thread was about “contact/knowledge” the CIA had about Oswald before the assassination.

            You’ve just changed the subject.

            Did the DRE in Miami tell Johannides about a fellow who had a couple of contacts with the DRE in New Orleans?

            Show me some evidence of that.

            And of course, even if you can prove that Johannides had some knowledge of Oswald (which you can’t) just what does that prove?

            Lots of people had some knowledge of Oswald, including most certainly the CIA. Remember, he defected to the Soviet Union. He visited communist embassies in Mexico City.

          • do you think there’s any possible way Helms, Phillips or anyone above Joannides at JMWAVE didn’t know he ran the DRE when he was enlisted as the CIA’s liaison to the HSCA?

            Of course there is.

            Johannides had a long career, doing lots of things.

            Buffs were have a fundamental problem of perception about this. They start with the assumption that Oswald’s couple of contacts with the New Orleans DRE were terribly important.

            They then assume that Johannides knew about them, and that that was terribly important, and that all that somehow proves a conspiracy.

            If you don’t start with that assumption, none of that makes sense.

          • Bogman says:

            Didn’t really answer my question, professor.

            No matter how much you try to down play it, the CIA’s connection to the DRE was of interest to HSCA investigators and the ARRB. We’ll never know if it would’ve been important to the WC because the CIA kept the relationship a secret from them, although it seems highly probable Dulles knew.

            Joannides lied directly to Blakey when questioned if there was a CIA handler of the DRE during the time of Oswald. Any reasonable person would assume the CIA must be covering up something when it’s willing to risk an obstruction of justice charge in a case concerning the assassination of a president.

            And it’s impossible that Helms – who sppointed Joannides to manage the DRE and had him report directly to him — didn’t know about the deception.

            You don’t have to believe the CIA was involved in the assassination to see something is wrong here.

      • DB says:

        Professor McAdams

        “Exactly what contact/ knowledge do you have in mind ”

        The DRE pre assassination contact with LHO

        • And this is significant how?

          We know Oswald went to Bringuier’s store, and claimed to be a friend of the anti-Castro forces.

          In his “revolutionary resume,” Oswald described this an an “infiltration.”

          So what is significant here?

          • DB says:

            The CIA funded the DRE and Joanides was the case officer. Critical investigation information per HSCA and AARB counsel.

            Please ask them about the significance as I am merely referencing their written statements and both were in a far superior position in the investigation to yourself. Congressional investigators vs. interested citizen.

            I am merely relaying the facts of their statements concerning CIA obstruction in the investigation of the JFK assassination. For any citizen in a democratic government this should be a material issue.

          • Please ask them about the significance as I am merely referencing their written statements and both were in a far superior position in the investigation to yourself.

            They have not suggested how this implies any conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

            Can you explain how any of this implies a conspiracy to kill Kennedy?

          • DB says:

            I do not have any clue what you are talking about

            Councel in writing informed the public the CIA misled them and obstructed justice with their investigation into the JFK assassination

            I was clear about this . Please respond to them as they are the authors , not me .

            It’s very telling you support this activity in a democratic society and I must admit quite sad ( this is obviously my personal opinion )

        • DB says:

          Mr McAdams to summarize the CIA in writing admitted to LHO being monitored via HT Lingual and failing to disclose this to murder investigators . Information material to the investigation ( the CIA was directly monitoring LHO activities – likely for years)

          The CIA admitted this was an illegal program and furthermore admitted in writing they failed to inform the WC that the CIA was directly monitoring LHO mail , in writing admitting to the acts of obstruction of justice and fraud ( acts of dishonesty and deceit ) in a high profile murder.

          In writing the CIA admitted that the failure to provide information was willful, deliberate and systemic amongst several senior officers. Thus triggering the threshold for these acts to be crimes.

          It’s confusing why you are unwilling to accept their own written admission of guilt.

          And yes the HT Linqual information was material to the assasination investigation as it is one more data point establishing a direct CIA connection to Lee Harvey Oswald pre assassination.

          Again confusing even after the CIA written admission of guilt you choose not to acknowledge their guilt.

          I must ask the question why you refuse to accept their own written admission ?

          If you fail to respond I will assume you now acknowledge their written admission of guilt .

          • And yes the HT Linqual information was material to the assassination investigation as it is one more data point establishing a direct CIA connection to Lee Harvey Oswald pre assassination.

            That’s like saying there is now a direct link between the NSA and ISIS, since I can assure you that the NSA is intercepting all ISIS communications they are able to.

            And what did HTLINGUAL uncover about Oswald that either suggested a conspiracy, or suggested he was a lone assassin?

            Interestingly, Priscilla Johnson McMillan were among the people whose mail was being intercepted.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59392&relPageId=2

            Gee, guys! Wasn’t she a CIA spook!

          • Tom S. says:

            Dr.McAdams, actually, you have no idea what you are reflexively debunking, but that information deficit does not give you even the slightest pause.

            http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/indystar/obituary.aspx?n=donald-f-jameson&pid=144827767
            Donald Fenton Booth Jameson 82, …passed away on September 5, 2007 in Ashburn, Virginia,. … He worked for the CIA (1951-1973), serving as an operations officer in Europe and Washington almost exclusively concerned with the Soviet Union. Friends and contacts from this period included most of the significant Soviet defections — including Svetlana, the daughter of Joseph Stalin. ….

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54212&relPageId=280&search=encouraged_and%20pretty
            11 December, 1962 Contact Report
            “I think that Miss Johnson can be encouraged to write pretty much the articles we want.”
            ……….. Donald Jameson

            Evan Thomas 2d Dies at 78 – Published Many Best Sellers – NYTimes
            http://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/05/business/evan-thomas-2d-dies-at-78-published-many-best-sellers.html
            By ALEX KUCZYNSKI
            Published: March 5, 1999
            ….Mr. Thomas rose through the ranks to editor in chief at Harper & Brothers, …
            ….In a coup that drew a frenzy of publicity in 1967, Mr. Thomas acquired the memoirs of Josef Stalin’s daughter, Svetlana Alliluyeva, who had defected to the United States. He paid Ms. Alliluyeva an advance of more than $1 million, then a record sum…..

            Isn’t this Evan Thomas’s first cousin, Rebekah, off to meet two deployed, covert CIA agents, on foreign soil?:

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19431#entry273518
            Other 14 — No Title
            The Sun – Aug 12, 1959

            … M. _ ISS REBEKAH E. THOMAS, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Ralph L. Thomas, of St. … to Frankfort, Germany, where she was met by Mrs. Frank Feldher Sommers. Jr., formerly of Baltimore, and later visited Miss Mary Eyre Baldwin, daughter of…

            Mrs. Ralph L. Thomas Dies Of Heart Attack At Hospital
            The Sun – Mar 9, 1965

            Mrs. Ralph Llewellyn Thomas, member of a prominent Maryland family died … sister of Beverly Ober, former po- lice commissioner of Baltimore and sister-in-law of Norman Thomas, … She graduated from Bryn Mawr School, married Mr. Thomas on April 22, … are two children, Gustavus Ober Thomas and Miss Hebekah Eliza- beth Thomas;- two brothers, J,

            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=888&dat=19651119&id=bvhRAAAAIBAJ&sjid=VnQDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6948,5447586&hl=en
            Ralph Thomas, a brother of socialist Norman Thomas…..

            http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1992-03-22/news/1992082060_1_nigro-sommers-mawr
            March 22, 1992
            …..Anne I. Sommers

            Worked at the CIA

            A memorial service for Anne Iglehart Sommers, a Baltimore native and former CIA employee, will be at 11 a.m. Saturday at Christ Church of Georgetown in Washington.

            Mrs. Sommers died Friday at her home in Chevy Chase of lung cancer. She was 63.

            In the early 1950s, she was a CIA operations officer for East Germany for two years. In May 1953, she married Frank Feldher Sommers, a CIA officer. They lived in Frankfurt, Germany; Vienna, Austria; Bern, Switzerland; and Vientiane, Laos.

            Mrs. Sommers served on embassy committees and school boards in each of these cities…..

            Mrs. Sommers attended the Calvert and Bryn Mawr schools in Baltimore and graduated from Bryn Mawr College in Bryn Mawr, Pa.

            She is survived by her husband; two daughters, Wing Sommers Blake….

            Background details: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19103&p=252780

            ….and in the world of Dr. McAdams, CIA denies or fails to disclose, resulting in McAdams’s conclusion that Priscilla is as clean as a whistle!

            http://archive.is/esTuB
            …….
            https://archive.is/o/esTuB/www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=95330&relPageId=42

    • We should note the CIA has admitted in writing the committing of such crimes- fraud (deceit and dishonest act) and obstruction of justice- to a congressional committee.

      Point us to the “written admission” by the CIA of “crimes.”

      • DB says:

        CIA never disclosed LHO was in the HT Lingual program which in itself was an illegal program.

        But most troubling is CIA officer(s) providing ” the best truth ” vs the entire truth and providing ” reactive and selective” cooperation rather than full cooperation

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          HT Lingual hell. John wants us to provide information from the CIA they won’t release in the first place. Kinda nutty and a bit impossible.

          • Some buff said the CIA had made a “written admission” of misconduct.

            I challenged that.

            How you say (paraphrasing) “Of course there is no admission of misconduct.”

            I’d like the poster I was responding to to respond.

          • DB says:

            Please stop with the name calling, its unprofessional of adults communicating via internet.

            I already answered your question.

            HT Lingual was an illegal program that LHO was a part of and this was never disclosed to investigators. This was admitted to in writing in their 2013 historical review report

          • HT Lingual was an illegal program that LHO was a part of and this was never disclosed to investigators. This was admitted to in writing in their 2013 historical review report.

            Oh! You mean that the CIA “admitted” something that had nothing to do with any conspiracy to kill Kennedy.

        • DB says:

          Yes that is true but also LHO was a part of it and we didn’t find out for 50 years.

          • DB says:

            Mr McAdams just note my direct response to your ” some buff ” comment should of been here rather than slightly above where you challenged the fact that counsel for both committees stated CIA misconduct concerning LHO pre assassination knowledge.

            Slight response error on my part however I would not be surprised if failure to disclose this material information was another troubling area for the CIA.

            HT was a very serious program which from my understanding had only 300 or so targets. Explaining why LHO was a target in this top secret program and the gap in 201 file opening would be very problematic at the time . Helms sure played dumb and likely committed perjury when trying to explain this revealing set of facts.

            The WR IMO is helpful in identifying likely areas where the CIA was using LHO in some type of operational capacity . The WR steered away from the LHO defection and Mexico City incidences and we beginning to understand why.

            Being an HT target was reserved for very high priority individuals.

            I am just stating the facts regarding a far deeper and more complicated LHO and CIA relationship then the CIA ever wanted its citizens to learn.

            It’s rather revealing when your usual response to this issue is how does it relate to the JFK assassination which appears to be crystal clear to everyone else . LHO and the CIA relationship was significant , so significant that they have admitted to a cover up .

            Maybe you can help me better understand why you support cover up , deceit and obstruction of justice ? I have taken time to state what I believe , if you can please try and return the favor. Thanks

          • It’s rather revealing when your usual response to this issue is how does it relate to the JFK assassination which appears to be crystal clear to everyone else . LHO and the CIA relationship was significant , so significant that they have admitted to a cover up .

            No, it’s not “crystal clear.”

            Oswald defected to the Soviet Union. He claimed he was going to reveal radar secrets. Then he returned.

            That’s plenty of reason to have him on the list.

            And you have no evidence they have “covered up” any CIA relationship with Oswald.

            You folks keep begging the question.

            Your subjective suspicions are not evidence.

        • Jean Davison says:

          DB,

          HT/Lingual monitored mail between this country and the Soviet Union, not mail within the U.S. itself.

          Some authors seem to think that because this program picked up some of the Oswalds’ mail to or from the Soviet Union it meant that the CIA was reading all of Oswald’s mail and monitoring
          his activities, but that’s not what the evidence indicates. (If I’m wrong about that, please show me.)

          There’s a good bit about HT/Lingual at the maryferrell.org site because the HSCA looked into it in the mid-1970s.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTLINGUAL

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33130&relPageId=39&search=“HT_lingual” AND oswald

  4. kennedy63 says:

    Photon, perhaps intuitive perceptions are best understood in the light of the connective associations provided by the facts in the DRE-Joannides case. http://www.jfklancer.com/morley.html Where you assert your need and right to facts, you are but a pretender. You seek to further obliterate the truth and denigrate that human beings do have an intuitive sense (in some people it is very pronounced). When looking at the JFK case, the anomalies alone should raise one’s intuitive sense that some things about this particular case do not align with reason or reality. If is your right to accept official pronouncements regarding LHO, SBT, and by inference, no conspiracy. You overlook the obvious conspiracy called the WARREN COMMISSION. They [commissioners] did little investigating of the crime; that was left to staffers. What the Warren Omission agreed to do – suppress any official recognition of a conspiracy to kill JFK – was accomplished and presented to LBJ, who did not believe the report’s conclusion. Neither did Gov. Connelly, who was wounded during the assassination, and maintained until he died that he was NOT hit by the same bullets as JFK. What do you call an august body of presidentially appointed men tasked with seeking the “truth” in the assassination of a sitting president? Indentured Servants.

    • Photon says:

      You have posted opinions, not facts.
      Who shot JFK?
      How did they shoot him?
      Where were the assassins?
      What forensic evidence do you have that he was not shot from behind?
      Why was Oswald the only employee who left the building unexcused before anybody in the building even knew that JFK had been shot?

      • “You have posted opinions, not facts.”~Photon

        Photon has jumped the shark and is asking questions that have nothing to do with the subject at hand: Which is the blatant evidence of a cover-up.

        > “Who shot JFK?” — Professional assassins.

        > “How did they shoot him?” — with guns.

        > “Where were the assassins?” – Daltex Bldg, the west window of the TSBD, the grassy knoll, and the southwest corner of Dealey Plaza just before the triple underpass; below the Dallas Post Office parking lot on a slope just above Commerce Street [head-shot]

        > “What forensic evidence do you have that he was not shot from behind?” – a misleading question. JFK was shot from both the front and from behind.

        > Why was Oswald the only employee who left the building unexcused before anybody in the building even knew that JFK had been shot” — He wasn’t.
        \\][//

      • John Rowell says:

        Photon, you know very well that Mrs. Robert Reid re-entered the TSBD after watching the parade, and informed LHO that “the president has been shot, but maybe they didn’t hit him.” Why you keep making this ridiculous claim is beyond me. For those who have never read her WC testimony, here it is:

        (The relevant portion is on page 274)

        http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh3/pdf/WH3_Reid.pdf

        • Photon says:

          If you actually read her testimony she admits that she never saw JFK or anybody else shot, nor even the actions of the Limo occupants during the shots
          She heard 3 shots. That is it. The fact that she said ” the President has been shot, but maybe they didn’t hit him” implys two things #1-she had no idea if anybody had been shot and #2 perhaps she meant to say ” the President has been shot at, but maybe thet didn’t hit him” and did not communicate what she actually said or the Committee misquoted her.
          The fact that Oswald’s response was a noncommittal shrug suggest to me the latter interpretation was the likely explanation. Oswald ( the political junkie according to his TSBD fellow workers) had virtually no response to the most titanic news of the 1960s. The only reason for that is that he already knew the condition of the President-he saw his head explode after he shot him.
          If you have any other reason for Oswald’s non-response please post it.

          • J.D. says:

            You’re really splitting hairs, Photon. It was obvious to every single person who observed the motorcade from the TSBD (whether from the front steps or a window) that someone had fired shots at the president. Shooting at a president is a major crime, even if you don’t actually hit anybody. Everyone knew that an assassination attempt had taken place. It doesn’t matter that nobody there knew what JFK’s condition was. It’s beyond me why you persist in making this argument.

      • R. Andrew Kiel says:

        Photon – not an accurate statement – Charles Givens was missing. Police Inspector Herbert Sawyer from the radio log on the afternoon of the assassination:

        “see if we can pick this man up. Charles Douglas Givens he is a colored male…a porter that worked on this floor up here, he has a police record and he left.”
        (CE 1974,83)
        Sawyer went on to tell the Warren Commission:
        “he is the one that had the previous record in the narcotics, and he was supposed to have been a witness to the man being on that floor. He was supposed to have been a witness to Oswald being there…and he was the one employee who was missing, or that he was missing from the building. He wasn’t accounted for…” (6 H 321-22)

        When Givens was brought in for questioning – Oswald was already in custody. In fact – Givens stated that he left the building at 11:30 and never mentioned seeing Oswald on the 6th floor. It was not until he testified before the Commission in April 1964 that he now said he saw Oswald on the 6th floor around noon.

        Givens was missing from the Depository – it should cause Photon to ask two questions. First of all – you were wrong about Oswald being the only one missing – can you admit that fact & secondly why would Givens change his mind about seeing Oswald on the 6th floor?

        Could it be that no one else could firmly place Oswald on the 6th floor anytime near 12-12:30 but Givens?
        Being a colored male, missing from the building, and having a narcotics conviction in Dallas, Texas in 1963 would have no bearing on Givens changing his mind – could it?

        • Photon – not an accurate statement – Charles Givens was missing.

          He was not accounted for initially, but it soon became obvious that he was hanging around outside waiting to get back into the Depository to claim his hat and coat.

          Being a colored male, missing from the building, and having a narcotics conviction in Dallas, Texas in 1963 would have no bearing on Givens changing his mind – could it?

          Well if the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy got Givens to lie, they didn’t get much of a lie out of him.

          Putting Oswald on the sixth floor at 11:50 is 40 minutes away from what they really needed, which was to put him there around 12:30.

          • R. Andrew Kiel says:

            I thought I was responding to Photon not McAdams – very interesting response – are you the same person?

            McAdams says – Givens was not accounted for INITIALLY, but it SOON became OBVIOUS that he was hanging around waiting to get his hat & coat. How long did INITIALLY last, how soon was SOON & who said it was OBVIOUS? Are you not aware that Officers Dyson and Revill did not question Givens until around 2PM? (5H 35-36)

            The question again Photon & McAdams – why did Givens change his story?

            McAdams – apparently you don’t know the importance the Warren Commission gave to Givens placing Oswald at 11:55 on the 6th floor. No one else placed him near the 6th floor from 11:55 to 12:30.

            Carolyn Arnold stated that she saw Oswald on the 1st floor around 12:15 (CD 5 p. 41)Eddie Piper and William Shelley both placed Oswald on the 1st floor right around noon.(6H 383 & 6H 323) If you can’t prove Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 then you have no case against Oswald.

            A floor-laying crew was working on the 6th floor the week of the assassination – how could Oswald count on when they would break for lunch each day and not return to the 6th floor for a cigarette as Charles Givens testified he did?

            Bonnie Ray Williams was eating his lunch (chicken bones) on the 6th floor until 12:20 – the motorcade was scheduled to pass at 12:25. Williams even told the Warren Commission that on Friday morning “everybody was talking like they would watch the motorcade on the 6th floor.” How could Oswald know that the 6th floor would be empty at 12:30 – & the motorcade 5 minutes late?

            What’s more is that FBI Agent James Hosty – part of the advance team – did not know there was going to be a motorcade and did not know it would pass the Depository until Thursday evening. This is supported by an article in the Dallas Morning News Friday Nov. 15 entitled “JFK Motorcade Seems Unlikely”.

            So Oswald took the job back in October knowing that everything would fall into place just the way HE planned it?

            Talk about believing in LA LA Land!

          • If you can’t prove Oswald was on the 6th floor at 12:30 then you have no case against Oswald.

            You mean only a witness who saw Oswald shooting counts? It doesn’t matter that shots from his gun killed Kennedy? That his gun was found on the 6th floor? That he had no alibi for 12:30?

            A floor-laying crew was working on the 6th floor the week of the assassination – how could Oswald count on when they would break for lunch each day and not return to the 6th floor for a cigarette as Charles Givens testified he did?

            Why did he need to “count on that?” Had it been impossible to get into the Sniper’s Nest with the gun without being observed, Kennedy would not have been killed.

            How could Oswald know that the 6th floor would be empty at 12:30 – & the motorcade 5 minutes late?

            He couldn’t. Had certain things not fallen into place, the plan would have been abandoned.

            So Oswald took the job back in October knowing that everything would fall into place just the way HE planned it?

            In October, he had no idea he would be shooting Kennedy. In fact, he may have not thought of shooting Kennedy until Thursday morning, when he asked Frazier for a ride home.

            And even then, if Marina had responded to his entreaties, the plan would have been scratched.

          • J.D. says:

            John McAdams writes: “Had certain things not fallen into place, the plan would have been abandoned. … In October, he had no idea he would be shooting Kennedy. In fact, he may have not thought of shooting Kennedy until Thursday morning, when he asked Frazier for a ride home. And even then, if Marina had responded to his entreaties, the plan would have been scratched.”

            This is complete fiction. Where does this information come from? When did Oswald make a detailed confession about when he “thought of” killing Kennedy and when he considered “scratching” it?

            He didn’t, of course. This is the same fantasy we’ve been hearing since the Warren Commission informed us that Oswald was motivated by an “urge to try to find a place in history,” a “motive” without support from any of their witnesses.

            One wonders how you can reconcile your constant complaints about “factoids” supposedly concocted by “buffs” with too much time on their hands with your own acceptance of a completely fraudulent narrative about what was supposedly going on in Oswald’s mind.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Ozzie had an alibi for 12:30 per Fritz’s notes. He was out front with Shelly.

          • When did Oswald make a detailed confession about when he “thought of” killing Kennedy and when he considered “scratching” it?

            OK, you think he would have gotten out the rifle, and gone into the Sniper’s Nest, even if other workers on the sixth floor were there to see him.

            You don’t seem to realize that you original post contained certain assumptions. You assumed that Oswald had planned the whole thing from early on.

            But you have no evidence of that.

            I think your point was that it is implausible that he had it planned since October.

            That’s true. But he didn’t have to have it planned since October. He only had to have it planned since Thursday morning.

          • your own acceptance of a completely fraudulent narrative about what was supposedly going on in Oswald’s mind.

            You need to brush up on logic.

            You were trying to claim that Oswald could not have shot Kennedy, based on a certain scenario in your mind.

            I showed that the scenario in your mind was not the only one that has Oswald shooting Kennedy.

            So your argument is no good.

            I don’t have to prove what Oswald thought, just that what you assumed to be necessary in fact is not.

          • Ozzie had an alibi for 12:30 per Fritz’s notes. He was out front with Shelly.

            Oh! Oswald was his own alibi!

            What did Shelly say about that?

            Did anybody see him out front?

            Why did he tell the press that he was “in that building?”

          • One wonders how you can reconcile your constant complaints about “factoids” supposedly concocted by “buffs” with too much time on their hands with your own acceptance of a completely fraudulent narrative about what was supposedly going on in Oswald’s mind.

            Please pay attention, and perhaps you will understand.

            You spun out a scenario about how Oswald could not have shot Kennedy. You assumed that Oswald would had to have planned to kill Kennedy weeks in advance.

            I put forth an alternative scenario that did not make that assumption.

            You were the one who concocted a “completely fraudulent narrative about what was supposedly going on in Oswald’s mind.”

            And you treated your made-up narrative as a fact.

            Are you following this?

          • J.D. says:

            John McAdams: “You spun out a scenario about how Oswald could not have shot Kennedy.”

            No, I didn’t. The post you’re responding to was written by someone else. Apparently you’re so eager to respond to every single post here that you’re not bothering to distinguish between the people you’re addressing.

            I was responding to your ludicrous attempt to read Oswald’s mind, which you’re now trying to spin as a “scenario.”

            It’s incredible to me that anybody takes your sophistry seriously.

          • I was responding to your ludicrous attempt to read Oswald’s mind, which you’re now trying to spin as a “scenario.”

            It was the other poster who was trying to read Oswald’s mind.

            I simply pointed out that he was making arbitrary assumptions about what Oswald was thinking.

            He was assuming Oswald had to have decided to shoot Kennedy in October.

            But no such assumption is warranted.

            Are you beginning to understand now?

          • J.D. says:

            Wow. Not a word of acknowledgment that you were completely wrong in responding to me as follows:

            “You were the one who concocted a ‘completely fraudulent narrative about what was supposedly going on in Oswald’s mind.’ And you treated your made-up narrative as a fact. Are you following this?”

            You are referring to a post by R. Andrew Kiel, not me. All I said was that the “scenario” you posited was fiction, since it drew on no known evidence. You have attacked me in four posts since then, accusing me of making a post that any reader can see I did not. Now that I’ve pointed out your error, you arrogantly ignore it.

            Yes, I am beginning to understand — that you’re not interested in debating this subject, learning anything new about it, or doing anything except starting pointless spats and attacking people. I won’t waste any more time responding to any of your posts.

          • You are referring to a post by R. Andrew Kiel, not me.

            OK. So what?

            You made an argument. I refuted your argument. It didn’t make any difference who made the argument, it was refuted.

            Kiel was assuming that Oswald would have had to decide to shoot Kennedy in October, or not at all.

            I showed that assumption to be unnecessary.

            Do you agree with Kiel, or not?

            Yes, I am beginning to understand — that you’re not interested in debating this subject, learning anything new about it, or doing anything except starting pointless spats and attacking people. I won’t waste any more time responding to any of your posts.

            You are the one who got huffy about the fact I lost track of whom I was arguing with.

            Now you are using that as an excuse to avoid discussing the issue.

    • When looking at the JFK case, the anomalies alone should raise one’s intuitive sense that some things about this particular case do not align with reason or reality.

      Two things about that:

      1. A lot of what you folks consider “anomalies” are in reality factoids. They just are not true.

      2. People dealing with this case tend to be immersed in it, and have no sense of the “baseline” number of anomalies associated with any complex and important case.

      • “Two things about that:”~McAdams

        These two pointless points are so general and subjective as to be totally meaningless filler, to get some sort of word in here with your tagline attached.

        In other words McAdams it is superlative rhetorical BS.
        \\][//

      • theNewDanger says:

        John McAdams
        June 25, 2016 at 7:19 pm

        When looking at the JFK case, the anomalies alone should raise one’s intuitive sense that some things about this particular case do not align with reason or reality.

        Two things about that:

        1. A lot of what you folks consider “anomalies” are in reality factoids. They just are not true.

        2. People dealing with this case tend to be immersed in it, and have no sense of the “baseline” number of anomalies associated with any complex and important case

        Your hopeless regurgitation of the official counterfactoid has never proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Lee Harvey Oswald that was killed by Jack Ruby fired a weapon on November 22, 1963. That’s no factoid. It’s an anomaly, the type your MIMAC thrives upon to repeatedly set “a kite up to keep the hen yard in order.”

      • Yes… let’s look at factoids…

        The mythical “roll call” where it was claimed that only Oswald was missing…

        Factoid or truth?

  5. Brace Berg says:

    I think in Mr. Morley’s recent E-book he makes the case that the SAS section of Counter Intelligence held all of the Oswald activity files and did not share them with the people writing the latest info on LHO was from 1962.
    I ask the brain surgeons did they ever hear of the concept need to know or compartmentalized. Meaning not everyone knew WTF was going on. Big story is CIA knew all about LHO pre 11/22/1963 and lied about for over 50 years and are still lying about. Ask yourself if CIA had pictures of LHO in from of Russian Consulate or Cuban Consulate why would they hide them? Prima Facia photographic evidence of LHO in either site would make the Castro Did it so easy even Photon could follow it. Since it is reasonable to assume LHO was impersonated on the phone calls to both Russian and Cuban Consulates that he was physically impersonated as well. If Photon would read either of Mr. Morleys books he would do well to re-read the Jane Roman interview and breakdown as many times as he mneeds to to understand that CIA lied to all parties in both cables question is why?

  6. Ask yourself if CIA had pictures of LHO in from of Russian Consulate or Cuban Consulate why would they hide them?

    Good question. And the answer is that they did not have photographs of Oswald. Since they said Oswald visited the embassies, a photo would have been perfectly consistent with their story.

    Since it is reasonable to assume LHO was impersonated on the phone calls to both Russian and Cuban Consulates that he was physically impersonated as well.

    Nonsense. The evidence that Oswald was there is overwhelming.

    There is his handwriting on the hotel register, and on the visa application. Duran’s phone number in his address book.

    Witness identification from Duran, Mirabal and the three KGB guys at the Soviet Embassy.

    And more.

    • Bogman says:

      All looks well and good in LN land, professor.

      Now can you and Photon address the 800lb gorilla in the room:

      Why did the CIA obstruct justice time and again with each successive investigation by hiding the extent of its relationship with the DRE?

      That single fact alone puts every other ‘fact’ in this case in doubt.

      Tunheim, Blakey, Sprague and Tanenbaum all say the CIA obstructed the full story, and even the WC’s Willens agrees.

      Why did the CIA hierarchy at the time allow Joannides to serve as Congressional liaison when they knew he had overseen the DRE?

      Why won’t the CIA simply show the American people the relevant files still outstanding?

      Is it really too much to ask the CIA to just answer these simple questions regarding THEIR illegal subterfuge?

      And then maybe you can actually read Morley’s ebook and Hardway’s declaration and answer their points as well.

      Then we can have a full and honest discussion about the assassination with the CIA’s subterfuge as the starting point.

      • Why did the CIA obstruct justice time and again with each successive investigation by hiding the extent of its relationship with the DRE?

        Sashay(tm)!

        The issue was about a supposed Oswald impersonation in Mexico City.

        I guess you don’t want to talk about that. You just reply with a bunch of unrelated buff talking points.

        • John says: “The issue was about a supposed Oswald impersonation in Mexico City.”

          I’m amused that believers still desperately refuse to admit that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City…

          A completely SEPARATE issue from whether Oswald was in Mexico City.

          • I’m amused that anybody believes that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City.

            What is your evidence?

          • John says: “I’m amused that anybody believes that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City.

            What is your evidence?”

            Same as yours, John.

            The evidence is the same. You simply deny it exists, because you realize that the evidence doesn’t support your faith.

            So you force people to go over the same evidence time and time again. I’m not interested in playing that game.

            You know, and I know that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City. And if I were in front of you right now holding a bat, you’d admit it quickly enough.

            Anyone interested in determining who’s right can easily locate the same evidence that you’re so desperately denying right now.

          • Photon says:

            Ben, what IS your evidence? That some one misidentified a picture of an individual at the Cuban embassy? That is basically it, isn’t? Cuban embassy staffers IDed Oswald as the individual who visited the embassy-what more do you want?

          • You know, and I know that Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City. And if I were in front of you right now holding a bat, you’d admit it quickly enough.

            Sashay(tm)!

            And a physical threat to boot!

            Ben doesn’t want to discuss it, since he knows he would be shot out of the water. All he has is bogus buff book stuff.

          • John says: “Sashay(tm)! And a physical threat to boot! Ben doesn’t want to discuss it, since he knows he would be shot out of the water. All he has is bogus buff book stuff.”

            No reason to repeat what you already know, and yet are willing to deny.

            It’s a complete waste of time with disinfo posters.

            Do you remember the first time you ran from me, John?

            I do…

            What’s the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

            You twisted that simple question into one about mass – even though mass is impossible to detect in a two dimensional representation.

            I’ve no more hope now than then that you can support your position in any way other than to twist & turn in the wind.

            And that’s a waste of time.

            Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, there’s very solid evidence – very EARLY evidence for precisely that.

            But you can’t explain it, so you deny it.

          • Do you remember the first time you ran from me, John?

            I do…

            What’s the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?

            I didn’t run from you. I gave you an answer you didn’t like, and you just kept pretending that I had not answered you.

            I finally stopped you from doing that about the 20th time you kept at it.

            You pulled a Robert Harris. It’s dishonest to pretend you have not been answered when you have, but just didn’t like the answer.

            I’ve no more hope now than then that you can support your position in any way other than to twist & turn in the wind.

            You are the one who made an assertion and refused to provide evidence for it.

            Your are wasting your time and mine loudly insisting on something you refuse to support with evidence.

            I think you know that any “evidence” would get blown out of the water.

        • “Photon” says: “Ben, what IS your evidence? That some one misidentified a picture of an individual at the Cuban embassy? That is basically it, isn’t? Cuban embassy staffers IDed Oswald as the individual who visited the embassy-what more do you want?”

          Didn’t you read my answer to John?

          It’s the same evidence that you know about – presuming, of course, that you’re literate & knowledgeable on the evidence in this case.

          Denying it … or misrepresenting it, simply doesn’t work in today’s world, where anyone interested can Google the information very quickly.

          • Photon says:

            While Ben, I guess that I am illiterate , or unknowledgable about the case. But I just don’t see any evidence for your allegation aside from the usual generalities, assumptions and misinformation.
            Please give us mentally challenged individuals a little help. Please post incontrovertible evidence that backs up your claims about Mexico City. You see, I just don’t accept claims based on what you “know”.

          • Photon says: “While Ben, I guess that I am illiterate , or unknowledgable about the case. But I just don’t see any evidence for your allegation aside from the usual generalities, assumptions and misinformation.

            Please give us mentally challenged individuals a little help. Please post incontrovertible evidence that backs up your claims about Mexico City. You see, I just don’t accept claims based on what you “know”.”

            I could really care less about what you “accept” or not.

            Anyone who wants to learn more can use Google, and locate far more information than I could post here in hours of typing.

            I’ll just stick to pointing out the undisputed facts.

            And ignore the distractions.

          • I’ll just stick to pointing out the undisputed facts.

            All you have offered is unsupported opinions.

            Do you think you can make something true merely by continually asserting it?

          • Anyone who wants to learn more can use Google, and locate far more information than I could post here in hours of typing.

            Don’t you understand how cowardly it looks when you make a claim and then refuse to support it?

          • John says: “I answered it, and you just refused to accept the answer.

            Of course “size” can be mass. Somebody might say that a bowling ball is “bigger” than a dinner plate, in spite of the larger diameter of the plate.

            If you say I did not answer you, you are lying.

            You just didn’t like the answer.”

            The proof of answering it would be to simply answer it.

            Not to complain that you did.

            And only a fool thinks that mass can be determined in a two-dimensional representation of something…

            So stop running, John… what’s the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray of JFK?

          • As I stated: “Anyone who wants to learn more can use Google, and locate far more information than I could post here in hours of typing.”

            John says: “Don’t you understand how cowardly it looks when you make a claim and then refuse to support it?”

            (John won’t quote my claim…)

            Don’t you know how cowardly it looks when you pretend to assert that there are no clouds in the sky? Then demand proof of it?

            More direct and to the point, do you know how cowardly it is to refuse to state what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray is? Yet pretend that you’ve already answered it?

          • And only a fool thinks that mass can be determined in a two-dimensional representation of something…

            But Humes had his hands on the fragment at the front of the skull.

          • As I said: “And only a fool thinks that mass can be determined in a two-dimensional representation of something…”

            John toss out an irrelevancy: “But Humes had his hands on the fragment at the front of the skull.”

            My statement stands, unrefuted.

            And you STILL refuse to state what the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray is…

            Weren’t you just through defining cowardice?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Oh Photon,

            Isn’t it convenient for you and the other believers of the WO that the CIA’s actions in MC and afterward will never fully be known? You can hide behind the “evidence,” or lack of it, because you KNOW the government will NEVER require anyone related to the assassination to testify in a court of law. You and Mr. McAdams go on and on about the “evidence,” when you know for a fact that only a portion of the evidence will ever see the light of day. You must be very comforted as you ask for “evidence.”

            Take what you said about Humes and his destruction of evidence. It was, in your words, bad. No, Photon, it is the destruction of evidence in a murder case, which used to be a felony in this country.

            Also consider what John said about Gerald Ford and his destruction of 86—yes Photon, 86 pages of information collected by his own committee, the Rockefeller. John said that was also “bad.” No, Photon, it is a felony. However, you KNOW that NO ONE related to the investigation of JFK’s death is ever going to held accountable. So, you can sing all day long about evidence.

            You have yet to explain why the CIA could not give us a photo of LHO in MC, but could produce a picture of a Russian body builder. Oh, I know. They made a mistake! Remind me, Photon, which person in the CIA was ever held accountable for the cameras not working that, and only that, day? As you are well aware, MC was the hotbed of spying in the 60’s. For you to believe that the CIA cameras were not working on that day, and only that day is hypocritical of you. Of course, that is your MO on this site. Go after Talbot for saying Dulles was in the wrong place, but forgiving Humes for destruction of evidence in a murder investigation as “bad.”

            Want to talk evidence? Start with explaining why NO ONE that bumbled the “investigation” was ever held accountable? Hosty? Joannides? Helms? Angleton? Ford?

          • Also consider what John said about Gerald Ford and his destruction of 86—yes Photon, 86 pages of information collected by his own committee, the Rockefeller. John said that was also “bad.” No, Photon, it is a felony.

            Nonsense. Stuff gets redacted from government reports all the time.

            Try engaging in some serious discussion, rather than just venting about people you hate.

          • Want to talk evidence? Start with explaining why NO ONE that bumbled the “investigation” was ever held accountable? Hosty? Joannides? Helms? Angleton? Ford?

            Actually, Hosty was punished by Hoover, although he was essentially a scapegoat.

            But explain how any of these men “bungled the investigation?”

            Who has been punished in the FBI for the Orlando shooter?

            Who has been punished in the FBI for the Boston Marathon Bombing?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Jeezz. I go off grid for two days and the first thing I see on here is Every recent post is by Mc adams??? Trying to speed things along are you John?

        • Do you remember the first time you ran from me, John?

          I do…

          What’s the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?”

          John says: “I didn’t run from you. I gave you an answer you didn’t like, and you just kept pretending that I had not answered you.”

          And here we are, YEARS later, and still no answer to that question…

          “Mass” is not size, John… and you’ve NEVER answered the question… nor can you cite any prior answer…

          Why is that, John?

          • I answered it, and you just refused to accept the answer.

            Of course “size” can be mass. Somebody might say that a bowling ball is “bigger” than a dinner plate, in spite of the larger diameter of the plate.

            If you say I did not answer you, you are lying.

            You just didn’t like the answer.

          • Photon says:

            Well, you sure seem to be running away from an answer. As you cannot give a single piece of evidence to support your Mexico City claims it is obvious that you would rather deal in fantasy as opposed to facts.

          • “Photon” says: “Well, you sure seem to be running away from an answer. As you cannot give a single piece of evidence to support your Mexico City claims it is obvious that you would rather deal in fantasy as opposed to facts.”

            Your denial of the historical evidence in this case is, I’m sure, of interest to psychologists, but holds no interest for me.

          • Photon says:

            Again I ask, what historical evidence? Better yet , how about ANY evidence? Ben, it is easy to make wild claims in a forum where nobody will challenge you, but an entirely different matter when somebody states that the emperor has no clothes.
            Your refusal to post a single supporting statement proves that as far as this topic goes you are buck naked.

          • “Photon” says: “Again I ask, what historical evidence? Better yet , how about ANY evidence? Ben, it is easy to make wild claims in a forum where nobody will challenge you, but an entirely different matter when somebody states that the emperor has no clothes. Your refusal to post a single supporting statement proves that as far as this topic goes you are buck naked.”

            I’ve both detailed how to find much more than I can type, and also provided a statement from Hoover to LBJ.

            Your inability to read does not discredit me in the least…

            And you simply cannot convince anyone that the Earth is flat, no matter how much you try.

          • Photon says:

            Hoover made mistakes.Besides, didn’t he kill JFK?
            Give me some real evidence.
            If you can.

          • “Photon” says: “Hoover made mistakes.Besides, didn’t he kill JFK? Give me some real evidence. If you can.”

            Can’t do it… your “definition” of evidence precludes anything that might upset your faith.

            However, for virtually anyone else other than rabid believers, what I provided would certainly be considered “evidence”.

            And the important point is that you understand that your claim I’ve not provided anything is simply false.

          • Photon says:

            That is the reply of someone who can’t come up with anything.
            You have no credibility ,Ben.
            Where is the evidence?

          • “Photon” says: “Hoover made mistakes.Besides, didn’t he kill JFK? Give me some real evidence. If you can.”

            Can’t do it… your “definition” of evidence precludes anything that might upset your faith.

            However, for virtually anyone else other than rabid believers, what I provided would certainly be considered “evidence”.

            And the important point is that you understand that your claim I’ve not provided anything is simply false.

            “Photon” responds: “That is the reply of someone who can’t come up with anything. You have no credibility ,Ben. Where is the evidence?”

            I’ve already provided some of it, and your best response is that it’s not evidence.

            Do you think that you’re convincing anyone?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John,

            I do have a question, but you will not find the answer in the WO, so you may struggle, but it is worth a shot.

            You have indicated that you are a conservative, correct? Which means you are very worried about the prospects of H. Clinton leading this country, correct?

            I am sure you are HORRIFIED by Hillary’s actions or lack of actions in Benghazi, correct?

            However, you KNOW that Gerald Ford, as president, destroyed 86 pages of information that he ordered collected. You said that was “bad.”

            So, John, which is worse, Hillary’s actions or Ford’s actions? One was the president when HE LIED, the other one we don’t know where she will land.

            Ah, John, “hypocrisy and evidence.” It is a terrible thing, isn’t it?

            You believe everything Ford said and did while on the WC, yet we now know—YOU now know—that he was a LIAR.

            Would you like to discuss Ford’s lying and how it has affected the collection of evidence during the “investigation?”

            BTW—I don’t worry much about getting my ass kicked on evidence, because you are quoting LIARS for your information.

            Here are some examples of Ford’s “character:”

            Ford administration officials suppressed the Rockefeller Commission’s actual report on CIA assassination plots.

            Richard Cheney, then the deputy assistant to the president, edited the report of the Rockefeller Commission from inside the Ford White House, stripping the report of its independent character.

            The Rockefeller Commission remained silent on this manipulation.

            Rockefeller Commission lawyers and public relations officials warned of the damage that would be done to the credibility of the entire investigation by avoiding the subject of assassinations.

            Tell me, John, why would the commission “remain silent” on the manipulation?

          • However, you KNOW that Gerald Ford, as president, destroyed 86 pages of information that he ordered collected. You said that was “bad.”

            I think Ford thought it would harm national security. That was a bad call, since it came out soon enough anyway.

            You believe everything Ford said and did while on the WC, yet we now know—YOU now know—that he was a LIAR.

            No, we know no such thing. Withholding information for purposes of national security is not lying, even if if shows bad judgment.

            And how does this make anything in the Warren Commission report a “lie?”

            You are just obsessed with people you hate. And you hate people who don’t believe in a conspiracy.

            But I really don’t care that you hate Ford.

            It’s obvious you can’t discuss evidence here. You just want to vent about people you hate.

            Try discussing some evidence for a change.

          • What’s the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray?”

            John says: “I didn’t run from you. I gave you an answer you didn’t like, and you just kept pretending that I had not answered you.”

            And here we are, YEARS later, and still no answer to that question…

            “Mass” is not size, John… and you’ve NEVER answered the question… nor can you cite any prior answer…

            Why is that, John?

            John says: “Try discussing some evidence for a change.”

            The AP X-ray IS evidence, John…

            Why the cowardice, John?

    • John Rowell says:

      McAdams: “Nonsense. The fact that Oswald was there is overwhelming.”

      Why does it have to be one or the other? It’s perfectly reasonable that Oswald physically visited Mexico AND was impersonated on the phone.

      The CIA and the FBI had the infrastructure in place to obtain the evidence that would settle the issue once and for all. (I know, I know, probably not.) Their excuse is that they either destroyed the evidence, or failed to obtain it in the first place. With intelligence agencies so incompetent, one might reasonably wonder how we survived the Cold War at all.

      • It’s perfectly reasonable that Oswald physically visited Mexico AND was impersonated on the phone.

        But there is actually no evidence of that. The whole business about the man making the call not being fluent in Russian has been debunked by Jean.

        With intelligence agencies so incompetent, one might reasonably wonder how we survived the Cold War at all.

        Perhaps because the KGB was also incompetent. Or perhaps because the Cold War did not turn on intelligence agencies, but rather (1) military power, and (2) the patent superiority of capitalist economies.

        Think about the FBI and the Boston Marathon bombers. Think about the FBI and the Orlando shooter? Neither case really proves the FBI to be incompetent. Both show that, among a lot of shady and questionable characters, it’s hard to know who is going to go on and kill some people.

        • I stated: “It’s perfectly reasonable that Oswald physically visited Mexico AND was impersonated on the phone.”

          John says: “But there is actually no evidence of that.”

          What can one say when someone tells you that the Earth is flat?

          • Sashay(tm)!

            Post your evidence.

            I’m sure it’s something we’ve all heard before, and seen debunked.

          • I stated: “It’s perfectly reasonable that Oswald physically visited Mexico AND was impersonated on the phone.”

            John says: “But there is actually no evidence of that.”

            What can one say when someone tells you that the Earth is flat?

            John replies: “Sashay(tm)! Post your evidence. I’m sure it’s something we’ve all heard before, and seen debunked.”

            I’ve no intention of writing a book here. Merely to refute the misrepresentations…

            Still can’t name that foreign object in the AP X-ray, can you John?

      • John and John,

        Here is the ARRB testimony of Anne Goodpasture, in full:

        http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/pdf/Goodpasture_12-15-95.pdf

        \\][//

        • OK, what do you think that proves?

          • “OK, what do you think that proves?”~John McAdams

            Goodspasture states clearly that the tape was sent to Washington DC via Loredo TX. Verifying Hoover’s phone conversation with Johnson, that his agents had listened to the tape and it was not Oswald.

            \\][//

          • Goodspasture states clearly that the tape was sent to Washington DC via Loredo TX. Verifying Hoover’s phone conversation with Johnson, that his agents had listened to the tape and it was not Oswald.

            No. She was told that Hoover had mentioned a “tape up here.” She then speculated as to how that could happen.

            Here, she says remembers no tape:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146573#relPageId=147

            She says to ask Eldon Rudd. We know what he said: no tape.

          • Man No. 2 in the police lineup, happened to be the only man in the lineup with a big bruise on his head and a black eye.

            Gee, I wonder if that might have been an influence on anyone’s picking man #2?

            Nah, just another coincidence. Lol

            \\][//

          • John says: “No. She was told that Hoover had mentioned a “tape up here.” She then speculated as to how that could happen.

            Here, she says remembers no tape:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=146573#relPageId=147

            She says to ask Eldon Rudd. We know what he said: no tape.”

            Desperately trying to imply that Goodpasture knew of no tapes…

            But this is quite plainly incorrect.

            Nor does she say, as John claims, that she remembers no tape… that’s untrue.

            And this misrepresentation is documented on the very page that John cites.

            That’s quite courageous! 🙂

          • Tom S. says:

            Ben, Dr. McAdams, Bob, and all other commentors.:

            http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
            ……..
            4. Consecutive comments from the same reader will not be posted


            Limit your comment “dumps” to two per sweep.
            I have not been enforcing rule 4. and it is
            increasingly difficult to keep track of the six or more, back to back comments submitted regularly
            by Ben and Dr. Adams, especially. You are making this rule impossible to maintain because there are
            only six lines on the list display.:

            5. The Front Page Sidebar Rule: No comment will be published that results in the commenter’s name appearing three times in the “What Readers Are Saying” sidebar on the front page,

            When you return to submit a comment after recently submitting three comments, view the “Recent Comments” sidebar on the middle, right side of the front page. If your last three comments are displayed on the list, do not submit additional comments until your prior comments have descended to the very bottom of the list, please.

          • Tom says: “Limit your comment “dumps” to two per sweep.”

            I realize that this is not a forum, and you have to have such rules.

            But as there are a number of believers that all jump on any response, and must all be answered individually – that rule prevents me from correcting the lies being told regularly by those I respond to.

            So I’ll be just lurking from time to time, and keeping my responses on a forum.

            Unfortunately, as believers tend to stay away from forums they don’t control, this gives a false impression to the general reading public.

          • Nor does she say, as John claims, that she remembers no tape… that’s untrue.

            And this misrepresentation is documented on the very page that John cites.

            She was aware of no tape of Oswald existing after the assassination.

            That’s the tape you need. And you can’t get it from Goodpasture’s testimony.

        • McAdams is misrepresenting Ms Goodpasture’s testimony. She remembers the tape, but she doesn’t “remember” what was ON IT, because she never listened to the tape, she only handed it from one party to the next.
          . . . . . .

          The Central Intelligence Agency advised that on October 1, 1963, an extremely sensitive source had reported that an individual identified himself as Lee Oswald, who contacted the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City inquiring as to any messages. Special Agents of this Bureau, who have conversed with Oswald in Dallas, Texas, have observed photographs of the individual referred to above and have listened to a recording of his voice. These Special Agents are of the opinion that the above-referred-to individual was not Lee Harvey Oswald [See excerpt in HSCA staff report entitled “Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City:
          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0011a.htm

          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/pages/LopezRpt_0011a.gif

          \\][//

          • You just keep repeating the same stuff, and ignoring the evidence.

            No tape was sent to Dallas.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm

            You cling to the buff book factoids, and ignore evidence that’s not in the buff books.

          • She remembers the tape, but she doesn’t “remember” what was ON IT, because she never listened to the tape, she only handed it from one party to the next.

            She doesn’t remember any tape of Oswald.

            She doesn’t remember any tape sent to Dallas, but when told (wrongly) that a tape was sent to Dallas, she speculates how that might have happened.

          • “She doesn’t remember any tape of Oswald.”
            ~McAdams

            You are dissembling McAdams Goodpasture certainly knew what tape was in her hand that she passed on to Win Scott.
            Do you think she was stupid?
            More to the point do you think we are stupid to fall for your clumsy rhetorical jabberwacky?
            \\][//

      • McAdams: “Nonsense. The fact that Oswald was there is overwhelming.”

        John Rowell correctly points out: “Why does it have to be one or the other? It’s perfectly reasonable that Oswald physically visited Mexico AND was impersonated on the phone.

        The CIA and the FBI had the infrastructure in place to obtain the evidence that would settle the issue once and for all.”

        Actually, the issue *WAS* settled. But it wasn’t in the interests of the coverup to go any further into this area.

        It wouldn’t surprise me at all to learn that the CIA knew the identity of the impersonator. (Or more accurately, some of those in the CIA)

        I accept the national security concerns back then, I’m sure the U.S. government had no desire to let the world know how well our intelligence operations worked…

        But the Warren Commission RAN in the other direction every time something came up that would show connections between Oswald and *anyone* else. And particularly anyone’s interest in using Oswald.

    • Brace Berg says:

      semantics professor, ok if CIA had photos of LHO at either embassy they would have broadcast them to the world. Just like the ” erased ” tapes warren commission member slawson heard when he went down to Mexico city just like J edgar told LBJ that the voice on the tape from mexico did not match the voice of LHO.
      Professor face it Oswald was impersonated ON THE CALLS ON September 28 AND ON October 1st. Also explain to me hoe Oswald got to Mexico City and that LHO signature was verified in the hotel ledger?

      • semantics professor, ok if CIA had photos of LHO at either embassy they would have broadcast them to the world.

        Of course they would have. Which is how we know they didn’t have photos of Oswald.

        warren commission member slawson heard when he went down to Mexico city just like J edgar told LBJ that the voice on the tape from mexico did not match the voice of LHO.

        No, not “just like.” Hoover supposedly was talking about tapes in Dallas, listened to by FBI agents.

        Both Slawson and Coleman told the HSCA the tapes in Mexico City had been erased.

        Then in the 1990s, they started saying they had heard tapes.

        Then in the 2000s, to Shenon, both denied hearing any tape. Slawson said he had not, but that Coleman had. Coleman told Slawson that he didn’t remember hearing any tapes. But Coleman added that if Slawson said he (Coleman) had, he probably had.

        The question buffs never ask is: if the CIA lied about having erased the tapes, why would Win Scott reveal the lie by playing any tapes for Coleman and Slawson?

        And only five month after the assassination?

        • John says: “Both Slawson and Coleman told the HSCA the tapes in Mexico City had been erased.”

          My crystal ball is shouting at me… this claim will NEVER be cited for…

          This is what disinfo agents do – they misrepresent the evidence…

        • Brace Berg says:

          It is undeniable LHO was impersonated from History Matters website Rex Bradford article. also from Larry Hancock Book 2010 edition page 223 verbatim quote references History Matters as well as Mike Beschloss 1997 Taking Charge:

          LBJ Library: Yes, It’s Erased!

          It’s official. The Lyndon Baines Johnson Library is in possession of, and has released to this researcher, a memo which confirms the erasure of the Johnson-Hoover phone call of November 23, 1963. This call, conducted less than 24 hours after the murder of President Kennedy and preserved in a transcript, included Hoover’s disclosure that Lee Harvey Oswald had been impersonated weeks earlier in Mexico City. For the story of this phone call, its content and implications, and the author’s discovery of its erasure, see The Fourteen Minute Gap essay on this website (see also More Mexico Mysteries on this website).
          http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenMinuteGap_Update/FourteenMinuteGap_Update.htm

          The quote of Hoover to LBJ is illumoinating.
          also 2 warren commission attorneys heard the tapes.Why do you think this shook up LBJ and Hoover so much. Also the Feebies and CIA had files on LHO up the Waazzo.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Interesting post Brace. I’ve heard of him before. Do you have a link to the Rex Bradford article?

  7. Oswald was impersonated in Mexico City, there’s very solid evidence – very EARLY evidence for precisely that.

    But John can’t explain it, so he denies it.

    “We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there” (Johnson to Hoover, White House Telephone Transcripts, 23 November 1963, LBJ Library, Austin, Texas)

    • You really haven’t been here long, have you?

      That account came from Alan Belmont, who talked to Gordon Shanklin early Saturday morning, and got confused about what he was told.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless3.htm

      Nobody in Dallas was confused about what they had gotten from Mexico City. Nobody in Mexico City was confused about what they had sent. No tapes. Just transcripts.

      • “We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet Embassy down there” (Johnson to Hoover, White House Telephone Transcripts, 23 November 1963, LBJ Library, Austin, Texas)

        Verified by Ms Goodpasture. Pg. 147

        http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/arrb/cia_testimony/pdf/Goodpasture_12-15-95.pdf

        \\][//

        • Do you even read the stuff you cite?

          Goodpasture says she has no recollection of any tape being given to the FBI.

          She has been told there was a tape sent to the FBI, and she is speculating how that could have happened.

          • John Rowell says:

            For McAdams: Evidence exists that Oswald WAS impersonated, and it’s not an unsubstantiated eyewitness report that you can wave away with your hand.

            http://knoxblogs.com/atomiccity/2013/11/22/lee-harvey-oswald-oak-ridge/

            Does that look like Oswald’s signature? Here’s an example to compare:

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh17/pdf/WH17_CE_496.pdf

          • “Does that look like Oswald’s signature?”~John Rowell

            No, I don’t think so. Oswald’s signature did not have the same ‘flourish’ or ‘penmanship’ or ‘panache’ shall we say.

            The two signatures were written by a different hand.
            \\][//

          • For McAdams: Evidence exists that Oswald WAS impersonated, and it’s not an unsubstantiated eyewitness report that you can wave away with your hand.

            What in the world would be the point of sending an Oswald impersonator to Oak Ridge?

          • John Rowell says:

            McAdams: “What in the world would be the point of sending an Oswald impersonator to Oak Ridge?”

            I don’t know. That’s a very good question.

            So you agree that it was an impostor?

          • “What in the world would be the point of sending an Oswald impersonator to Oak Ridge?”~McAdams

            They didn’t send an impersonator to Oak Ridge.
            The signature in the book is Oswald’s real signature.

            The OTHER signature is NOT Oswald’s.
            \\][//

          • John Rowell says:

            Willy Whitten: “The signature in the book is his real signature.”

            Probably not Willy. One, the signature on the TSBD application is a witnessed signature, entered into evidence. Ergo, it becomes the signature of record. Two, notice the date: 26 July 1963. That’s the day before he gave his famous speech in Mobile to the Jesuits. I’m not willing to say it’s impossible for him to have been in both places on succeeding days, but it would not have been easy.

      • John says: “You really haven’t been here long, have you?”

        Long enough to know that disinfo specialists like to explain away the evidence, rather than deal with it.

        • Long enough to know that disinfo specialists like to explain away the evidence, rather than deal with it.

          Yep. When the buffs here are called out on the evidence, they start huffing and puffing about “disinfo specialists.”

          When they do that, it means they just got their ass kicked on evidence.

          • I stated: “Long enough to know that disinfo specialists like to explain away the evidence, rather than deal with it.”

            John says: “Yep. When the buffs here are called out on the evidence, they start huffing and puffing about “disinfo specialists.” When they do that, it means they just got their ass kicked on evidence.”

            I’m not the one running from the evidence, John… you refuse to admit that there *is* evidence for Oswald being impersonated…

            And you STILL refuse to name the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray.

            Why is that, John?

          • Antonio D'Antonio says:

            Your constant insisting that you have kicked someone’s ass on evidence are nothing but hollow self-proclamations.

          • “Yep. When the buffs here are called out on the evidence, they start huffing and puffing about “disinfo specialists.”

            When they do that, it means they just got their ass kicked on evidence.”~McAdams

            No actually ‘professor’, it just means that they have a grasp on your MO.
            \\][//

          • Your constant insisting that you have kicked someone’s ass on evidence are nothing but hollow self-proclamations.

            Irony alert!

            The buffs here are always insisting that this or that is “obvious” and saying “go google the evidence.”

            And this buff is talking about “hollow self-proclamations.”

          • I’m not the one running from the evidence, John… you refuse to admit that there *is* evidence for Oswald being impersonated…

            They only “evidence” you folks have posted is the long debunked nonsense about a “tape in Dallas not Oswald’s voice.”

            Do you have anything else?

            If so, post it.

          • John says: “Irony alert! The buffs here are always insisting that this or that is “obvious” and saying “go google the evidence.” And this buff is talking about “hollow self-proclamations.”

            The believers are constantly asking for proof of things long accepted as true by virtually everyone.

            And cry when they demand an answer that requires a chapter or two of writing that’s already published online, and a critic refuses to provide it.

            It’s a simple question… what was the largest foreign object that anyone can see in the AP X-ray… and John could actually answer it in just a few words.

            The evidence of impersonation in Mexico City is quite different, and requires quite a lot of words…

            Tell us John… what would you define as the more cowardly act?

          • And you STILL refuse to name the largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray.

            I’ve responded to you on this, but you just don’t like the answer.

        • John says: “They only “evidence” you folks have posted is the long debunked nonsense about a “tape in Dallas not Oswald’s voice.” Do you have anything else? If so, post it.”

          Nope… no need.

          You pretend it’s not evidence… that’s factually untrue.

          You pretend it’s been debunked… that’s factually untrue.

          And that largest foreign object seen in the AP X-ray still remains unnamed by you … YEARS of refusing to answer…

          Why is that, John?

          • Antonio D'Antonio says:

            “The buffs here are always insisting that this or that is obvious and saying go google the evidence.
            And this buff is talking about hollow self-proclamations.”

            Where in my statement does it say that anything is obvious, for you to go google the evidence or just exactly what hollow self-proclamation did I make?
            You seem to have a difficult time responding to any comment without using some generic statement about what “buffs” do.
            Well, I know what you do because it becomes all too obvious after reading enough of your posts.

  8. Oswald was inspired by Castro?

    Mateen was inspired by Daesh?

    Maybe, maybe not.

  9. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=9300252#post9300252

    How to convince me a conspiracy is real by Tomtomkent (Philosopher)

    So I started reading this playbook for stooges. I found it to be entirely trite and unoriginal. I have run into these same arguments, verbatim for more than a decade. It simply bleeds arrogant bias…just like most shills one encounters in these circles.

    And let us be clear about the terms “shill” – “stooge” – “toady” etc. This is claimed to be ad hominem by these pseudo skeptics, where as the terms “conspiracy theorist” and “conspiracist” are deemed merely characterizations of a mind set. The fact is ALL of these terms characterize a mind set and an MO, or a personality profile. Ergo, if you claim that saying that you are a stooge is “calling names” but are shocked when it is pointed out that YOU are calling names as well if that is to be the definition thereof, then YOU are a bloody hypocrite.

    Ad Hominem is using ridicule in place of an argument. Ridicule on its own, and in pointing out that a person is ridiculous, is NOT an argument and is not framed as one. It is an INSULT and nothing else as it does not attach to argument directly. This is called justified ad hominem, whether you can find that in any of your playbooks or not.

    See: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/404-phil/Summer-99/Handouts/Philosophical/Ad-Hominem.htm

    Now I have to say this about labeling Hanky and Mongrel and Androidson as ‘stooges’ has to do with my own expertise in argumentation for so many years now. There is a very standardized psychological profile of an authoritarian stooge. It is a template just like any other profiling, such as the profile of a “psychopath”, a “sociopath”, a “neurotic”, a “rapist”, a “terrorist” a “dissident”, etc… There are niches for each breed of pigeon.

    Individuation is a more difficult profile to establish. A hard core individualist will frustrate and baffle most other pigeons in a pecking order, if you follow my metaphor. The free thinker will in fact enrage most of his indoctrinated members of his society. His mindset is a mystery to them.

    The free thinker’s knowledge base will likely be incomprehensible to most as the free thinker is by impulse autodidactic and tends towards the meme of the polymath. The free thinker has not become a member of a specific specialty but is expert in many fields by self study and a insatiable thirst for knowledge. This type of personality is often charged as being “narcissistic”, while in fact it is a healthy self confidence that is rare and off putting to those who have prostrated themselves before authority and peer pressure.

    These dynamics are all present in one degree or another on the internet forums, and this one is no exception.
    [Originally posted on an Amazon JFK forum]
    \\][//

    • Photon says:

      That still doesn’t put the back wound at T3 or explain how you have a disappearing flechette .

      • Photon”s comment is not relevant to the commentary I just made that his response is directed to.

        Further there are two separate issues improperly pressed together as though they were one in Photon’s comment.

        Also his complaint about the location being at T3 is in conflict with the physical evidence as well as the testimony of the head of the HSCA medical panel, Dr. Michael Baden.
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          When did Baden say the wound was at T3?
          Exact quote, please – not your layman interpretation.
          Was not your entire post off topic?

          • “When did Baden say the wound was at T3?”
            ~Photon

            Baden put JFK’s back wound in the same location as the bullet holes in the shirt and coat;

            5 1/2 to 5 3/4 inches down from the collar.
            You know as well as I do exactly where that point is.

            “Was not your entire post off topic?”~Photon

            No. It was not off topic.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            No Willy, give me a quote that Baden said the wound was at T3. Not your high school biology ( if you took that class) interpretation.It is tiresome to keep reading your unsubstantiated interpretation of a topic that you know nothing about. You may have had an artistic exposure to the human body, but you have never dissected it, examined it or actually had any formal university level practical lab. You and others are totally clueless as to the effects of JFK’s Addison treatment and how he was Cushingoid at the time of his death. You and others are totally clueless as to how post-mortem changes in a Cushingoid neck may obscure the actual position of a bullet wound IN A LIVING INDIVIDUAL. It is the same issue with the clothes. you and others simply refuse to accept the fact that JFK’s shirt and coat were RIDING UP his back and neck-which has been documented over and over in the photographic record.

          • 5 1/2 to 5 3/4 inches down from the collar.

            You know as well as I do exactly where that point is.

            5.3 inches below the top of the collar.

            And it’s at T1.

          • “5.3 inches below the top of the collar.
            And it’s at T1.”McAdams

            T1 is directly behind a shirt collar, not 5.3 inches below the top of the collar.

            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Look at the suit coat and shirt, the autopsy reference. It’s clear enough for an average person. 5 1/2 inches below the collar is not in the neck it’s in the neck. Thanks for the clarification John.
            That’s why Ford had to move it up to move it up for Arlen Specter’s WC/WO SBT to work.

          • Photon says:

            Nobody has to move anything up. No doctor who examined the body or the autopsy data places the back wound at T3-and Burkley’s “about T3” was nothing but an approximation, not a precise anatomic placement.
            That should be the end of the story, but of course Drs. Whitten and Wayne know more than all of the forensic pathologists who have examined this case. All of them. Even though neither has seen a bullet wound, participated in an autopsy, seen a body in rigor mortis.
            If you have to resort to fantasy to maintain your position, perhaps you should alter your position. t the T3 entrance myth is nothing but fantasy.

          • There is no getting through to people like Photon who are in a coma-like state of o denial.

            No amount of evidence or reason will move them.

            \\][//

          • That’s why Ford had to move it up to move it up for Arlen Specter’s WC/WO SBT to work.

            Another zombie factoid. Buffs here must have been corrected on that a dozen times, but just ignore the evidence.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ford.htm

      • “Photon” says: “That still doesn’t put the back wound at T3 or explain how you have a disappearing flechette .”

        The EVIDENCE puts the back wound at T3. Evidence you probably even refuse to admit is evidence…

        I think that “flechettes” are one of the sillier theories proposed, but you can’t argue against it by claiming that none were found… you still have a bullet you presume was fired and never found.

        Going to start arguing the ‘two bullet’ theory of Dealey Plaza now?

        • Photon says:

          What evidence? Has any physician aside from Burkley ever stated unequivocally it was at T3? NO.
          It is nothing but a lie.
          Yes, a lie put out by individuals with zero background in medicine, pathology,anatomy-and in direct contradiction to the findings of experts who do have that background.
          I have challenged the advocates of the T3 entry myth to post an actual expert who agrees with them. They can’t-because there are none.
          The only way to avoid the true pathological findings that JFK was hit by 2 shots fired from behind is to ignore EVERY real expert to examine the data.
          That is a fact.

          • “Only puny secrets need protection. Big discoveries are protected by public incredulity.”~Marshall McLuhan

            \\][//

          • R. Andrew Kiel says:

            Dr. Burkley was in the motorcade, saw JFK’s body in Parkland in Trauma Room 1, & was a witness to the autopsy at Bethesda – but was never called as a witness before the Warren Commission or the HSCA.

            In a statement during the JFK Oral History sessions in October 1967 – Burkley was asked – did he agree with the Warren Commission on the number of bullets that hit JFK – Burkley replied “I don’t care to comment on that.”

            ARRB documents MD1 & MD6 note that Burkley clearly states the wound in the back was at the “3rd thoracic vertebra” & also marked the diagram of JFK’s wounds as “verified” on the death certificate which he signed.

            Burkley instructed his lawyer William Illig – to contact Richard Sprague Chair of the HSCA. On March 18, 1977 Sprague wrote “he (Burkley) had never been interviewed and that he had information in the Kennedy assassination that others beside Oswald must have participated.”

            Burkley told author Henry Hurt in 1982 “that he believed that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy.”

            Why was Burkley never called as a witness & what could he have known – Photon & McBuff – I’m sure you have a good answer for us?

          • Burkley told author Henry Hurt in 1982 “that he believed that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy.”

            Here is a piece of advice from Paul Hoch:

            Watch out for principals who have become buffs, and are basing conclusions on information outside their areas of direct knowledge or expertise. If John Rosselli, for example, knew there was a shot from the knoll, it might not have been from inside knowledge, but because some of his friends, like many others, heard Mark Lane’s stump speech.

            Hoch actually inquired as to why Burkley believed in a conspiracy, and reported:

            Dr. Burkley recently told a relative of his that he did think that Oswald must have been part of a conspiracy, because the way he and his family lived and traveled was indicative of financial support.

            As for the location of the back wound: we have a photo. It’s at T1.

            The fact that the lung was bruised at the tip, but not penetrated also supports T1.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Excellent synopsis on Dr. Burkley Andrew.
            Did any researchers ever try to interview him?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            It’s stunning really if you think about it.
            He wasn’t just a witness. But a doctor, not just any Doctor but the President’s personal Physician. Present at Parkland and the autopsy.
            Signed the death certificate.
            Not interviewed much less called to testify by the Warren OMISSION.
            Volunteers he has information a conspiracy to the HSCA. Not a “thank you but we’re too busy… don’t have time or kiss” our ass”.
            A disgusting excuse of an “investigation” by “our” government.

          • “As for the location of the back wound: we have a photo. It’s at T1.”~McAdams

            And just where is this photo to be found ‘professor’?
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Burkley never mentions an entrance wound in the throat. He doesn’t mention ANY wound in the throat.
            Therefore, if you accept that Burkley’s Death certificate is complete, infallible truth you must accept that JFK was hit by only 2 shots from behind.
            So Willy, there was no throat wound, if we are to believe your only source for the T3 comment. No trach was done. Everybody in Parkland that was convinced that the throat wound was one of entrance was hallucinating-because Burkley never mentioned the wound’s existence.
            He never mentioned a wound that was the sole injury that merited surgical intervention and was thought to be the source of JFK’s moribund presentation.

          • And just where is this photo to be found ‘professor’?

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

            There are actually several versions, both color and black and white. All are in the Archives.

          • Jean Davison says:

            A written statement from Dr. Burkley appears in the WC volumes.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1317#relPageId=123&tab=page

            He was also interviewed by the HSCA.

            “In an interview and affidavit with Dr. Burkley, he informed the committee [the HSCA]….”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82&relPageId=35&search=George

            He had some bombshell information and didn’t mention it?

          • “He [Dr Burkley] was also interviewed by the HSCA.” ~Jean Davison

            No he wasn’t he was sent a letter presenting the answers given in a phone interview, that he was to sign and send back to the HSCA.

            Whether Burkley was asked about the Illig letter is unknown. He may have or may not have brought it up with the interviewer, and the interviewer may or may not have wished to add that to the typed deposition Burkley later signed.
            \\][//

          • http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

            “There are actually several versions, both color and black and white. All are in the Archives”
            ~McAdams

            There is only ONE photograph publicly available, and it is this B&W photo you have linked to.
            Anyone who knows human anatomy knows that the wound in that photo is at T3.

            I have studied anatomy my entire life. It is my professional opinion that the wound in the photo is at T3.
            \\][//

          • “What evidence? Has any physician aside from Burkley ever stated unequivocally it was at T3? NO.
            It is nothing but a lie.”~Photon

            Are you suggesting that Dr Burkley lied on the JFK death certificate Photon?

            Are you suggesting that Dr Baden lied about the back wound aligning with the bullet holes in the shirt and coat?

            Are you suggesting that the autopsy photograph of Kennedy’s back wound is fake?
            \\][//

          • Can you see the profile of the scapula in that photo? Do you know where that attaches at the shoulder? Can you identify the spot where the acromion located? Now going down at that straight angle (the spine of the spatula) from the acromion to the rhomboid minor, can you not see that the back wound is just at the level of that point? The left edge of the scapula. Just about an inch away to the left of that spot.

            So tell us what is the number of the vertebrae just to the left of that.

            The C7/T1 junction is right at the deep crease in Kennedy’s neck in this photo.
            \\][//

          • I have studied anatomy my entire life. It is my professional opinion that the wound in the photo is at T3.

            So I guess we have a choice between believing you, or believing a dozen or so of the top forensic pathologists in the nation on the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Panel, and the HSCA FPP.

          • Tom S. says:

            Dr. McAdams, you’ve just submitted four comments, in eleven minutes. I am
            no longer going to waste my time, toggling back and forth between the submitted comment queue and the front page to determine when I can approve your next comment. I’ve made the effort as a courtesy met with indifference and discourtesy. I’ve certainly communicated the problem and the conflict with the rules. With that, the period of accommodation is ended.

            http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
            …….
            4. Consecutive comments from the same reader will not be posted
            5. The Front Page Sidebar Rule: No comment will be published that results in the commenter’s name appearing three times in the “What Readers Are Saying” sidebar on the front page,
            ……

          • “So I guess we have a choice between believing you, or believing a dozen or so of the top forensic pathologists in the nation on the Clark Panel, the Rockefeller Panel, and the HSCA FPP.”~McAdams

            You have a choice of using your own mind or continuing to make appeals to false authority.
            \\][//

          • Dr. McAdams, you’ve just submitted four comments, in eleven minutes. I am no longer going to waste my time,

            Tom, the simple solution would be to allow a much longer “Recent Comments” list.

            But if nobody on your end knows how to do that, I’ll try to limit my comments in one session.

            But of course, since I can’t “hang over” the group, I might simply end up commenting less.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Although it’s often said that the Z film shows JFK “grasping at his throat,” his hands never actually touched his throat. He seemed frozen in that position even when Jackie put her hand on his arm.

            I’m no professional certainly so this is speculation but the bullet passed near his spine and possibly stimulated nerves that created an immediate, automatic muscular reaction. The flexing/extension of the elbows (as we see after Z225) are controlled by nerves associated with C7 and nearby vertebrae, while the nerves around T3 relate instead to the trunk/chest.

            http://www.makoa.org/scimap.htm

            http://lifeinthefastlane.com/ccc/myotomes-and-differentiating-nerve-lesions/

            IOW, JFK’s raised rigid elbows may say something about where the bullet entered his back.

          • “I’m no professional certainly so this is speculation but the bullet passed near his spine and possibly stimulated nerves that created an immediate, automatic muscular reaction.”~Jean Davison

            There we have it Jean, you are no professional and all you have is speculation.

            So your final sentence there is an appeal to authority as per your own personal ignorance.
            Shall we say… a weak argument Jean? Or more to the point, a ridiculously weak argument.

            This pretense from you, McAdams and Dr Photon, that laymen cannot see through this official facade are clumsy and absurd, and based on denial of the obvious.
            \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          “Tom, the simple solution would be to allow a much longer “Recent Comments” list.”

          I agree. Another solution would be to use the JFK Facts new feed, which gives a longer list of recent posts and includes the posts themselves. You can easily see what’s new and still skip a particular topic or name if you want to.

          http://jfkfacts.org/comments/feed/

          Could the news feed link be posted in the sidebar, Tom? Wouldn’t this solve the “problem” of a single name appearing consecutively? It’s hard for us to know when our posts are going to appear since we have no control over that.

          (Note from Tom S.: Jean, I am replying to your (this) comment in the “Comment of the week” thread. http://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-10/ )

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more