‘A true sounding of the politics around Kennedy when he was assassinated’


This world exclusive video, first published on JFK Facts in 2014, presents a fascinating interview with CG Harvey, the widow of legendary CIA officer William King Harvey.

A commenter on YouTube writes:

“When relaxed and able to casually flow on her feelings about the Kennedy’s, the wife of wolfish CIA member Bill Harvey made a Freudian slip and said “When they recruited Roselli to assassinate Kennedy”. She corrected herself and said “Castro” but the truth had already been spoken. In Mrs Harvey’s mind   was a good guy and a loyal patriot and Bobby and Jackie were idiots and scum. A true sounding of the politics around Kennedy when he was assassinated.”

Freudian slip or senior moment, CG Harvey’s comments are well worth listening to and forwarding to a friend or posting on social media.

Filmed at an Indianapolis senior citizens home in 1999 by Scott and Andy Alderton, CG Harvey’s observations provide a unique first-hand testimony about the hostility a senior CIA man harbored for President Kennedy and First Lady Jackie Kennedy. CG Harvey also expresses disdain for Robert Kennedy and describes her warm friendship with Johnny Roselli, a leading organized crime figure of that era.

The interview was filmed with CG Harvey’s permission.

The footage was provided to JFK Facts by the Aldertons, and is used with their permission. It was edited by JFK Facts editor Jefferson Morley.

Who was Bill Harvey?

Harvey was one of the big men of CIA in it earliest days. A former FBI agent, he was the agency’s first chief of counterintelligence. He ran the CIA’s Berlin base in the 1950s. In 1960 Harvey was put in charge of ZR-RIFLE, the agency’s assassination program. Robert F. Kennedy forced the CIA to transfer him to Rome in 1963. He died in 1976. CG Harvey died in 2000.

In the 1977-78 some investigators on the House Select Committee on Assassinations regarded Harvey as a prime suspect in the assassination of President Kennedy, because of his harsh criticism of JFK’s Cuba policy and the role of Robert F. Kennedy in it.  Although no proof that Harvey was involved in JFK assassination has ever surfaced, his hostility to the Kennedy’s bordered on insubordination as this video shows.

Hundreds of pages of files concerning Harvey’s still-secret operations are due to be released in October 2017.

149 comments

  1. Haha! That is quite the slip! “recruited for assassination purposes on Kennedy … ah…”
    The definition of “patriotism” is pretty wide open here, crooks and honorable men sharing martini’s and special handshakes. Machiavelli had nothing on these cut-throats.
    \\][//

  2. gerald campeau says:

    I find it incredible the amount of time wasted on dysfunctional alcoholics like Wiliam Harvie and Jack Angelton.The real evidence lies with Military Intelligence,Col.Boris Pash,Col.Robert E Jones and Forrest Sorrels

    • Bill Simpich says:

      Interesting names you mention and I am familiar with them.
      Sorrels thought that more than one gunman were involved from the first day, and
      His quotes on that come from various sources. On more of his thoughts, have you seen gayle
      Nix jackson’s book? Quite revealing on sorrels’ disbelief of the official story. Or Vince palamara’s work? Bill

      If anyone doubts Harvey’s skills above and beyond his drinking disabilities, take a look at the bio by cia colleague Bayard Stockton, Flawed Patriot. He was running the worldwide wiretap programs and more at Staff D, and running the hq cuban desk at Task Force W, and running the joint program to hire safecrackers, burglars, assassins – ZRRIFLE. He was highly trusted by Helms.

      • gerald campeau says:

        Bill Please take a look at Inspector Sawyers testimony http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sawyer_j.htm
        Compared to Sorrels
        http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/sorrels1.htm
        Someone is not telling the truth on Zapruder and Howard Leslie Brennan

        • Bill Simpich says:

          I’m always willing to be convinced otherwise, but I see no contradiction in the two stories. Sorrels interviewed Brennan; sawyer interviewed a man who claimed he saw a 5 10, 165 pound man who has never been id’do, even Hoover was convinced this man was not Brennan. Sawyer’s witness was interviewed and then disappeared before sorrels arrived at the scene. I believe the sawyer witness was in on the assassination.

          Sorrels did not admit to the we that he believed there was a second shooter I front of the limo, he did not want to ruin his career. Again, gayle’s book is quite good on this, Sorrels was a family friend.

          • gerald campeau says:

            I too believe the witness was in on plot.Capt Fritz stated it was impossible to tell if man in window was tall or short,regardless the witness got Tippet to be Killed

  3. Photon says:

    23 years previously Harvey’s wife refused to be interviewed by the Washington Post saying that her husband had told her never to talk to reporters and that she would ” never” discuss his activities.
    Apparently she never did-until she was put away in a senior citizens home ( why is not made clear). What is clear is that some of these claims are strangely similar to some noted in Seymour Hersh’s best seller published 2years earlier. Her comments are more opinions than anything else,marked by bitterness toward those she thinks drove her husband from his position and exacerbated his alcoholism to the point where in Rome he was a hopeless drunk unable to perform his duties. Was she demented at the time of the interview?
    And exactly how competent was the fabled Harvey in the first place? His claim to fame was as CIA station chief in Berlin 1952-1960.During that period his operations were riddled with double agents and little success. Markus Wolf’s agents knew about Harvey’s schemes within hours of him trying to implement them. His crowning achievement was the tunnel from West Berlin into East Berlin to tap phone lines; reputedly a great success and source of some of the most valuable information obtained during the Cold War. Unfortunately the Stasi was aware of the tunnel even before it was built; it was used as a conduit of false information that Harvey and his suckers lapped up until the Soviets decided it had outlived its usefulness and publically ” discovered” it in a propaganda exercise.
    A close look at Harvey reveals a chronic alcoholic whose drinking cost him his job with the FBI-those FBI ties were the principle reason the CIA gave him a job, not any supposed skills in spy craft. He was a character devoid of any real success in the endeavors he was assigned, despite the hype.

    • I know why this is so easy for you to dismiss Photon. I just want to point out that by your comment, that I can see that you do:

      “..recruited for assassination purposes on Kennedy..”Mrs Harvey
      \\][//

    • Pat Speer says:

      It’s refreshing to see that you’re desire to trash other people extends beyond the research community.

      • Photon says:

        This was an interview of a demented old woman who makes factual mistakes repeatedly.
        She is asked leading questions by an interviewer not identified. It is reminds me of the ADM Moorer interview CNN did for their false story on poison gas use in Vietnam. Did her family know about this interview? If they had power of attorney did they give permission for it?
        Is it trashing someone to point out that her comments on this tape are at at odds with what her position on this subject was when she was lucid 23 years previously?
        Where is the rest of the tape? Was she asked anything else? Or were her other answers too revealing of her true mental state?
        Those are fair questions.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Photon January 24, 2015 at 8:43 am

          I believe you are referring to the “Tailwinds Operation” that got Peter Arnett fired from CNN? That one was so outlandish it was funny. Perhaps this one is too.

          I understand the female director not having the background to spot this farce but Arnett had the experience to know better. I have wondered if in fact he did know better but thought he could get away with it.

          • Photon says:

            Aren’t had an agenda, but CNN threw its objectivity out of the window when the producers of the program took advantage of an old man with memory issues who was placed by his family in an old folks’ home-like this woman.

        • Jean Davison says:

          The discussion here reminds me of how a researcher interviewed Seymour Weitzman when he was hospitalized with chronic schizophrenia and got him to ID Bernard Barker as someone he saw on the knoll. This is usually reported as simply “Weitzman ID-ed Barker on the knoll” or words to that effect without giving the circumstances. The doctor who was present at the interview described it to the HSCA (starting page 8):

          http://jfkassassinationfiles.com/hsca_180-10077-10208

    • Ronny Wayne says:

      No matter how undeserving of it he was, he was put in charge of the assassination program ZR Rifle. Through it Roselli was recruited for mob help in eliminating Castro. They developed a relationship which lasted many years after the assassination in spite of warning by Harvey’s superiors to end it.
      I’d still like to know what they discussed the day they spent fishing off the coast of Florida in the Spring of 63.

    • Bogman says:

      Harvey was personally introduced to JFK in the WH as America’s real James Bond. I think he had some chops. He waned to bring his gun to the meeting but was finally disarmed before meeting the President.

      What this tape clearly comfirms is the absolute hatred and disgust some in the Intel community had for their Commander-in-Chief. And their corresponding affection for murdering mobsters. This ain’t conspiracy fantasy – it’s all too true.

  4. I’ve read where Roselli was positioned in that storm drain on Elm right in the vicinity of the grassy-knoll, and was thus one of the assassins.

  5. leslie sharp says:

    So instead of a deranged 24 year old ex-marine / former defector to the USSR / returned home to Dallas – where he is by chance employed in a building with access to a prime sniper’s nest in order to shoot the president of the United States with a rifle of dubious provenance, questionable functionality, ammo uh not sure – we are to believe that a marginalized agent within Central Intelligence with rogue tendencies and a history of drunkenness capitalized on President Kennedy’s schedule to be in Dallas on 11.22.63, authorized the motorcade to pass in front of 411 Elm Street and what … arranged for the same deranged 24 year old ex Marine to be the patsy? What is the question? that the drunken/rogue CIA Agent William King Harvey planted Oswald in the TSBD and orchestrated the cover up? When did William King Harvey first encounter Lee Harvey Oswald?

    If that was the scenario, if Bill Harvey was the pivotal force behind the assassination in collusion with disgruntled Cuban exiles, elements of the mafia or whomever, how did he arrange the cover up with the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, Time/Life, CBS, NBC, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and Lyndon Johnson and the Warren Commission? Did Bill Harvey have a machine at his disposal? or was he a cog in the machine? How can anyone – including his wife – discuss Harvey without pursuing the conspiracy?

    • leslie sharp,

      I appreciate you commentary. My thoughts on this are that Harvey didn’t have an active part in the actually planning and execution of the assassination, but was privy to the main idea that the plot was in the works.
      Sober reliable and gifted predators pulled this coup off.
      \\][//

      • leslie sharp says:

        Willy Whitten, I agree, and I think your view of Harvey indicates just how broad the conspiracy actually was. I have no problem with considering that dozens perhaps hundreds knew for a fact, not just speculation that Kennedy would be assassinated; the question was when and how. That is where the air becomes rarefied, and if the stories about Harvey’s instability are true, I doubt anyone would have trusted him with the details. There was a binding and overarching ideology behind Kennedy’s murder, and it remains to this day as evidenced on this site; none with influence talked in time to stop it because they didn’t want to stop it.

  6. Stephen Roy says:

    Leslie Sharp:
    “If Bill Harvey was the pivotal force behind the assassination in collusion with disgruntled Cuban exiles, elements of the mafia or whomever, how did he arrange the cover up with the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Chronicle, the New York Times, Time/Life, CBS, NBC, the Los Angeles Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post and Lyndon Johnson and the Warren Commission?”

    Completely illogical. The question presumes that the assassin(s) coordinated a planned coverup with all those news sources. Utter baloney, not only unproven, but unsupported by ANY evidence. I agree with you that Harvey probably had nothing to do with it, but your argument is seriously weak.

    • leslie sharp says:

      Stephen Roy, If I understand your comment, you are engaged in two separate arguments; the primary one being there was no conspiracy, the other that it would be ludicrous to consider there was a knock on effect involving the leading news outlets in the country that resulted in a cover up.

      I argue that there was a conspiracy, and that those that authorized and orchestrated it were also behind a monumental cover up.

      You can debate all you want whether or not those publications and networks I mentioned promoted the story line of a lone assassin and by doing so, covered up the conspiracy but the evidence is there in black and white and color. Can you provide instances of a mainstream news organization placing their best investigative reporters in pursuit of a possible conspiracy – particularly following Jack Ruby’s murder of Oswald in front of a phalanx of law enforcement officers – beyond the initial flurry of a “communist plot?”

      • terry moore says:

        Leslie I have often wondered why such a brutal public assassination. Why not behind closed doors? Easier to clean up and control? Was it a message to future Presidents?

        • Thomas says:

          To Terry: I know this question wasn’t directed to me but it seems it was easier to kill Kennedy via a “lone nut” patsy in a public shooting, especially when presidents still moved about in public in what now would be considered dangerous ways. The open top motorcade was always ripe for a possible assassination attempt.

          A shooting behind closed doors is much more suspicious in terms of insider involvement. How else could it be pulled off?

        • leslie sharp says:

          terry moore, Gaeton Fonzi quotes Vince Salandria: “Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny. The forces that killed Kennedy wanted the message clear: ‘We are in control and no one – not the President, nor Congress, nor any elected official – no one can do anything about it.’ It was a message to the people that their Government was powerless.”

      • Bogman says:

        Your last line is the clearest indictment of the media in their subservience to the govt story I’ve seen.

        It seems so many of the usual American institutions did not respond with the integrity you’d expect in the such an major event in the life of the nation. And really that weird reaction continues to this day by govt and media.

        Just two logical questions I’ve never seen mentioned by any media that I’ve seen in recent days on this site:

        o If Ruby loved the prez so much, why wasn’t he down on the street waving with the rest of the crowd?

        o If Oswald was such a loose cannon made insane by his love of communism, why didn’t he make a single political statement in any of his camera time in front of the world’s media? For a political adventurist in the spotlight, you’d think he’d be making some kind of political comment, guilty or not. The only time he mentioned his time in Russia was to blame it as the reason for being arrested.

        • Thomas says:

          Excellent questions by Bogman and never satisfactorily answered by people that believe the lone nuts theories.

        • leslie sharp says:

          Bogman, as you’ve cited, Oswald’s failure to seize the moment to espouse his politics and his motive for murdering Kennedy is an anomaly that has yet to be explained by Jean Davison in particular who in 1983 – propitious timing to revisit the lone assassin meme for a new generation – watered the seeds planted by the media in 1963. I hope that she will revisit the issue on this site in the near future, prompted by your apt question.

        • bogman says:

          And one more thing…

          Why didn’t any of Oswald’s interrogators or the media ask him what he meant when he shouted he was “just a patsy”?

          • Vanessa says:

            That is a very good question Bogman.

          • Thomas says:

            I don’t think the media had much time. The authorities were trying to limit Oswald’s time with the media as much as possible. Seems there were people that didn’t want him saying things they couldn’t control.

            As for the interrogators, who knows what really happened behind closed doors? It remains very suspicious to me that notes weren’t kept nor was Oswald recorded. I’ve heard excuses for why but they sound like excuses to me.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Yes it is a very good question. We don’t know if the interrogators asked it or not as the interrogation was not recorded and no notes were taken (though some were produced later). The patsy comment flew right over the reporters heads.

          • Jean Davison says:

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbR6vHXD1j0

            QUOTE
            Reporter:
            Did you shoot the President?

            Oswald: No they’ve taken me in because of the fact I lived in the Soviet Union. I’m just a patsy.
            UNQUOTE

            Of course he wasn’t taken in because of his politics. He was arrested because a shoe salesman saw him acting suspiciously near the Tippit murder scene.

            When Oswald was shown the backyard photos he claimed that they were fake, that the police could’ve used a photo of him taken in the hallway and pasted his head onto someone else’s body.

            He implied the police were making him a patsy, imo.

          • “Of course he wasn’t taken in because of his politics. He was arrested because a shoe salesman saw him acting suspiciously near the Tippit murder scene.”~Jean

            Jean,
            The shoe store is located about 90 steps from the Oak Cliff neighborhood theater. The theater is 6 blocks from S. Patton Ave.

            So how can you say that this was “suspiciously near the Tippit murder scene.”?
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            I’m not sure I understand your point. I meant that Brewer thought Oswald was acting suspiciously by ducking a police car driving by, not that he was
            “suspiciously near” anything. He was near enough the crime scene that the police were searching that area for the perp.

          • Bogman says:

            Jean – a patsy is defined as someone who has been duped or tricked to take the fall for a crime. Don’t see how Oswald is saying the DPD did that. But it does fit perfectly with conspirators who will go unmentioned until he speaks to a lawyer. And referring to his stay in Russia means Oswald knows full well how his past would play to the public and why he was chosen as the patsy.

          • “Of course he wasn’t taken in because of his politics. He was arrested because a shoe salesman saw him acting suspiciously near the Tippit murder scene.”~Jean Davison – January 27, 2015 at 4:13 pm

            “I meant that Brewer thought Oswald was acting suspiciously by ducking a police car driving by, not that he was “suspiciously near” anything.”~Jean Davison – January 27, 2015 at 9:57 pm

            Are there any other revisions to what you might say should what you have said not stand up to scrutiny?
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            Your definition of patsy isn’t necessarily Oswald’s (or the dictionary’s).

            “…But it does fit perfectly with conspirators who will go unmentioned until he speaks to a lawyer.”

            Oswald spoke to a lawyer on Saturday who offered help and he declined. He also spoke to his wife, mother and brother at the jail and to the entire world at a press conference. He didn’t mention anyone being out to get him other than the police.

            “And referring to his stay in Russia means Oswald knows full well how his past would play to the public and why he was chosen as the patsy.”

            Unfortunately that’s not what he said. He gave that as the reason he was arrested.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “Are there any other revisions to what you might say should what you have said not stand up to scrutiny?”

            There was no revision. I’m still saying the same thing, I simply tried to clarify what I meant because you misunderstood me.

            I meant that Oswald was acting suspiciously while he was near the crime scene–not, as you seem to think: “Oswald
            was acting while suspiciously near the crime scene.” That makes no sense to me.

          • bogman says:

            No matter how slice it, Jean, Oswald put “Russia” and “patsy” together. The obvious inference he was making is that his communist leanings made him the perfect fall guy. Don’t see how you can read it any other way.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            So if I understand you correctly, you interpret “They have taken me in because of the fact…” to mean “They will use my background against me because of the fact…”?

          • I meant that Oswald was acting suspiciously while he was near the crime scene–not, as you seem to think: “Oswald
            was acting while suspiciously near the crime scene.” ~Jean Davison

            My point Jean is that Oswald was NOT near the crime scene which was at least four blocks from where Brewer saw him.
            And as you know, there is no actual witnesses who identified Oswald at that crime scene. In fact witnesses describe two individuals looking nothing like Oswald.
            Furthermore the so-called “evidence” of a wallet said to be Oswald can reasonably be considered planted evidence, as again due to sloppy crime scene investigation there were no photos taken of the wallet in the street where it was said to have been found. It also creates that strange anomaly of two to three different wallets being ascribed to Oswald. One of the obvious lies is that his wallet said to be found at the scene of the Tippit murder is then claimed to be on him at the Texas Theater.
            When does the shell game being played here become obvious to you Jean?

            I know the answer of a True Believer: “Never!”
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean: “Oswald spoke to a lawyer on Saturday who offered help and he declined.”

            You know very well who that lawyer was so why didn’t you name him? President of the Dallas Bar Association, H. Louis Nichols. This ground has been covered so I trust you haven’t deliberately omitted his name as if to suggest he was just some ‘lawyer who offered help.’ Nichols traveled in social, financial and professional circles of the Dallas power elite including Eugene Locke – member of the unofficial Kennedy welcoming committee and purportedly involved in the final determination of the route for the motorcade – as well as the Wynne / Murchison legal and business dynasties that secreted Marina away in their hotel at Six Flags in the immediate aftermath of the assassination.

            How, Jean, did private citizens gain access to, let alone take charge of, a key witness in the investigation? And you wonder why LHO didn’t want to talk to Nichols?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy, Jan. 29, 7:59pm

            “…there is no actual witnesses who identified Oswald at that crime scene. In fact witnesses describe two individuals looking nothing like Oswald.”

            The opposite is true. There were five witnesses at the Tippit crime scene who ID-ed Oswald: Markham, the Davis women, Scoggins, and Jack Tatum:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?mode=searchResult&absPageId=69127

            All these witnesses saw one man, not two.

            The other witnesses you mention were further away and their stories didn’t even match — one said a second man ran away, the other said he drove off in a car. And yet many CT sources find them credible. That ought to tell you something, speaking of “shell games.”

            The wallet has been thoroughly discussed in other threads here, e.g.:

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/icym-the-curious-case-of-oswalds-wallet/

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/oswalds-wallet-planted-at-the-tippit-crime-scene/

          • “The opposite is true. There were five witnesses at the Tippit crime scene who ID-ed Oswald: Markham, the Davis women, Scoggins, and Jack Tatum”~Jean Davison – February 2, 2015 at 10:20 am
            . . . . .
            “Two witnesses who saw the shooting and
            seven who saw a man fleeing “positively identified Lee Harvey Oswald as
            the man they saw fire the shots or flee from the scene.” The chief witness
            for the Warren Commission was Helen Markham, whose credibility, even at
            the time of the Commission, was strained to the breaking point. Markham
            claimed to have talked for some time with the dying Tippit, yet medical
            authorities said he was killed instantly. She said she saw Tippit’s
            killer talk with the policeman through his patrol car’s right hand window,
            although pictures taken at the scene show that window was shut. She was
            in hysterics at the time and even left her shoes on top of Tippit’s car.
            Later, in her testimony before the Warren Commission, Markham stated six
            times she did not recognize anyone in the police lineup that evening,
            before Commission Attorney Joseph Ball prompted, “Was there a Number two
            man in there?” Markham responded:

            “Number two is the one I picked…When I saw this man I wasn’t sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me…”
            –Marrs/CROSSFIRE

            I will address the weakness of the other witnesses in another post.
            \\][//

          • More relevant information from Marrs on the matter of the Tippit shooting:

            “Furthermore, other witnesses at the scene – William Scoggins, Ted Calloway and Emory Austin – even today claim they never saw Mrs. Markham in the minutes immediately following the shooting. Cabdriver Scoggins also identified Oswald that day, although Scoggins admitted he did not actually witness the shooting and his view of the fleeing killer was obscured because he ducked down behind his cab as the man came by. Scoggins and cabdriver William Whaley, who allegedly drove Oswald home that day, both viewed a Dallas police lineup composed of five “young teenagers” and Oswald. Whaley told the Warren Commission:

            “…you could have picked (Oswald) out without identifying him by just listening to him because he was bawling out the policemen, telling them it wasn’t right to put him in line with these teenagers….He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them…they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer…Anybody who wasn’t sure could have picked out the right one just for that…”

            If his protestations weren’t enough to guide the witnesses in their identification of Oswald, the suspect had conspicuous bruises and a black eye. Furthermore, Oswald stated he was asked and gave his correct name and place of employment. By Friday evening, everyone in Dallas who attended the police lineups had heard that shots were fired from the Texas School Book Depository. On Saturday, Scoggins again identified Oswald, although in his Warren Commission testimony he admitted seeing Oswald’s photograph in a morning paper prior to viewing the police lineup.”
            \\][//

          • There are many other points by Marrs, but I will end here with this:
            . . . . .
            “These were the two star government witnesses. Other witnesses, including Domingo Benavides – the person closest to the killing – were never asked to view a lineup nor were they able to identify Oswald as the killer.
            Several other witnesses, including Acquilla Clemons, who claimed two men were involved in the Tippit shooting but said she was threatened into silence by a man with a gun, were never questioned by federal investigators. The Warren Commission even denied her existence, claiming:

            “The only woman among the witnesses to the slaying of Tippit known to the Commission is Helen Markham.”

            Markham reportedly initially said that Tippit’s killer was short and stocky with bushy hair. This is the same description given by Clemons who in a filmed interview said the killer was “kind of a short guy…kind of heavy.” Markham later denied giving this description. Frank Wright lived near the scene of the Tippit shooting. He heard shots and ran outside. In an interview with private researchers less than a year later, Wright said he saw Tippit roll over once and lie still. He added:

            “I saw a man standing in front of the car. He was looking toward the man on the ground….He had on a long coat. It ended just above his hands. I didn’t see any gun. He ran around on the passenger side of the police car. He ran as fast as he could go, and he got into his car. His car wasa little gray old coupe. It was about a 1950-51, maybe a Plymouth. It was a gray car, parked on the same side of the street as the police car, but beyond it from me. It was heading away from me. He got in that car and he drove away as fast as you could see …After that a whole lot of police came up. I tried to tell two or three people what I saw. They didn’t pay any attention. I’ve seen what came out on television and in the newspaper, but I know that’s not what happened.”

            Another witness was Warren Reynolds who chased Tippit’s killer. He too failed to identify Oswald as Tippit’s killer until after he was shot in the head two months later. After recovering, Reynolds identified Oswald to the Warren Commission. (A suspect was arrested in the Reynolds shooting, but released when a former Jack Ruby stripper named Betty Mooney MacDonald provided an alibi. One week after her word released the suspect, MacDonald was arrested by Dallas Police and a few hours later, was found hanged in her jail cell. Neither the FBI nor the Warren Commission investigated this strange incident.)

            2.The cartridge cases found near the Tippit slaying “were fired from the revolver in the possession of Oswald at the time of his arrest, to the exclusion of all other weapons,” claimed the Warren Commission. There are many problems with this evidence. First, Dallas Police Sergeant Gerald Hill, at the time of the Tippit shooting, radioed the police dispatcher, saying:

            “The shells at the scene indicate that the suspect is armed with an automatic .38 rather than a pistol.” ~Marrs
            \\][//

          • Tippit was shot by a shorter stocky man with shaggy hair wearing a long coat. He was firing a 380 semiautomatic pistol. The 38 Sp. was a plant, and the cartridges were switched while in evidence.

            Policeman J.M. Poe received two cartridge cases from witness Benavides at the scene. In an FBI report, Poe firmly stated that he marked the case with his initials, “J.M.P.” before turning them over to Dallas Crime Lab personnel. However, on June 12, 1964, the FBI showed Poe the four .38 Special cases used as evidence of Oswald’s guilt by the Warren Commission.

            The Bureau reported:

            “…He (Poe) recalled marking these cases before giving them to (lab personnel), but he stated after a thorough examination of the four cartridges shown to him…he cannot locate his marks; therefore, he cannot positively identify any of these cartridges as being the same ones he received from Benavides.”
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, I have not seen such disinformation and outright falsehoods as you have posted above since I have been on this blog. Mars makes claims totally unsubstantiated by the actual Warren testimonies of the individuals that you mention. Can you give us any real evidence or quotes confirming your claims for what Whaley, Scoggins or Calloway said aside from Marrs unsubstantiated quotes? Do you even know what the .380 round looks like ?

          • David Regan says:

            Jean Davison
            February 2, 2015 at 10:20 am

            “The opposite is true. There were five witnesses at the Tippit crime scene who ID-ed Oswald: Markham, the Davis women, Scoggins, and Jack Tatum”.

            Jean, of the witnesses you mention above, Helen Markham was the only one to actually witness the shooting. We all know she only ID’d Oswald at a line up after she had already seen his photo and heard his name broadcast on TV. She also changed her description of him to a “heavy set” man, similar to observations of Domingo Benavides and Acquilla Clemons (who were not far from the shooting).

            The WC considered Markham’s testimony as unreliable and she was referred to by Commission counsel as “an utter screwball”.

            There were just as many witnesses who could not identify Oswald as the man fleeing the scene:
            http://www.giljesus.com/Tippit/smith_burt.htm
            http://www.giljesus.com/Tippit/patterson.htm
            http://www.giljesus.com/Tippit/scoggins.htm

            Domingo Benavides, who was directly across the street from Tippit’s patrol car and saw the killer leaving the scene, told the Warren Commission that later that afternoon two officers “asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don’t think I could.”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=14262

            Now Jean, at what time was Tippit shot in your opinion?

          • Photon,
            I own a 38 Special and a 380 Auto, and yes I have ammo for both right here. A 380 cartridge is substantially shorter than a 38sp. And further a 38 regular, which was the type of ammo that was meant for the so-called ‘Oswald pistol’ is even longer and slightly larger around.
            \\][//

          • There were two men involved in the Tippit incident, the hit man, shaggy hair, longer coat, shooting Tippit with a 380 semiautomatic. There was a second man, an Oswald impersonator with the “prop 38 Special”.
            The second one impersonating Oswald was the one ID’d by Benavedes, Callaway, Scoggins, and Whaley.

            The actual hit man made his getaway in a older gray sedan. He drove in the opposite direction of the Oswald impersonator, who made a show of throwing spent cartridges in the air as he jogged past unarmed witnesses.
            . . . .
            Oswald did NOT sneak into the theater, he bought a ticket and popcorn, at the very time Tippit was being murdered.
            It was the impostor who Brewer saw sneaking into the theater.
            The impostor then snuck into the theater at 1:45pm without paying. (The real Oswald had already been there for 40 minutes.)
            He then moved up to the balcony and kept a low profile.
            After the commotion downstairs when Oswald was arrested, the impostor was brought out in the back of the theatre and was consequently seen by store
            owner Bernard Haire, who said the man never wore a jacket.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            [Since I’m guessing this wasn’t posted because it was too long, I’ll split it in two.]

            Willy,

            You’ve offered the classic “quote out of context” from Helen Markham:

            “Number two is the one I picked…When I saw this man I wasn’t sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me…”
            –Marrs/CROSSFIRE

            Here’s the rest of it:

            “When I saw this man I wasn’t sure, but I had cold chills just run all over me.
            Mr. BALL. When you saw him?
            Mrs. MARKHAM. When I saw the man. But I wasn’t sure, so, you see, I told them I wanted to be sure, and looked at his face is what I was looking at, mostly is what I looked at, on account of his eyes, the way he looked at me. So I asked them if they would turn him sideways. They did, and then they turned him back around, and I said the second, and they said, which one, and I said number two.”

            Markham also told Mark Lane that she had identified Oswald in the lineup, though you’d never know that from reading Rush to Judgment.

            When Markham repeatedly told the WC she didn’t “recognize” anyone, IMO she probably thought they were asking her if there was anyone else in the lineup that she knew personally and recognized. Markham wasn’t an ideal witness but she didn’t have to be.

            “Furthermore, other witnesses at the scene William Scoggins, Ted Calloway and Emory Austin – even today claim they never saw Mrs. Markham in the minutes immediately following the shooting.”

            Again, this is selective and misleading. The Davis women saw and heard Markham immediately after the shooting:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/bdavis.htm

            Scoggins and Calloway left the scene to search for the killer. Scoggins didn’t recall seeing Markham before he left but he saw her there when he got back. And who is “Emory Austin”?? I don’t recall that name.

            (Other witnesses in next post.)

          • Jean Davison says:

            (Tippit witnesses continued)

            Willy,

            “Scoggins admitted he did not actually witness the shooting and his view of the fleeing killer was obscured because he ducked down behind his cab as the man came by.”

            Once again, that’s a very misleading version of what he said. Scoggins heard the shots and saw Tippit grab his stomach and fall to the ground. He said Oswald passed within c.12 feet of him and, “I saw him coming kind of toward me around that cutoff through there, and he never did look at me. He looked back over his left shoulder like that, as he went by. It seemed like I could see his face, his features and everything plain, you see.” In his original signed statement Scoggins said he thought he could recognize the shooter if he saw him again. Did Marrs or your other sources tell you that?

            And last, here’s what was left out of Whaley’s account, in caps:

            “But you could have picked him out without identifying him by just listening to him […] and they asked me which one and I told them. IT WAS HIM ALL RIGHT, THE SAME MAN.”

            And then this exchange:

            “Mr. WHALEY. He showed no respect for the policemen, he told them what he thought about them. They knew what they were doing and they were trying to railroad him and he wanted his lawyer.

            Mr. BALL. Did that aid you in the identification of the man?

            Mr. WHALEY. No, sir; it wouldn’t have at all, except that I said anybody who wasn’t sure could have picked out the right one just for that. It didn’t aid me because I KNEW HE WAS THE RIGHT ONE AS SOON AS I SAW HIM.”

            CT sources have been peddling this same out-of-context baloney for almost half a century now. If you want to know what the witnesses actually said, in context, you need to read their testimony:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/wit.htm#c

          • Jean,
            The most comprehensive treatment I know of to date having to do with the Tippit killing comes from Jim Douglas’ book, ‘JFK and the Unspeakable’

            The pages addressing this are conveniently posted at this link:
            http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html

            In my view this is the most reasonable aggregate of the facts, and analysis thereof, proving that Oswald was neither Tippit’s killer, nor the Assassin of JFK.
            Oswald is innocent beyond reasonable doubt.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Witnesses claimed Tippit’s killer leaned on the passenger side of his car – were any fingerprints recovered?

            Yes and none were matched to Oswald.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “There were two men involved in the Tippit incident, the hit man, shaggy hair, longer coat, shooting Tippit with a 380 semiautomatic. There was a second man, an Oswald impersonator with the “prop 38 Special”.”

            But Willy, no witness other than Wright reported anyone with that description or saw anyone leave in a car. Three construction workers across the street from Wright saw a single gunman run away, as did every witness at 10th & Patton. The shooter’s description broadcast on the police radio was also nothing like Wright’s. Why believe Wright over everyone else?

            The police radio tapes and the original witness reports say that a single suspect was arrested at the theater. Are you arguing that the police knew there was an impostor and “arrested” him as well as Oswald, then never revealed it? Or what?

            Here’s Butch Burroughs’ testimony, with no sign of his later embellishments:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/burroughs.htm

            Haire said he saw someone get into a police car. He *assumed* it was the arrested suspect, but he saw no handcuffs, as I recall.

            The police searched the balcony first because that’s where everyone assumed the man had gone. They found some teenagers there but no suspect. Then Brewer pointed out Oswald sitting downstairs.

            The definitive work on the Tippit case is With Malice by Dale Myers. The 2013 revised edition is available in a Kindle edition at Amazon, and IMO anyone interested in this topic should read it. Over 700 pages with photos, including a color photo of Oswald’s wallet, a Tippit biography and a lot of other good stuff.

            http://www.amazon.com/Malice-Harvey-Oswald-Murder-Officer-ebook/dp/B00GDTYR3S/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1423028375&sr=1-1&keywords=dale+myers+with+malice

          • “Are you arguing that the police knew there was an impostor and “arrested” him as well as Oswald, then never revealed it? Or what?”~Jean Davison

            “I am shocked. shocked I tell you!”-standard mock ham actor…

            YES indeed I am asserting such. Not that ALL the police, just the ones involved in the plot. It doesn’t matter whether the impersonator was handcuffed or not – what matters is that he was spirited out the back way while the big hullabaloo was taking place out front…”with pictures too!!”
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            ME: “Are you arguing that the police knew there was an impostor and “arrested” him as well as Oswald…”

            YOU: “I am shocked. shocked I tell you!”-standard mock ham actor…

            I don’t object at all to “shocking,” I object to “implausible,” as this scenario is. Try to imagine the conversation between the plotters and the cops being recruited for this assignment. Hard to imagine but I’ll try.

            Plotter: “We’ll tell the patsy to go to the Texas Theater. Meanwhile, someone will shoot a policeman in the area and an impostor will lead witnesses to the theater by acting suspiciously. You arrest the patsy and take the look-alike away in another car.” [shows photos of LHO and impostor]

            This is plausible? And what if Brewer pointed out the look-alike and they arrested the wrong guy? And these policemen had no problem framing someone for the murders of a President and a policeman and putting their own necks on the line?

            I’m not assuming they were too honorable to do that, I’m asking whether they were that stupid?

            “Yeah, good idea. Sign me up!”

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, reports indicate that nearly 15 Dallas law enforcement arrived at the Texas Theatre which mean at minimum 5 vehicles were dispatched to the scene. Why? Why wouldn’t one or two cars arrive to investigate nothing more than a ‘suspicious’ acting person? Had they connected dots, Brewer’s phone call triggering the suspicion that this young man was tied to the Tippitt shooting? It seems to me to be an extreme response to pure speculation at that point.

          • “This is plausible? And what if Brewer pointed out the look-alike and they arrested the wrong guy?”~Jean

            Brewer went in the front with the cops who went into the main section of seating, while the impostor had snuck up to the balcony to hide.

            You know the layout of the theater, one could go directly up to the balcony section without being sited by the people at the concession stand. No one knew the impostor was up there until the cops aware of him went up to bring him out of the back door.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            “Do people always leave fingerprints when they touch something? No.”

            http://www.dps.state.ak.us/CrimeLab/latentprints.aspx

            And he may not have even touched the car with his hand.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Leslie,

            “Why wouldn’t one or two cars arrive to investigate nothing more than a ‘suspicious’ acting person?”

            Before I tell you my answer, please tell me what *you* think happened.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “Brewer went in the front with the cops who went into the main section of seating, while the impostor had snuck up to the balcony to hide.”

            No, Brewer was waiting inside near the stage exit door. Some of the cops came in that way and found him there. But other cops went directly to the balcony through the fire escape. When she called the police Postal reported that the suspect was probably there since Burroughs didn’t see him come in.

            “…No one knew the impostor was up there until the cops aware of him went up to bring him out of the back door.”

            Both areas were being searched at the same time.

            How was it arranged that only “the cops aware of him” went to the balcony, in your view?

          • David Regan says:

            Well Jean, aside from doing everything he is accuded of doing undetected, it’s pretty amazing he never prints on anything. The ones you claim he left being obvious fabrications.

          • David Regan says:

            In his report to Captain Gannaway, Dallas Police Detective L.D. Stringfellow wrote that “On November 22, 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater, 231 West Jefferson Blvd and was charged with the murder of President John F. Kennedy and the murder of Officer JD Tippit.”
            http://www.mindserpent.com/American_History/books/Armstrong/November/Stringfellow.htm

            The official Homicide Report for J. D. Tippit states that the “suspect was later arrested in the balcony of the Texas Theater at 231 West Jefferson.”
            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=333684

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, my question is sincere. I do not know why more than two, three at the most squad cars were dispatched to the theatre. It looks to me like overkill (no pun or disrespect intended), and I wonder if you can explain why there were so many DPD dispatched to Oak Cliff in the middle of a city wide manhunt for an assassin of the leader of the free world? I respect that Officer Tippit was a comrade of these officers, but I’m trying to understanding how the urgency of tracking down a suspect in his murder equated with what had unfolded just minutes before at the TSBD. On the surface it appears that one had a good deal to do with the other. Please if you will, clarify.

          • David Regan says:

            It’s a sad state of affairs for the WC Report if defenders need to resort to defending Markham’s testimony, .The very witness who claimed to speak to Tippit in his dying seconds and held no confidence whatsoever with Commission counsel.

          • Jean Davison says:

            David, Feb. 5 10:15

            I’ve seen no evidence that Stringfellow and whoever wrote that arrest report were present when Oswald was arrested.

            Anyone who wasn’t there and got his information over the police radio that day would’ve heard that the suspect was reportedly in the balcony and, later, that the suspect had been arrested. I suggest that anyone relying on that may have assumed that the arrest took place in the balcony. If you disagree, give me your version of what *you* think happened.

            Sometimes I wonder if JFK CTs are familiar with the concept that people make mistakes.

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            “It’s a sad state of affairs for the WC Report if defenders need to resort to defending Markham’s testimony, .The very witness who claimed to speak to Tippit in his dying seconds and held no confidence whatsoever with Commission counsel.”

            It is indeed a sad state of affairs when CT authors still falsely claim that Markham was the WC’s star witness when in reality the WR pointed out problems with her testimony and noted that “even in the absence of Mrs. Markham’s testimony, there is ample evidence to identify Oswald as the killer of Tippit.”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=192

            In the next 8 pages the WC presented that evidence and then its conclusion:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=946&relPageId=200

            Yes, it’s a sad state of affairs when CT sources continue to distort the h*ll out of the testimony of Markham and other witnesses, just as they have done since the first CT authors like Mark Lane. Subsequent writers have copied what others before them have written, apparently never bothering to look at the actual testimony.

            I’ve given examples of distortion earlier in this thread. Here’s another. Warren Reynolds supposedly “changed his testimony” after being shot in the head by an unknown assailant. In fact, Reynolds initially told the FBI “he is of the opinion OSWALD is the person he had followed on the afternoon of November 22, 1963; however, he would hesitate to definitely identify OSWALD as the individual.” After the shooting incident, he testified that he had identified Oswald “in his mind” … “unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.”

            What’s the difference??

          • “How was it arranged that only “the cops aware of him” went to the balcony, in your view?”~Jean

            These cops were senior officers who could direct others to the main theater while they went up to fetch an accomplice they were familiar with and spirit out the back way.

            Other senior officers involved in setting up Oswald were involved in planting the staged appearance of Oswald pulling a gun, which the police actually brought to the scene.
            \\][//

          • “After the shooting incident, he testified that he had identified Oswald “in his mind” … “unless you have somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.”
            What’s the difference??”~Jean

            The difference is stark, in that there is such good evidence that there was indeed, “somebody that looks an awful lot like him there.”

            And Warren Reynolds seemingly felt there was something different in the appearance in that he was hesitant to make a certain positive ID. That is until he was reminded of his best self interests by a bullet in the head.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            “These cops were senior officers who could direct others to the main theater while they went up to fetch an accomplice they were familiar with and spirit out the back way.”

            But there’s no evidence that anyone was directing people anywhere, is there?

            “Other senior officers involved in setting up Oswald were involved in planting the staged appearance of Oswald pulling a gun, which the police actually brought to the scene.”

            Multiple witnesses, including civilians, saw the gun in Oswald’s hand and the struggle to get it away from him.

            Someday I’d love to hear that narrative, explaining how the police carried the gun to the theater and got Oswald to hold onto it.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            I’m afraid you’ve missed the point here. Reynolds initially said he thought it was Oswald but wasn’t sure. After the shooting he still said he thought it was Oswald but wasn’t sure. He suggested it could’ve been someone who “looks an awful lot like him” AFTER he was shot.

            Besides, who in his right mind would try to change someone’s testimony by shooting him in the head?

        • Photon says:

          Why do you assume that Oswald and Ruby had to conform to your opinion of what they should have done? Why is there a near constant drumbeat from the CT side about what certain individuals ” should” have done, from the use of the rifle to the best shot position to how a political assassin should behave-all speculative opinions totally irrelevant to a unique historical event.
          Ruby had a business to run.Was he supposed to just forget that and take in the parade? How do you know that he didn’t want to see it-but couldn’t because of business obligations?
          Oswald had made the biggest political statement of the second half of the 20th century. Why do you think that he would expound on that, when he was lying about virtually everything else he was asked about the case? I still think that he was surprised that he had gotten away with deed without dying in the attempt, so that his actions after his arrest cannot be predicted; he may have felt that he could beat the rap .

          • Vanessa Loney says:

            Hi Photon

            In Ruby’s case his behavior is completely inconsistent with his own protestations about being an admirer of the President. Ruby’s ‘business’ was a strip joint which as far as I know operated at night not during the day (not that I’ve ever been to one but perhaps you gentlemen could help me out here :). Viewing the motorcade would have taken all of 10 minutes.

            Are you really seriously saying he didn’t have time to watch the motorcade but had plenty of time for days afterward to turn up at press conferences and stalk Oswald until he killed him but that didn’t interfere with his ‘business’ at all?

            And wouldn’t the death penalty have some affect on Ruby’s ability to carry out his business obligations?

            Can I ask why you think Oswald thought he would die in the attempt on JFK’s life? If he was the 6th floor shooter then he was hidden, protected and with a good getaway in place ie he was in the TSBD because he worked there. Why would someone shoot him?

          • Paulf says:

            Photon, your blindness to your own arrogance is Olympian. After asking why people assume that Oswald should have acted in a logically consistent manner, you for the umpteenth time offer your own unproven and illogical assessment.

            Either you think people should avoid mind-reading or not. Don’t complain that other people make assumptions in the same paragraph you make your own. What is your evidence that he thought he was going to die?

            What’s more, that Oswald didn’t do what he should have if he had the motives ascribed to him IS a legitimate question. That he didn’t do what 99.9% of people who acted with the ascribed motives should have done is in fact a severe problem with your theory.

            Because if he did gloat ala Charlie Manson about his motives, you would say it was evidence of his guilt. You can’t say when he acted the opposite that it also is evidence of guilt. Well, you can, but it shows how little LN theorists rely on anything remotely resembling factual evidence.

          • Photon says:

            Thanks for proving my point. Both of the above posters assume that Oswald and Ruby should have conformed to what they think they would expect them to do, instead of trying to explain what they actually did.
            My assessments may be unproven, but they are attempts to explain actions that actually occurred
            Vanessa, ever hear of Huey Long? Do you honestly think that businesses that operate at night do nothing during daylight hours?
            Paulf , exactly who are the 99.9% of people that you claim would behave exactly as you think they should?
            What is your explanation for Oswald’s behavior after the assassination ?

          • Bill Pierce says:

            Photon writes:
            ” . . . posters assume that Oswald and Ruby should have conformed to what they think they would expect them to do, instead of trying to explain what they actually did.”

            The posters aren’t alone. On the question of Ruby’s presence at Parkland Hospital just after the assassination, Warren Commissioners demonstrated their utter contempt for honesty and integrity when they favored the word of seedy strip joint owner and MURDERER Jack Ruby over the word of respected journalist Seth Kantor who personally knew Ruby and talked to him at the hospital.

            There was no benign reason for this. The Commissioners were attempting – in every possible way – to have Ruby “conform” to their predetermined conclusion that Ruby was just another unaffiliated nut. As with the rest of the shoddy, dishonest investigation, the Commissioners were simply trying to prevent US citizens from knowing the truth.

          • Paulf says:

            Photon, Oswald said he was a patsy. There is mounds of evidence that he was just that, and no evidence he actually fired any weapon. None. Not a single shred.

            People who commit political crimes almost always take credit. If the point is to make a political statement, you make a statement. That’s why Isis takes credit for beheadings, for example. Their ends are promoted by their means, however sick it might be.

            Denying a political assassination certainly destroys whatever statement Oswald would have been trying to make.

            What’s more, his political ideology was all over the map, having dealings with both sides of the spectrum. He had no known animosity toward Kennedy, and killing JFK served no obvious purpose for his ideology, whatever it was.

            Your theory that he was just nuts and so he decided to kill the president doesn’t make sense. People who go nuts tend to kill their families or random people on a bus or in a mall. Those types of crimes are impulsive. Shooting JFK required a lot of forethought and planning. A lot of people had motive and the ability to do such a thing, not Oswald.

            The point is that the fact that Oswald didn’t do the things associated with your theory is evidence that your theory is lacking, yet you keep arguing for the illogical and improbable just …. well just because. That is a huge weakness in the LN theory.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            Actually I’m saying that you contradict your own argument.

            If he was too busy to see the President where did he suddenly get all this free time to stalk and murder Oswald? And if he was too busy on Friday to be bothered to stand on a street for 10 minutes to see a President he supposedly admired why was he suddenly obsessed with getting Oswald for the next 3 days and nights?

            Okay, I’ve read a bit about Huey Long now – what a genuine working-class hero he seems to be :). Thanks for introducing me! You’re going to have to spell out the exact connection a bit further though.

            Aren’t you going to answer my question on why you think Oswald ‘believed’ he would be shot? Or are your psychic powers a bit low today?

          • Photon says:

            Vanessa, exactly what did Jack Ruby do about 2:00PM on Nov. 22?
            It certainly opened up his schedule for the rest of the weekend. As a Louisians boy Oswald almost certainly had to know about the most famous political assassination in that state’s history; and the 62 reasons to believe that he might not survive the assassination attempt.
            Bill, you of course realize that the HSCA accepted Kantor’s version of the Parkland meeting; not sure what your point is.
            Paulf , what is the mound of evidence that Oswald was a patsy? As for not shooting anybody, there were eyewitnesses who saw him shoot Tippit,saw him flee the scene, saw him ejecting the spent shells out of the revolver used to kill Tippit, saw him use the same gun to attempt to kill another policeman, heard him say ” it is all over now”, watched him standing over a helpless Tippit and see him fire a bullet into his head.
            For what it is worth ( not much) the paraffin test so loved by CT theorists was POSITIVE on his hands, so to be consistant if you believe in the absolute validity of the paraffin test Oswald had to be guilty of shooting Tippit.
            Again, why would Oswald and Ruby have to conform to what you think they should have done, when it is obvious that many of their actions are explained by spur-of-the-moment decisions not made on the basis of rational or logical plans but more likely reactions to unexpected developments and unplanned opportunities. History is full of examples of random occurrences and actions taken to exploit those opportunities.

          • David Regan says:

            Right Photon – Jack Ruby, the respectable businessman/bag man for the Dallas mob and pimp to DPD’s finest, who’s self-acclaimed love for the Kennedys drove him over the edge to kill Oswald without premeditation (after stalking him all weekend), could not even bother to view the motorcade after hanging around the offices of the Dallas Morning News all morning, which was just a short walk from Dealey Plaza.

            Regardless, the case against Oswald would have been thrown out in court for several reasons. That’s why Ruby was ordered to take him out..

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            You just love toying with us, don’t you? 🙂 Now I’ve had to go to the trouble of finding out what you’re referring to my response is that you are still contradicting yourself on both counts.

            I am aware that Ruby shot Oswald, but thanks for the tip though, smartypants.

            You still have not addressed the issue of Ruby not having time to see the President because he was busy for the exact, precise 10 minutes it would have taken to see the motorcade and yet had not a thing on for hours afterwards when he had all the time in the world to shadow Oswald and kill him. If I may appropriate your favourite word, it’s nonsense.

            If Oswald was the 6th floor shooter then he clearly was not using the same MO as Weiss and would have quite reasonably expected to get away with it.

          • Photon says:

            Ruby did shadow and follow Oswald- and apparently considered shooting him at the evening news conference that first night. He did shoot him the next time that he was available to the press. So what is your point? Prior to the assassination Ruby was running a business and was attending to that at the time of the motorcade. After the assassination he closed his businesses and had time for other pursuits.
            Again, why do you think that Ruby had to conform to what you think he should have done- neglect his business activities to stand in a crowd and maybe see the President?
            Vanessa, before you dismiss the Long issue perhaps you should review the list of books Oswald checked out from his local library in June of 1963.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            I cannot believe you made that comment with a straight face. “Other pursuits”! – you make his murder of Oswald sound like a game of golf.

            Ruby was lounging around DMN – he could easily have conducted his business and got down to Dealey Plaza in time to see the President. There were still plenty of vantage points down there, I believe. But if you would like to say that Ruby’s supposed motive for killing Oswald was completely bogus – then I’m happy to agree with you.

            Ergh, I am not checking Oswald’s library book list :). From memory he also borrowed books on JFK and given his politics, was probably an admirer of Huey Long, not his assassin.

            BTW I am currently reading “The Hidden Hitler”, does that mean I am gay, no. (I don’t recommend the book either – it’s rubbish). What are you reading right now Photon? Something you’d care to disclose? Whatever it is I’m sure it doesn’t mean that you endorse it. Oswald had an interest in politics and read widely.

            I believe the onus is still on you to explain why given his hidden vantage point Oswald would have believed he would be shot. There is no similarity to the Weiss case at all, in that respect.

          • Photon says:

            According to the Godfather of conspiracy theorists Mark Lane ( at least in 1965)) claimed that he could see Ruby in a picture watching the parade.
            Since Lane is THE authority in Conspriracy circles you have to believe him. So that should settle your assumption of what Ruby should have done. He did it.
            That’s what is so fascinating about the Conspiracy camp. You can find an answer to any question, a reason for any supposed contradiction. And whether that answer is true or not, or even possible has no bearing on whether it is accepted.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hi Photon

            I think you just provided a perfect example of what you are accusing us of. 🙂 Who has mentioned Mark Lane?

            You have two points to explain, Paul. 🙂 One is why was Ruby’s motive valid on Saturday and Sunday but not on Friday.
            And the other is that you have maintained for a long time that Oswald thought he would be shot but you haven’t actually provided any reasons to back that up.

            Bet you’re curled up with “The Pink Suit” and a hot chocolate right now, aren’t you?

          • John R says:

            @Photon

            …According to the God father of conspiracy theorists Mark Lane…

            Say what you will and believe what you want about Mark Lane, but in 1964 he was one of but a handful of people to stand up in front of the entire country, a lynch mob, really, 150 million strong, and defend Lee Harvey Oswald. I wonder Photon, if you’ve ever done anything quite so brave?

            I don’t know if you’ll ever really understand this, but I don’t have to agree with a single word he’s ever said or written to admire him.

          • Photon says:

            Jonestown.

          • Vanessa says:

            That is very eloquently put, John R and I agree with you.

          • Vanessa says:

            Hello Photon

            Unfortunately for you, Jonestown does not relieve you of the onus to prove your arguments.

          • John R says:

            @ Photon

            Thank you for making my point, Photon. It is rare that one reveals so much by writing so little.

            And thank you, Vanessa, for your kind words.

        • “How was it arranged that only “the cops aware of him” went to the balcony, in your view?”~Jean

          Cops with clout in the department that went up to the balcony and told others to take care of the regular seating, where others “in on it” were there to take care of pretending to take the 38sp they had as a prop away from Oswald.
          \\][//

      • Stephen Roy says:

        You said the coverup was “arranged” with the new organs you listed. Evidence?

        • gerald campeau says:

          They rewrite history just like there doing now with Syria and Libya

        • “You said the coverup was “arranged” with the new organs you listed. Evidence?”~Stephen Roy

          I would suggest that Mr Roy look into the Church Committee for leads to Intelligence-Media collusion.

          Also, as a general matter as to the role of media in society, there is Edrward Bernays and his book PROPAGANDA. And Walter Lippmann’s, PUBLIC OPINION.
          \\][//

        • leslie sharp says:

          Stephen Roy, Vince Salandria also admonished “they will wear you down;” however I’m relying on your integrity that as you indicate, you truly do not understand how an arrangement occurred:

          This should serve as a primer: OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD: “After 1953, the network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services. These networks were run by people with well-known liberal but pro-American big business and anti-Soviet views such as William S. Paley (CBS), Henry Luce (Time and Life Magazine), Arthur Hays Sulzberger (New York Times), Alfred Friendly (managing editor of the Washington Post), Jerry O’Leary (Washington Star), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Barry Bingham, Sr. (Louisville Courier-Journal), James Copley (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison (Christian Science Monitor). ref. Carl Bernstein (20 October 1977). “CIA and the Media”. Rolling Stone Magazine.

          For a specific example of the operation: consider the episode of reporter Hal Hendrix who joined Scripps Howard, the syndicated wire service feeding major media outlets, just in time to be in a position to disseminate inflammatory details of the background of the only suspect in the Kennedy Assassination hours before the FBI released those facts the evening of 11.22.63. In September, 1963, Hendrix had opted to remain in Miami where “his contacts were” rather than move to Scripps HQ in DC. From the moment Hendrix’ report hit the Scripps Howard wires with the attendant knock on effect in the major media, Lee Harvey Oswald was tried, judged and sentenced in the majority of American psyche. Hendrix was a founding member of the Committee for a Free Cuba along with fellow vocal anti-communists Henry and Claire Boothe Luce of Time Inc./ Life Magazine – the publication that so nobly spared the American public the photos of Kennedy’s final seconds – photos that in some experts’ assessment prove the frontal shot. Cover up?

          While Mr. Bernstein does not specifically address several of the media I named, I think these details are important to understand the ethos behind the advanced cover up: the LA Times known for extreme right wing politics, Norman Chandler owner publisher who sat on the boards of military contractors Dresser Industries and Halliburton among others; William Hobby of the Houston Post [misidentified in my earlier comment]; whose foundation has long been credibly cited as working closely with the CIA; and the Dealeys, bastions of extreme conservatism in Dallas, need little introduction – their paper published the black border funereal advertisement the morning of the assassination and which to my knowledge never pursued any entity other than Oswald; following his murder, they reported that Jack Ruby was a pathetic nobody impassioned to shoot Oswald in front of dozens of law enforcement officers, and with that the paper closed its own investigation. Cover up?

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Are you saying that there was an organized or controlled coverup of the JFK assassination by the US media?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, If you want to have a genuine debate, indicate your good faith by challenging my assertions in the specific. My comment stands.

          • “Are you saying that there was an organized or controlled coverup of the JFK assassination by the US media?”~Stephen Roy

            I will answer for myself here and allow Mr Sharp to answer on his own.

            Yes, emphatically YES! And I would add that; this cover-up continues to this day, that mainstream media is nothing more than propaganda and perception manipulation. And I would assert that this is proven conclusively in the history that is deliberately excised from popular media, and mainstream academia.
            This situation did not begin with the JFK assassination, and it has only become worse throughout the intervening years.
            \\][//

          • John R says:

            It’s always amazed me the extent to which reporters are manipulated by those in power. Stephen, let’s imagine you’re a reporter and I work in the White House. I’ll slip you a good number of “inside scoops,” all true and corroborated. I’ll make you a big star. You’ll be invited onto all the talk shows. Your editors will love you. One of these days, when I really need it, you’ll print WHATEVER I say. Even if you know what I’m doing. You’ll realize that if you don’t play ball, in very short order, you’ll find yourself out on the street. Don’t take my word for it. Ask Robert Parry over at http://www.consortiumnews.com. For that matter, ask Jeff Morley. I’m sure it’s not that much different at the editor or ownership levels. It’s all about access.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            I asked for evidence to support something you claimed (that there was an ARRANGED coverup of the JFK assassination), but you provided evidence for something else (that certain reporters have maintained CIA contacts over the years). Are my questions too complicated?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, I repeat, my comment stands. The cover up was arranged. If you are genuine in your concern and need to see and touch a paper trail, perhaps you might file a FOIA; or better, weigh in with a hefty donation to Jeff Morley and Jim Lesar to support their quixotic effort.

            OPERATION MOCKINGBIRD: “After 1953, the network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services.

          • Stephen Roy,

            1. “Our Concern. From the day of President Kennedy’s assassination on, there has been speculation about the responsibility for his murder.”~CIA Document 1035-960

            b.”To employ propaganda assets to [negate] and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (I) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories. In the course of discussions of the whole phenomenon of criticism, a useful strategy may be to single out Epstein’s theory for attack, using the attached Fletcher [?] article and Spectator piece for background. (Although Mark Lane’s book is much less convincing that Epstein’s and comes off badly where confronted by knowledgeable critics, it is also much more difficult to answer as a whole, as one becomes lost in a morass of unrelated details.)”~1035-960

            “Conspiracy theory” is a term that at once strikes fear and anxiety in the hearts of most every public figure, particularly journalists and academics. Since the 1960s the label has become a disciplinary device that has been overwhelmingly effective in defining certain events off limits to inquiry or debate.”~Tracy
            \\][//

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Leslie: I don’t think the evidence you cite supports the statement you made earlier in the Harvey discussion.

            Willy: The document you cite was 1967. I’m asking about 1963-4. Was there an organized press coverup?

            Gerald: Certainly there are coverups, and press people sometimes get to close to intelligence sources. I’m asking for evidence that there was an organized effort by the press to cover this up in 1963.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            “Are you saying there was an organized and controlled coverup…”
            It almost appears these people were ready in advance.
            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/who-paid-for-the-first-jfk-conspiracy-theory/#more-9771

            There was also a Miami reporter that had a lot of info on Oswald within a few hours. I can’t remember his name at the moment. Former Dallas (at the time Washington) reporter and author Seth Kantor was referred to the Miami reporter for info on Oswald by his home office the evening of 11/22. Seems they both may have worked for Scripps-Howard (?) Kantor did for sure. The Miami guy remained based in Miami because of his contacts there. And his name is ahaaaa?*#!

          • jeffmorley says:

            Hal Hendrix

          • leslie sharp says:

            replay if moderators will allow: For a specific example of the operation: consider the episode of reporter Hal Hendrix who joined Scripps Howard, the syndicated wire service feeding major media outlets, just in time to be in a position to disseminate inflammatory details of the background of the only suspect in the Kennedy Assassination hours before the FBI released those facts the evening of 11.22.63. In September, 1963, Hendrix had opted to remain in Miami where “his contacts were” rather than move to Scripps HQ in DC. From the moment Hendrix’ report hit the Scripps Howard wires with the attendant knock on effect in the major media, Lee Harvey Oswald was tried, judged and sentenced in the majority of American psyche. Hendrix was a founding member of the Committee for a Free Cuba along with fellow vocal anti-communists Henry and Claire Boothe Luce of Time Inc./ Life Magazine – the publication that so nobly spared the American public the photos of Kennedy’s final seconds – photos that in some experts’ assessment prove the frontal shot. Cover up?

          • “Willy: The document you cite was 1967. I’m asking about 1963-4. Was there an organized press coverup?”~Stephen Roy

            There was nothing but chaotic guesswork in the media immediately after the assassination, and this plays into the hands of those who will then construct the official story at the proper time for the strategy of “order out of chaos”.
            Dispensing with the ancient history of the workings of Power, in the Realpolitik aspect, let us consider; that 1967 is not long after, and that in that meantime the major focus was in spinning the Warren Commission fable.

            It was this that was then to be buttressed by the use of “propaganda assets”, that are obviously already in place in “The Mighty Wurlitzer”.
            \\][//

          • The Mighty Wurlitzer
            (the CIA’s propaganda machine)
            The CIAs Greatest Hits

            Deputy Director Frank Wisner proudly referred to the CIA’s worldwide propaganda machine as “the mighty Wurlitzer.” And indeed, the agency’s skill at murdering people is matched only by its ability to murder the truth.

            The CIA has published literally hundreds of books that spread its party line on the Cold War. It was particularly proud of The Penikovsky Papers, supposedly the memoirs of a KGB defector but actually completely ghostwritten by CIA scribes. A bit more embarrassing was Claire Sterling’s book which advanced the now-discredited theory that the Russians were behind the 1981 attempt on the life of Pope John Paul II. Even the popular Fodor’s Travel Guides started as a CIA front.

            The CIA also owns dozens of newspapers and magazines the world over. These not only provide cover for their agents but allow them to plant misinformation that regularly makes it back to the US through the wire services. The CIA has even placed agents on guard at the wire services, to prevent inconvenient facts from being disseminated.

            In 1977, famed Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein revealed that over 400 US journalists had been employed by the CIA. These ranged from freelancers who were paid for regular debriefings, to actual CIA officers who worked under deep cover. Nearly every major US news organization has had spooks on the payroll, usually with the cooperation of top management.

            The three most valuable media assets the CIA could count on were William Paley’s CBS, Arthur Sulzberger’s New York Times and Henry Luce’s Time/Life empire. All three bent over backwards promoting the picture of Oswald as a lone nut in the JFK assassination.

            http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA%20Hits/Wurlitzer_CIAHits.html
            \\][//

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Leslie:
            I see. Hendrix had a good source who leaked him stuff on Oswald before the FBI released it. Hendrix was once part of a Free Cuba group. The Luces were also part of that group. The Luces also thought the Zfilm was too graphic to print.

            Impressive logic. I guess you’ve proven your point.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, try this for logic:

            “The importance of INTEGRATED – ALL SOURCE ANALYSIS cannot be overstated. Without it, it is not possible to “CONNECT THE DOTS.” NO ONE COMPONENT holds all the relevant information.

            13.3 UNITY OF EFFORT IN SHARING INFORMATION
            Information Sharing:
            We have already stressed the importance of intelligence analysis that can draw on all relevant sources of information. THE BIGGEST IMPEDIMENT to all-source analysis-TO A GREATER LIKELIHOOD OF CONNECTING THE DOTS -is the human or systemic RESISTANCE TO SHARING INFORMATION.

            http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch13.htm

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Wally:
            I’ve been active in this field for many years. All the stuff you’re posting has been known for many years. I’m looking for evidence for a specific claim by Leslie that a press coverup in 1963 had been “arranged.” This means across the board, not isolated incidents.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Can anyone show that Hal Hendrix produced information about Oswald’s background before the rest of the media did? Oswald’s defection and pro-Castro activities had been publicized when they happened and were part of the public record. It didn’t take long for that to come out.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            From Black Propaganda to the Nobel Prize.

            http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKhendrixH.htm

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, “I’ve been active in this field for many years.”

            Assuming that is hardly a careless comment, how does your experience in whatever field you are referencing weigh on allegations that the cover up was arranged?

            You also say to W. Whitten: “All the stuff you’re posting has been known for many years.” Boiling frogs, Mr. Roy, boiling frogs. One might think you are trolling for NEW facts because you have absorbed and assimilated the old ones and have been somewhat desensitized. Bernays relied on that human condition.

            “I’m looking for evidence for a specific claim by Leslie that a press coverup in 1963 had been “arranged.”

            Overlooking the sloppy construction of your statement, I will reiterate that my claim stands. The cover up was arranged.

            Hendrix’ newswire feed via Scripps to 27 major media outlets should convince the most obstinate advocate of the integrity of our Fourth Estate that it failed us in November, 1963. This number of outlets would not have relied on lil’ ol’ Hal for their facts unless they as a collective were accustomed to doing so, that a process had been arranged. Information that passed over the newswire was the first to hit their front page. Serious reporting would come later, if at all. There was a longstanding symbiosis between the major media and elements within US intelligence; call it an arrangement.

          • “I’m looking for evidence for a specific claim by Leslie that a press coverup in 1963 had been “arranged.” This means across the board, not isolated incidents.”~Steven Ray (grin)

            You said “all this stuff has been known for years” … Well all that “stuff” is the bloody arrangement! And it is obviously not geared to “isolated incidents” but to control information “across the board”.

            This exquisite naïveté shown by the True Believers in the Warren Report is remarkable.
            They cannot seem to grasp what legal evidence is, what chains of custody mean, what the essentials of proper crime scene investigations are. They have little sense of real history or the architecture of modern political power. They are enchanted by the Public Relations Regime and make their lame arguments from authority accordingly. They are as jejune as little children from my perspective.

            These people do not understand the elementary techniques of the way propaganda works primarily on the emotions which bypass the critical facilities. And it is this fact that causes their resistance to critical argumentation against what are frankly silly ideas propagated by the system that has regimented and compartmentalized their minds.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, now that the US Government has officially established dot connecting as a valuable method of inquiry will you concede that it can also be applied to the unsolved murder of John Kennedy and the ongoing cover up? Dots are not proof, they are not definitive and they can be rife with potential for abuse, but connecting them can provide a road map. Applied responsibly they may well expose the conspiracy.

            “Hendrix had a good source . . .” pls name the source
            “. . . who leaked him stuff on Oswald before the FBI released it.” pls identify the “stuff.”

            Your response is tinged with the suggestion that Hendrix was inconsequential, in spite of his access to 27 of the nations’ most reputable media outlets thru the Scripps newswire service.

            “Hendrix was once part of a Free Cuba group. ” Founding member along with the Luces. 
How many Free Cuba groups were there at the time?

            “The Luces were also part of that group.” Founding members along with Hendrix. 
How many Free Cuba groups included a media mogul and his wife? Are you asking us to believe these were pathetic Free Cuba zealots – Hendrix in league with the Luces, owners of the Time, Inc. news machine – with no vehicle to promote propaganda?

            “The Luces also thought the Zfilm was too graphic to print.”

            That was their call. After all, they owned the publication.. And they owned the Z Film. Why wasn’t it confiscated as evidence from the outset; how did they manage to own it, and profit from it, and withhold portions of it from the public?

            Your representation of the Luce’s sentiment and sensitivity is touching – it appeals to one’s emotions – but it is and has long been used as a deflection: why withhold images that clearly prompt the question of a frontal shot?

            “Impressive logic. I guess you’ve proven your point.”
            Perhaps I haven’t, but I’m certain you have not.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            It’s funny how a request for a citation becomes bogged down in minutiae. Willy cited some tangential points, and I simply responded that, because I’ve been at this a long time, I was aware of those points a long time ago.

            I don’t see a controlled press in 1963. I see a press who was convinced that they knew the basic facts, and investigated accordingly.

            It really weakens your argument to condescend to words like “rolling” and “sloppy.”

            The cited evidence either supports your thesis or it doesn’t.

            By the way, what’s your source for this:
            Hendrix was “in a position to disseminate inflammatory details of the background of the only suspect in the Kennedy Assassination hours before the FBI released those facts the evening of 11.22.63,” and because of that “Lee Harvey Oswald was tried, judged and sentenced in the majority of American psyche.”

            Did he have material to which no other reporter had access? Was is untrue material?

          • “Did he have material to which no other reporter had access? Was is untrue material?”~Stephen Roy

            I take it you mean “was it untrue?”

            The point that you are avoiding here is that this information was “fresh” in the sense that it was a consolidated and fairly complete background brief on Oswald, sent out through all the wire services that day. A convenient package to be propagated quickly.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, I’m not going to hold your hand through this; if you cannot find specific citations on your own, just google Hal Hendrix; then challenge the various authors who posit that Hendrix in particular was known to be a servant of the CIA using his journalism credentials to advance their propaganda. Gaeton Fonzi comes to mind. Refute their allegations. My even deeper interest in Hendrix relates to the ITT Chile story because I am acquainted with a family member of his.

            If you are questioning whether or not the newswires were a key component of the ‘official’ version of events in the first 48 hours of the assassination, do some study about how the press worked at the time.

            The citation I would offer is a composite of dozens of credible references, along with my first hand research of headlines as they changed over the ensuing hours, starting with the Amarillo Globe News, the Midland Telegram and the Lubbock Avalanche Journal as symbolic of what was unfolding across the state and the nation. Do you think they had reporters on the ground in Dallas? Or were they relying on the newswires? From there study the DMN and the Houston Post …

            The Fourth Estate not only failed us, the most powerful among them participated in the cover up.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Wow! The wily CIA, through just one reporter, controlled the media both locally and nationally, and deliberately fed them a false “official” story about Oswald. We’d all realize this if we were as smart as you and took the steps you wisely recommend.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Willy: Can you summarize what specific information was sent out and when? That would make all the difference between it being a planned cover story, or just reporters doing regular reporting. Claiming it is a cover story is not enough; One has to show that it was early and unique.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, these questions are intended for Jeff Morley but they might be germane to our conversation:

            From Morley’s article “The Man Who Did Not Talk:”

            “The second revelation was that the CIA’s Miami assets helped shape the public’s understanding of Kennedy’s assassination by identifying the suspected assassin as a Castro supporter right from the start.”

            Jeff Morley, How was the “public’s understanding of Kennedy’s assassination” actually shaped in the immediate aftermath of the assassination, in the most practical/literal sense?

            Did Joannides /the CIA begin distributing fliers around the country? Did the Cubans start phoning their constituency?

            Or were the details of Oswald’s past conveyed over the newswires – Scripps Howard among them – within hours of the assassination and was that data picked up by the major media outlets as a fait accompli, no questions asked? Was Hendrix reporting to the same CIA characters as was Joannides?; were these CIA assets the same people as Hendrix’ contacts when he decided to stick around Miami instead of moving to DC, HQ of Scripps? might he have been in direct contact with Joannides? In fact might Joannides’ have been Hendrix’ liaison with the CIA?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, Let’s try this more contemporary angle: a composite of Judith Miller and those WMD’s, and Ken “I’m working on a story about congressional oversight of drone strikes that can present a good opportunity for you guys” Dalanian.

          • David Regan says:

            Stephen Roy
            January 26, 2015 at 12:34 pm

            “Are you saying that there was an organized or controlled coverup of the JFK assassination by the US media”?

            Suffice it to say the media did not maintain a presumption of innocence:

            On November 25th, the New York Times abandoned the words “Alleged” or “Accused” when it ran the headline “President’s Assassin Shot to Death in Jail Corridor by a Dallas Citizen”.
            New York Times, November 25, 1963

            On November 29th, an article in the Chicago Daily News described Oswald as “a hate-filled sniper” and a “lunatic”.
            Chicago Daily News, November 29, 1963

            In its February 21st 1964 issue, Life Magazine published an article on Oswald entitled “The Evolution of an Assassin”. The cover featured a photo of Oswald holding a rifle, with a pistol on his hip and a caption that read “Lee Oswald with the weapons he used to kill President Kennedy and Officer Tippit.”

            A December 20th 1963 article in Life Magazine was entitled “The Assassin: a Cold, Lone Man Who Resented All Authority.”

            The July 10th 1964 issue of Life Magazine introduced its publication of Oswald’s diary from his time in Russia by writing that it “is one of the most important pieces of evidence studied by the Warren Commission in its effort to unravel the character and motives of President Kennedy’s assassin.”

            On November 25th, CBS correspondent Dan Rather described the film for a national audience four times, once on radio and three times on television. His description of the fatal shot was consistent, quoted here from the fourth report, as “a second shot, the third total shot, hit the president’s head. He, his head can be seen to move violently forward.” FALSE

            Paul Mandel, in an article published in the December 6th edition of Life Magazine, entitled “End to Nagging Rumors,” wrote that “the 8mm film shows the President turning his body far around to the right as he waves to someone in the crowd. His throat is exposed–toward the sniper’s nest–just before he clutches it.” FALSE

          • David Regan says:

            JFK: HOW THE MEDIA ASSASSINATED THE REAL STORY:http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/mediaassassination.html

        • Let’s get this straight Stephen Roy,
          This information that hit the newswires cannot be characterized as a “false cover story”, as both Leslie and I have tried to tell you it was a biographical sketch of Lee Harvey Oswald spun to accentuate his defection to the Soviet Union and highlight that Oswald was “a Marxist”.
          The “regular reporters just doing their jobs” had their job done for them, as this background bio came over the news wires that morning.
          If you do not get this after all of this discussion, then I can’t help you.
          \\][//

          • Stephen Roy says:

            There’s no need for the condescending tone. I asked for evidence to support a claim that was made; the evidence provided did not directly address that claim.

            Sensible people respond positively to sober intellectual argument; The condescending tone comes across…negatively. I could do the same thing and ask why people do not see how the provided evidence does not address the question I asked.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            Lemme just ask: If YOU were the editor at the wire service and the president was just assassinated, would you omit the attempted defection and claims to be a Marxist?

          • “Lemme just ask: If YOU were the editor at the wire service and the president was just assassinated, would you omit the attempted defection and claims to be a Marxist?”~Stephen Roy

            Stephen, what does this have to do with the argument as to whether the wire service prefab stories went out as an agenda in service of framing Oswald?

            So I say, yes of course I would use the information in the package from the wire services. What does this prove? Only that convenience came my way and I took advantage of it.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, The elephant in the room is of course Hendrix’ reputation as shall we say a “friend to the intelligence apparatus,”

            My argument that the cover-up was arranged stands without that additional aspect – Hendrix propagating stories on behalf of intelligence agencies – because the arrangement was long standing. In the interest of immediacy – the cornerstone in a highly competitive industry – newswires fed breaking stories to major outlets, outlets published based on those initial reports and the ‘trust’ they instilled in the wire organization; then it was up to them to fact check, send out their own reporters, however the editor or publisher decided to pursue.

            When Oswald’s bio was fed into the Scripps Howard wires, the dye was cast. Can you or Jean identify what major publications printed Oswald’s history at the same time, or earlier? Don’t bother answering if you name the New Orleans Picayune, The Houston Post, The Dallas Morning News, The Amarillo Globe, The Lubbock Avalanche Journal, The Midland Telegram, The Tulsa World.

          • Stephen Roy says:

            So, AP and UPI had the stuff from 1959 about the defection, and NBC had the tape and film of Oswald saying he was a Marxist. It wasn’t “convenience,” it wasn’t “prefab.” It was information that Oswald created, which resided in news files.

            Do you not understand that you are alleging that someone controlled the news that weekend, but all you’re doing is trying to put a sinister spin on the normal news gathering process?

          • David Regan says:

            Stephen, would you deny that upon Oswald’s death, the media had foregone any presumption of innocence and immediately convicted him as the lone assassin? Thanks largely to being spoonfed Hoover’s ridiculous report long before the WC got started.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen: Seth Kantor, a seasoned newsman had questions on reflection as well. And you have yet to acknowledge let alone address the role of Hal Hendrix and his alleged history with the intelligence community. Why is that? You also dismiss his obvious direct contact with Henry and Claire Luce as cofounders of an anti-Castro group and who purchased the Z film through their agent, Dick Stolley, determined privately how the American public would access the evidence therein, and along the way their agent Stolley helped secret away Marina Oswald in the early hours of the assassination. This is not a cast of thousands; this is a very tight community bound ideologically and financially.

            I am arguing that within the normal construct you describe, there was an isolated (Hal Hendrix), arranged sequence of events within an hour of Oswald’s arrest – an arrest that is alleged to have been based solely on the death of Officer Tippit NOT the president of the United States. If that is true, why would Oswald’s bio related to Cuba or the USSR be relevant to Tippit’s murder? I believe someone knew that the inevitable dare I say dot connecting would quickly ensue, and in the mayhem no one would stop and audit the timing.

            Transport yourself in time Stephen, before you were convinced of Oswald’s guilt: how did the major media know for certain that the real shooters weren’t escaping? and who by the way convinced you of his guilt? Ask yourself, what major media outlet immediately asked the natural, ethical, professional question publicly: “are you sure we’ve got the right guy?”

          • leslie sharp says:

            Stephen, I came across this thread introduced by Jeff Morley April 25, 2013.

            http://jfkfacts.org/tag/richard-dudman/

            “One common misconception about the JFK assassination story is that suspicions of conspiracy originated with authors who dreamed up sensational theories. In fact, the controversy over JFK’s death emerged from the circumstances of the crime before any conspiracy theories had been published.

            Case in point: On December 1,1963, Richard Dudman, a reporter for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch who was in Dallas, wrote an unusual article about JFK’s assassination. He did not assume the truth of public statements by law enforcement agencies. Rather, he compared those statements to what he had observed, and he asked “Did Assailant Have an Accomplice?”

            If Dudman could ask questions, why couldn’t others; and more applicable to this argument, why didn’t Hendix? He wasn’t even present in Dallas, yet he felt entirely comfortable disseminating information that he knew would shape the public perspective. A disgrace to his profession imo.

  7. FIAT

    Most assume that he who writes the law makes law.

    Hamilton corrected that, it is he who interprets the law that makes law.

    But the tyrant proves that it is the enforcer who makes law.

    \\][//

  8. gerald campeau says:

    Stephan Roy There was an arranged coverup instigated by Congress of USA by allowing Col. Boris T Pash and Col. Robert E Jones to lie about their Military Careers infront of Congressional Committies.

  9. Jesse Hemingway says:

    Here is another fact on August 2, 1964 the first Gulf of Tonkin incident which was another fabricated event by LBJ. Then on September 24, 1964 the fresh steaming pile of disinformation known as Warren Commission Report was concluded.

    So why would LBJ and company choose August 2, 1964 to create such an incident as the Gulf of Tonkin; knowing that 7 weeks later Warren Commission Report would be finished?

  10. Judy says:

    Although I am very interested in the JFK assassination, I am a novice. I have read books, reveiwed websites, etc.

    My question has to deal with JFK:The Upspeakable book by James Douglas-a powerful read. This book was the first time I became acquainted with the Abraham Bolden- SS Agent-story. Who- exactly- was told about the Chicago assassination attempt? Did the President know? The White House Secret Service? Dallas officials? I’m not clear about the people that were notified?

  11. leslie sharp says:

    Jean, “Can anyone show that Hal Hendrix produced information about Oswald’s background before the rest of the media did? Oswald’s defection and pro-Castro activities had been publicized when they happened and were part of the public record. It didn’t take long for that to come out.”

    This debate centered on media culpability in the cover up, not who got there first. My statement did not assert that Hal Hendrix was the first to disseminate information on Oswald but rather that he did so prior to the FBI. The significance is that Hendrix had the information on the newswires, reaching as many as 27 major outlets with the attendant knock on effect within an hour of Oswald’s arrest.

  12. I want to revisit this quote from Norman Redlich:

    “Our intention is not to establish the point with complete accuracy, but merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin”.
    — April 27, 1964 memo from Norman Redlich to J. Lee Rankin.
    . . . . .

    Norman Redlich certainly knew he need not remind Rankin of the agenda that Rankin was party to establishing. So this memo is a key that Redlich put into the record as to the true agenda of the Warren Commission. Deconstructing this sentence in context of the history of Redlich’s participation in this burlesque, we see that shortly after he was brought in he was relentlessly attacked by the rabid conservative members of government and he press. He was vilified as a closet Communist, and traitor, and all manner of defamation and slurs. His arm was twisted tight to either back out or play ball.

    Speaking metaphorically, this one little morsel, this memo to Rankin, is the bread of a sermon on the mound. Redlich lays the truth bare before our eyes, if we dare choose to look and see it.

    In deconstruction, the text written consciously is analyzed for subconscious assumptions that drive such text. What this does is add a new dimension to the overall context, filling it with light from another angle.
    New light casts new shadows at new angles.
    The new angle cast by these shadows, are the shadows haunting Redlich, trauma from his abuse at the hands of those he surely saw as villains seeking to hide the truth. So this message is put by intent, either consciously or subconsciously/subliminally:

    “Our intention is_merely to substantiate the hypothesis which underlies the conclusions that Oswald was the sole assassin”. This is the clear unambiguous message.
    The qualifier: “not to establish the point with complete accuracy,” does not change, but reinforces on a single issue the main message in the sentence.
    \\][//

  13. If you want to read a horror story about how the system treats someone in their way, read the story of, Ralph Yates. It is reminiscent of what went on in Stalin’s Russia, the “Psychiatric Treatment” of dissidents.

    The story of what happened to Yates is in the second half of the Jim Douglas book pages at:

    http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html

    \\][//

  14. I want to point out that it is telling that none of the Warren Commission groupies will face head on the very revealing information in the discussion in Warren Commission Executive Session of 22 Jan 1964.

    It is blatantly put there that the commission would simply make every effort to frame Oswald as the lone gunman and exclude any evidence to the contrary. It certainly doesn’t take expert deconstruction to read this in plain and frank language. So plain and blunt that they all agreed the transcript of this meeting should never be revealed.
    \\][//

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