Agencies hint they may try to block JFK declassification in 2017

I missed Lauren Harper’s useful update on UNREDACTED about  the National Archives plans for JFK declassification in 2017.

[Archivist Martha] Murphy recently stated that NARA has “sent letters to agencies letting them know we have records here that were withheld, 2017 is coming.” Murphy further noted that “while no agency has formally requested a waiver yet, some ‘have gotten back to ask for clarification’ and are seeking ‘more information.’”  Murphy noted that while she couldn’t say whether or not the records would resolve the enduring sense of mystery surrounding the assassination, she said that the records will provide a “beautiful snapshot of Cold War America and the intelligence community.”

Source: JFK Assassination Records and the Enduring Lessons from the Assassination Records Review Board | UNREDACTED

 

500 comments

  1. Ronnie Wayne says:

    The key line is the last one “the media should start getting the candidates on the record now”. So far they continue to ignore this suggestion. I wonder if any of them will ever have the integrity or courage to do this, and, if possibly so will the candidates continue to tap dance on the subject. The question should be presented in a form discouraging the last possibility. A simple yes or no, will you support the release of the files?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      I agree Ronnie but remember we are dealing with politicians here. As a group integrity and courage is not high on their list.

  2. It is my most humble opinion, that it is naive to think that appealing for redress to this tyrannical Homeland Security State will have any effect whatsoever.

    Pipe Dreams on the road to serfdom.
    \\][//

  3. Dan says:

    There is an error in the pie chart which was later corrected. The correct figure is that 1 per cent of the documents are withheld in full, rather than .01 per cent. You will note that with the correction the percentages add to 100 per cent.

  4. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    There is also a bigger problem: may be the CIA did not bring all the relevant documents to the collection. Cuban defector Aspillaga, for instance, says he gave some data about the JFK assassination during his debriefing in 1987, but there is no record at all in the collection. I think Aspillaga is simply lying, but I am not so sure about whether the withheld records are actually all the relevant records.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [Arnaldo M. Fernandez:]

      “there is no record at all in the collection.”

      ========================================

      Professor Fernández:

      I have access to the full official database, up to the last comma, and can query it in ways not allowed by the NARA site:

      http://s18283067.onlinehome-server.com/~ramon/jfk-collection/

      The word “Aspillaga” is not in it.

      • Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

        Neither Azpillaga (misspelled) nor Touchdown (his codename). I think he is lying, but when I made a FOIA request about it, the Agency Release Panel finally dismissed my appeal so: “The CIA can neither confirm nor deny the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to your request”. Thus, they don´t even care about people presumably talking from inside the company.

  5. bogman says:

    Why does the JFK assassination always become the proverbial rabbit hole? The answer is because the government and media did not act in anyway average Americans would’ve have expected and required them to if they knew the full facts of the situation in real-time.

    What do I mean? Here’s what I would’ve hoped would’ve occurred in these following situations:

    o Hoover tells LBJ someone impersonated the accused assassin in MC. LBJ responds, “That’s incredible and shocking! Use every resource at your disposal to find that man.”

    o Hoover looks through his OWN files and finds the memo HE wrote about reports that someone was impersonating Oswald while he was in the USSR.

    o Dan Rather reports a disturbing finding from the Zapruder film — the president, against all common sense and physics, is blown forcefully TOWARD the alleged shooter in the final head shot.

    o FBI and DPD say they will not be satisfied that Oswald is the lone gunman until every single lead is followed up on.

    o Since Hoover told DPD the FBI was in charge of the investigation on Saturday, he offers men and expertise to keep the assassin safe to stand trial.

    o Hoover’s FBI never changes a word of anyone’s statements.

    o Hoover’s FBI never loses, mangles or destroys a single piece of evidence.

    o The CIA privately admits to the WC that they’ve been trying to whack Castro with the Mob’s help for years, and this could be a fruitful area of investigation and would be glad to help. Oh, yeah, and the DRE are their boys and you really need to talk to their handler.

    o The WC works with independent investigators from top state and city law enforcement to investigate the CIA, FBI and other agencies with full subpoena power.

    o Media keeps an open mind to conspiracy no matter what the feds tell them as they did when Nixon said Watergate was just a “third-rate burglary.”

    Dreaming, I know. But the only real reason that not one US institution did what it was supposed to do in the JFK assassination is they were afraid of what they’d find, or they knew what they’d find. And it wouldn’t be good.

    • o Hoover tells LBJ someone impersonated the accused assassin in MC. LBJ responds, “That’s incredible and shocking! Use every resource at your disposal to find that man.”

      Actually, what Hoover said was:

      “We have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet Embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to the man’s voice, nor to his appearance.”

      Both Hoover and LBJ were sophisticated enough to know that there is all kind of confusion and false leads early in a case like this.

      This particular issue got sorted out:

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

      • bogman says:

        Then they erased this phone conversation as opposed to all the other LBJ phone convos because…?

        And at least as much evidence says the tapes existed…

        http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/what-happened-to-the-tape-of-oswald-in-mexico-city/

        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61089#relPageId=2

        And down the rabbit hole we go once again…

        All because taxpayer-supported agencies of the US government have obfuscated and continue to obfuscate on key questions in this case, 50+ years later.

        • And at least as much evidence says the tapes existed…

          No, it does not. The earliest documents by FBI people, written before anybody could have known of the need for a “cover up” of the tapes, say that no tapes exist:

          http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10430/html/124-10230-10430_0002a.htm

          . . . or fail to mention tapes as material flown to Dallas.

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/Shanklin112263.pdf

          Morley puffs the testimony to the ARRB of Goodpasture, but she was told that tapes made it to the U.S., and then she speculated how that could have happened.

          Check the Lopez Report for what she and others were saying in the 70s.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            “Morley puffs the testimony to the ARRB of Goodpasture…”

            I just can’t imagine why you are having a little trouble at work…

            Mr. Morley has created a site that allows EVERYONE to join and discuss and even vent. He has also taken on the CIA directly, in a LAWSUIT. What have you done, John? You have your own website, but you spend a great deal of time on Mr. Morley’s. What does that say? Are you trying to ‘convert the masses?” If you are SO certain of the WR, I would think you would want to stay nestled in your little world, where the minions follow without thinking.

            I have offered to help pay for the lawsuit that Jeff has against the CIA. Admittedly, it is a small amount, but please feel free to talk with Tom S. about the fact that I have offered.

            Care to join in, John?

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            “The earliest documents by FBI people, written before anybody could have known of the need for a “cover up” of the tapes, say that no tapes exist:”

            Well, that explains EVERYTHING! The FBI said that no tapes existed! Case closed!

            Who among us would not believe J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI? I mean, they were VERY forthcoming in regards to the destruction of the Hosty note…

          • What does that say? Are you trying to ‘convert the masses?”

            You really, really hate being challenged, don’t you?

            You would prefer just to share conspiracy lore with fellow buffs, with nobody contesting anything you say, wouldn’t you?

            That’s not a recipe for getting to the truth on any issue. It’s only a recipe for intellectual incest.

          • JSA says:

            “You really, really hate being challenged, don’t you?

            You would prefer just to share conspiracy lore with fellow buffs, with nobody contesting anything you say, wouldn’t you?”

            —Said the global warming denier.

            There’s a huge difference between hosting a site that censors the facts about the JFK event that are, to borrow from Al Gore, “inconvenient” as opposed to this site, which let’s it all hang out in the sunshine, open, for everyone to examine. This site does not censor the facts. John McAdams’ site is more like a Soviet Pravda site where the police state never do anything wrong and the facts are all black and white, with no shades of grey. He does indeed choose to cruise this site, because he doesn’t let posters have free reign at his. In fact, he wants to “rub the buffs’ noses in it” —his exact words.

          • John McAdams’ site is more like a Soviet Pravda site where the police state never do anything wrong and the facts are all black and white, with no shades of grey.

            It’s the frustration/aggression syndrome. Challenge the buffs, and the buffs turn hostile.

          • JSA says:

            Your “challenges” are so weak though. On this site they can be debunked, the same way the global warming denialist position can be debunked, with facts and critical thinking. As for the charge of being “hostile” I wouldn’t know about that. I never tried to shut down a graduate student before who dared to question my methods.

          • I never tried to shut down a graduate student before who dared to question my methods.

            I didn’t shut down anything. I blogged about a graduate instructor who said she would ban any opposition to gay marriage in class discussion because it would be “homophobic” and might “offend” any gay students in the class.

            Get your facts straight.

          • Your “challenges” are so weak though.

            Then why do you try to drive me and other conspiracy critics away with insults?

            If you were confident you could win an honest debate, you would engage in an honest debate.

          • JSA says:

            Every time I bring up an honest debate, you use your “Faith-based” WC argument to shoot it down. It’s like arguing with an evolution denier who “got the religion”. You can’t win with logic.

            Merry Christmas, Mr. Potter!

      • Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

        Both JEH and LBJ weren´t sophisticated enough to realize that neither a photo nor a tape from Oswald in Mexico City is a very surprising fact that favors the hypothesis of conspiracy instead of the hypothesis of the lone gunman.

      • Gerry Simone says:

        What sorted out?

        Where’s the retraction or correction by Hoover to LBJ and Rowley?

      • D. E. Mitchell says:

        “…both Mr. Hoover and LBJ also were constantly aware of wiretaps and audio recordings, and always presumed that that was always the circumstance…and both men made full use of that awareness to their own advantage too(LBJ had a on/off switch beneath his desk)!”-DM

      • From PS YOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory
        -by- Colonel Paul E. Valley
        Commander
        – with – Major Michael A. Aquino
        PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader

        Headquarters, 7th Psychological Operations Group
        United States Army Reserve
        Presidio of San Francisco, California
        1980

        FULL TEXT:
        https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-Mv-q4qGq8_TBPcwL/Michael%20Aquino%20(US%20Satanist)%20-%20From%20PSYOP%20to%20MindWar%20-%20The%20Psychology%20of%20Victory%20(1980)_djvu.txt

        \\][//

    • o Hoover looks through his OWN files and finds the memo HE wrote about reports that someone was impersonating Oswald while he was in the USSR.

      The “reports” were merely the claims of Oswald’s crackpot mother Marguerite. There was no actual evidence any such thing happened.

      But the FBI bureaucracy creates a memo when people contact it.

      • bogman says:

        OK, I’ll give you that point, John.

      • R. Andrew Kiel says:

        Dallas FBI Special Agent John Fain interviewed Marguerite Oswald in April 1960 – his report stated “She volunteered the information that LEE HARVEY OSWALD took his birth certificate with him when he left Fort Worth, Texas [for the Soviet Union].”

        Oswald was in the Soviet Union and if he had taken his birth certificate with him – then the birth certificate should not have been available to be used by anyone in the US. However Mr. Hoover had evidence that it was a real possibility Oswald’s birth certificate was being used by an impostor as the following letter proves.

        Mr. Hoover wrote a letter to the State Department’s Office of Security on June 3, 1960 – Hoover asks “Since there is a possibility that an impostor is using Oswald’s birth certificate – any current information the Department of State has concerning Oswald will be appreciated.”

        Is this the talk of a “crackpot” (Oswald’s mother) or part of a legitimate FBI investigation of Oswald and his impostor in 1960 – three years before the assassination?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          Not that I’m here to defend Professor McAdams, but when Hoover says ‘possibility’, couldn’t that mean that Hoover still doesn’t have proof yet about an impostor using Oswald’s birth certificate?

          He sounds like he was still inquiring about it, no?

          • OK, here are the documents:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=117797&relPageId=248

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=98411#relPageId=2&tab=page

            There was no finding of any impostor. Rather Fain, having talked to Marguerite, raised the possibility.

            To treat this as evidence of an impostor is bizarre.

          • Okay McAdams,

            So we read of the letter to the authorities by a concerned mother, and you call her a “crackpot”.
            Where does this unjustified animus derive?

            The authorities discover that Oswald had turned in his passport to the Soviets and “denounced his citizenship” – a good indication that Oswald did arrive in the Soviet Union. But not iron clad, is it? Just reports that somebody turned in a passport, who obviously had to look quite a bit like Oswald, if we suppose the Soviet officials were not utterly incompetent. (Hmmm…can such an assumption be made with total confidence?)

            You tell us McAdams, why do you characterize Oswalds mother a “crackpot”, for the same reasoning you ASSUME Oswald was a “nut”?

            It seems to me, reading all that you write here. that you make it a habit of making such unfounded assumptions, while hypocritically accusing your adversaries here of making unfounded assumptions with the regularity of a well wound clock…or something that might rhyme with that.
            \\][//

          • You tell us McAdams, why do you characterize Oswalds mother a “crackpot”,

            Read A Mother in History.

            Or watch this:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/marguerite.rm

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/marguerite2.rm

          • ‘A Mother in History,’ like all biographies are, is an autobiography of the author themselves.
            That McAdam relates to this thesis is evidence that it makes up his autobiography as well.

            He thus reveals he subconsciously recognizes that he is a crank.

            Style and form are everything. Substance and meaning arise in their wake.
            \\][//

          • After watching the videos what you seem to consider proofs of Oswald’s mother being a crank, I cannot help but consider you as having the soul of a ghoul McAdams.
            \\][//

          • ‘A Mother in History: Three Incredible Days with Lee Harvey Oswald’s Mother’
            by Jean Stafford

            Another so-called “psychological profile” by a rank amateur and hack. A short story fiction author writing another piece of fiction framed as fact.

            Marguerite Oswald was of the age that she was likely suffering from dementia from age. Not something that can be projected upon her as the mind she had as a young mother.

            This book clearly belongs in the same junk pile as Jean Davison’s ‘Oswald’s Game’.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 15, 2015 at 5:18 pm

            This book clearly belongs in the same junk pile as Jean Davison’s ‘Oswald’s Game’.

            This from the King of Junk? By golly what nerve Mr. Whitten has.

          • Bogman says:

            Marguerite may have been a little strange, but she wasn’t stupid.

            I’ll always recall some segment on TV where she says something like, “Those of you who can hear the sound of my voice far into the future, know my son was an innocent agent of the govt” or something to that effect.

            She surmised this was a mystery that would be debated many years later.

          • R. Andrew Kiel says:

            Gerry – the problem with Mr. McAdams’s reasoning in regards to Oswald’s birth certificate is that if Oswald took it to the Soviet Union – then why would Hoover imply that there was an impostor using his birth certificate in the US.

            Mrs. Oswald did not say that an impostor was using Lee’s birth certificate – she only stated that Lee took it the Soviet Union. Hoover was the one who initiated that possibility of an impostor using Oswald’s birth certificate.

            If the possibility of an impostor using Lee’s birth certificate was initiated by Hoover & not Mrs. Oswald – we should be asking why Hoover thought that was a possibility & not calling Mrs. Oswald a “crackpot” in relation to the impostor story.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            So, John is trotting out the Theory, to paraphrase, that since LHO was a Lone Nut his mother was where he got it from and was Nutty as a Fruitcake also. If I remember right she said back in 63 or 64 her son was ‘an agent of the Government’. Seems a little less plausibly deniable 50 + years later. See John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA.

          • If the possibility of an impostor using Lee’s birth certificate was initiated by Hoover & not Mrs. Oswald –

            In the first place, you folks should interpret “possibility” as any evidence that it actually was the case.

            Security agencies are always worrying about “possibilities.”

            Here is the document that first mentions the possibility:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=117797&relPageId=248

          • Jean Davison says:

            Someone may’ve already mentioned this, but…

            A defector taking his birth certificate to the USSR would’ve likely caused concern because the Soviets were known to have used other people’s birth certificates to get spies into the U.S.

            This practice was still going on even under Putin:

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

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ R. Andrew Kiel (Dec 17, 2015, 7:24 pm)

            Gerry – the problem with Mr. McAdams’s reasoning in regards to Oswald’s birth certificate is that if Oswald took it to the Soviet Union – then why would Hoover imply that there was an impostor using his birth certificate in the US.

            Okay on that. (I don’t think she was a crackpot either).

            However, I’m puzzled after reading these documents.

            Oswald supposedly went to Russia but his letters go unanswered. A college in Switzerland writes back home that he hasn’t arrived.

            In either case, there’s no acknowledgement to suggest that he’s at 2 different places at the same time?

            What leads Hoover to suggest possible impersonation of LHO?

    • o Media keeps an open mind to conspiracy no matter what the feds tell them as they did when Nixon said Watergate was just a “third-rate burglary.”

      Of course, the Saturday Evening Post reprinted part of Six Seconds in Dallas in the mid-60s, and LIFE called for a reopening of the investigation about the same time.

      The problem you folks have with the media is simply that you have a weak case.

      • bogman says:

        That doesn’t sound like the fourth estate aggressively pursuing all possibilities to me. Especially in the immediate aftermath of the assassination. Especially when Dan Rather lied to the American public about the Zapruder film and could’ve created a whole wave of media investigation if he had reported the simple truth.

        But you and both know why Dan-o didn’t report the truth about the Zapruder film’s obvious evidence of a shot from the front. And why the WC didn’t either.

        Because DISHONESTY would save their behinds.

        • bogman says:

          If things are so simple and straightforward in this case, WTH is everyone lying, covering up and destroying evidence everywhere you look?

          Because of their weak case, LNers are never honest about the govt malfeasance in this case.

      • The “wise professor” McAdams might recall,

        There is an old axiom:

        exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis

        “The exception proves the rule”
        \\][//

        • “Proves” in this case means “tests.”

          Otherwise, the saying is nonsense.

          Think “the proof of the pudding in in the eating.”

          Or a “page proof.”

          • McAdams,

            Your post of December 14, 2015 at 11:28 am, makes no sense whatsoever, in trying to frame your point about the lapdog media. If you want to say the “proof is in the pudding is in eating it”, it still shows that on the whole that the mainstream media is simply propaganda.
            Just as mainstream education is indoctrination.
            Just as overall mainstream entertainment is propaganda and myth making.

            Of course these points are crystal clear. but only to those of us who have broken the chains of reliance on, and obedience to “Authority”.
            \\][//

          • theNewDanger says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 14, 2015 at 7:14 pm
            Of course these points are crystal clear. but only to those of us who have broken the chains of reliance on, and obedience to “Authority”.
            \\][//

            Clint Richardson’s Debunking Education: Exposing the Syndicate is a surgical demolitions of the farce of what has been the state of education (i.e. indoctrination) and the assumption of the legal standing of a nation couched in coercive behavior of the majority and government monopolies and liberties on violence.

            We generally bow down to popular opinion as the majority of “normal” and “educated” people use fallacious defenses against reasonable criticism towards the education system, like titling those who question the institution of university and education as “conspiracy freaks”, even when those tomes of research comes from a former presidential appointed politician to the Federal Department of Education like Mrs. Iserbyt, who has nothing to share but first hand knowledge.
            In topics of such depth and misunderstanding, sometimes the proof is in the very foundation of the object to be proved.
            Not only does the central education curriculum promote a fallacious normalcy bias to protect itself and its vested interest in most walks of corporate society (education as a perfectly normal requirement for “success” in industry), it re-presents to students and teachers false history to build that bias within its own learning tools, professing the most convenient of historical biases to promote the need of its own continuity – as the preserver and teacher of history.

            The concept within this blurb epitomizes the unquestioning serfdumb to the WC and other govt accounts:

            The Passive Man is found on every level of society, in mansions and in slums, and his identification mark is his dread of independence. He is a parasite who expects to be taken care of by others, who wishes to be given directives, to obey, to submit, to be regulated, to be told. He welcomes collectivism, which eliminates any chance that he might have to think or act on his own initiative.

            Pupils are indoctrinated by a lower level of faculty of “educated” passivity advocates the moment one begins daycare. When people become independent enough to emerge from their learned core passive indoctrination, the next level of this predatory agenda of indoctrinating passivity (McAdams, DVP, Chomsky, peer review, Dept. of Ed., West Point, MSM, etc.) engages in pejoratives and other numbskull tactics. NEWSFLASH!: It ain’t workin’.

            “Natural selection would sooner or later take the predator out because it offsets the balance” Mallence Bart-Williams

            If natural selection restores the balance, why speak out against the predatory faculty of passivity? Because passivity is not natural. We MUST speak … often.

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        Mr. McAdams,

        “The problem you folks have with the media is simply that you have a weak case.”

        Yes, John, you are correct. The case is so weak that we have had the Warren Report, the HSCA, the Clark Report, the Bert and Ernie report, etc, etc, ad nauseam…

        To further help people understand what a “wake case” this is, we have books by Gerald Ford, Jean D., Gerald Posner (forget about the plagiarism thingie), and a second, more massive re-writing of the Warren Report by Vincent Bugliosi. Their works have CERTAINLY helped convince the American public that LHO ran around Dallas shooting Walker, JFK, rabbits, and wayward squirrels because he was a deranged loner and a lone nut. Oh, and don’t forget he put down his “weapon of death” long enough to travel to Russia, make vodka in his apartment, marry a woman and proceed to beat her senseless to help us believe that he was “prone to violence.”

        The REAL problem, John, is the people of this country have read about the misdeeds of Hoover and “his secret files” and the CIA and their overthrowing of foreign governments, and most are very reticent to believe the same folks who gave us the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, part 1, 2 and probably part 67 in 2039.

        Keep on preaching “the government settled the dust mantra.” That one has certainly played well in this country.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Steve Stirlen
          December 14, 2015 at 8:56 am

          Mr. McAdams,

          “The problem you folks have with the media is simply that you have a weak case.”

          “The REAL problem, John, is the people of this country have read about the misdeeds of Hoover and “his secret files”.

          Not to mention the people’s misdeeds that placed them in these files in the first place. I believe JFK was in these files, was he not. Yes, I believe he was since he wanted to fire Hoover but didn’t (couldn’t).

          “and the CIA and their overthrowing of foreign governments,”

          We have got to stop blaming the CIA and the military for executing policy of the president! Please see plausible denial.

          “and most are very reticent to believe the same folks who gave us the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, part 1, 2 and probably part 67 in 2039.”

          I wasn’t aware that the Communist Vietnamese played a roll in the Gulf Wars. Please post references.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            “and most are very reticent to believe the same folks who gave us the Vietnam War, the Gulf War, part 1, 2 and probably part 67 in 2039.”

            I wasn’t aware that the Communist Vietnamese played a roll in the Gulf Wars. Please post references.

            Oh please Bill.

            Steve is referring to the Military-Industrial Complex.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘We have got to stop blaming the CIA and the military for executing policy of the president! Please see plausible denial.’ — Bill Clarke

            This is a tenable argument knowing what we know. However, context is critical. Eisenhower warned us of the Military-Industrial Complex the day he left office which provided his legacy with plausible deniability, vis a vis “I had no idea until the last months of my administration that corporations and the military were building a cabal to usurp democracy. “ Eisenhower did not warn us of this dynamic during the eight years of his administration in spite of the evidence that he personally benefited from that complex, yet he has plausible deniability because he “came clean” in that speech? Eisenhower, in what I think was a cowardly act, revealed himself as having lived with the complex for 8 years and bequeathed the mess to Kennedy, not unlike the mess Obama inherited from the 8 year administration of GWBush.

            Kennedy on the other hand, while caught up in the throws of world altering dynamics – including the possibility of annihilation of millions of global citizen during the missile crisis – relied on deniability to effect his own agenda, one we can be assured had nothing to do with military escalation – just read “Strategy of Peace”, and consider the litigation of his administration directed toward harnessing the profits of said industrial complex.

            What Kennedy had behind him was the assurance that there were many of his tribe in the wings prepared to advance a fresh new approach to global peace and stability. He knew he was “turning the QE2 around”, and that it required commitment, time, patience, skill and cunning and a degree of plausible deniability. The record indicates Kennedy did not live in a black and white world so imposing a similar standard in relation to the motives behind his assassination is ludicrous.

          • bogman says:

            That’s an excellent post, Leslie, and has now convinced me to put “Strategy” on my Xmas list 😉

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Ditto W/ bogman. If not one of the best post’s ever om this site it should be a post of the week at least whether it is or not.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Gerry Simone
            December 14, 2015 at 7:27 pm

            Oh please Bill.

            Steve is referring to the Military-Industrial Complex.

            I realize that Gerry. I just thought I’d give him something to think about. Steve has some funny thoughts about the Vietnam War. I try to help him all I can.

          • Bobby signed off on Hoover’s wiretaps on Martin Luther King.

            Bobby used Gestapo tactics against steel company executives who defied JFK and raised prices.

            Kennedy was in fact a robust anti-communist and Cold Warrior. He allowed the Bay of Pigs invasion to go ahead. Bobby was his honcho in pushing the CIA into a lot of harebrained schemes to get rid of Castro.

            It’s really odd that the buffs exempt the Kennedy’s from the opprobrium that they lavish on everybody else.

          • “Kennedy was in fact a robust anti-communist and Cold Warrior. He allowed the Bay of Pigs invasion to go ahead. Bobby was his honcho in pushing the CIA into a lot of harebrained schemes to get rid of Castro.”~McAdams

            Your generalizations and lack nuanced analysis of these assertions is what puts you in the camp of hacks, in my estimation.
            \\][//

          • J.D. says:

            Except that there’s no evidence that either JFK or RFK approved of the assassination attempts on Castro. Nobody has ever come up with anything much more convincing than “Well, they must have known, right?” Or “The CIA only does what the president tells it to.” These are ideological arguments, not evidence-based arguments.

            The idea of Kennedy as a “robust Cold Warrior” is laughable. Sure, he disliked Communism — so does every other sane person. Robert Dallek’s biography of JFK, which is as safe and mainstream and non-conspiratorial as it gets, emphasizes JFK’s pragmatic, skeptical side and his genuine desire for peace. So does Thurston Clarke’s recent book on JFK’s last months in office. I am hard-pressed to think of a single serious writer on JFK’s presidency (and no, Noam Chomsky doesn’t count) who would agree with the characterization of him as a hawk.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            J.D.
            December 17, 2015 at 2:09 pm

            “Except that there’s no evidence that either JFK or RFK approved of the assassination attempts on Castro. Nobody has ever come up with anything much more convincing than “Well, they must have known, right?” Or “The CIA only does what the president tells it to.”

            “These are ideological arguments, not evidence-based arguments.”

            True J.D. but some of these ideological arguments are rather heavy.

            Helms said “you won’t find it on paper but” If we could find it on paper then both parties would have failed their plausible denial obligation.

            As deeply involved as Bobby was in Operation Mongoose I find it hard to believe he didn’t know about the attempts.

            “The CIA only does what the president tells it to.”

            I believe this one is addressed to me. Let me expand a bit on this claim. The president gives the CIA a mission. He usually leaves the operational details to the CIA. Same with the military. So there is in fact some wiggle room here for the CIA and military. But the president should always have a team keeping an eye on what the CIA and Military are doing. I think the notion that Dulles went around overthrowing foreign governments without presidential knowledge and assistance is rather ridiculous.

            I also think both Kennedy boys knew about the attempts on Castro but as you say, I can’t prove it.

          • J.D. says:

            Bill, I agree that presidents aren’t always kept in the dark. We have evidence that Eisenhower authorized the coups in Iran and Guatemala, and we know that JFK authorized the Bay of Pigs. But we don’t really have definitive evidence that JFK told the CIA to assassinate Castro.

            We do know that the CIA began planning to get rid of Castro before JFK was even elected, and we do know that there were at least some attempts after JFK’s death. We also know that JFK, in the last six months of his presidency, was exploring the possibility of reaching out to Castro, and that he seemed concerned to keep those attempts at detente very low-key.

            It seems to me that this is a complex situation, and that it’s not wise to reduce it to “JFK ordered the CIA to assassinate Castro.”

          • Bill Clarke says:

            J.D.
            December 18, 2015 at 5:58 pm

            “But we don’t really have definitive evidence that JFK told the CIA to assassinate Castro.”

            Very true.

            “It seems to me that this is a complex situation, and that it’s not wise to reduce it to “JFK ordered the CIA to assassinate Castro.”

            I sure agree again. I hope I’ve never said JFK ordered the CIA to assassinate Castro because there is no hard evidence that this is true. That I know of anyway.

          • Robert Dallek’s biography of JFK, which is as safe and mainstream and non-conspiratorial as it gets, emphasizes JFK’s pragmatic, skeptical side and his genuine desire for peace.

            Which is perfectly consistent with being a robust Cold Warrior. With being someone who built up the military, and confronted the Soviets during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and even approved a misguided invasion at the Bay of Pigs.

            He was also someone who believed in the domino theory. From an interview shortly before he died:

            Mr. BRINKLEY. Mr. President, have you had any reason to doubt this so-called “domino theory,” that if South Viet-Nam falls, the rest of Southeast Asia will go behind it?

            The PRESIDENT. No, I believe it. I believe it. I think that the struggle is close enough. China is so large, looms so high just beyond the frontiers, that if South Viet-Nam went, it would not only give them an improved geographic position for a guerrilla assault on Malaya but would also give the impression that the wave of the future in Southeast Asia was China and the Communists. So I believe it.

          • J.D. says:

            You’re basically making up your own definition of “robust Cold Warrior,” one that doesn’t permit any nuance. By standards this broad, every single American president between 1945 and 1990 was a robust Cold Warrior. No president could have failed to “confront the Soviets” during the Cuban Missile Crisis. A single quote from Kennedy cannot explain his rather complex attitude toward foreign policy.

            Dallek and other scholars have provided us with extensive evidence that Kennedy’s views and opinions were profoundly different from the actual Cold War hawks of the day, many of whom advocated a first strike against Russia, urged JFK to send in the troops during the Bay of Pigs, and called for the bombing of Cuba during the Missile Crisis. Kennedy did none of these things. The scholars who have written about these matters are, by and large, neither conspiracy theorists nor “left-wing” partisans of Kennedy. It’s fine if you are uninterested in this evidence, but that is no excuse for repeating the same old platitudes about Kennedy being a “Cold Warrior.”

      • bogman says:

        And many top journalists, including the owner of this site, Mr. Morley, had their doubts but were kept from publishing stories.

        One early journo was Sylvan Fox, a Pulitzer-Prize winnng reporter in NYC who published “The Unanswered Questions of the Kennedy Assassination” in 1965. Most of his questions remain unanswered to this day.

      • R. Andrew Kiel says:

        As is usual – Mr. McAdams failed to address facts that dispute his arguments. Mrs. Oswald (I repeat from my 12/17/15 comment)in her statement to FBI Agent Fain in April 1963 – did not mention the word impostor – J. Edgar Hoover brought up the word impostor in his June 1963 letter to the State Department.

        McAdams ignores what is written in the documents HE presented (12/14/15 from Mary Ferrell) that supports that Hoover was the initiator of the impostor possibility not Mrs. Oswald.

        In other words – McAdams presents documents that destroy his own argument – who is the crackpot?

        • Thanks to an e-mail correspondent, the first document that mentions the “impostor” theory:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=117797&relPageId=248

          Of course, it really doesn’t matter who first mentioned the notion, there was no evidence for it.

          And Hoover did not assert it was true. So why do buffs treat his memo as evidence that there was an impostor.

          • R. Andrew Kiel says:

            Mr. McAdams – you still do not admit that it was not Mrs. Oswald who began the idea of an “impostor”(Hoover used it first) using Oswald’s birth certificate.

            The idea CLEARLY begins with Agent Fain & Mr. Hoover. In fact – Hoover does assume it may be true – the e-mail document from your Dec. 20 post discredits your argument even more as it states that “someone else may have assumed his (Oswald’s) identity”.

            Mrs. Oswald never used the word “impostor” or the phrase “another individual may have assumed his identity”. The FBI & you have never explained WHY that was even a “pos-
            sibility” & later why it apparently wasn’t – as you assume.

            You presented the documents but they don’t support your own argument. If Mrs Oswald is a “crackpot” – then its not because she started the “impostor” story. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

          • R. Andrew Kiel says:

            Mr. McAdams – you stated that “crackpot” Mrs. Oswald initiated the idea that her son was impersonated but your own documents PROVE that the FBI was the initiator of that line of thought.

            You continually refuse to admit that you were wrong – aren’t you a trained historian? You don’t have to defend yourself in this forum because you just ignore evidence that doesn’t support your preconceived theories. If you were in the same room with others using this forum – you could not win an objective argument on this & MOST (you deserve some respect) of the other related topics.

            Students in my Advanced Placement US History, International Baccalaureate People & Societies, & University of Akron history classes know enough to accept credible & corroborative primary sources that don’t support their original arguments – they then make adjustments in their arguments.

            It is very simple – you presented documents that don’t support your argument – admit & move on – you know better – I think.

      • David Regan says:

        You want to rethink that statement, McAdams? Let’s take a closer look at “The Witnesses” published by the New York Times, two months after the WCR was released, shall we? Or what about a national media that immediately convicted the accused assassin following his death?

    • Arjan Hut says:

      o Kennedy’s autopsy takes place at Parkland Hospital with experienced doctors doing what they are supposed to do.

      • o Kennedy’s autopsy takes place at Parkland Hospital with experienced doctors doing what they are supposed to do.

        It was Kennedy’s loyal people (Secret Service and aides) who took the body out of Dallas, over the objections of Earl Rose, the forensic pathologist who should have done the autopsy.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          “It was Kennedy’s loyal people (Secret Service and aides) who took the body out of Dallas, over the objections of Earl Rose, the forensic pathologist who should have done the autopsy.”

          I realize these loyal people meant well but their action has caused much confusion. They would have gotten a much better autopsy in Dallas.

        • J.D. says:

          Would those be the same “loyal” Secret Service members who had so conspicuously failed to do their job and protect the president from harm?

          • You can bash them all you want, but the fact remains it was JFK’s people who took the body out of Dallas.

          • Tom S. says:

            Uhhh….”he” was shot dead, in “nut country”. “His people,” the guys with the guns at least, had failed at their most important responsibility.
            Is your, “you can bash them all you want, but the fact remains it was JFK’s people who…..,” even a rational scolding, under the actual circumstances? Are you attempting some partisan point? And forgive me for asking a question affording you an opportunity to save face!

          • J.D. says:

            “Bash them,” indeed. Are you actually defending the people who allowed the president to be murdered? Even the Warren Report ventured some mild criticism of the Secret Service. And rightly so, since all of them — with the exception of Clint Hill — failed to do their duty. But apparently, Mr. McAdams, you can’t find fault with anyone involved in this story except for John F. Kennedy and his family.

          • “the fact remains it was JFK’s people who took the body out of Dallas.”~McAdams

            Having the benefit of already reading Tom’s response to you, I will merely second his notion here that your characterizing the Secret Service Agents that took the body from Parkland at gunpoint as being “his people” after they had somehow failed their prime directive of keeping him from harm is….
            Let’s just say, a bit cheeky.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘You can bash them all you want, but the fact remains it was JFK’s people who took the body out of Dallas.’ — John McAdams

            “The family” argument has long been played to an obnoxious advantage in support of the illegal extraction of the president’s body from the state that held legal jurisdiction. Can you supply direct evidence that “Kennedy’s” people took the body out of Dallas? And can you explain how Dallas authorities justified contravention of the law simply to accommodate a grieving widow? Seems to me that Justice of the Peace Rose along with Mayor Cabell were primarily responsible, at least legally. Where is it recorded that Mayor Cabell was adhering to a request directly from the deceased’s wife, Mrs Kennedy? I’ve read his ‘version’ but it has nothing to do with the law. Regardless of the emotional plea of anyone, the Mayor’s responsibility was to adhere to law and he knew full well that Texas was the jurisdiction of the autopsy. And where is it recorded that Jaqueline Kennedy was acting with full capacity of her mental and emotional faculties having had her young husband’s brains splattered onto her lap and the back of the limousine less than an hour before.

            Drop “the family” and consider thoroughly who in Dallas maneuvered John Kennedy’s body out of Texas. That would be indication of your “good faith” participation in the debate.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            December 14, 2015 at 10:13 pm

            “Uhhh….”he” was shot dead, in “nut country”.

            I’ve lived in Texas all of my life except my time in the military. Anthony Marsh used to love to pull this “nut country” BS on me.

            I told Marsh that I considered a man who kept electing Ted Kennedy and John Kerry to the Senate must live in “nut country”. Not me!

          • Tom S. says:

            Yeah, something definitely needs to be done about Massachusetts. These stats are “unAmerican”!:
            http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gun-deaths-by-state

            How do you know with certainty, that an autopsy would have even been performed if JFK’s body remained in Dallas for a ????? (no title, see Leonard Garland death cert.) inquest? Leonard Garland, for example, shot to death in 1956 by DPD officer Tippit and his partner, no autopsy performed.:
            Death Certificate image link: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-g3iJFraaSWc/Vm-jBh2N9HI/AAAAAAAACSo/qTMy5uOLFUE/s576-Ic42/record-image_33S7-9Y1C-P2J.jpg
            Leonard Garland : http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=66566613

          • Jean Davison says:

            “You can bash them all you want, but the fact remains it was JFK’s people who took the body out of Dallas.”

            Kenneth O’Donnell, JFK’s aide and friend, explained what happened.

            QUOTE:
            Mr. O’CONNELL. ….. I then went back to Mrs. Kennedy, who was in a very understandably distraught condition. It was my opinion–I tried to in some way imply that she might leave and come with us, at least to get her out of that room [at Parkland]. She was covered with blood. [….]
            Mr. SPECTER. What was her response to you?
            Mr. O’DONNELL. Her response to me was she would not leave her husband’s body. At that point, I realized that she would not. The doctor had continually attempted to get her to take some form of sedation. And she had consistently refused, and told me she would not take anything, that she was going to stay with her husband.
            I realized that she was going to stay with her husband, no matter what anybody did, and there was no possible way of in any way getting her to leave. And so, therefore, the only alternative I could see was that we move the President. It is an assumption I probably would have arrived at anyway, but I arrived at it in this manner.

            [….] My recollection is it was indicated to us that the President is dead, the hospital has to perform certain functions, and the law must be met, no matter who it is, at this moment. In my own mind, when they said autopsy, I realized we were talking not about hours, but perhaps even days, which was an impossible situation for Mrs. Kennedy.
            I talked to Dr. Burkley, and had him suggest to them that they could have a doctor come with us, he could accompany the body at all times, and that we would bring him immediately to the Naval Hospital, and that they could perform whatever necessary chores, and there would be no separation physically from the hospital and the performance of their autopsy.
            They refused to consider this.
            UNQUOTE

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

          • bogman says:

            I think Jackie would’ve stayed wherever her husband’s body was. It was the Secret Service who wanted to make tracks outta Dallas to protect LBJ from a potential wider conspiracy. And politically, LBJ couldn’t leave without her.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            December 15, 2015 at 12:27 am

            Yeah, something definitely needs to be done about Massachusetts. These stats are “unAmerican”!:
            http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gun-deaths-by-state

            Gee Tom, It was a small attempt at humor. I don’t care what you do with Massachusetts. Something should have been done with Teddy Kennedy and John Kerry long ago. And no, I’m not suggesting assassination. Detox or rehab would probably have done it.

          • Tom S. says:

            Bill,
            Your humor was not lost on me and I knew I was being a killjoy, but I did hesitate before making that choice. Considering the effect of the choices of the electorate of the two states, I judge by how the poorest and least powerful fare. Texas seems at war with that large segment,
            in contrast with Massachusetts, particularly in the areas of health insurance coverage and women’s health care and reproductive rights. The
            rights of the accused are not well protected in Texas. The recent ranting driving lockstep approval for ceding fourth amendment rights in order to facilitate government efforts “to keep us safe” also seems insane, coming from some of the same people who hold the second amendment
            protections inviolable. The flawed beliefs of Texas lawmakers result in much more death and avoidable misery than from poor choices made by
            Massachusetts voters over the last five decades. Jimmy Carter seems to have described the Texas mindset, “the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others.” What is your test to assess who or what to support, politically? Mine is whether the least powerful are scapegoated or otherwise demonized and disenfranchised. I also wonder if I would like the place as much if I happened to have a uterus and a libido. Its usually about the hypocrisy.

            Reagan’s Stories Don’t Always Check Out .
            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1310&dat=19760209&id=Y9ZVAAAAIBAJ&sjid=K-ADAAAAIBAJ&pg=4138,2275149&hl=en

            referred to her at nearly ‘every stop, using her as part of his “citizens press conference” … there’s a woman in Chicago,” Reagan said last week to am audience at …

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            December 15, 2015 at 2:08 am

            Bill,
            “Your humor was not lost on me and I knew I was being a killjoy, but I did hesitate before making that choice. Considering the effect of the choices of the electorate of the two states, I judge by how the poorest and least powerful fare. Texas seems at war with that large segment,”

            No problem Tom. And again I salute you for the great job you have done on this site.

            You got me about Texas. I can’t defend it on the issues you bring up and I am not inclined to try. If not for our surrounding states we would be last on a long list of list you don’t want to be last in. Money for education, health and programs that would help the Texan. We are not a poor state, we could do much but we don’t. It is embarrassing to me and many others that were in Texas before Perry and his Tea Party.

            You might need to sit down for this one but I am a woman’s libber and have been since the 1960s. I owe this to a brilliant woman that clued me in on this subject. Yes, I still love her but I drift off here! I believe in equal pay for equal work, promotion of the most qualified and as she said, I “keep my laws off her body”. I don’t believe in discrimination against anyone. What we have endured in Texas is the longest serving Governor, kept in office by the Tea Party, who stated that “his goal in Texas was to make abortion rare in Texas”.

            When I vote, and I always do, I look for a good person. Honest, bright, some common sense, a person cool under pressure. We might differ on this but I wish for a president that took better care of our military. I don’t mean the Generals; I speak of the young men and women that actually fight the wars. They have been without qualified leadership since (including) Bush. I haven’t found that personso since Clinton first got elected so now I leave the president box open.

          • But apparently, Mr. McAdams, you can’t find fault with anyone involved in this story except for John F. Kennedy and his family.

            Is the way you approach this case to decide whom you like and whom you don’t like, and then blame the people you don’t like?

            JFK’s entourage was responsible for taking the body out of Dallas, and for the rushed autopsy.

            I don’t care if you like them, and hate everybody else involved, them’s the facts.

            People make mistakes.

          • theNewDanger says:

            JFK’s entourage was responsible for taking the body out of Dallas, and for the rushed autopsy.

            I don’t care if you like them, and hate everybody else involved, them’s the facts.

            People make mistakes.

            This is “Coincidence Theory” personified.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Jean, What precisely is the argument . . . that Kenny O’Donnell testified before the Warren Commission that he was responsible for removing the corpse of John Kennedy from the Parkland Hospital at the behest of a traumatized widow when in fact he had no authority to usurp the State of Texas laws of jurisdiction? O’Donell is on record as saying “. . . so I testified the way they wanted me to.. . .” – “Survivor’s Guilt”, Vince Palamara

            My attempts to retrieve the ‘official’ version of the statement by former Mayor Earle Cabell made in January, 1967 – please note not under oath in 1963 – from the website of Southern Methodist University are futile at this time.* (Perhaps it has been moved to another category at the Dallas based university.)
            *Oops! That page does not seem to exist. . . .
            SHAPING WORLD CHANGERS IS A FULL TIME JOB (emphasis mine) and we sometimes forget to update links when we move pages. (Or maybe you clicked an old link for a page that no longer exists, or mistyped the URL in the address bar.)
            http://smu.edu/smunews/jfk/cabell-manchester-response.asp

            Fortunately Cabell’s statement has been preserved on numerous other sites including a portion of it as posted at jfkfacts.org last year.

            Of equal curiosity, the Warren Commission never pressed Earle Cabell about the actual process by which Kennedy’s body was removed from the State of Texas.

            Four years later however, Cabelll made an ‘official statement’. Why didn’t the Warren Commission pursue this line of questioning?

            “The other legal obstacle to the removal of the body from the premises and from the state was the fact that state law prohibits the removal of a body from the state where death was due to violent causes without a release signed by either the Governor of the state, the Lieutenant Governor in his absence, the Attorney General of the state or after a coroner’s inquest. The reasoning behind this law, I believe, is obvious to any rational or intelligent person . . . . Upon being summoned to the conference, the situation was explained and I asked Dr. Rose if he felt that he could conscientiously revert to the older statutes which were still in effect in the smaller communities of the state where there is no Medical Examiner, and accept a release by a qualified Justice of the Peace. I further informed him that I would assume full responsibility for such action on his part.” — Earle Cabell, Mayor of Dallas on November 22, 1963
            note: President John F. Kennedy had recently fired Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell’s brother, Charles P. Cabell (Deputy Dir. or Operations at the CIA) for his involvement in the failure of the Bay of Pigs

            note: the Justice of the Peace involved in the removal of Kennedy’s body was Theron Ward; Dr. Rose was the physician at Parkland.

          • leslie sharp says:

            UPI picked up the story the following day:

            UPI: 1.15.67

            Dallas Ex-Mayor Hits JFK Book [“The Death of a President”, William Manchester]

            The former Mayor of Dallas accused William Manchester …. of a deliberate attempt to distort history. Cabell called the news conference to “set the record straight about reported bitterness, delay and red tape in the removal of President John F. Kennedy’s body from Parkland hospital in Dallas November 22, 1963. . . . The removal of the body from the premises required a release from the next of kin or other authorized persons . . . When this was explained to Mrs. Kennedy, there was no unpleasantness whatsoever involved, and she very graciously and promptly signed the release,” Cabell said. Justice Theron Ward was also called in to sign a release to comply with the state law prohibiting removal of a body from Texas where death was due to violent causes, Cabell said.”

            http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/M%20Disk/Manchester%20William%20Look%20Magazine/Item%2012.pdf

          • leslie sharp says:

            The crux of our disagreement, Jean, is your lack of curiosity and skepticism of how the Warren Commission extracted testimony.

            Contrary to the suggestion that – and please correct me if I’m wrong, Jean – O’Donnell was desperate to get Kennedy out of Dallas because Jacqueline insisted – Cabell’s statement reflects a complete simpatico between the Mayor’s office and the Kennedy entourage.

            Do you not recognize the fog overlying all of the testimony related to the removal of Kennedy’s body from Texas? Every individual directly involved carried their own ‘Rashomon’ experience. Cabell’s in particular must be considered carefully as he was the brother of a CIA executive who had been fired by the deceased. Weigh in O’Donnell’s obvious sense of responsibility for his best friend, and weave into the dynamic the Katzenbach memo that stated that it must be determined that Oswald was a lone assassine, and what you have is a huge bowl of spaghetti just as the conspirators devised. It was up to authorities and those skilled in the investigative process to read beyond all testimony. Instead, as in the case of Cabell’s testimony, not one person on the commission pressed him about the removal of Kennedy’s body from legal jurisdiction in Texas. NO ONE on the Warren Commission made any such attempt to question the legality, and that factor alone insists their report was a travesty. It is our responsibility to unravel the truth from the ‘official’ testimony.

          • Yeah, something definitely needs to be done about Massachusetts. These stats are “unAmerican”!:
            http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/gun-deaths-by-state

            You understand, I trust, that if you used a different level of aggregation, you would get a different result.

            Cities that vote Democratic and have been long governed by Democrats have the highest levels of gun violence.

            Rural areas where guns are part of the culture of law abiding people have very low levels of gun violence.

          • Tom S. says:

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448529/
            2004 October

            In the 1990s, the United States experienced over 330000 deaths intentionally committed with firearms.1–3 A considerable number of these firearm deaths were homicides occurring in large US cities.4 Although these numbers argue for serious consideration of urban crime prevention programs, they may also contribute to the perception of intentional firearm death in the United States as a principally urban, principally criminal phenomenon.5

            Over the same decade, firearm suicides occurred in greater numbers than firearm homicides, accounting for over half of all intentional firearm deaths in the United States.3 A disproportionate number of these firearm suicides most likely occurred in rural areas.6 Nevertheless, because rural health issues are often not on equal footing with those in urban areas,7 and because suicide is not a crime,8,9 attention to firearm suicide as a preventable public health problem was limited in the 1990s.10

            http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/health/small-towns-face-rising-suicide-rates.html?_r=0
            NOV. 3, 2015
            Rural adolescents commit suicide at roughly twice the rate of their urban peers, according to a study published in the May issue of the journal JAMA Pediatrics. Although imbalances between city and country have long persisted, “we weren’t expecting that the disparities would be increasing over time,” said the study’s lead author, Cynthia Fontanella, a psychologist at Ohio State University.

            “The rates are higher, and the gap is getting wider.”

            Suicide is a threat not just to the young. Rates over all rose 7 percent in metropolitan counties from 2004 to 2013, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In rural counties, the increase was 20 percent.

            The problem reaches across demographic boundaries, encompassing such groups as older men, Native Americans and veterans. The sons and daughters of small towns are more likely to serve in the military, and nearly half of Iraq and Afghanistan veterans live in rural communities….

            http://www.oregonlive.com/pacific-northwest-news/index.ssf/2015/10/the_link_between_gun_deaths_an.html
            October 09, 2015 …….
            Tens of thousands of people die each year from gunshot wounds. In 2013, 33,636 people died because they were shot or shot themselves, according to death certificate data compiled by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. That tally includes 21,175 suicides and 11,208 homicides. The remainder involved law enforcement, were accidents or medical examiners could not clearly determine intent.

            Suicides are more common in places where owning guns is more common. The authors of a 2013 study, “Firearms and Suicide in the United States: Is Risk Independent of Underlying Suicidal Behavior?” found that suicide rates, both overall and by firearms, are higher in places where households more typically own a gun.

            “What you find is that where there’s more guns, there’s more death,” said David Hemenway, a professor of health policy whose colleagues at Harvard’s T. H Chan School of Public Health wrote the study….

            http://www.bloomberg.com/visual-data/best-and-worst//most-registered-guns-per-capita-states
            Most Registered Guns per Capita: States
            1 Wyoming 195.7 Registered guns per 1,000 population
            7 Alabama 20
            9 Alaska 15.2
            18 Texas 12.8
            39 Wisconsin 7.8
            47 Massachusetts 4.9

            Facts, not insults.

          • Is your, “you can bash them all you want, but the fact remains it was JFK’s people who…..,” even a rational scolding, under the actual circumstances?

            Yes, because the buffs here judge everything on how well the like or how much they hate different people.

            If the Kennedy family and entourage were the “good” people, the assumption is that they could have done nothing wrong or mistaken — like taking Kennedy’s body out of Dallas.

            But if Hoover and the FBI are hated, they must be responsible for everything that was wrong.

            It’s all about whom they hate.

          • >>> Facts, not insults. <<<

            Here, you can see cities by crime rate. You can click at the top and see the list ordered by "violent crime" and my "murder."

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_crime_rate_%282014%29

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘Yes, because the buffs here judge everything on how well the like or how much they hate different people.’ – – John McAdams

            This is such a silly assertion that it’s difficult to respond to; most likely it is a method you use in your classroom to intimidate or ridicule young minds who walk out of class feeling guilt that they have not sufficiently adored your own mind? If they don’t like what you espouse in the classroom, then they don’t like you personally? I doubt seriously this method will work here. If you’re fundamentally insecure – perhaps from some damage you experienced in your youth – challenges on this site could possibly strike a cord, the conclusion of which might be that some here don’t like you. But the fact is, personally, I don’t even know you. What I know about you is all that you have have drawn to yourself both personally and professionally on the internet and what I glean from your insulting demeanor on this forum. Were you not interested in the JFK assassination, I doubt very seriously our particular paths would cross. I am a Catholic of a different ilk than you represent so I would never have gravitated to your version of the faith, and would never participate on your private forum. I doubt John Kennedy would recognize your version either. What has drawn us into somewhat close proximity is the chain of events that lead to his assassination in Dallas in 1963. From there, my opinion of you is meaningless. What has meaning is discerning the truth of what happened on 11.22.63 in contrast to what Americans were told had happened. That’s my focus. Are you able to have an honest debate from that perspective rather than one that suggests you are an extremely insecure personality?

          • This is such a silly assertion that it’s difficult to respond to; most likely it is a method you use in your classroom to intimidate or ridicule young minds who walk out of class feeling guilt that they have not sufficiently adored your own mind?

            Don’t you understand that anybody looking in on this forum will see that the vast majority of the verbiage is from buffs about whom they hate, how pretty much everybody except JFK and those close to him were evil and therefore must have conspired to kill him.

            And much of the rest of the rhetoric consists of insults directed at those of us who criticize the buff orthodoxy.

            You folks massage each others’ egos talking among yourselves, but any casual lurker can see that you turn to insults when challenged.

          • Are you able to have an honest debate from that perspective rather than one that suggests you are an extremely insecure personality?

            It’s compulsive! The buffs here can’t control themselves. They attack and insult and attack and insult.

            The reason is simple: when the discussion is on the issues, they always find themselves on the defensive.

            So they attack and try to drive away anybody who will rain on their little buff tea party.

            It’s like The Nuthouse. Tom has simply given up trying to moderate, apparently because he thinks much the same way.

          • Tom S. says:

            Isn’t that your Google newsgroup that is infested by a blizzard of comments by Ralph Cinque?
            How polite are the replies to Cinque’s posts?

          • leslie sharp says:

            John McAdams, My statement was in response to yours: ‘Yes, because the buffs here judge everything on how well the like or how much they hate different people.’

            It is becoming clear that you are here to disrupt. The circular nature of your comments with repeated claims that no one likes you suggests you have nothing to bring to the fresh debate related to new data (don’t ask what data, you know precisely what is new and what is stale); however, you remain committed (and possibly contracted?) to continuing your defence of the Warren Report. If you feel abused, it is quite easy to jump off the carousel you have created. In fact I can stop the one you have me on, right now.

          • I think we should simply make it plain that we recognize the propagandist’s when we encounter them.

            The substance of their arguments are unworthy of negotiation. They are as Orwell pointed out, “pure air”, only the appearance of substance, molded by empty rhetoric.
            \\][//

          • If you feel abused, it is quite easy to jump off the carousel you have created. In fact I can stop the one you have me on, right now.

            Thanks for admitting you want to drive me away with insults.

            If you people could actually debate evidence you would. But you get nasty when somebody disagrees with you.

            You try to drive off people who disagree.

            It’s the Livid Buff Syndrome.

          • I think we should simply make it plain that we recognize the propagandist’s when we encounter them.

            And the “propagandist’s” [sic] are the people who disagree with you.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘ . . . McAdams doesn’t see any great stakes here. To him, it’s all sport. “It’s a hobby. Shouldn’t it be fun?”’ — ‘Time’, November 5, 2013

            Does Marquette teach students that those involved in the revolution that culminated in our constitution were hobbyists out to have a good time? History is fun!? Is it any wonder we have a new generation of American citizens who do not grasp the stakes.

            This is the carousel John McAdams has created for himself: 5 statements in 2 days on this thread alone) that reflect his belief there is an effort to “drive” him from jfkfacts.org. A tinge of paranoia perhaps, that there is a conspiracy at work against him? Ironic.

            Thanks for admitting you want to drive me away with insults. – – John McAdams

            You try to drive off people who disagree. – – John McAdams

            Then why do you try to drive me and other conspiracy critics away with insults? – – John McAdams

            So they attack and try to drive away anybody who will rain on their little buff tea party. – – John McAdams

            Don’t you think people looking in on this newsgroup (assuming they have not all been [drive] off by the nasty ad hominem you allow) will notice that you are engaged in a personal attack, and can’t discuss the assassination in a coherent way? – – John McAdams

            (personal note to John McAdams: If I choose to get on a carousel it will be of my own creation.)

          • It is not only likely, it is probable that George Joannides knew Lee Oswald in the early ‘60’s;

            And your evidence for that is?

          • leslie sharp says:

            I’ll tell you what, John, if you’ll respond to the other probabilities I presented – particularly the likelihood that you know personally the Koch brothers – I’ll provide you with my opinion as to why it is likely and probable that George Joannides knew Lee Oswald. Or you could just Google “Morley Joannides”.

          • “And the “propagandist’s” [sic] are the people who disagree with you” ~McAdams

            A propagandist is someone who creates and/or disseminates propaganda.

            The propagandist has a clearly defined and recognizable profile. This profile is manifest in the text and subtext of McAdams’ commentary on this blog. Not to mention several other worthy candidates of the same template, and style.
            \\][//

          • J.D. says:

            Yeah, sure, McAdams. David Talbot, Jeff Morley, John Newman, Jim DiEugenio, and Gerald McKnight are all “left-wing yahoos.” And so were Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Kennedy, John Connally, Richard Russell, Tip O’Neill, and all the other insiders who suspected a conspiracy. Clearly, these people were all grossly biased, unlike yourself, with your predictable right-wing diatribes about gun control and “political correctness.”

          • Yeah, sure, McAdams. David Talbot, Jeff Morley, John Newman, Jim DiEugenio, and Gerald McKnight are all “left-wing yahoos.”

            They are all conspiracy authors.

            And so were Lyndon Johnson, Bobby Kennedy, John Connally, Richard Russell, Tip O’Neill, and all the other insiders who suspected a conspiracy

            Oh, “insiders” suspected conspiracy, eh?

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

          • I’ll tell you what, John, if you’ll respond to the other probabilities I presented – particularly the likelihood that you know personally the Koch brothers – I’ll provide you with my opinion as to why it is likely and probable that George Joannides knew Lee Oswald. Or you could just Google “Morley Joannides”.

            Sashay(tm)!

            You are evading discussing it, apparently because you know how there is no evidence of it, just Morley’s speculation.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Sashay(™)! You are evading discussing it, apparently because you know how there is no evidence of it, just Morley’s speculation” — John McAdams

            “sashay: to walk in an ostentatious yet casual manner, typically with exaggerated movements of the hips and shoulders.”

            One would have thought you would exercise a bit more circumspect public discourse given your recent legal difficulties, John.

            It is you who are “sashaying” down a Corniche Road around the prospect that you know the Koch’s personally. Answer that and this square dance can proceed.

          • It is you who are “sashaying” down a Corniche Road around the prospect that you know the Koch’s personally. Answer that and this square dance can proceed.

            Another big Sashay(tm)!!

            It’s obvious you know your case is very weak, and have therefore tried an evasion.

            If you could make the case, you would.

            But you can’t.

            So you evade.

            One would have thought you would exercise a bit more circumspect public discourse given your recent legal difficulties, John.

            This from an abusive buff.

            And I don’t have legal difficulties. Marquette has legal difficulties.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Your professional difficulties are tied to Marquette’s legal position related to the Abatte case, so I would call those ‘your legal difficulties’; obviously you’re free to frame the circumstance however you choose but anyone who studies the events leading to the notification of your dismissal will recognize spin.

            You’re obviously not going to address your professional and perhaps personal relationship to the Koch Brothers.

            To understand why this might be significant to your decades- long defence of the Warren Commission Report:

            http://www.jbs.org/about-jbs/fred-koch

          • “Bash them,” indeed. Are you actually defending the people who allowed the president to be murdered?

            If you are implying they intentionally allowed him to be killed, I’ll most certainly defend them against that.

            The quality of protection JFK got was way inferior to what later presidents got (in the wake of the assassination).

            That doesn’t change the fact that the agents, and Kennedy’s aides, took the body out of Parkland.

        • ed connor says:

          You mean the “loyal people” who stayed up until 5 am at a Fort Worth strip club on 11/21, stayed off the Lincoln as it left Love Field and washed the crime scene limo while it was parked in the Parkland emergency bays?
          Well, at least Kellerman was honest enough to be the first to confirm the large occipital blow out wound, which confirms a frontal shot.
          And, more importantly, confirms the Bethesda photos were tampered with.

          • You can bash them all you want, but the fact remains it was JFK’s people who took the body out of Dallas.

            Why is it that buffs, when confronted about the facts, just start talking about why they hate this or that group of people?

          • Tom S. says:

            Hate? Assoc. Prof. McAdams, how did Terry Martin end up discovering what seems to have entirely eluded you? It was you, wasn’t it last May, so worked up about a mural you only learned of, second hand.

            http://college.cengage.com/history/ayers_primary_sources/strike_jackiespiked_1947.htm
            Baltimore Afro-American, 1947.
            Strike Against Jackie Spiked
            ……….
            Rickey’s Statement

            Following on the heels of these denials, Branch Rickey, president of the Dodgers, attempted to brush off the matter with the assertion that it was “just a tempest in the teapot.” . . .

            …learned this was not exactly true. While Rickey may have been sincere in his belief, it was discovered that the strike plan was actually in effect as early as last March, when several Brooklyn players sought to promote a petition demanding that Robinson be forgotten as a prospect . . .

            Scheduled for May 6

            Originally, the St. Louis walk-out was to have taken place on May 6, when the Cardinals went to Brooklyn for the first game of the series with that club. But the lowly state of the team in the National League race is believed to have given the players something else to think about. The anti-Robinson plan, consequently, lost much of its importance…

            Although denials as to the existence of strike machinery have been general, and although none of the Cardinals admitted to New York newsmen that he was in any way involved, the AFRO determined here Saturday morning that three key players of the club were questioned at length by Breadon and Dyer during the club’s stay in Brooklyn.

            These were Terry Moore, center-fielder; Marty Marion, shortstop, and Stan Musial, first baseman. Moore and Marion are the Cardinals’ representatives on the baseball players’ committee, set up last year to thwart a union movement and to create a better understanding between players and owners.

            Moore was born on Vernon, Ala., now resides in St. Louis. Marion, a native of Richbourg, S.C.,, S.C. Musial is a native of Donors, Pa. ….

            https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=Verbal+abuse%2C+beanballs%2C+and+redneck+threats+continued+to+assault+Robinson+until+the+end+of+his+ten-season+major-league+career%2C+but+Woodward+shattered+for+all+time+the+players%27+strike.#hl=en&tbm=bks&q=Verbal+abuse%2C+beanballs%2C+and+redneck+threats+continued+to+assault+Robinson
            …Verbal abuse, beanballs, and redneck threats continued to assault Robinson until the end of his ten-season major-league career, but Woodward shattered for all time the players’ strike….

            https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22I+come+from+a+little+place+called+vernon%2C+alabama.+if+you+write*%22
            Roger Kahn – 2012 –
            My own researches led me in 1992 to the town of Collinsville, Illinois, and the retired Terry Moore. By then Moore was afflicted with prostate cancer that would kill him three years later. …
            ….“I come from a little place called Vernon, Alabama. If you write this sometime, please put that in. I was only acting on what I’d been taught to think as a boy.”

          • Hate? Assoc. Prof. McAdams, how did Terry Martin end up discovering what seems to have entirely eluded you?

            What does any of this have to do with the JFK assassination?

          • Tom S. says:

            What does sizing up other commenters as buffs who hate, have to do with the JFK assassination? Here is a sample of how you deal with
            relevant details.: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/listen-in-on-lbj-and-hoover-talk-about-warren-commission/#comment-836232
            I take you for an accomplished and intelligent person who has made a academic career in the field of political science, and knowing you
            come from a place in proximity of the Lamar county seat where Terry Martin lived as a boy, I wondered if what we see of you, is what we
            get. Is that all there is to it? You leave me to speculate how you got from Lamar County to Harvard, to Marquette, and to your reaction
            to the information in this article.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur I’ve read your blog. Too often, you either play the victim
            or you might believe you are victimized. If you risk revealing the slightest contrition or you were to let down your guard and leave the bluster at the door, even for a comment or two, (consider the example of Terry Martin) what does a cost vs. benefit analysis look like?
            I imagine you have done some thinking and there is more than only black or white in your conclusions and opinions. This is not a classroom and you could suspend your classroom demeanor. Your personal history gives you a unique perspective, but who would guess that, given your opinions intended for public discussion.
            I’ve shared with you why I disagree with you about Priscilla Macmillan’s agenda. You considered your opinion of her the end of discussion.

          • leslie sharp says:

            John McAdams
            December 8, 2015 at 11:53 am
            You are curiously incurious, John McAdams, but you have a lot to say. How did you learn any of it, given your incurious nature?

            JMcA: Don’t flatter yourself into believing that you are posting anything that has to do with the JFK assassination.

            All you are doing is connecting A with B who is connected with C, and none of them having any connection with any assassination conspiracy.

            Whereas you, John McAdams, in spite of knowing full well the miraculous string of events and the people involved in those events that had to come together to position Oswald at 411 Elm, continue to write them off as coincidence, pure chance. Is that not the mirror opposite of your ridicule of “connecting the dots”?

          • You leave me to speculate how you got from Lamar County to Harvard,

            I sent in an application. Is that sinister?

            knowing you come from a place in proximity of the Lamar county seat where Terry Martin lived as a boy,

            And that matters how? I don’t know him from Adam.

            and to your reaction
            to the information in this article.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assata_Shakur

            What reaction should one have to Shakur?

            I should avoid responding to you, since your “reasoning” is so absurdly arcane and convoluted. But I’m thinking that maybe challenging you might help you with logic.

            A fool’s errand, I know.

          • Whereas you, John McAdams, in spite of knowing full well the miraculous string of events and the people involved in those events that had to come together to position Oswald at 411 Elm, continue to write them off as coincidence, pure chance. Is that not the mirror opposite of your ridicule of “connecting the dots”?

            There was nothing miraculous about any of it.

            You seem not to understand that everything that ever happens is the result of a string of events that, in totality, was extremely unlikely.

            And this includes the most mundane things.

            Why did one marry one’s spouse? Some crazy coincidence where she took the same class. Or a you knew a fraternity brother who introduced you, and she happened to be doing nothing else the night you first asked her out. And she happened to not already have a boyfriend. And you happened to be in the same city that weekend.

            If you look at massively important historical events, it’s the same.

            The Battle of Midway turned on a defective catapult on the Japanese cruiser Tone. And a Japanese destroyer commander who dogged the submarine Nautilus for a couple of hours, and got separated from the main fleet.

            Then there is the fact that the driver of the Archduke took a wrong turn, which resulted in his assassination.

            You simply don’t know how to assess probabilities.

          • Tom S. says:

            John McAdams, how much influence do you figure life experience has to do with assessment of probabilities? Would blacks and homosexuals have
            reasonably suspected the ethics and truthfulness of the Dallas Police Department, or the FBI?

          • Photon says:

            Dr McAdams, I love your Midway comments, although they will go over the heads of most posters here. Any researcher of the battle without the facts would be hard pressed to believe that so many coincidences, lucky breaks and bad decisions could have produced such a decisive outcome.
            But you left out a few issues analogous to what happened in Dallas.
            One was overconfidence-the belief that events always transpire “as they should” and not considering that unexpected things can happen.Looking back it seems incredible that the lack of security seen in Dallas was the norm; particularly the rewarding of the most senior ( and least physically capable) agents with the most proximal positions. It seems that nobody really thought that anybody would actually take a shot at the President-when it happened even the most dedicated agents were paralyzed and surprised-even Clint Hill isn’t visible reacting until JFK was already dead.
            The other issue is incompetence. Like Admiral Nagumo’s lack of imagination the Dallas PD were totally unprepared for any attempt on JFK that didn’t match what they assumed had to follow the pattern of the assault on Stevenson and the Johnsons previously.
            Coupled with JFK’s cavalier attitude toward his own security (as manifested by the swimming event photographed in Santa Monica) the amazing thing is that a serious attempt on JFK’s life didn’t happen sooner

          • Would blacks and homosexuals have reasonably suspected the ethics and truthfulness of the Dallas Police Department, or the FBI?

            So is this all about your politically correct leftist politics?

            You can hate the Dallas cops all you want, but that doesn’t change the evidence against Oswald.

          • David Regan says:

            Photon, do you not think the fact the SS agents were exhausted and hung over from late night debauchery in Fort Worth have had an impact on their reaction to the gunshots?

            They certainly knew of threats to JFK in Chicago and Florida just days before. Why exactly would they have not suspected that “nut country” may not have posed a threat?

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘Would blacks and homosexuals have reasonably suspected the ethics and truthfulness of the Dallas Police Department, or the FBI?’

            So is this all about your politically correct leftist politics? – – John McAdams

            Are you actually serious?! Nondiscrimination against blacks and homosexuals in 2015 is in your mind simply “politically correct?” and has nothing to do with an evolved society that finally demands inclusivity of all citizens of these United States of any race colour creed sexual preference etc? Outrageous, and Marquette should be held to task to make certain you never enter a classroom again.

          • bogman says:

            John Mcadams said:

            “Why did one marry one’s spouse? Some crazy coincidence where she took the same class. Or a you knew a fraternity brother who introduced you, and she happened to be doing nothing else the night you first asked her out. And she happened to not already have a boyfriend. And you happened to be in the same city that weekend.”

            Unless your spouse turned out to be a spy, then you might question the coincidences of how you met.

          • Are you actually serious?! Nondiscrimination against blacks and homosexuals in 2015 is in your mind simply “politically correct?”

            Invoking that in a case where it’s irrelevant (Lee was a straight white male) is politically correct. What Tom posted shows the obsession with identity politics that marks the politically correct.

            Outrageous, and Marquette should be held to task to make certain you never enter a classroom again.

            Nice to know you don’t believe in academic freedom. What you are showing is the worst of both worlds: the nasty authoritarianism of JFK buffs, and the nasty authoritarianism of politically correct leftists.

          • Tom S. says:

            Academic “freedom” ? There seems not a contrite bone in your body.
            https://www.thefire.org/marquettes-removal-of-mural-featuring-assata-shakur-creates-buzz/

            I asked you to consider dispensing with your classroom demeanor, but instead, you’ve doubled down.:
            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-838459

            Hypocrisy and aggressive intolerance were what Terry Martin had less of after a number of years lived away from Lamar County, AL.
            I complimented you on your achievements, including acceptance at Harvard and completion of Harvard’s academic requirements, and you replied asking what I found sinister about your association with Harvard, and that you did not know Terry Martin. I shared with you that Terry Martin was a baseball player interviewed three years before his death, making the excuse that his publicly expressed intolerance of Jackie Robinson as the day approached when his St. Louis team would play the Dodgers with its recent addition of Robinson to its player roster, was owing to Martin acting on what he had been taught as a boy in Lamar County.

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-838459

            .“I come from a little place called Vernon, Alabama. If you write this sometime, please put that in. I was only acting on what I’d been taught to think as a boy.”

            You, however, give every indication, despite your superb education and your long career in Political Science, you could slip seamlessly back into 1960’s life in Lamar County, AL.

            My mother’s great-grandfather’s great-grandfather was the great-grandson of a founder of a New England town with a well documented genealogical history published as a prominent colonial America genealogical resource. The book describes that great-grandson, a man I am directly descended from, as fighting side by side with his negro slave against invading British troops, with both men distinguishing themselves in battle. The founder I described, left probate court records detailing names and dispositions of his
            property which included several negro slaves.

            I try to keep my reaction to these genealogical research details in perspective. No ancestor of mine owned slaves after the early 1800’s. You, on the other hand, had a relative known to you who was named in a Federal Court document in 1969 related to his elected position on a school board that was still administering (and defending) a “separate but equal” pupil assignment policy.

            It is possible my sensitivity in reaction to the offenses/intolerance of my distant ancestors is disproportional, considering
            the length of time and the thinning of blood ending up in my veins. You, on the other hand, have put up a defense that transforms your “traditionalism” into victim hood. You identify with and empathize with the sensitivities and concerns of the
            oppressor instead of the oppressed. Terry Martin was only a baseball player with no formal education, but life taught him better. You know, but insulate yourself against obvious empathy or even the slightest contrition.

          • “Education is a system of imposed ignorance”~Noam Chomsky
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            John McAdams, I defy you to don the robe and hood of the Ku Klux Klan and walk into your classroom demanding “academic freedom”. You’re tarnishing that freedom by using it as a psychological white hood to intimidate and possibly terrify your students, or worse, to recruit a young mind to your racist and bigoted agenda.

          • You, on the other hand, have put up a defense that transforms your “traditionalism” into victim hood. You identify with and empathize with the sensitivities and concerns of the
            oppressor instead of the oppressed. Terry Martin was only a baseball player with no formal education, but life taught him better. You know, but insulate yourself against obvious empathy or even the slightest contrition.

            So you are calling me a racist, in spite of the fact that you can’t point to anything racist I have ever said?

            You should be ashamed of yourself. You are the sort of politically correct person who sees “racism” behind any disagreement with the politically correct orthodoxy.

            You are intolerant.

          • Tom S. says:

            “You are intolerant.”

            …and you set yourself up as “victim” of my alleged intolerance of your electing to stay the student at all white Kennedy High in Lamar County, AL, in 1964.
            You made the choice to maintain whatever passed for your sensitivities for these last 51 years. I’ve only presented my observation of your choices. Oppressor
            vs. oppressed, and, at least outwardly, (what else could I perceive, having never had a beer with you) you’ve given all considerations (per your sensitivities) to the oppressor. Did you smile knowingly and in admiration, when Reagan showed up at the Neshoba County Fair, just after winning the nomination at the 1980 Republican Convention? See- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan's_Neshoba_County_Fair_%22states'_rights%22_speech

          • You, on the other hand, had a relative known to you who was named in a Federal Court document in 1969 related to his elected position on a school board that was still administering (and defending) a “separate but equal” pupil assignment policy.

            No, by 1969 schools in Lamar County were integrated, and I was teaching in an integrated school.

          • Tom S. says:

            Pardon me, if you were not aware….. :

            http://alabamaschoolconnection.org/2014/12/04/the-lee-v-macon-docket-the-middle-and-northern-districts/
            7/15/69 pg. 62 of 125
            ORDER adding parties defendant and order requiring parties defendant to appear
            and show cause. Superintendents of Education and individual members of Boards
            of Education of Baldwin, Chilton, Coffee, Conecuh, Covington, Dale, Henry,
            Lamar, Limestone, Marengo, Marion, Monroe, Pickens, Russell, Sumter, Washington,
            and Tuscaloosa Counties, and…. cities made parties defendant in this cause
            and ordered to appear before this Court at 9:30a.m., July 29, 1969, and show
            cause why they should not be required to take further affirmative steps to disestablish
            their dual school systems for the 1969-70 school year. Clerk and U.S. Marshal ordered
            to take necessary steps to serve copy of this order and copy of motion of u.s. filed
            July 14, 1969, upon the superintendent and the individual members of each of the
            school systems listed. (Copies delivered to Marshal for service; copies mailed
            to counsel and Supt. of Education for State of Alabama.

            7/28/69 pg. 65 of 125
            Marshal’s returns on motion and order to show cause continued):
            …….
            Lamar County. Service on Edwin Allen, Superintendent; Frank Ogden, Ted Boyett, Billy Prater, J.C. McAdams and
            A. A. Chandler, Board Members, on 7/24/69.

            Wasn’t the Emancipation Proclamation signed 106 years before July, 1969 ?

            As far as the Assata Shakur mural. You had the option to ignore it, especially since you were restricted from personally viewing it at the time.
            Is it CT thinking to notice and to remark of your heritage of being brought kicking and screaming into a more tolerant POV? You are not a victim, Dr. McAdams, whatever talent and opportunity you were not blessed with from birth, you were afforded by the political/racial dominance you happened to be on the beneficial side of, especially locally, until you left home for university studies. Calm down and climb down.

          • As far as the Assata Shakur mural. You had the option to ignore it, especially since you were restricted from personally viewing it at the time.

            Why should I have ignored it.

            Do you think honoring a black militant cop killer and terrorist is OK?

          • Oppressor vs. oppressed, and, at least outwardly, (what else could I perceive, having never had a beer with you) you’ve given all considerations (per your sensitivities) to the oppressor.

            Your intolerant left-wing politics is irrelevant to a discussion of the JFK assassination.

            You think “siding with the oppressor” means saying there was not JFK conspiracy, don’t you?

            You think “siding with the oppressor” is loathing Assata Shakur, don’t you?

            You are simply intolerant of political views that differ from you own.

            …and you set yourself up as “victim” of my alleged intolerance of your electing to stay the student at all white Kennedy High in Lamar County, AL, in 1964.

            You are saying I should have dropped out of school because my school was segregated? There was no other school to go to.

            You are parading you bias and intolerance all over this board. You should be ashamed of yourself.

          • show cause why they should not be required to take further affirmative steps to disestablish their dual school systems for the 1969-70 school year.

            I have no idea what the context of this was, and neither do you. People file suits all the time. What I do know is that by 1968 (when I started teaching at Kennedy High School) all Lamar County Schools were integrated.

            Again, you should be ashamed of yourself for your personal attacks on me.

            You are clearly smarting from my pointing out your wacky tactic of showing that a bunch of people who had nothing to do with the JFK assassination were distantly related to other people who had nothing to do with the JFK assassination, which somehow proves a conspiracy.

            Don’t ever try to get a degree in history.

          • Tom S. says:

            I have no idea what the context of this was, and neither do you. People file suits all the time. What I do know is that by 1968 (when I started teaching at Kennedy High School) all Lamar County Schools were integrated.

            Again, you should be ashamed of yourself for your personal attacks on me.

            I guess this article, published one day after the date of the court summons described in my comment you replied to,
            directing the officials of a number of Alabama school districts to appear in court on July 29, the same date as the
            Lamar school board members were summoned to appear, is entirely coincidental. You’re probably correct about me being unable
            to know what the summons was about. As you said, everything seemed fine in that school district, from your recollected perspective.
            Lawsuit get filed all of the time, as you said.

            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1817&dat=19690716&id=lfQhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=CJwEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3210,3124391&hl=en
            Alabama Schools Appear in Court
            The Tuscaloosa News – Jul 16, 1969

            Montgomery, Ala (AP)
            Representatives of 25 Alabama
            school systems charged in a Jus-
            tice Department lawsuit with
            moving too slowly with desegre-
            gation have been directed to ap-
            pear in federal court here July 29.

            U.S. Dist. Judge Frank M.
            Johnson Jr. issued the order in
            response to the suit filed Mon-
            day against the 17 county and
            eight city school systems. The
            systems are among 100 in
            Alabama covered by the 1967
            Lee vs. Macon school integra-
            tion case.

            The Justice Department asked
            Johnson to direct the systems to
            develop new plans to speed up
            the abolition of racially dual
            systems.

            PREQUEL :

            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19690711&id=0uRGAAAAIBAJ&sjid=_f0MAAAAIBAJ&pg=1639,1908033&hl=en
            Gadsden Times – Jul 11, 1969
            Montgomery, Ala (AP)
            The Justice Department is
            asking a three-judge federal
            court to order some form of
            pupil assignment plan in 25
            Alabama school systems-a
            step the court has twice
            refused to take.

            Government attorneys, in a motion filed
            with the three-judge panel in Montgomery,
            complained that the pace of desegregation
            is lagging too far behind in the eight city
            and 17 county systems.

          • whatever talent and opportunity you were not blessed with from birth, you were afforded by the political/racial dominance you happened to be on the beneficial side of,

            Oh, my!

            You are one of those “white privilege” yahoos.

            Don’t you think people looking in on this newsgroup (assuming they have not all been drive off by the nasty ad hominem you allow) will notice that you are engaged in a personal attack, and can’t discuss the assassination in a coherent way?

            You as a moderator have allowed all the nastiness on the group.

            But you can’t drive me away with personal attacks. It’s a sleazy tactic, but it won’t work.

          • Tom S. says:

            When I google the search phrase, Kennedy assassination (without ” “) the first search result I see is :
            http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/
            then: http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm
            …on the wikipedia article on John C. McAdams, there is a history link, the first (bottom) entry displays the creator of the article.:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_C._McAdams&offset=&limit=500&action=history

            The creator has the wikipedia ID Gamaliel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gamaliel
            He is also known by the name Fernandez. From firsthand experience, I know that nothing stays visible in any major Kennedy Assassination wikipedia
            page without Gamaliel’s approval. If he objects to any detail displayed, it is soon gone.

            I devote a good deal of time to reading every comment submitted to JFKfacts.org. Why would I try to drive you away, Dr. McAdams?
            You take the time to comment here. You make it plain it is not because you enjoy the company.

            One Man’s Long Battle Against Kennedy … – US – Time
            http://nation.time.com/2013/11/05/the-debunker-among-the-buffs/
            Time
            Nov 5, 2013 – Professor John McAdams near Marquette University in Milwaukee, on Oct. 24 …. As rich as the American tradition of conspiracy theories is the .

            I understand how things are. You have stature. You are good at what you do. I don’t think I’ve been unfair to you. I think you are your own person.
            Whatever is behind your facade, you’ve convinced me you are not inclined to share it, at least not here.

          • “Why should I have ignored it.
            Do you think honoring a black militant cop killer and terrorist is OK?”~McAdams

            You should have ignored it because it is none of your business to remove historical artworks, regardless of how you deplore them.

            Would you not reprimand the Taliban for destroying the statues of Buddha in Afghanistan? How many faces of hypocrisy can you wear on one blog site?

            Remember that ‘one man’s “terrorist” is another man’s “freedom fighter” … how ironic that the Taliban were Ronald Reagan’s “freedom fighters”. Certainly you are familiar with Ronnie hosting the Moudjahidine in the White House:
            http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/5117fe5deab8ea355300000e-506-253/that-time-ronald-reagan-hosted-those-freedom-fighters-at-the-oval-office.jpg

            Or would you complain over the teaching of the true story of “Thanksgiving Day”? Or the revelation of the monster that was Columbus?
            The historical facts that Wall Street financed both Hitler, as well as Lenin-Trotsky for the Russian Revolution.

            You may even desire to dismiss Allen Dulles as a Nazi collaborator, along with other such notables as the Bush’s, Reagan, and Errol Flynn. The Brown Brothers Harriman Bank…etc, etc.

            Yes, it might be wise for you to refrain from preaching about knowledge of history “professor”.

            When acknowledgements are due “at the man,” they are more than proper when directly confronting that man.

            So go on down the line of things mentioned in this comment, and deny any direct involvement in any of those affairs. Certainly you must grasp that I am not accusing you of direct involvement in those specific affairs.

            No, I (and we) are speaking to your blatantly obvious core principles McAdams. They are shining like beacons in the subtext of every sentence your write.

            Will you claim before us now that this present system is not a Corporatist State, being fully aware that that means the same thing as a Fascist State? Is the US a military police state or not?
            Is the US a Republic or an Empire?

            “Let us not speak falsely now for the hour is getting late.”
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘You take the time to comment here. You make it plain it is not because you enjoy the company.’ – – TomS, jfkfacts.org

            au contraire, as evidenced in this “Time” article:

            ‘ . . . McAdams doesn’t see any great stakes here. To him, it’s all sport. “It’s a hobby. Shouldn’t it be fun?”’

            Jack Dickey writes: ‘But mostly McAdams likes to read and write about the Kennedy assassination, which is to say he likes to brawl. He fights with his fellow buffs on the newsgroups, over email (both in personal conversations and on a private 50-person listserv; the founder, Paul Hoch, says McAdams loves to badger his opponents), in print (JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy came out in 2011), in his classroom, and, should the right moment arise at one of these every-so-often confabs, in person. “He’s got that Irish combativeness,” said Max Holland, a contributing editor to The Nation and a fellow Warren Commission defender. And McAdams is indefatigable. . . . ‘

            ‘ . . . I tried him [John McAdams] on a handful of other topics; each time, he laughed me off and said his opinion on what happened at Dealey Plaza had not shifted one bit . . . ‘

            ‘ . . . McAdams smiled and said, “I think we’ve all ruined each other’s lives.”

          • theNewDanger says:

            The creator has the wikipedia ID Gamaliel, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gamaliel
            He is also known by the name Fernandez. From firsthand experience, I know that nothing stays visible in any major Kennedy Assassination wikipedia
            page without Gamaliel’s approval. If he objects to any detail displayed, it is soon gone.

            This event was my introduction to groupthink censorship as it applies to “acceptable” peers of the authoritative realm: Anatomy of an Online Atrocity: Wikipedia, Gamaliel, and the Fletcher Prouty entry(https://wikipediaonlineatrocity.wordpress.com/)

          • Jean Davison says:

            Tom,

            You’re the moderator, of course, but I thought you said we were supposed to discuss the issues here, not the people posting. Am I wrong about that? If not, it seems to me you’re setting a bad example, Tom.

            John McAdams didn’t file that suit against school integration, did he? So how is it relevant to *him*, let alone the Kennedy assassination?

            All public schools in the South were segregated at that time, so far as I know. Are you suggesting he should’ve dropped out of high school?

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean,

            We’ll have to agree to disagree. We filter information differently.
            I thought my point was consistent and obvious.
            In hindsight, I would have let his lecturing and allusion to his discernment pass without comment. I am required to read all of his comments.
            Despite this, and it is no excuse, I have to set an model example of restraint. You are correct in pointing that out.

            Dr. McAdams: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-839258
            ….You simply don’t know how to assess probabilities.

            Tom S.: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-839301
            John McAdams, how much influence do you figure life experience has to do with assessment of probabilities? Would blacks and homosexuals have reasonably suspected the ethics and truthfulness of the Dallas Police Department, or the FBI?

            Dr. McAdams: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-839371
            So is this all about your politically correct leftist politics?

            You can hate the Dallas cops all you want, but that doesn’t change the evidence against Oswald.

            Tom S.: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-839653
            ……
            I try to keep my reaction to these genealogical research details in perspective. No ancestor of mine owned slaves after the early 1800’s. You, on the other hand, had a relative known to you who was named in a Federal Court document in 1969 related to his elected position on a school board that was still administering (and defending) a “separate but equal” pupil assignment policy.

          • “Why should I have ignored it.
            Do you think honoring a black militant cop killer and terrorist is OK?”~McAdams

            You should have ignored it because it is none of your business to remove historical artworks, regardless of how you deplore them.

            Why was it “none of my business?” Suppose it had been the Confederate battle flag? Would it be OK to complain about that?

            And the mural was not an historical artifact.

            But I take it you have no problem with a mural honoring a black militant cop killer.

          • Will you claim before us now that this present system is not a Corporatist State, being fully aware that that means the same thing as a Fascist State? Is the US a military police state or not?

            No, the U.S. is not a military police state. It’s a pluralist democracy, and of course, pluralist democracy has its problems.

            You sound like the folks who hole up in Montana and accumulate weapons caches.

          • Whatever is behind your facade, you’ve convinced me you are not inclined to share it, at least not here.

            There is no facade. What you see is what you get.

          • Government attorneys, in a motion filed with the three-judge panel in Montgomery, complained that the pace of desegregation is lagging too far behind in the eight city and 17 county systems.

            My guess is that this was a demand to close down all black schools.

            For several years, “freedom of choice” desegregation plans were in place where black students could choose to go to previously all-white schools, but they could also choose to continue to go to the traditional all black schools. The Supreme Court, in a decision called Green, eventually required that the all black schools be closed down.

          • “No, the U.S. is not a military police state. It’s a pluralist democracy, and of course, pluralist democracy has its problems.” ~John McAdams

            Thanks McAdams, that is all I need to read from you.

            If you are so totally in denial that you cannot see what is right before your eyes, then it’s no wonder that the past is such a baffling mystery to you.

            Read the Constitution one of these days McAdams, it might shock you to discover that it establishes a REPUBLIC.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            John McAdams, You revert to the argument of “probabilities” in an effort to mask the deception, the magic behind the trick.

            Assess these: the probability that the Koch Brothers – toxic opponents of climate chaos science and significant financial donors at Marquette University, and Marquette Asst. Prof. John McAdams – also a vocal and public climate chaos denier – do not know one another? The probability that the professor would receive legal advice from a source with a history of involvement with the Koch Brothers? The probability that during a recent controversy at Marquette the professor would garner support from an organization that has received $1million from the Koch Brothers?

            It is not only likely, it is probable that George Joannides knew Lee Oswald in the early ‘60’s; it is probable that the former CIA agent’s failure to be transparent with the HSCA about his past affected the renewed investigation; it is probable that his deception was deliberate. It is not only likely, it is probable that someone within Dallas law enforcement allowed Jack Ruby into the space where he was able to shoot Lee Oswald at point blank range. What is the probability that not one of those lawmen – with years of training – would not attempt to prevent that shot?

          • leslie sharp says:

            You revert to the argument of “probabilities” in an effort to mask the deception, the magic behind the trick.

            Assess these: the probability that the Koch Brothers – toxic opponents of climate chaos science and significant financial donors of Marquette University, and Marquette Asst. Prof. John McAdams – also a vocal and public climate chaos denier – do not know one another? The probability that the professor would receive legal advice from a source with a history of involvement with the Koch Brothers? The probability that during a recent controversy at Marquette the professor would garner support from an organization that has received $1million from the Koch Brothers?

            It is not only likely, it is probable that George Joannides knew Lee Oswald in the early ‘60’s; it is probable that the former CIA agent’s failure to be transparent with the HSCA about his past affected the renewed investigation; it is probable that his deception was deliberate. It is not only likely, it is probable that someone within Dallas law enforcement allowed Jack Ruby into the space where he was able to shoot Lee Oswald at point blank range. What is the probability that not one of those lawmen – with years of training – would not attempt to prevent that shot?

          • You’re tarnishing that freedom by using it as a psychological white hood to intimidate and possibly terrify your students, or worse, to recruit a young mind to your racist and bigoted agenda.

            More attacks from an intolerant buff.

            You folks turn to attacks when you get put on the defensive, and that always happens when you actually try to discuss evidence.

          • Assess these: the probability that the Koch Brothers – toxic opponents of climate chaos science and significant financial donors at Marquette University, and Marquette Asst. Prof. John McAdams – also a vocal and public climate chaos denier – do not know one another? The probability that the professor would receive legal advice from a source with a history of involvement with the Koch Brothers? The probability that during a recent controversy at Marquette the professor would garner support from an organization that has received $1million from the Koch Brothers?

            Hate, hate, hate. It’s all about whom you hate.

            Hasn’t in occurred to you that your constantly spewing left-wing vitriol will turn off any political conservative or moderate?

            It will send the message that JFK conspiracy theorizing is the province of left-wing yahoos.

            Which would be, to a large extent, true.

          • I’ve only presented my observation of your choices. Oppressor vs. oppressed, and, at least outwardly, (what else could I perceive, having never had a beer with you) you’ve given all considerations (per your sensitivities) to the oppressor.

            So Assata Shakur was the “oppressed” and the cop she murdered was the “oppressor.”

            That is the way people like you think.

            So go out and start yelling “hands up, don’t shoot.”

            You don’t even know that was a lie, do you?

          • Tom S. says:

            “That is the way people like you think.”

            Precluded from viewing the mural personally, you had the option (and the excuse; no firsthand knowledge) to make no public statement about it. You made it your business.:

            https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=PrN1VtGMJZPA-AXelKbIAQ#q=mcadams+assanta+shakur
            Mural featuring FBI Most Wanted Terrorist removed at MU …
            fox6now.com/…/mural-featuring-one-of-fbis-most-wanted-terrorist…
            WITI
            05/18/15 – The mural showed Assata Shakur — an African-American activist … John McAdams, .., says he …
            After outcry, Marquette University removes campus mural of …

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/after-outcry-marq…The Washington Post
            May 19, 2015 – Joanne Chesimard, now known as Assata Shakur, …and known Marquette critic, John McAdams, …

            Your reaction is in lockstep, the 30 year political asylum in Cuba is icing on the cake of Shakur related political grievances.:
            http://politic365.com/2013/05/20/fbi-obama-holder-not-involved-in-adding-assata-shakur-to-most-wanted-terrorists-list/
            Details in this article, supported elsewhere, if accurate, provide consideration for opinion that political asylum granted by the Cuban government to Assanta Shakur not unreasonable.:

            http://newbrunswicktoday.com/article/bounty-doubled-escaped-convict-whose-trial-was-held-new-brunswick-35-years-ago
            Bounty Doubled on Escaped Convict Whose Trial Was Held in New Brunswick 35 Years Ago
            Assata Shakur was Convicted of Killing a NJ State Trooper in a Controversial 1977 Trial, But She Escaped Prison and Sought Asylum in Cuba
            05/14/13 By Richard Rabinowitz

            http://humanities.williams.edu/files/James-Framing-the-Panther.pdf
            Framing the Panther
            Assata Shakur and Black Female Agency
            – Joy James

            http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1980/9/20/rutgers-professor-fights-disbar09/20/80 NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J.-A Rutgers University professor and civil rights activist is fighting disbarment for allegedly violating American Bar Association (ABA) rules… Lennox Hinds,…
            ..Department of Justice also is investigating Hinds because he was one of ten Americans to visit Tehran in July for a conference on American involvement in Iran. A New York judicial committee has recommended that Hinds not be allowed to practice law in that state because of his Iran trip and because of his comments on the Chesimard case.
            (See http://jgrussell.com/rutgers/In_re_Hinds.pdf )

            http://criminaljustice.rutgers.edu/faculty/30-faculty/faculty/94-lennox-s-hinds
            Dr. Lennox S. Hinds is a Professor in the Program in Criminal Justice, ..renowned criminal defense and international human rights lawyer.

            https://www.nlg.org/news/announcements/national-lawyers-guild-urges-fbi-respect-political-asylum-status-assata-shakur
            National Lawyers Guild Urges FBI to Respect Political Asylum Status of Assata Shakur
            05/07/13

            ..The murder conviction came despite medical evidence showing….

            …..constitutional violations:

            All of the 15 jurors were white, in a clear Batson v. Kentucky violation;
            Five jurors had personal connections to state troopers…

            The judge cut funding for additional expert defense testimony after medical testimony demonstrated that Ms. Shakur—who had no gunpowder residues on her fingers, and whose fingerprints were not found….and suffered injury to a critical nerve in her right arm, making it anatomically impossible for her to fire a weapon;
            Forensic and ballistic specialists declined to testify, citing conflicts of interest because they routinely testified for law enforcement officials.
            ……..
            National Lawyers Guild is the oldest and largest public interest/human rights bar organization. …has members in every state.

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

          • “More attacks from an intolerant buff.
            You folks turn to attacks when you get put on the defensive, and that always happens when you actually try to discuss evidence.”~McAdams

            What fudging “evidence” McAdams?!?!

            You and your gang of apologists have come up with nothing but conjecture wrapped in supposition, tied together by biased string theories. Junk best published in National Inquirer, or People Magazine.

            Tiresome rhetoric and boring platitudes; the material of politicians and TV talking heads; ie, statist propaganda.
            \\][//

          • Precluded from viewing the mural personally, you had the option (and the excuse; no firsthand knowledge) to make no public statement about it. You made it your business.:

            Why not?

            Do you actually think she was innocent? Only the hard left does. The National Lawyers Guild, BTW, was a Communist front during the Cold War. Now, they are still hard left.

            And you didn’t answer my question: suppose it had been a Confederate battle flag? Would you say that should have been ignored?

            But, of course, this has nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

            Other than making people believe that only hard leftists are JFK conspiracy theorists.

          • Tom S. says:

            “Why not?

            …But, of course, this has nothing to do with the JFK assassination.

            Other than making people believe that only hard leftists are JFK conspiracy theorists.”

            IOW :

            http://www.aim.org/aim-column/obama-exchanges-castros-killer-for-american-hostage/
            Obama Exchanges Castro’s Killer…
            12/17/14
            …Obama says he will review whether Cuba should remain on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. He’s deliberately ignoring the fact that Chesimard, a convicted cop-killer …and fled to Cuba with the help of the Weather Underground……
            …Obama is not interested in bringing them to justice.

            …Holder was involved in pardons for members of the FALN and the Weather Underground.

            …our media are conveniently ignoring the fact that, during the Cold War, Cuba hosted Soviet nuclear missiles targeting the U.S. Former CIA officer Brian Latell’s book, Castro’s Secrets, includes the revelation that Fidel Castro knew that Lee Harvey Oswald, …. was going to kill President Kennedy……

            http://nypost.com/2015/05/06/the-lefts-new-cop-killer-fetish-terrorist-joanne-chesimard/
            The left’s new cop-killer fetish: terrorist Joanne Chesimard
            By Michelle Malkin 05/06/15
            …Here’s what Assata taught me: The left’s sick fetish for cop-killers is still going strong ….

            Chesimard has lived comfortably in Cuba ever since her escape thanks to the generosity of Fidel Castro….

            Assata is, plain and simple, a domestic terrorist who represents lawless hatred of the police…

            …..He and his fellow cops, Obama mumbled, “deserve our gratitude and our prayers, not just today, but every day.”

            ….it’s clear which side the social-justice warrior-in-chief stands on: the side of Assata, Castro and the cop-hating mob.

            http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2015/12/new-director-of-gender-and-sexualities.html#links
            December 10, 2015
            New Director of Gender and Sexualities Center Was Assata Shakur Supporter
            …Then there was the mural of black militant murderer and terrorist Assata Shakur, painted on a wall at the Center. When we outed that, Marquette quickly had it painted over, and fired the Director of the Center, Susannah Bartlow. Bartlow, it seems, was simply too politically extreme. ….
            ……
            In the wake of this fiasco, Marquette split the Center in two, ….Marquette news release:

            Center for Gender and Sexualities Studies will support research, teaching

            …“I am pleased that the CGSS will enjoy the leadership of Dr. Harris, who brings deep professional experience and dedication to the center and its mission,” Myers says….

            But it seems that Angelique Harris has political views similar to those of Bartlow, at least were Shakur is concerned. …

            …Of course, leftist academics can get together and discuss anything they want, even “The Whiteness of Police” or the deep thoughts of Communist Angela Davis….
            – posted by John McAdams

            http://mu-warrior.blogspot.com/2015/12/minority-students-as-victims-of.html
            December 18, 2015
            Minority Students as Victims of Affirmative Action
            ….A genuine diversity agenda would require recruiting conservatives and libertarians for faculty positions…. It might require giving preference to students from poor and working class backgrounds. It would involve giving preference to foreign students coming from cultures quite different from that of the average American kid (and this includes the average black American kid).

            …is not a genuine diversity policy. It’s just a racial spoils system.
            -Posted by John McAdams

          • Unless your spouse turned out to be a spy, then you might question the coincidences of how you met.

            And you your mind, everybody is a spy.

          • “And you didn’t answer my question: suppose it had been a Confederate battle flag? Would you say that should have been ignored?”McAdams

            Personally I would have no problems with the display of a Confederate battle flag. It is after all a part of history and “southern heritage”.

            I think it is stupid to disallow the Christian cross, or Nativity scenes at Christmas, or any of dozens of politically correct nonsense that have snuck it’s dirty snout into the statutes.

            There is the essence of the First Amendment here that is disparaged in these divisive directives. No one is forced to kneel and pray before the various religious symbols that may be displayed. The separation of church and state merely means that one cannot be forced into accepting another belief than your own personal one. Freedom of Speech and Expression is also a clause in the First Amendment. One clause cannot cancel out the other.

            But the issues of official Segregation are pernicious to equality under the law, symbolism be damned. Acts! Actions matter, not symbolism and empty rhetoric.

            Now as far as Shakur; McAdams seems to conveniently forget COINTELPRO and the systematic murders of black leaders and spokespeople. Shakur’s case is full of exculpatory evidence if one researches this case. Like many other similar cases she was obviously framed. This is why the mural is of historical significance. Just like a Confederate flag should be.

            I deplore the southern man in his bias and racism, that still exists to this day in the deep south.

            I lived in south Georgia for five plus years, I lived with their phony genteel facade and deep seated racial prejudice. They are still fighting the Civil War down there.

            As much as I deplore their beliefs and attitudes, they still have the right to hold them. They do NOT have the right to act them out however. This is the bright line reasonable people must adhere to.
            \\][//

          • IOW :

            Thank you, Tom, for posting links to some very good articles, especially the ones on my blog.

            My only reservation is about the Accuracy in Media article that buys the “Castro Knew” theory of Latell. I debunked that here:

            http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/146217

        • Paul Turner says:

          John, you’re right….the autopsy should have been done by the Parkland doctors. But based on your overall arguments here, I bet you wouldn’t have liked what they probably would have found out.

    • B Binnie says:

      Add to your list the most surreal aspect of them all- If Dealey Plaza was a complete surprise to the powers that be, every witness to the heinous events during and after the murder would have been treated with respect and great compassion. Yet we know that any witness that damaged the LN perspective was treated with indifference at best and more likely with hostility as time went on- This could not have initially been because folks feared WW3 scenarios No one could have connected those dots right away- It could only have occurred because those powers were wedded to a fixed outcome even before the smoke cleared over the angled fence on the edge of the GK-

      • B Binnie says:

        PS- The assassination plan COULD NOT have involved telling dozens of witnesses they were wrong, changing entrance wounds to exit ones, stealing peoples film to hide it, and a reducing more than 6 separate rifle shots to 3, ET AL- The need to do all of the above and worse evolved very quickly after the fact when LHO did not disappear from the face of the planet around 12 Noon as he was supposed to and instead very desperately addressed the sudden and unexpected need to arm himself with a hand gun-

        • Bill Pierce says:

          B. Binnie writes:
          “PS- The assassination plan COULD NOT have involved telling dozens of witnesses they were wrong, changing entrance wounds to exit ones, stealing peoples film to hide it, and a reducing more than 6 separate rifle shots to 3, ET AL-”

          That’s correct. Consider a possibility that I believe likely. The plotters actually *wanted* to advertise the conspiracy with shots from different locations. They (MIC plotters) intended the assassination to look like the work of a well-rehearsed team, sent by Castro and KGB, of course.

          I think it’s probable that powerful Washington insiders including RFK, LBJ and Hoover suspected an MIC coup as soon as it happened. How else to explain the apparent lack of security in a ‘dangerous’ city, the numerous wounds and perfect head shot and, a very short time later, the arrest of a ‘commie’ linked to FPCC?

          Since an MIC-sponsored hit would have been impossibly difficult to prove – and dangerous – civilian insiders initiated the single-assassin story in order to counter the MIC’s ‘commie conspiracy’ narrative. I suspect the civilian government was terrified about how far the MIC was willing to go if it successfully controlled the propaganda. Think in terms of Eisenhower’s MIC warning, Katzenbach’s memo, and LBJ’s intimidation of Warren and others.

          • B Binnie says:

            Yes- Of Course- The Original plan was to create the appearance that LHO and unidentified Russian/ Cuban conspirators murdered JFK and slipped into Cuba- The plan did not care if there were 3 shots or thirty- I don’t think they were advertising anything- They just wanted to make sure JFK died- Since the LN story was incubated within minutes of the rifle shots, it is unlikely that unknowledgeable civilians were immediately looking to cover up a connection to Cuba- Any rational person who was not an accomplice would say what the heck just happened and would have run down every lead and vetted every witness-

          • lysias says:

            Why then continue the lies for over 50 years afterwards, decades past the end of the Cold War?

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Bill Pierce,
            Your conclusion/hypothesis/explanation about the motivation for the cover-up is very plausible, especially because it accounts for RFK. Wow. There’s more to it than that, but not much. Succinctly stated.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Bill P.,
            “The more to it,” other than MIC, is LBJ, big oil, Bircher-KKK types, and three Mafias — American, ex-Cuban, Corsican.

  6. bogman says:

    To add:

    o Hoovers calls “foul” on the discrepancies of the wounds described by the Parkland doctors and his own G-men and the autopsy, alerting the president and calling for a full investigation.

    But in the final analysis, all these failures really lie at the feet of LBJ and the media.

    If LBJ had ordered the fed govt to marshall all its forces to find the truth in the first hours and days, today we’d all have more faith in our govt. Same with the fourth estate.

    • JohnR says:

      It seems to me that the burden of proof has been misplaced. The government cannot prove:

      A) that Oswald was in Mexico City
      B) Oswald visited Russian and Cuban government facilities
      C) Oswald communicated via telephone with anyone inside

      If the government could prove any of the aforementioned, they would have. Tapes and photos would certainly bolster their case. Yet we are to believe that the government destroyed their best evidence.

      It doesn’t matter who flew what where, or wrote this or that in a memo. What matters is the tapes and photos exist(ed,) and they are not Oswald.

      • The government cannot prove:

        A) that Oswald was in Mexico City
        B) Oswald visited Russian and Cuban government facilities
        C) Oswald communicated via telephone with anyone inside

        Explain Oswald’s signature on the visa application.

        Explain Duran’s phone number in Oswald’s address book.

        Explain Oswald’s signature on the register of the Hotel Commercio.

        Explain Oswald handwriting on a letter he sent to the Soviet Embassy in DC complaining about how he was treated by the Soviet’s in Mexico City.

        • “Explain Oswald’s signature on the visa application.

          Explain Duran’s phone number in Oswald’s address book.

          Explain Oswald’s signature on the register of the Hotel Commercio.

          Explain Oswald handwriting on a letter he sent to the Soviet Embassy in DC complaining about how he was treated by the Soviet’s in Mexico City.”~McAdams

          One simple word: FORGERY
          \\][//

          • JohnR says:

            Mr. Whitten, you’ve taken my luff. Kindly yield so that I might fire upon my adversary.;.)

            Professor, Mr Whitten is right. Every one of your aforementioned items COULD have been forged. Though I suspect even you would agree that they would be infinitely more incriminating were they accompanied by photographs and tapes. The fact that they have not been produced in 50 something years speaks volumes.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            I vaguely recall reading somewhere that his signature was fairly easy to forge, but I can’t pinpoint the source of that discussion.

          • Yep. Every piece of evidence against Oswald must be faked or forged.

            Have you ever tried to count the number of things you have to believe to be faked or forged in order to let your boy Lee off the hook?

            Have you ever tried to count the number of witnesses, investigators, and experts you have to claim are lying scum to let your boy Lee off the hook?

            When the number gets to a few hundred, don’t you think that maybe you should consider that Lee might be guilty?

          • “Have you ever tried to count the number of witnesses, investigators, and experts you have to claim are lying scum to let your boy Lee off the hook?”~McAdams

            How juvenile ‘professor’, have you never heard of “Compartmentalization” and “Need to Know”?

            Using these dumb arguments, that any rookie debunker knows won’t fly with anyone with adult thinking capacity, is quite insulting here.

            You seem to forget that you are not addressing a class of your inexperienced 18 – 19 year old college students here.
            \\][//

          • JohnR says:

            McAdams wrote: “Have you ever tried to count the number of witnesses, investigators and experts you have to claim are lying scum to let your boy Lee off the hook?”

            Please don’t put words in my mouth. I never wrote that all the evidence WAS forged, I wrote that it COULD be forged. When it comes to evidence, I obviously have higher standards than you. Moreover, show me one time where I described ANYONE as being “lying scum.” That’s the way YOU choose to interact with your fellow human beings, not me. Trust me, I will never debase myself by sinking to your level.

            One thing for you to consider: Oswald is not “my boy.” Oswald was an American citizen who was never extended his right to be judged with the burden of proof being placed where it belonged, on the state. Apparently, this means nothing to you. While we are asking questions, have you ever approached the assassination evidence with the presumption that Oswald was innocent? If the answer is no, I have another question: To what other parts of the constitution do you object?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Have you ever tried to count the number of things you have to believe to be faked or forged in order to let your boy Lee off the hook?”

            Yes, this is why I’ve often asked that someone please present a frame-up scenario showing how “they” might’ve framed Oswald. I’ve never gotten one and never will. Explaining each item of evidence would have to go something like this: “fake, fake, planted, switched, forged, altered, they lied about it…” over and over again. It would be ludicrous.

            Not only the physical evidence, but Oswald’s behavior suggests guilt. Going to Irving unexpectedly, bringing a package to work, not bothering to view the man he “admired” pass by, being seen near the only stairway that went to the 6th floor approximately when the shooter would’ve been there according to re-enactments.

            All “coincidence”? Or “he was following orders”? Those seem to be the only frame-up alternatives. He was either the unluckiest man in the world or one of the stupidest.

          • Jean Davison,

            I want to reiterate this comment made by JohnR
            December 15, 2015 at 5:16 am, and reapply it to you, and ask you to answer the question yourself:

            “One thing for you to consider: Oswald is not “my boy.” Oswald was an American citizen who was never extended his right to be judged with the burden of proof being placed where it belonged, on the state. Apparently, this means nothing to you. While we are asking questions, have you ever approached the assassination evidence with the presumption that Oswald was innocent? If the answer is no, I have another question: To what other parts of the constitution do you object?”
            \\][//

          • bogman says:

            Jean —

            The problem as I see it is the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Oswald was an intel asset – and I mean could’ve been used wittingly or unwittingly – is just as strong. And the fact that the feds were so quick to decide Oswald was the sole assailant and then make all the evidence fit that and “lose” or destroy any evidence that did. And the recent evidence that JFK truly was up against a fanatical, Dr. Strangelove MIC.

            My question is – if a faction of the govt is guilty of the murder, is there any evidence you can trust from the govt?

            If Oswald has no ties to intel and the gov’t plays it straight up and gets him to trial, I don’t think we’d be having these conversations. But THINKING people, not nuts, have reasonable cause for concern and doubt. Because the feds are STILL not providing explanations or full disclosure.

          • bogman says:

            I guess my question back to you and John is:

            Have you ever tried to count the # of times the government lied, lost or destroyed evidence, held onto suspicious files, and ignored compelling leads in this case?

            Guaranteed, it’s way more than all the forged documents needed to make Oswald a patsy.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            “Have you ever tried to count the number of witnesses, investigators, and experts you have to claim are lying scum to let your boy Lee off the hook?”

            John, how many people from the CIA and FBI worked to “solve” the case in ’63 and ’64?

            That will give you the answer you seek.

          • bogman says:

            And the fact that two top investigators – Tanenbaum and Sprauge (again, not “nuts”)-smelled something wrong in JMWAVE/Atlee/Anti-Castro Cuban wing of the CIA but the agency blocked their efforts.

            Not sure about Sprauge but Tanenbaum said he came in with no conspiracy/lone gunman leanings either way. And the govt once again didn’t let them get to the bottom of it.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘Yes, this is why I’ve often asked that someone please present a frame-up scenario showing how “they” might’ve framed Oswald. I’ve never gotten one and never will. Explaining each item of evidence would have to go something like this: “fake, fake, planted, switched, forged, altered, they lied about it…” over and over again. It would be ludicrous.’ – Jean Davison

            Ludicrous? Tell that to those involved in the Manhattan Project:

            ‘Compartmentalized knowledge,’ wrote Leslie Groves, military leader in charge of the Manhattan Project, ‘was the very heart of security. … my rule was simple, each man should know everything he needed to know to do his job, and nothing else.’ “Need to Know: UFO’s, the Military and Intelligence.” Timothy Good

            General Groves was the architect of an intelligence revolution that took security measures to unprecedented heights. …These operated outside of regular military channels, kept separate records, and reported directly to him . . . As the only person knowledgeable about the entire project, Groves stood at the pinnacle of power. He controlled the project’s pace, priorities, and direction through his decisions . . . Knowledge was compartmentalized. Workers were told only what they needed to know and were forbidden to discuss their jobs with anyone other than designated supervisors. —
            http://www.atomicheritage.org/history/security-and-secrecy

            The development of the most destructive weapon ever to be conceived was kept a secret in spite of involvement of 125,310 active employees at its peak located at 4 primary sites spanning the United States including the U of Chicago, [Clinton Laboratories] Oak Ridge National Labs in TN, the Hanford Site, WA, and Los Alamos National Lab, NM.

          • Tom S. says:

            I think during fifty-two years, “someone would have talked” and I am not supporting the idea that compartmentalization would have preserved
            secrecy either, before, during, and after. It was the cold war era, and JFK must have had some supporters, as well as others who believed in
            constitutional government, alert to threats such as assassination. I don’t see that compartmentalization would have prevented awareness to the extent that a large, well coordinated conspiracy could have been anticipated to be contained, viable.

            It is one thing to maintain secrecy in wartime, since everyone is expecting they are working and maintaining secrecy to achieve a broad gaol
            of winning or shortening the length of the war. It seems much more complicated to achieve both the secrecy and the control that seems to have been required in this instance, starting with the Secret Service at some level cooperating to compromise its own reputation and core mission, and FBI, CIA, and DPD, military intel. This seems more in keeping with what could be realistically planned and achieved.:

            http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/keeping-stealth-stealthy-the-f-117s-secret-life-at-ton-1747371730
            ……….
            What may be more amazing than the F-117 Nighthawk itself was the team of highly dedicated maintenance staff, operations personnel and pilots who lived like vampires for the better part of a decade while the program was operating deep in the classified world.

            Even the pilots of the F-117s had to have a cover, and so did the base when it came to prying Russian satellites. Officially, a fleet of purplish-gray and green painted A-7 Corsairs were assigned to it, maybe the ultimate “nothing to see here, move along” military aircraft of the time…

          • How juvenile ‘professor’, have you never heard of “Compartmentalization” and “Need to Know”?

            Irrelevant. If some bunch of people were told (for example) to forge autopsy photos, they know they forged the autopsy photos, even if nobody told them about a Grassy Knoll gunman. And so on through all the pieces of evidence you think were forged.

            you are not addressing a class of your inexperienced 18 – 19 year old college students here.

            The 18-19 year old students are a lot smarter.

          • leslie sharp says:

            TomS. The purpose in drawing the analogy was to highlight that tens of thousands of people can keep a secret. I don’t disagree with your contention that it would be possible only in war time. I argue that for tens of thousands of Americans, there was an internal and not so silent war going on against President John Kennedy and those whom he supported including as you have so adroitly identified in another comment (and I paraphrase), the disenfranchised and those without a voice to speak to the power of the looming oligarchy in the early ‘60’s.

            “someone would have talked”. I believe some have. I also believe that their stories have been dismissed or discredited by application of the fog of the Warren Commission Report which continues to be perpetuated by people the likes of which participate on this forum in particular.

            “ . . . since everyone is expecting they are working and maintaining secrecy to achieve a broad [gaol].”

            Researchers and authors over the decades have identified numerous possibilities of a collective that could have been ‘working and maintaining secrecy to achieve a broad goal.’ Among them are the John Birch Society and those further to the right ideologically living in Dallas, The “Military-Industrial Complex” (not exclusive from the JBS in many instances), 
and my personal favorite, the oil and finance industry operating on a global stage where stakes were high enough to rationalize the assassination of an elected US president who was also the leader of the ‘free world’. Within the latter, one can recognize a decades long agenda beginning at Achnacarry, Scotland, and ongoing as we speak in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria et al. This is THE continuity of the coup d’etat, the very structure of which feeds on secrecy.

          • leslie sharp says:

            I apply the theory of compartmentalization to the planning and execution, not to the cover up. The cover-up only needed a jump start – the issuance of the description of a defector to Russia with ties to Cuba. I consider the autopsy an essential hurdle … confusion reigned precisely as anticipated by the time Kennedy’s body was removed from Parkland (whether or not it was legal seems not to been a problem for the Warren Commission unless I’ve missed that testimony). It could also be argued that the chaos ensued the moment the first shot was fired, and that no amount of planning – compartmentalized or not – was necessary because confusion was guaranteed much like the sleight of hand in a magic trick. In fact here we are today, still attempting to sort thru the illusion. The minds of those whose careers were quickly coming into question, most specifically the Secret Service agents and Dallas law enforcement must have been whirling, as must have others who knew they had failed the president … they were hardly paying attention to the rogue elements behind the manipulation of #399, the conflicting data between Parkland and Bethesda, etc. No one was talking openly let alone reporting any suspicions. By the time many began to speak out, memories had faded, the Warren Report had intimidated, and accusations of personal gain compromised credibility. The rest is the history of the cover up. But for these forums, private citizens might not have the courage or facility to begin to tell their own stories. I count myself among them.

          • My question is – if a faction of the govt is guilty of the murder, is there any evidence you can trust from the govt?

            So “the government” can’t be trusted. So the Warren Commission, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the Dallas cops, all of them were involved with the coverup.

            Then, when people not connected with the government produce evidence or testimony that you don’t like, they all become government stooges. Look at how you buffs treat the Paines.

            And the independent experts working for the HSCA were all government stooges too, eh?

            And of course, all the mainstream media are government stooges.

          • JohnR says:

            Mr. Whitten wrote: “…I want to reiterate this comment made by JohnR…”

            Thank you for your support. I trust that one day soon, I’ll be presented with the opportunity to return the gesture.

            Sometimes I think there’s no point in these exchanges. The defenders of the Warren Commission know they’re on the wrong side of history. I’ve never understood their seemingly pathological need to convict Oswald. They will never answer my question. They can’t.

          • JohnR says:

            Jean Davison wrote:”…being seen near the only stairway that went to the 6th floor approximately when the shooter would’ve been there according to re-enactments.”

            I answered this question before. I’ll do it again: I do not find that strange or coincidental at all. I find it rather common-sensical that Oswald was seen in the lunch area of the building where he worked during the lunch hour. It is you and your ilk that have to invent from whole cloth implausible scenarios to place Oswald in the sniper’s nest.

            In the end, neither you, McAdams, Photon nor Pein can place Oswald anywhere besides the 1st or second floor from noon to half-past on that day. And you all know it.

          • bogman says:

            Yes, John, the government can’t be trusted. Were you the last to find out?

            But my question was a hypothetical – IF a cabal was able to put the assassination together, COULD the govt be trusted to root it out?

            I say no. The government wouldn’t be institutionally capable to honestly investigate a high crime of such magnitude within its midst.

            It’s called self-preservation. Better to take the easy out than dig any deeper.

          • bogman says:

            Speaking of govt and media stooges, you never did answer the question why neither Dan Rather or the WC pointed out the obvious hit from the front in the Zapruder film.

            The lone nut theory side has the same amount of unanswerable questions in this case, doesn’t it?

          • JohnR says:

            I have another question or two for you, Ms. Davison. Really, anyone can answer it, be it Madams, Photon, or Von Pein.

            Earlier this thread centered around the Mexico City tapes. Let’s re-visit them, shall we.

            You all maintain that Hoover was mistaken when he told the President about the tapes. You all maintain that the tapes in question did not exist. You all maintain that all the FBI had in it’s possession were transcripts. You all maintain that no FBI agent listened to the tapes. So here’s my questions:

            Where did Hoover get the idea that the tapes did not match Oswald’s voice? From the transcripts? Did Oswald possess such a unique vernacular that his identity could be ascertained or eliminated from consideration by the written word? I think not.

            You watch Mr. Whitten. No answer to these questions will be forthcoming, either.

          • “Look at how you buffs treat the Paines.”~McAdams

            Hah! Look at how you WC cultists handwave all the evidence of the Paine’s connections with Intelligence and the arms industry, as well as their obvious manipulation of the Oswald’s.

            As far as the experts the HSCA, it is the management of the committee and directions of the management that defines the hand of the clear cover-up this “government body” was. Does the name George Joannides still ring no bells for you McAdams? Our host Jeff Morley revealed his as the guiding hand of HSCA.

            And yes indeed the MSM, is nothing but a propaganda organ of the deep state.
            \\][//

          • David Regan says:

            Keep burying your head in the sand if you want to believe the media was not influenced by Operation Mockingbird.

            The CIA and the Media http://www.carlbernstein.com/magazine_cia_and_media.php

          • Jean Davison says:

            JohnR and Willy,
            “…. Oswald was an American citizen who was never extended his right to be judged with the burden of proof being placed where it belonged, on the state. Apparently, this means nothing to you.”

            None of the dozens, maybe hundreds of people accused, living and dead, have ever gotten given their day in court. They are certainly not “presumed innocent.” Apparently, this means nothing to you.

            “While we are asking questions, have you ever approached the assassination evidence with the presumption that Oswald was innocent?”

            Of course. I believed Rush to Judgment years ago, until I checked the footnotes and found out I’d been deceived.

            “If the answer is no, I have another question: To what other parts of the constitution do you object?”

            What part of the constitution forbids me from expressing my opinion on the guilt or innocence of anyone? Ever heard of the First Amendment? You think it applies only to you, not to me?

          • Where did Hoover get the idea that the tapes did not match Oswald’s voice?

            See Jean’s post. In brief, Belmont talked to Shanklin, and was confused about what he was told. Everything at the FBI HQ in Washington followed from this conversation.

            You watch Mr. Whitten. No answer to these questions will be forthcoming, either.

            You watch, Jean, you have given the conspiracists here an answer, but they will blow it off.

          • In the end, neither you, McAdams, Photon nor Pein can place Oswald anywhere besides the 1st or second floor from noon to half-past on that day.

            You can’t place him anywhere besides the sixth floor at 12:30 sharp.

          • J.D. says:

            There is no evidence, none, that Oswald was on the sixth floor “at 12:30 sharp.”

          • JohnR says:

            McAdams re-posted my question: “Where did Hoover get the idea that the tapes did not match Oswald?”

            McAdams provided this brief answer (much to my astonishment.)

            “See Jean’s post. In brief, Belmont talked to Shanklin, and was confused about what he was told. Everything at the FBI HQ in Washington followed from this conversation.”

            You still don’t seem to understand my point. No one would have made the statement “…do not match Oswald’s voice…” unless SOMEONE else originally listened to actual tapes. It is virtually impossible to draw that conclusion from reading transcripts.

          • JohnR says:

            Jean Davison wrote:

            “What part of the constitution forbids me from expressing my opinion on the guilt or innocence of anyone? Ever heard of the First Amendment? Why would you think it only applies to you, and not to me?”

            Nothing in the constitution prevents me, as a private citizen, from applying a religious standard to a candidate for public office. However, if I wish to act in a manner consistent, I refrain.

            At the very least, the WC violated the spirit of the constitution, with regards to Oswald. You, through your efforts, perpetuate this error.

          • “How could Oswald have been framed? But that’s what I expected. If there were a plausible frame-up scenario someone would’ve presented it by now.”~Jean Davison
            * * * * *
            How about an explanation of how Oswald WAS framed, not how he COULD have been? Isn’t that more precise?

            Oswald being a deep agent of counter espionage, was sent on an assignment to the Soviet Union, perhaps just as a test to see the ways in-which the authorities there would react to the presence of an “American defector” with Oswald’s odd profile; with his fairly obvious ‘sheep dipping’ – to give him the appearance of being a “Marxist”.

            [FFWD>>] Oswald returns to the US with Russian Wife. And his assignment is now augmented with his period in the USSR, he is even more convincing as a “Commie”; his then current mission is to infiltrate the radical anti-Castro Cuban network.

            While on this assignment Oswald is successful enough in his penetration into the midst of the organization that he becomes privy to a plot to kill Kennedy in revenge for their “betrayal” at the Bay of Pigs.

            What neither Oswald nor the Cubans realize is that there is a larger overarching operation guiding the Cubans, stoking their anger and providing them with weapons and organizational direction (Banister et al).

            At this point, the counter intel group that has been penetrated realizes the penetrating org is being tipped off by Oswald of this plot to kill JFK. This is the point at which it is decided by the higher echelon plotters to keep Oswald in place, and use him as the patsy in their plot. Oswald is maneuvered into place from New Orleans to Dallas where deM and the White Russian milieu surrounds, absorbs, and directs his fate.

            Of course this is where the Paine’s come into Lee and Marina’s life, and the final leg of placing Oswald in the building on the obvious route to the Trademart, the obvious venue for a speech by JFK, who was being manipulated into place concurrently with the manipulation of the patsy.
            \\][//

          • No one would have made the statement “…do not match Oswald’s voice…” unless SOMEONE else originally listened to actual tapes. It is virtually impossible to draw that conclusion from reading transcripts.

            I’m reminded of the East Texas mother who once said to her refractory son: “Bubba, I can explain it to you, but I can’t understand it for you.”

            Belmont talked to Shanklin. Shanklin described photos and transcripts of tapes. He said the photos were not of Oswald, and Belmont somehow understood that “photos and tapes” were not of Oswald.

            Please read this:

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

          • I’ve never understood their seemingly pathological need to convict Oswald. They will never answer my question.

            We answer your questions, but then you insist that all the evidence we provide is faked, forged, tampered with or comes from lying witnesses.

          • There is no evidence, none, that Oswald was on the sixth floor “at 12:30 sharp.”

            Well somebody was shooting from the sixth floor at 12:30 sharp, and that person left a bag in the Sniper’s Nest with Oswald’s palm print on it, three spent cartridges in the Sniper’s Nest that matched Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons, Oswald’s rifle near the stairwell, two fragments in the front seat of the limo that matched Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons, etc.

            And virtually every Depository employee was in plain sight of another employee, with Oswald (and I think Dougherty) as exceptions.

            And nobody among all the Depository employees saw any strangers inside the Depository (an elderly man wanting to use the restroom the only exception).

            You don’t have to be Sherlock Holmes to put all this together.

          • “Well somebody was shooting from the sixth floor at 12:30 sharp”~McAdams

            Maybe, maybe not. You haven’t actually proved that. And the following words after that opening statement you just made have all been contested with most reasonable arguments – ones that you simply never acknowledge, nor make reasonable counter arguments against.

            If somebody was shooting from that window, you most certainly have NOT proven it was Lee Harvey Oswald.
            \\][//

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Yep. Every piece of evidence against Oswald must be faked or forged.

            Have you ever tried to count the number of things you have to believe to be faked or forged in order to let your boy Lee off the hook?

            Have you ever tried to count the number of witnesses, investigators, and experts you have to claim are lying scum to let your boy Lee off the hook?

            When the number gets to a few hundred, don’t you think that maybe you should consider that Lee might be guilty?

            Who says 100?

            Nice try Professor.

            Any of the best critics who have examined the so called evidence in minute detail can certainly persuade people to call it into question.

            (And we’re not even including the 70% of Americans that believe in a conspiracy who probably haven’t delved into this case like the rest of us here).

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            “The problem as I see it is the overwhelming circumstantial evidence that Oswald was an intel asset…”

            I don’t agree. What is the best piece of evidence you have that he was an intel asset?

            “And the fact that the feds were so quick to decide Oswald was the sole assailant and then make all the evidence fit that and “lose” or destroy any evidence that did.”

            Other than the Hosty note, what are you referring to?

            The HSCA and every other investigation have agreed that the only shots that hit anyone were fired by Oswald, and it didn’t take long because there’s an abundance of evidence against him and none tying anyone else to the shooting.

            “My question is – if a faction of the govt is guilty of the murder, is there any evidence you can trust from the govt?”

            You don’t need to trust the government or anyone else. By and large the evidence against Oswald didn’t come from the federal government. Much of it was collected by the Dallas police or sheriff’s office. Most of the FBI findings on fingerprints, etc. has been verified by other, non-government experts.

            Since suspicion can easily lead someone down dead ends, my suggestion is to start with the things that are certain or virtually certain and build on that. We know from news photos that Oswald was brought out of the Texas theater after leaving work, for instance. I don’t think there’s any reason to doubt that he went to Irving on Thursday and brought some kind of package to work.

            Then there are the first-day TV interviews from Zapruder and others describing JFK’s explosive head wound on the right side of his head, and the first bulletin by Merriman Smith in the motorcade saying three shots were fired. And so on.

            “If Oswald has no ties to intel and the gov’t plays it straight up and gets him to trial, I don’t think we’d be having these conversations. But THINKING people, not nuts, have reasonable cause for concern and doubt.”

            In my opinion there’s doubt mostly because the “JFK literature” in general, which imo is loaded with myths and faulty assumptions, has done a good job in creating doubt — especially the movie “JFK,” which is a well-done film, but it’s basically two hours of misinformation.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Tom S.,

            “It is one thing to maintain secrecy in wartime….”

            I agree, but I think I should point out that most of the tens of thousands working at Manhattan Project facilities didn’t know any secrets. They were clerical workers and others with routine jobs who had no “need to know.” I happen to know this only because when I was a child my dad was a construction worker at Oak Ridge for a couple of years. The regular workers there knew there was something highly classified going on but they didn’t know what.

            I remember my dad mentioning a fellow worker who worked at what we now know was the uranium enrichment facility (K-25), who told him he didn’t know what they were doing there except that some kind of material arrived in boxcars and went out in very small containers.

          • Explain Oswald handwriting on a letter he sent to the Soviet Embassy in DC complaining about how he was treated by the Soviet’s in Mexico City.”~McAdams

            One simple word: FORGERY

            Of course, the visa application was turned over to the WC by Castro’s government, and likewise with another copy turned over to the HSCA by Castro.

            So now you have Castro trafficking in forged documents at the behest of the CIA!

          • bogman says:

            Jean: “I don’t agree. What is the best piece of evidence you have that he was an intel asset?”

            Geesh, where do I begin? What average American interfaces with the FBI and CIA assets on the SAME DAY? The fact the US embassy, DPD all said he seemed trained. His passing through rain drops without getting wet (e.g. no charges upon his return, etc.). And yes 544 Camp Street also validated by many including William Gaudet, CIA asset with NO reason to make it up. And the NO parking garage manager who said he saw Oswald take and give envelopes to FBI cars… on and on.

            Jean: “Other than the Hosty note, what are you referring to?”

            Gees, there’s a ton either lost, mangled or destroyed. The Harper fragment comes to mind — “losing” the skull fragment of the frickin president? Really? No inquiry, no investigation, no one loses their job (please don’t say they got the photo). Films mangled. Just recently saw something on Oswald’s radio which was finally seen by research and it was in a mess as well.

            Jean: “The HSCA and every other investigation have agreed that the only shots that hit anyone were fired by Oswald, and it didn’t take long because there’s an abundance of evidence against him and none tying anyone else to the shooting.”

            The HSCA was taken over by intel after Sprague and Tanenbaum. I don’t believe it was an honest investigation after that.

            Jean: “Since suspicion can easily lead someone down dead ends, my suggestion is to start with the things that are certain or virtually certain and build on that.”

            Been studying the evidence for decades.

            Jean: In my opinion there’s doubt mostly because the “JFK literature” in general, which imo is loaded with myths and faulty assumptions, has done a good job in creating doubt — especially the movie “JFK,” which is a well-done film, but it’s basically two hours of misinformation.”

            This is where I tend to lose it with LNers. Do you really believe rational adults can’t come up with a different conclusions than LNers without some counter-authority figure? Bertrand Russell, top journos and many world leaders doubted the findings. This is always insulting.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            The reply to yours of 4:04 I was writing suddenly disappeared. Maybe tomorrow. But I wanted to get to this part because I think you may have misunderstood me.

            “Jean: “Since suspicion can easily lead someone down dead ends, my suggestion is to start with the things that are certain or virtually certain and build on that.”

            Been studying the evidence for decades.”

            Okay, but I was answering this question you asked me:

            “if a faction of the govt is guilty of the murder, is there any evidence you can trust from the govt?”

            I was saying you don’t have to trust the govt.

            “Jean: In my opinion there’s doubt mostly because the “JFK literature” in general, which imo is loaded with myths and faulty assumptions, has done a good job in creating doubt — especially the movie “JFK,” which is a well-done film, but it’s basically two hours of misinformation.”

            Bogman’s reply: “This is where I tend to lose it with LNers. Do you really believe rational adults can’t come up with a different conclusions than LNers without some counter-authority figure? Bertrand Russell, top journos and many world leaders doubted the findings. This is always insulting.”

            I don’t see why it’s insulting.
            Are you denying that conspiracy books and “JFK” influenced public opinion and that most people haven’t read the testimony or studied the other evidence? If so, I’m amazed.

            Even Bertrand Russell seems to have gotten his information from a conspiracy source when he wrote, e.g., “Why was the President’s route changed at the last minute to take him past Oswald’s place of work?”

            You know that’s a myth, right?

            http://www.blacklistednews.com/Bertrand_Russell_Questioned_the_JFK_Assassination/39360/0/38/38/Y/M.html

          • bogman says:

            Jean –

            Just at cursory glance of the government’s case, confidence in it falls apart.

            I’ll say it again – Dan Rather and the WC HID the fact of JFK’s violent back and to left from the final bullet. That alone disqualifies both as honest seekers of the truth in this case. The American people didn’t now this until 12 years after the fact when the Zapruder was finally – and illegally – shown publicly.

            Where do you have to go after that, really, to lose your trust of the WC’s conclusions?

            Trusting the FBI and CIA for most of their information who should have suspects in the case.

            Then HSCA with the DRE’s handler brought out of retirement by the CIA to feloniously run interference against a Congressional investigation.

            Sorry, no faith in the govt reports at all. Not quite sure how you or anyone else does. Because the govt could clear up most if not all these questions anytime. But they don’t. And that should tell you a lot.

        • Steve stirlen says:

          Mr. McAdams,

          Let us turn to the CIA for a picture of LHO in MC as he prepared to turn violent and shoot JFK by not getting enough margaritas down there. A picture really is worth a thousand words.

          Wait, what? The picture is not LHO? Wait, what? The cameras were not working that day? Then why do we have a Russian man who wrestles bears? Why is he in the official record? Who is he? Wait, what? There is a voice recording? Wait, what? They have destroyed the tape as a matter of routine practice. Wait, what? The CIA made a transcript? And, this time, they are telling the truth? Wait, what?

          Good luck, John, as you try to use the CIA as a “witness.”

          • Do you think all the handwriting evidence was forged?

            Do you think Duran, and Mirabal, and the three guys at the Soviet Embassy are all liars?

            Is Marina a liar when she says that Oswald told her he went to Mexico City?

            What about the negative, matching the photo on the visa application, found in Oswald’s effects in Dallas?

          • C’mon McAdams,

            Did you ever personally talk to Duran, and Mirabal, and the three guys at the Soviet Embassy?

            Do you not realize that Marina was coached and essentially brainwashed while in captivity?

            The negative matching the photo on the visa application, could certainly be another plant.

            Either you understand the means, capabilities and methods of covert activities or you’re a chump.

            You want to play the part of apologist for these spooks, then at least act like you know how such operatives work in real life.
            \\][//

          • Did you ever personally talk to Duran, and Mirabal, and the three guys at the Soviet Embassy?

            No, but I’ve seen Duran and the Embassy guys on video, and the HSCA interviewed Mirabal.

            The negative matching the photo on the visa application, could certainly be another plant.

            What are you up to now? A couple of hundred pieces of faked or forged evidence?

            You want to play the part of apologist for these spooks, then at least act like you know how such operatives work in real life.

            If the CIA were as competent as you think, we would have won the Cold War 20 years earlier.

          • Do you not realize that Marina was coached and essentially brainwashed while in captivity?

            Do you realize she has stuck by her testimony to this day, even after being persuaded in the 1980s that Lee was innocent?

          • “No, but I’ve seen Duran and the Embassy guys on video, and the HSCA interviewed Mirabal.”~McAdams

            >We Know that HSCA was no less manipulated by the Intelligence community than the WC.

            “What are you up to now? A couple of hundred pieces of faked or forged evidence?”McAdams

            >What ever it takes to accomplish the mission.

            “If the CIA were as competent as you think, we would have won the Cold War 20 years earlier.” ~McAdams

            >”incompetence” has been a modified limited hangout for the Intelligence services since they began.

            Ultimately ALL wars are theater, burlesques put on for profit by the bankers funding the arms industry and the profits of “reconstruction” after wars. The “Cold War” was not different than the hot wars of WWI and WWII.
            This maxim is as old as the Napoleonic wars if not earlier.

            I find your grasp of the architecture of political power to be quite lacking and uninformed.
            \\][//

          • Ultimately ALL wars are theater, burlesques put on for profit by the bankers funding the arms industry and the profits of “reconstruction” after wars.

            Oh, my! I guess Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill were in all just staging a big show.

          • “Oh, my! I guess Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill were in all just staging a big show.”
            ~McAdams

            I suggest the “professor” read Antony Sutton’s on Wall Street.
            \\][//

          • “Oh, my! I guess Hitler, Roosevelt, Stalin and Churchill were in all just staging a big show.”
            ~John McAdams

            https://youtu.be/kgig1QVU2lY?t=172

            \\][//

        • David Regan says:

          Forgeries, all of the above. Especially the typewritten note to the Soviet Embassy conveniently found and provided by none other than Ruth Paine. The Soviets certainly saw through this obvious ruse.

          Soviets Thought U.S. Forged Oswald Note – latimes http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/06/news/mn-63244

        • Jean Davison says:

          JohnR,

          “You all maintain that Hoover was mistaken when he told the President about the tapes. You all maintain that the tapes in question did not exist. You all maintain that all the FBI had in it’s possession were transcripts. You all maintain that no FBI agent listened to the tapes.”

          This was the conclusion of the HSCA also.
          I believe it because of the contemporary record. Shanklin, who supposedly received the tape in Dallas, and the FBI Legat in Mexico who supposedly sent it to Dallas told FBI headquarters on 11/23/63 and 11/25/63, respectively, that there was no tape, only transcripts. Here’s part of the Lopez Report quoting them:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?
          docId=799#relPageId=12&tab=page

          So here you have two underlings telling Hoover that he was wrong at the time.

          “Where did Hoover get the idea that the tapes did not match Oswald’s voice? From the transcripts?”

          No, the HSCA thought the idea probably originated with a conversation between Belmont in Washington and Shanklin earlier on the 23rd:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=799#relPageId=11&tab=page

          Belmont apparently misunderstood something he said, because Shanklin corrected him right away (see above). It’s like the children’s game Telephone — facts that started out one way may end up entirely different at the end.

          Hoover said other things to LBJ that were plainly wrong. He was relying on second- or third-hand information. Where did he get the idea that “A. Heidel” was a woman, e.g.? Or that there was a gun battle at the theater?

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=807#relPageId=3&tab=page

          “You watch Mr. Whitten. No answer to these questions will be forthcoming, either.”

          What other question did you ask me?

          Meantime, please notice that no one has answered *my* question: How could Oswald have been framed? But that’s what I expected. If there were a plausible frame-up scenario someone would’ve presented it by now.

          You at least gave an explanation for one tiny part of it: Oswald’s presence near the stairs was a coincidence. What about his leaving his wedding ring at home that morning? Another coincidence?

          • leslie sharp says:

            “What about his leaving his wedding ring at home that morning? Another coincidence?”

            That’s an absurd bit of minutiae promoted especially by Priscilla MacMillan to argue Oswald’s guilt. Who can prove that Oswald had never before left his wedding ring in Ruth Paine’s house in Irving?

          • Bogman says:

            Regarding the wedding ring…

            Each side has details on its side that in any other case might cinch the deal in their own heads.

            Mine is the letter Oswald wrote and sent to the FPCC about his activities causing a fracas in NO a week BEFORE it actually happened.

            If that that’s not a flub in his Intel mission there, I don’t know how else you could portray it.

          • Bogman says:

            Regarding the wedding ring….

            Each side has details on its side that in a normal, non-rabbit hole case, might cinch the decision in their own heads.

            Mine is the letter Oswald wrote and sent to the FPCC about his activities causing a fracas in NO a week BEFORE it actually happened.

            If that that’s not a flub in his Intel mission there, I don’t know how else you could portray it. Clear as a bell to me.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Regarding the wedding ring…

            Each side has details on its side that in any other case might cinch the deal in their own heads.

            Mine is the letter Oswald wrote and sent to the FPCC about his activities causing a fracas in NO a week BEFORE it actually happened.”

            That’s because you believe an assumption made by some conspiracy author years ago, and endlessly repeated. None of them seems to have noticed that Oswald wrote another letter AFTER the fracas that described what happened with Bringuier. Which suggests that there were two separate incidents.

            August 1 letter:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=letter_AND+oswald+AND+fair#relPageId=544&tab=page

            August 12:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137&search=letter_AND+oswald+AND+fair#relPageId=546&tab=page

            “If that that’s not a flub in his Intel mission there, I don’t know how else you could portray it.”

            No, it’s a flub by the authors that say this.

          • bogman says:

            Down the rabbit hole we go again, Jean.

            Here’s what the WC had to say about the first letter (and I think you know this):

            In his letter to V.T. Lee, he stated that he was then alone in his efforts on behalf of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, but he attributed his lack of support to an attack by Cuban exiles in a street demonstration and being ‘officialy cautioned’ by the police, events which ‘robbed me of what support I had leaving me alone. In spite of those claims, the Commission has been unable to uncover any evidence that anyone ever attacked any street demonstration in which OSWALD was involved, except for the incident which occurred eight days after OSWALD wrote the above letter to V.T. Lee. BRINGUIER, who seemed to be familiar with many anti-Castro activities in New Orleans, was not aware of any such incident. Police reports also fail to reflect any activity on OSWALD’S part prior to August 9, 1963, except for the uneventful distribution of literature at the Dumaine Street wharf in June 1963. Furthermore, the general tenor of OSWALD’S next letter to V.T. Lee, in which he supported his report on the BRINGUIER incident with a copy of the charges made against him and a newspaper clipping reporting the event, suggested that his previous story of an attack by Cuban exiles was at least greatly exaggerated.”

            How often does ANYONE exaggerate about something that didn’t happen but THEN DOES HAPPEN a few days later.

            Amazingly clairvoyant little rascal, wasn’t Mr. Oswald?

          • bogman says:

            [Put previous post in wrong thread, TomS]

            To add about the Oswald letter, you do know Jean that by that time the FPCC had been COMPLETELY infiltrated by the FBI, right? The second-in-command was an FBI plant who got access to all files. This the WC also never reported though likely one or two members like Ford probably knew or surmised.

            So Oswald was really writing letters to an FBI front organization at that point. They would have full knowledge of the content of his letters.

            So you either have to believe that Oswald was a true commie interfacing with all sorts of intel operatives but never getting much attention, or you have to believe he was a known quantity in US intel that got a “pass” and someone was working him behind the scenes.

            Who was more clever – Oswald or the CIA?

            My bet is on an element of the CIA.

          • Which suggests that there were two separate incidents.

            Could it be that Oswald planned to provoke an incident, and wrote about that as though it happened, and then later wrote about a real incident?

            As you know, Lee lied a lot. And he didn’t need some shadowy intelligence connection to provoke him to do so.

          • “As you know, Lee lied a lot.”~McAdams

            No, I don’t know that. I certainly know that you THINK he lied a lot, but that is an entirely different proposition.
            \\][//

          • “As you know, Lee lied a lot.”~McAdams

            No, I don’t know that. I certainly know that you THINK he lied a lot, but that is an entirely different proposition.

            Sure, everybody connected with this case was lying scum — except your boy Lee.

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

          • Bogman says:

            “Could it be that Oswald planned to provoke an incident, and wrote about that as though it happened, and then later wrote about a real incident?”

            If the WC and HSCA knew the DRE were CIA (and were honest, thorough investigative bodies) if they would’ve decided upon a more probable scenario: Oswald didn’t quite understand the instructions from his handler and pulled the trigger too soon on the letter.

          • J.D. says:

            As long as we’re talking about “lying scum,” nobody connected with this case was more of a liar than Lyndon Baines Johnson, whose habitual lying and cheating bordered on the pathological.

            The difference, of course, is that Johnson lied about important matters, as opposed to Oswald lying to his new girlfriend about his age.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “The next morning, he nearly slept through the alarm clock, and he [Lee Oswald] got up reluctantly. He got dressed, and then he came over to her and he said, “Don’t bother to make breakfast for me,” which was unusual, because she never did. Then he said, “I’ve left some money on the bureau. Be sure and buy shoes for Junie and Rachel.” Then he said he would not be coming home for the weekend, because it wasn’t good for Ruth to have him there too much. “ — PBS Frontline transcript

            The PBS transcript does not jive precisely with the video (see link below); anyone interested in the “wedding ring” scenario should watch and watch again beginning at 11:17. We’re not only lead to believe that because Marina rejected her husband’s plea to come live with him in Dallas that Oswald went into the Paine’s garage and retrieved a rifle with the intention of murdering the president of the United States in broad daylight the following day, we’re evidently meant to presume that Lee’s was a spontaneous decision because Marina would not come live with him. Yet by contrast, the Warren Commission determined that the evidence tying Oswald to the purchase of a rifle, to rifle practice, to packing the rifle in a paper sack that evening proves he had been preparing for the assassination for months. Something does not jive.

            Did Oswald devise the paper sack after Marina rejected his overtures to join him in Dallas? We can hear Lee’s wheels turning: “Marina isn’t going to come live with me so I’m going to construct a brown paper bag to conceal a rifle to carry into work tomorrow where I’ll manage to avoid detection while I position myself on a box, stack some boxes in front of me (one of which might or might not collapse because it’s so precariously tilted against the windowsill) and fire as many rounds as it takes … at a moving target (in spite of the fact I’ve not been trained) in broad daylight, after which I’m going to stroll to the end of the room, drop my rifle, and stroll out of the building ……….

            According to Priscilla McMillan (whose strange mannerisms are surely not lost on the astute observer) in in this obviously scripted interview, Oswald left his wedding ring in Marina’s grandmother’s “tiny little tea cup” (cue the music) as some sort of message when in fact there is no evidence that he had not frequently left his ring at the house in Irving. Yet we have Priscilla translating Marina’s thoughts? Frontline should be ashamed.

            Stop and replay the video beginning 11:17 to grasp the macabre image of Priscilla Johnson McMillan discussing “the ring and the tea cup.” In my youth I sat around campfires listening to storytellers. Priscilla is a master of the art; PBS Frontline bought her story and then sold it to us.

            http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/oswald/

          • Sandy K. says:

            Left my wedding ring at home on the dresser just the other day. I just was going to Lowe’s. Shucks, I should have shot a president too.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            Yes, I know there’s no record of the first incident but if it did happen the way he described it, the policeman may not have written it up. Or it may well be that Oswald lied, describing what he must’ve known was likely to happen if anyone in the exile community caught him handing out pro-Castro literature. Vincent Lee had already warned him about the unfriendly reception he was likely to get in New Orleans.

            My point was only that the usual story is that he “predicted” the Bringuier incident without mentioning the other letter that actually describes that incident accurately, unlike the earlier one.

            I’m aware that the FBI had infiltrated the FPCC. In his testimony Hosty mentioned that he’d gotten a report on one of Oswald’s letters from the NY FBI office saying that he’d handed out leaflets in Dallas — that informant’s report is also mentioned in his FBI file online.

            “So Oswald was really writing letters to an FBI front organization at that point. They would have full knowledge of the content of his letters.”

            That’s an exaggeration, I think. The FBI
            was reading some of the letters to the FPCC and other leftist groups but not all of them.

            “So you either have to believe that Oswald was a true commie interfacing with all sorts of intel operatives but never getting much attention….”

            Why should he get much attention? He was an oddball former defector and the FBI’s interest in him was the possibility that the Soviets might recruit him for an intelligence assignment. Was everyone who wrote to the FPCC “interfacing with intel operatives”?

            “…. or you have to believe he was a known quantity in US intel that got a “pass” and someone was working him behind the scenes.”

            What to you mean, “pass”? It wasn’t illegal to belong to the FPCC or hand out pro-Castro material and he was low on the totem pole as far as leftists go. What were they supposed to do, arrest him? For what? Watch him more closely than the others? Why?

            Before the assassination nobody knew that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was going to be an important name some day.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Sure, everybody connected with this case was lying scum — except your boy Lee.

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

            If Lee Oswald lied, it’s because he was a low-level CIA operative and/or FBI informant.

          • leslie sharp says:

            The relevant section of the PBS Frontline video begins at 1:17:00.

          • bogman says:

            Interesting tale Priscilla tells, Leslie.

            That goes against what many lone nut buffs like Bugliosi and Posner I believe have put out there — that Oswald decided to kill the president the night before when his wife wouldn’t make up with him.

            But to make the paper gun sack and bring it to the house, he would need to have made that decision at least the night before.

          • bogman says:

            Jean: “Yes, I know there’s no record of the first incident but if it did happen the way he described it, the policeman may not have written it up. Or it may well be that Oswald lied, describing what he must’ve known was likely to happen if anyone in the exile community caught him handing out pro-Castro literature.”

            That’s as much wild speculation as any CT you accuse them of. Star

            Jean: “Why should he get much attention? He was an oddball former defector and the FBI’s interest in him was the possibility that the Soviets might recruit him for an intelligence assignment. Was everyone who wrote to the FPCC “interfacing with intel ”

            “What to you mean, “pass”? It wasn’t illegal to belong to the FPCC or hand out pro-Castro material and he was low on the totem pole as far as leftists go. What were they supposed to do, arrest him? For what? Watch him more closely than the others? Why?”

            I joined the Nuclear Freeze Initiative in the 80s and was to discover the small office was under constant surveillance by the FBI. Just a couple dozen college kids trying to save the world brought the attention of the feds.

            When CIA assets put a PRESS RELEASE about an individual is a danger to America, and that individual had just recently asked for a meeting with the FBI, and he was a Russian defector, YES I would assume the attention would be constant.

            If CIA assets had issued a press release about Atta three months before 9-11 as a danger to America, and he was also on first-name basis with the local FBI, and he had met with the head of wet operations for Al Qaida six weeks before in the most heavily monitored city in the Western World, what kind of reaction would you expect from the American people?

            Heads would’ve rolled, and you know it. But they didn’t. So the question is, why not?

            Jean: “Before the assassination nobody knew that “Lee Harvey Oswald” was going to be an important name some day.”

            I think Morley’s CIA memos six weeks before the assassination show you could be wrong there.

          • So now Bill Clarke is going to trot on along making suppositions about not only the inner workings about the National Security State, but my own life experiences as well…He “can tell” … yea like a gypsy fortune teller…Lol

            I have personal friends who served in Vietnam; Marines, combat veterans. They are the same sort arrogant self righteous indoctrinated dupes as Mr Clarke. Belligerence is their middle name. If you weren’t in Nam you are a no-count pinko-commie as far as they are concerned. They are like dogs with distemper. And if you disagree with them they are like dogs with rabies, foaming at the mouth maniacs. Humble? What a joke.

            That video of Wilkerson should be watched by all here. Thanks for posting the link.
            \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          “At the very least, the WC violated the spirit of the constitution, with regards to Oswald. You, through your efforts, perpetuate this error.”

          I think that’s nonsense. Does concluding that Booth killed Lincoln violate the spirit of the constitution? Or does your rule apply only to people *you* think are not guilty?

          • David Regan says:

            Again Jean, your comparison of Booth to Oswald is like apples to oranges. Booth killed Lincoln at close range in plain sight of eye witnesses with a clear political motive (as did the assassins for Garfield and McKinley).

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘Does concluding that Booth killed Lincoln violate the spirit of the constitution?’ – – Jean Davison

            Wasn’t Booth in Allen Dulles’ bag of tricks on December 16, 1963?

            “Toward the end of the meeting, former CIA Director Allen Dulles passed out a book on the history of presidential assassination and attempts in America, noting that only the attempt on Truman’s life was a plot.

            “The Lincoln assassination was a plot”, McCloy countered. Dulles refused to concede the point.

            The Commissioners saw a clear need to obtain reports and files from the Secret Service, Dallas Police, CIA, and other agencies. Dulles brought up getting materials on Oswald’s Soviet stay into the hands of the CIA “to explain the Russian parts.”

            Senator Russell commented: “I think you’ve got more faith in them than I have. I think they’ll doctor anything they hand to us.”

            The phrase “nothing absolutely normal about any phase of it” has stood the test of time.

            Read the entire transcript of the Dec 16 1963 Warren Commission executive session.”

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/dec-16-1963-behind-close-doors-the-warren-commission-is-baffled/#comments

          • JohnR says:

            A Christmas present for Jean Davison.

            Jean Davison wrote: “Does concluding that Booth killed Lincoln violate the spirit of the Constitution?”

            Jean, you will no doubt be delighted to read that the answer is no. The concept of “innocent until proven guilty” appears no where in the U.S. Constitution. I could argue that it’s covered under “due process,” but I won’t. We both know that wasn’t my argument.

            I apologize for my unwarranted assertion.

            I still believe Oswald was treated unfairly. It’s too easy to “blame the dead guy.” It wasn’t so very long ago that I was a 24 year old guy blundering through life doing the best I could. I shudder to think the horrible things people would’ve said about me at that point in my life, had I been accused of a horrible crime.

        • Jean Davison says:

          Bogman,

          “I’ll say it again – Dan Rather and the WC HID the fact of JFK’s violent back and to left from the final bullet. That alone disqualifies both as honest seekers of the truth in this case. The American people didn’t now this until 12 years after the fact when the Zapruder was finally – and illegally – shown publicly.”

          The Z film probably wasn’t released publicly because it showed a President’s skull exploding. I don’t believe that kind of gore was ever shown publicly in those days, even in movies. I first saw it at the National Archives, where it was available to researchers well before Groden’s bootleg copy was seen on TV.

          JFK’s “back and to the left” certainly looks like a hit from the front but experts say that’s a false impression. Forensic pathologist Vincent di Maio, for instance, has said, “No. That’s make-believe. That’s [something out of] Arnold Schwarzenegger pictures.”

          Even Dr. Wecht and Dr. Mantik don’t believe the “head snap” indicates a shot from the front. You can read their statements here:

          http://www.jfk-online.com/jfk100shot5.html

          Other experts have agreed with them in testimony to the Rockefeller Commission and HSCA.

          As I understand it, Dan Rather saw the Z film only once on a small screen and not in slow motion. The whole film lasts about 26 seconds. Rather never got anything wrong? He had to be lying? I don’t think so. He’s fallible just like everyone else.

          “Where do you have to go after that, really, to lose your trust of the WC’s conclusions?”

          I’ve never “trusted” the WC conclusions, Bogman. I came to my own conclusions and they turned out to agree with theirs.

          • Jean Davison says:

            P.S.–

            I should’ve recalled and pointed out that Dr. Wecht has said different things at different times. During the HSCA investigation he suggested that a soft-nosed bullet might’ve hit the right side of JFK’s head simultaneously with the known shot and disintegrated completely without leaving an exit wound. The rest of the panel “[took] exception to such speculation,” item 460 here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82&relPageId=184&search=wecht_backward physics OR newton

            Wecht testified to the Rockeller Commission that the available evidence pointed to only two bullets from the rear. An article he co-wrote in 1974 said that “if any other bullet struck the President’s head, whether before, after, or simultaneously with the known bullet, there is no evidence for it in the available autopsy materials.”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=930&relPageId=276&search=wecht_backward OR back

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, I don’t know of many rational people who could, upon viewing the Zapruder film, describe the head shot saying “the President’s head went forward violently”, as Rather described to the nation on 25 Nov 1963. Was that your first impression upon viewing the film at the archives?

          • Bogman says:

            Really? Dan Rather just got it wrong when he said the president went violently FORWARD with the last shot? Weird how that’s what everyone in America immediately noticed when it was first shown publicly.

            And you dodge the key question – the WC didn’t have to show the Z film but they should’ve described it accurately.

            Not sure where you’re getting your evidence to conclusively say there was no conspiracy when the authorities prevaricate on this key piece of evidence alone. What other evidence wasn’t accurately described?

            You know and I know the Feds settled on Oswald by the night of the assassination and let DPD know that. So the FBI was free to pick and choose its witnesses and evidence and “solve” the case in a fortnight.

            Then have the CIA running iilegal interference on significant evidence in the WC, HSCA and the ARRB. Why that doesn’t raise your hackles I got no idea. They could’ve answered these questions but they played it so well on Cuba, DRE and the rest that the outrage was effectively diluted among the body politic.

            And would love to hear your thoughts on my conjecture above if Oswald had been a modern-day jihadist and if you would’ve been so forgiving of the govt’s many “oversights.”

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Jean,

            You wrote: “Even Dr. Wecht and Dr. Mantik don’t believe the “head snap” indicates a shot from the front. You can read their statements here: … .”
            When you click your link, you’re taken to Wecht discussing whether a “body will move in the same direction as a bullet that strikes it,” a disanalogous comparison. We’re talkin’ a head here, not a body.

            Moreover, I’ve discussed this with Dr. Wecht and he’s come to the view, in light of the work of Don Thomas, that a shot from the grassy knoll might indeed explain the rearward jolt.

            First, “Jet Effect” has been experimentally debunked as an explanation. Or, as Larry Sturdivan put it, “The question is, did the gunshot produce enough force in expelling the material (forward) from Kennedy’s head to throw his body backward into the limousine? Based on the high-speed movies of the skull shot simulations at the Biophysics Laboratory, the answer is no.” (JFK Myths, 2005, p. 162)

            Sturdivan testified, “All 10 of the skulls that we shot did essentially the same thing. They gained a little bit of momentum consistent with one or a little better foot-per-second velocity that would have been imparted by the bullet … .” (They saw no recoil from a “jet effect.”)http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/html/HSCA_Vol1_0204b.htm

            Since jacketed bullets deliver momentum to skulls, it’s likely that skulls struck with soft-nosed, non-jacketed hunting rounds that flatten on impact would impart even more. Sturdivan also pointed out that “a similar explosion (to what we see in the Z film) would have taken place if the bullet had gone through in the opposite direction” – from, say, a tangential shot from the right front. (“JFK Myths,” 2005, p. 171.)

            In my next note I’ll quote from Don Thomas’s duscussion that I believe is pretty compelling.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            In his book, “Hear No Evil,” (p.345-6) Don Thomas explores the question of momentum transfer from a Grassy Knoll shot as an explanation for JFK’s rearward jolt after Z-313:

            “For the purposes of this discussion let us suppose that the hypothetical killer on the grassy knoll was armed with a .30-.30 rifle … (which) happens to have a muzzle velocity (2200ft/sec) very close to that of the Carcano, and fires a 170 grain bullet, slightly larger than the Carcano bullet. At 30 yards the projectile would have struck at a velocity of approximately 2100 fps … the momentum on impact with the head would be 50 ft-lb/sec. If one postulates a hunting bullet (in accordance with the X-ray evidence) (sic) which is designed to mushroom and deposit its energy at the wound instead of a fully jacketed bullet, we will allow a deposit of 80% of the momentum, leaving a residual velocity for the exiting bullet. This results in a momentum applied to the target of 40 ft-lb/sec; considerably more than Sturdivan’s stingy allowance of 18.4 ft-lb/sec. It is important to realize that at the time Kennedy was struck with the fatal shot at Z-312-3, he had most likely been paralyzed by the shot through the base of the neck (Sturdivan agrees). Consequently, his head was lolling forward, not supported by the muscles of the neck. This fact tends to minimize any damping effect from the absorption of shock by the neck until after the head has snapped back. Assuming a head weight of 12 lbs, the velocity imparted to the head would be approximately 3.3 feet per second … .” (The same speed of the test skulls that Mr. Sturdivan reported in his book, though in JFK’s case it might have even been faster as most estimates put the weight of a human head at 10-11 lbs.)

            From the study of the Zapruder film by Josiah Thompson, the observed rearward velocity for the head was roughly 1.6 feet per second after frame 313.

            Thomas concludes, “Even given the uncertainty about the exact weight of the President’s head and the residual velocity of the bullet, the observed movement of the President’s head is well within the range, if anything less, than expected from the momentum imparted by the impact of a rifle bullet.” (“Hear No Evil,” p. 345-6.)

            If Sturdivan is right that jacketed MCC shells moved blasted skulls forward at 3 ft/sec, imagine how much faster skulls would move if hit with heavier, higher velocity, soft-nosed bullets; perhaps enough not only to move JFK’s skull “back to the left,” but also enough to even nudge his paralyzed upper body backward. For the Z film shows that JFK’s body doesn’t arch backward, as per the “neuromuscular” reactions that have been proposed by Warren loyalists, his head moves backward, with his upper body following along limply.

            Moreover, such a shot actually better explains that trail of tiny fragments along the upper part of JFK’s skull X-ray than a shot from behind.

          • Gary Aguilar says:

            Jean writes, inter alia, “Other experts have agreed with them (about the rearward head snap after Z-313) in testimony to the Rockefeller Commission … .”

            Even without Dalbot’s “Devil’s Chessboard,” how can anyone ignore the absurdity of the govt appointing Rockefeller, of all people, to investigate the CIA’s crimes and misdeeds?

            And who was chosen “exective director?” Why, David Belin, someone who only “patriots” would consider objective.

            But, you may counter, Belin said that, “Since I had served as assistant counsel with the Warren Commission, I removed myself from the direct responsibility for any investigation pertaining to the assassination.” That, per usual, wasn’t precisely true. In 1988 he admitted that when Rockefeller’s medical experts convened to review JFK’s autopsy evidence, the irrepressible Belin personally attended that meeting, examining the autopsy photographs and X-rays right alongside his consultants.

            It was Wecht who first emphasized Belin’s Warren Commission roots. Wecht also charged that, “The (medical) panel itself is made up of people who have been associated with the Baltimore Medical Examiner’s Office, the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Department of Radiology, and the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, three facilities which either supplied the members of the original autopsy team or from which selected members of a previous panel had been appointed by the Justice Department in 1968 to defend the Warren Report.”

            Wecht’s unrestrained assertions were not without foundation. Rockefeller appointee Werner U. Spitz, MD, the Detroit Medical Examiner, was a close professional colleague of one of the Clark Panel members, Baltimore Medical Examiner Russell Fisher, MD, under whom Spitz had served for several years.[227] Richard Lindenberg, MD, a Baltimore-based, State of Maryland neuropathologist, was described in a once-secret Commission memo as having provided “consultation to the Medical Examiner for the State of Maryland [Russell Fisher] – but is subordinate to him.”[228] Panelist Fred Hodges, MD, a neuroradiologist, was picked from Baltimore’s Johns Hopkins University, the institution that had contributed Russell Morgan, MD, the radiologist who had made the X-ray mistakes discussed above as a Clark Panelist. Pathologist Lt. Col. Robert R. McMeeken, MC was appointed from Pierre Finck’s alma mater, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. The Warren Commission consultant who had failed to note the marked discrepancies between the test skulls he shot up and JFK’s skull, Dr. Alfred Olivier, completed Rockefeller’s team of independent and impartial consultants.

            Among “patriots,” there seems to be the view that the rule, He who pays the fiddler calls the tune, just never applies to govt-appointed/paid “experts” who are tasked with investigating the govt. Were we talking about any other country, these same “patriots” would be the first to howl in derision at the conclusions of such a group.

            And that’s without specifying the stupefying errors and omissions that characterized the work of Rockefeller Comm’s “experts.”

            Further discussion, with hot-links to sources available, here: http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_4.htm

          • Bogman says:

            Jean: I’ve never “trusted” the WC conclusions, Bogman. I came to my own conclusions and they turned out to agree with theirs.

            Nice to learn this now. Any of the other LNers on this site don’t trust the WR? Complete news to me.

            I START my consideration of the case from what the authorities lied about and concealed, THEN decide if any of the evidence they procured and presented is worth considering.

            As they say in the legal system, if a witness is caught in one lie, you can choose to disregard the rest of their testimony.

            For me, that’s the only rational reaction to the WR and HSCA.

            The ARRB was a records release and had less chance of being tampered with, but tampered with it the CIA did yet again by deceiving the body into not releasing its Joannides files.

            And we have found plenty from the files released – especially that the nation’s military leaders were willing to do just about anything in their insane obsession with fighting communism, including killing American citizens.

            Not a huge step in conspiring to kill a president they believe was selling out the US to the communists, is it?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            “Jean: I’ve never “trusted” the WC conclusions, Bogman. I came to my own conclusions and they turned out to agree with theirs.”

            Nice to learn this now. Any of the other LNers on this site don’t trust the WR? Complete news to me.”

            Don’t misunderstand me. By “trusted” I mean I’ve never accepted anything the WC or the gov’ment said based on faith.

            “I START my consideration of the case from what the authorities lied about and concealed, THEN decide if any of the evidence they procured and presented is worth considering.”

            That’s a big mistake IMO because you’d made up your mind that the “authorities lied” before you even started your investigation. Naturally that influenced what you decided was “worth considering.” How could I not?

            “As they say in the legal system, if a witness is caught in one lie, you can choose to disregard the rest of their testimony.”

            I agree. That’s exactly why I don’t trust Mark Lane after finding out how he’d misled me.

          • bogman says:

            Jean —

            I had the same experience with Lane. Great public defender, bad presenter of the facts.

            I have read the WR and HSCA documents extensively. And from my POV, Oswald’s sole guilt is harder to swallow than a conspiracy.

            One question I want to ask you:

            Where and how did Oswald put together the rifle in the TSBD?

            No one saw him bring it in. The FBI says it took at least 5 minutes to put together (and we all know how we can trust their accuracy).

            Where and when does Oswald do it? He can’t put it together then leave it somewhere. Someone could find it or see him carry it to the 6th floor window.

            The worker eating chicken on the 6th floor might’ve been there as late as 12:15 – a scant 10 mins before the president was scheduled to come by.

            No screwdriver was ever found in “sniper’s nest” so he must have assembled it with a dime in his pocket? Not easy. And one dropped and lost screw and the president doesn’t die.

            Seems as impossible as most conspiracy scenarios.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Jean, I don’t know of many rational people who could, upon viewing the Zapruder film, describe the head shot saying “the President’s head went forward violently”, as Rather described to the nation on 25 Nov 1963. Was that your first impression upon viewing the film at the archives?”

            I’m sure that my first impression was being shocked by the head wound explosion. I don’t remember any particular reaction to JFK’s movements after that. This was a long time ago and I don’t remember every detail clearly.
            One thing I do know for certain, though. If I had interpreted the backward movement as evidence he was shot from the front, I’d remember that and still be saying it today.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            So Jean, your first memory stopped with the explosion of JFK’s head. Go back and watch it again, it’s still back and to the left. From a front shot from the right.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            Where and when does Oswald [assemble the rifle]? He can’t put it together then leave it somewhere.”

            Yes, he could. I’ve replied to these questions earlier, but again:

            Frazier saw him carrying a supposedly shorter but oblong bag through the back door. News photos show a long bag being carried out later that day. The witness inside, Dougherty, didn’t have a good view of Oswald as he came in. I’ve posted this before, but…

            This photo taken from the back entrance shows the wrapping table where Dougherty was (wooden structure with an arch near the center of the photo):

            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/2/28/Photo_wcd496_0011.jpg

            Oswald could have taken the freight elevator on the right up to the 6th floor or walked around the corner to the stairs:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/0/06/Photo_wcd496_0012.jpg

            Where could he have hidden a brown paper package on the 6th floor? Just about anywhere:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/images/7/78/Photo_wcd81-1_0101.jpg

            He didn’t even have to wait for the floor-laying crew to break for lunch. They were working in the foreground here on the opposite side of the building:

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10484&relPageId=115

            He had all morning. He worked alone, nobody followed him around. If anything went wrong, like not being able to assemble the rifle, JFK would’ve lived and Oswald could’ve put the rifle back in the bag and told Frazier he needed a ride to Irving. (The bag was found intact, not ripped open, so maybe Oswald had foreseen this possibility??)

            On another point, I’ve never “conclusively said there was no conspiracy.” Neither did the WC, by the way. I’ve seen no persuasive evidence linking anyone but Oswald to the assassination and don’t expect to after all these years.

          • bogman says:

            OK, Jean, so Oswald’s reason to all this trouble of killing a president knowing full well he would be caught with an ID tying him to the weapon (and a photo at home allegedly), why do it and then deny it? Also, why not bring his revolver if he’s this desperate a character?

            And if you could also answer my Atta question above, I’d appreciate it:

            If CIA assets had issued a press release about Atta three months before 9-11 as a danger to America, and he was also on first-name basis with the local FBI, and he had met with the head of wet operations for Al Qaida six weeks before in the most heavily monitored city in the Western World, what kind of reaction would you expect from the American people?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            “OK, Jean, so Oswald’s reason …”

            That’s it? No comment on my reply, just move on to the next question?

            “….to all this trouble of killing a president knowing full well he would be caught with an ID tying him to the weapon (and a photo at home allegedly), why do it and then deny it? Also, why not bring his revolver if he’s this desperate a character?”

            If Hinckley had been killed on the spot (as I think Oswald probably expected to be), would anybody have guessed his motive? Does that mean Hinckley didn’t shoot Reagan?

            I don’t accept the premises in your Atta comparison, Bogman, so no thanks.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Gary,

            “You wrote: “Even Dr. Wecht and Dr. Mantik don’t believe the “head snap” indicates a shot from the front. You can read their statements here: … .”
            When you click your link, you’re taken to Wecht discussing whether a “body will move in the same direction as a bullet that strikes it,” a disanalogous comparison. We’re talkin’ a head here, not a body.”

            If you go back to that page and click on the link to Wecht’s Menendez trial testimony, he was actually talking about an arm.

            I’m certainly no expert in physics or wound ballistics (may I ask, is Don Thomas?). From what I’ve read, I don’t think there was any one cause of the “head snap,” like jet effect. One thing the experts I’ve seen quoted seem to agree on is that JFK’s violent backward movement could not have been caused by a bullet.

            Also, Wecht has pointed out that JFK’s head doesn’t start moving back until 2 or 3 frames after the head exploded. The bullet that caused Z313 was long gone by then. Any pushing it did was forward, between 312 and 313. Richard Feynman pointed this out to David Lifton long ago when Lifton showed him the frames and asked about the head snap.

            If there were two shots, they would’ve had to be almost simultaneous, within “about a ninth of a second, maybe a little less,” according to Wecht.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31990&search=sturdivan_head+movement#relPageId=78&tab=page

            So far as I know, Wecht found no evidence of two shots in the x-rays.

          • Bogman says:

            Jean: That’s it? No comment on my reply, just move on to the next question?

            I understood your point. My recollection is that Frazier watched Oswald walk toward the building not in the building with the package. And you make it sound like there weren’t other workers walking around on all floors and could’ve come upon Oswald wherever he put the gun together. And if he doesn’t stash it on the sixth floor sniper’s nest, then he has to rustle out of it somewhere and walk it over there. Seems like a big risk.

            Jean: If Hinckley had been killed on the spot (as I think Oswald probably expected to be), would anybody have guessed his motive? Does that mean Hinckley didn’t shoot Reagan?

            Either Oswald wasn’t up there or he had a getaway plan. Which again begs the question – if you’re going to all the trouble of running down the stairs and leave why have the Hidell ID on you tying you to the gun? He leaves his ring at the Paine house but not his Hidell ID? If you throw away the shells at the Tippit scene, why not the wallet that IDs you as the assassin? What gives?

            Jean: I don’t accept the premises in your Atta comparison, Bogman, so no thanks

            OK. But for me there are 3 parts to this case – Oswald’s ability to do the crime alone, his motive and his intelligence connections.

            You were the one who said Oswald was a “nobody” and I’m saying if Atta or Tim McVey or any other terrorist or would-be assassin was half the “nobody” Oswald was to the feds, you and the rest of America would be demanding a full investigation of the intel agencies and their competency, and rightfully so.

            Not quite sure how you can rule out conspiracy without that issue explained. And the fact is the US govt has had 50+ years to explain itself and instead has prevaricated — unconstitutionally I might add — all along the way.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            “My recollection is that Frazier watched Oswald walk toward the building not in the building with the package.”

            I’ve seen that claim before, but:

            QUOTE:
            Mr. BALL – Now when he went in the door you were about 50 feet behind him?

            Mr. FRAZIER – Right. The last time I saw him I was right in this area coming across these railroad tracks and I just happened to glance up and see him going through the door there and shut the door.
            UNQUOTE

            “And you make it sound like there weren’t other workers walking around on all floors and could’ve come upon Oswald wherever he put the gun together.”

            What makes you think there *were* workers walking around on all floors? I’ve never gotten that impression, myself.

            Do you wonder how the “real” SN shooter could avoid being seen, or only Oswald?

            “Either Oswald wasn’t up there or he had a getaway plan.”

            Why? No one could reasonably expect to shoot a President in full view from a 6th-floor window and escape, imo. I recall that the Walker note gave Marina instructions on what to do if he were killed or captured so evidently he’d foreseen that possibility.

            “Which again begs the question – if you’re going to all the trouble of running down the stairs and leave why have the Hidell ID on you tying you to the gun? He leaves his ring at the Paine house but not his Hidell ID?”

            I can’t read his mind, but he probably knew the rifle would be traced to his P.O. Box sooner or later. He couldn’t avoid been tied to the weapon.

            “If you throw away the shells at the Tippit scene, why not the wallet that IDs you as the assassin? What gives?”

            He threw down shells as he reloaded the gun. The wallet wasn’t his — Dale Myers has shown this with photos, imo.

            What did the federal agencies know about Oswald pre-11/22 that made him a danger to JFK? He was a leftist and former defector who was apparently trying to get to Cuba or the USSR. He would be seen as a danger to JFK because…..?

            I wouldn’t say a conspiracy has been ruled out. I’ve never seen evidence that convinces me that there was one.

            Speculating about *why* someone did or didn’t do this or that isn’t evidence of anything or very productive, imo. It has to be speculation because nobody can read minds.

          • Tom S. says:

            Frazier’s initial statement, taken later in the day the events occurred.:

            http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1287-001.gif
            I parked the car and sit there awhile running the motor to charge the battery,
            and when I was doing that, Lee got out and opened the back door and got the package
            out of the back seat and walked behind the car and then I got out of the car,
            and then I got out of the car and started walking toward the building where I work.
            cont.

            http://jfk.ci.dallas.tx.us/12/1287-002.gif
            cont. from page 1
            I noticed that Lee had the package in his right hand under his arm, and the package was straight up and down,
            and you could not see much of the package. When we started walking, Lee was just a few feet ahead of me, be he
            kept walking faster than me, and finally got way ahead of me. I saw him go in the back door of the Loading Dock
            of the building that we work in, and he still had the package under his arm. I did not see him anymore for about
            30 minutes, and the we were both working…..

            Seems similar to something I would tell police if I was a nineteen year old being accused of involvement in
            the shooting death of the President of the United States, and I did not have enough sense to remain silent and
            ask for an attorney, but maybe that’s just the way I think……

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, on what evidence did the WC establish that Oswald simply walked out the front door of the TSBD after the shooting? Was this simply speculation on their part?

            Buell Frazier stated at the JFK Lancer conference in November that this was incorrect, stating he was standing on the corner of Elm & Houston speaking with co-workers and within 8-10 minutes of the shooting, saw Oswald leaving by a back door on Houston St (where Sixth Floor Museum gift shop currently stands), casually cross over onto Elm and melted away in the crowd.

            Could you also explain as to why Will Fritz attempted to force Frazier into signing a confession while being interrogated?

          • bogman says:

            Jean: What did the federal agencies know about Oswald pre-11/22 that made him a danger to JFK? He was a leftist and former defector who was apparently trying to get to Cuba or the USSR. He would be seen as a danger to JFK because…..?

            Whoo boy. This is where we come to an impossible impasse.

            Why’d the feds harass a young, unknown, itinerant folk guitar player, Jean?

            http://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/dec/20/fbi-spied-on-pete-seeger-20-years-communist-links

            “The campaigning singer Pete Seeger, composer of classic American folk tunes including If I Had a Hammer and Where Have All the Flowers Gone?, was spied on by FBI agents for more than two decades because he wrote a protest letter as a young man concerned about plans to deport tens of thousands of Japanese American citizens at the end of the second world war.”

            Seeger was a 23-year-old army private at the time. And this information was finally released this past week from an FOIA request.

            I can’t explain it to you anymore than that. If you think the govt wouldn’t put a traitorous Marine defector who just tried to enter Cuba and spoke with the head of KGB wet operations for the hemisphere under a friggin’ microscope, then you’re either being incredibly naïve or completely disingenuous. Or worse, you have an agenda that others on this forum often accuse you of.

            Jean: “Speculating about *why* someone did or didn’t do this or that isn’t evidence of anything or very productive, imo. It has to be speculation because nobody can read minds.”

            Seems like that’s all the LNers do when it comes to Oswald. You said earlier if he doesn’t get his gun together in time, he’d simply wrap it up and go home. No great loss. Yet he was also a desperate, murderous psychopath who needed revenge against those who created his crummy life. But you don’t having him catch a ride to the Trade Center to have another chance at killing the president?

            There is no person on Earth who EVER fit the psychological profile that the LNers try to give Oswald.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Speculating about *why* someone did or didn’t do this or that isn’t evidence of anything or very productive, imo.” — Jean Davison

            Are you quite serious?

            WW Norton published your “Oswald’s Game” on the 20th Anniversary which is based on the premise that you had identified Oswald’s MOTIVE, vis a vis “why someone did or didn’t do this or that”. Are you now claiming that your book was not meant as an effort to prove Oswald’s guilt?

            Amazon: “… By presenting a careful, thoroughly researched examination of Oswald’s life, character, and ambition, this is the first book to challenge conspiracy theories and [revela] how Oswald was politically motivated to assassinate the President….”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            “..on what evidence did the WC establish that Oswald simply walked out the front door of the TSBD after the shooting?”

            Oswald reportedly told Fritz that as he was walking out the front door someone he thought was a Secret Service agent came in and asked for a phone. Oswald said he pointed him to the phone on the first floor. This was apparently reporter Pierce Allman, who described the same (or a very similar) event.

            “Buell Frazier stated at the JFK Lancer conference in November that this was incorrect, stating he was standing on the corner of Elm & Houston speaking with co-workers and within 8-10 minutes of the shooting, saw Oswald leaving by a back door on Houston St…”

            But that memory was over 50 years later.
            That’s not what he said in his 11/22 affidavit:

            “I did not see Lee anymore after about 11:00 AM today, and at that time, we were both working, and we were on the first floor.”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/frazierb4.htm

            Other things wrong with this “memory”: none of the workers supposedly with him reported this, and at the time he says, I think workers were inside the building being questioned by the police, not standing around outside.

            Memories that old are simply unreliable. That’s a well-established fact. Ask Google, if you don’t believe me. “He was there, he ought to know”? Forget it!

            “Could you also explain as to why Will Fritz attempted to force Frazier into signing a confession while being interrogated?”

            I don’t know that he did. It may’ve seemed that way to Frazier, who was probably terrified, but I don’t think I’ve heard Fritz’s or anyone else’s description of it. It doesn’t sound like the laid-back stance Fritz reportedly took with Oswald.

            “Why do it and then deny it?” Why confess and make everything easy for them?

          • Bogman says:

            I don’t know who’s questions you’re answering in your most recent post, but they’re not mine.

            I WOULD love to hear your response to my most recent post in how the security services would spy on and harass a young Army private for writing a letter noting his opposition to the Japanes interment camps while Oswald continually strolls through intel mine fields without worrying anybody.

            I think the article notes Pete Seeger’s file was thousands of pages while Oswald’s was what – under 50?

          • “Why do it and then deny it?” Why confess and make everything easy for them?”~Jean Davison

            Wait a minute! That was my answer to you on the topic of compartmentalization. Are you now seriously going to use that argument to your advantage from this perspective!!
            This is why the term “Are you SERIOUS?” wells from the bottom of our being at times, because your stance is so mutable, malleable, and flexible depending on whether an idea is of use to your advantage or not.
            Oh but calling such, ‘disingenuous’ will surely bring cries of “ad hominem”.

            Do you wake up each morning, look in the mirror powdering your nose and ask, “Let’s see, who shall I be today?”
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘I don’t know that he did. It may’ve seemed that way to Frazier, who was probably terrified, but I don’t think I’ve heard Fritz’s or anyone else’s description of it. It doesn’t sound like the laid-back stance Fritz reportedly took with Oswald.’ — Jean Davison

            Or perhaps Fritz started back peddling once the Oswald charges began to solidify? One can speculate what Fritz’s motives were from the outset just as you have speculated that Frazier’s claim doesn’t sound to you like something Fritz would do. In the end? Pure speculation.

            “Why do it and then deny it?” Why confess and make everything easy for them? — Jean Davison

            Yes, that’s right. Oswald had murdered the president because he despised his views but he ALSO wanted to make the authorities squirm. Maybe a trained psychologist or psychiatrist could explain that particular motive? Does anyone know one of those professionals participating on this site or should we, while we’re googling for data to support Jean’s assertion that long term memory cannot be trusted, google Oswald’s motive for messin’ with Dallas law enforcement? And who knows what might surface in the process for serious discussion … Ruby’s relationship to that brotherhood?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “I don’t know who’s questions you’re answering in your most recent post, but they’re not mine.”

            Sorry, that part should’ve been addressed to David Regan.

            “I WOULD love to hear your response to my most recent post in how the security services would spy on and harass a young Army private for writing a letter noting his opposition to the Japanese interment camps…”

            I don’t think that’s the reason. Pete Seeger wasn’t just a “young Army private.” He was a prominent leftist activist who joined the CPUSA in 1942:

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Seeger#The_McCarthy_era

            It was a different time back then. The FBI was spying on leftists not potential terrorists. Unfortunately there may be people they should be watching right now but aren’t, and vice versa.

          • David Regan says:

            Would you really expect Fritz to admit to this? Frazier seemed quite clear in his story on this, mentioning Fritz raised his hand to strike him when he refused to sign a confession. According to Frazier, Detectives Rose and Stovall were present for his hours of questioning and this attempt at railroading him was made before Frazier had even heard of Oswald’s arrest.

            It will be interesting to hear the debate rage once his book is published.

          • And would love to hear your thoughts on my conjecture above if Oswald had been a modern-day jihadist and if you would’ve been so forgiving of the govt’s many “oversights.”

            A “jihadist” by definition would be somebody inclined toward violence.

            Security agencies had no evidence Oswald might be violent.

            But as for jihadists: think of the Boston Marathon bombers. How did security agencies do with those guys?

            As for “forgiving:” that’s not relevant. We can be mad at them, or not, and it doesn’t change the reality.

          • Bogman says:

            Jean: “I don’t think that’s the reason. Pete Seeger wasn’t just a ‘young Army private.’ He was a prominent leftist activist who joined the CPUSA in 1942.”

            Jean: “It was a different time back then. The FBI was spying on leftists not potential terrorists. Unfortunately there may be people they should be watching right now but aren’t, and vice versa.”

            You’re making my head spin, Jean! That’s exactly my point.

            Seeger was a leftist who had at one point joined the Communist Party but left it. Oswald was a self-admitted traitor and defector who was very publicly back at it in NO and MC. And Seeger gets an 1,800 page file with full investigations dating back to high school and Oswald gets 200 pages?

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95567

            The article on Seeger says:
            “His angry letter prompted close scrutiny of his political views and associations by the bureau that ran on into the early 1970s. The suspicion was that Seeger, who died in early 2014, was a security risk with close connections to the Communist party.”

            Seeger’s a “security risk” who demands constant attention while Oswald runs free? Are you freakin’ kidding me?

            Again from the Seeger article:
            “His early letter of protest was quickly sent on to the FBI in San Francisco and within weeks military intelligence was investigating him and updating the bureau.”

            “As a result, the young mechanic was not sent into action…”

            ONE LETTER and Seeger draws military intel AND the FBI and is kept out of sensitive operations but Oswald goes through his army career studying Russian and openly admiring Communism and subscribing to communist literature but gets placed at Atsugi?

            More from the article on Seeger:

            After the probe into Seeger’s background, a report judged that Seeger was “potentially subversive” and “an idealist whose devotion to radical ideologies is such as to make his loyalty to the US under all circumstances questionable”. The document was sent to J Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI.

            And more:

            After a 1963 concert in Hawaii, an agent reported that an audience member had heard Seeger sing a song that was “low-keyed propaganda to the effect that America is a land of conformity” as well as a song from Japan about nuclear bombs.

            ==============

            Quite a study in contrast between the letter-writing Seeger and the dangerous provocateur Oswald who lied to the Marines and deliberately interfaced with the USSR, FBI, Cuban exiles, the Cuban and Russian embassies, and, knowingly or not, the head of KGB assassinations in the western hemisphere?

            It’s obvious Oswald is an intel asset of the USG. Period.

          • Bogman says:

            McAdams: A “jihadist” by definition would be somebody inclined toward violence.

            I was using the word “jihadist” interchanged with “assassin”. In other words, that would be how you describe them following their violent actions.

            And my point is, professor, that if the Boston city bombers had been known by name to both the FBI and CIA as Muslim radicals, as Oswald would’ve been considered a Communist radical of his day, then there would’ve been hell for those agencies to pay, rightly or wrongly, after the bombing.

            But somehow, with Oswald, no intel agency pays a price for completely missing any signs of potential trouble, even after trying to enter Cuba and speaking with KGB six weeks prior to allegedly killing the POTUS.

          • But somehow, with Oswald, no intel agency pays a price for completely missing any signs of potential trouble,

            Again, nobody in either agency had any reason to believe Oswald was violent.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            “Seeger was a leftist who had at one point joined the Communist Party but left it. Oswald was a self-admitted traitor and defector who was very publicly back at it in NO and MC. And Seeger gets an 1,800 page file with full investigations dating back to high school and Oswald gets 200 pages?”

            In the first place, Seeger was a prominent leftist with a national audience during the height of the McCarthy period. Oswald never joined the party and when the FBI first interviewed him in 1962 he was working in a sheet metal shop in Fort Worth. Most people had apparently forgotten about his defection, which wasn’t widely publicized even in 1959. (Small article in the NYT, e.g.)
            He was a nobody compared to Seeger.

            And Oswald was never a “self-admitted” traitor. He maintained he’d done nothing wrong in going to live in the Soviet Union. Here’s the testimony of the Fort Worth agent, who asked about his threat to give the Soviets information:

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

            Oswald wasn’t the only defector to Russia who returned to this country. The HSCA did a study of the eleven defectors it thought most resembled Oswald:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=84&search=defectors_AND+study#relPageId=441&tab=page

            Oswald didn’t come in contact with Kostikov until around Oct. 1, 1963. Like other KGB agents, Kostikov was required to perform routine business like visa applications. Does anyone here think Kostikov recruited Oswald to kill Kennedy for the Soviets?

            “….but Oswald goes through his army career studying Russian and openly admiring Communism and subscribing to communist literature but gets placed at Atsugi?”

            No, that’s the conspiracy book version. A lot of that behavior was hidden from officers and didn’t start until he arrived at El Toro, after he left Atsugi (which was never a “secret” base, as some have called it — the U-2 spying program itself was secret, but not the base).

            “And more:

            After a 1963 concert in Hawaii, an agent reported that an audience member had heard Seeger sing a song that was “low-keyed propaganda to the effect that America is a land of conformity” as well as a song from Japan about nuclear bombs.”

            Yes, the FBI collected a lot of silly information on celebrities in those days. May still be doing it, for all I know.

            “Quite a study in contrast between the letter-writing Seeger and the dangerous…

            Dangerous? When did anyone discover Oswald was dangerous, Bogman?

            “… provocateur Oswald who lied to the Marines and deliberately interfaced with the USSR, FBI, Cuban exiles, the Cuban and Russian embassies, and, knowingly or not, the head of KGB assassinations in the western hemisphere?”

            How many other people do you suppose “interfaced” with all these people? Or ever lied to get out of military service? The HSCA looked into his discharge and found that he had sufficient medical documentation from Marguerite to justify the early discharge. (He’d lied to her too, told her he was getting out early to come home and help her out.)

            “It’s obvious Oswald is an intel asset of the USG. Period.”

            I definitely disagree, but that’s fine. I once suspected that myself.

            From another post:

            “Seems like that’s all the LNers do when it comes to Oswald. You said earlier if he doesn’t get his gun together in time, he’d simply wrap it up and go home. No great loss. Yet he was also a desperate, murderous psychopath who needed revenge against those who created his crummy life.”

            No, I’ve never said anything like that. Don’t know anyone who has.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘Again, nobody in either agency had any reason to believe Oswald was violent.’ — John McAdams

            John,

            Please provide evidence that in the late ‘50’s the Marine Corp did not delve into a potential recruit’s personal history as well as your proof that the intelligence agencies did not hold files on defectors to Russia.

            Are you suggesting that the files created by mental health care professionals at Youth House (with ties to Columbia University School of Social Sciences) alleging anti-social behaviour of a young adolescent under the file name of Lee Harvey Oswald – files used by Jean Davison to argue young Oswald’s motive to murder the president of the United States in broad daylight – did not filter through to the US military when considering this kid as a Marine recruit?

            You and Jean can’t have it both ways. Oswald cannot have been a prime example of a kid with psychopathic tendencies, a kid who tried to kill himself, a kid who fired his weapon without provocation in Japan, while at the same time the military – his bosses – had no idea he had a violent nature.

          • Bogman says:

            “In the first place, Seeger was a prominent leftist with a national audience during the height of the McCarthy period.”

            Not when he wrote the letter. He was a “nobody,” just like Oswald. Yet that limited his army career and they followed him until the 70s.

            Jean: “Oswald never joined the party…”

            No, he only defected to the Soviet Union. I’ve always felt his intel handler didn’t let him join the CPUSA for reasons unknown. Otherwise, it makes no sense that Oswald doesn’t join.

            Jean: Most people had apparently forgotten about his defection, which wasn’t widely publicized even in 1959.

            But not the authorities, right Jean?

            Jean: And Oswald was never a “self-admitted” traitor.

            That’s incorrect. He told the US embassy official he would be giving the Soviets secrets (from: http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/moscow4.htm ):

            —————–

            At some point in the interview, Snyder asked Oswald if he was willing to serve the Soviet state. Oswald’s unfortunate reply was cabled back to the State Department that weekend:

            “Oswald offered the information that he had been a radar operator in the Marine Corps and that he had voluntarily stated to unnamed Soviet officials that as a Soviet citizen he would make known to them such information concerning the Marine Corps and his specialty as he possessed. He intimated that he might know something of special interest.” [FSD-234]

            What military information did Oswald have access to? According to Oswald’s Marine crew commander at El Toro, Lt.. John Donovan:

            “He had access to the location of all bases in the west coast areas, all radio frequencies for all squadrons, all tactical call signs, and the relative strength of all squadrons, number and type of aircraft in a squadron, who was the commanding officer, the authentication code of entering and exiting the ADIZ, which stand for Air Defense Identification Zone. He knew the range of our radar. He knew the range of our radio. And he knew the range of surrounding units’ radio and radar… There are some things which he knew on which he received instructions that there is no way of changing, such as the MPS 16 height-finder radar gear… He had also been schooled on a piece of machinery call a TPX-1, which is used to transfer radio–radar and radio signals over a great distance. Radar is very susceptible to homing missiles, and this piece of equipment is used to put your radar antenna several miles away, and relay the information back to your site which you hope is relatively safe. He had been schooled on this.” [WC Vol. 8 p.298]

            ===============

            More reply below…

          • Bogman says:

            (Posted this in wrong thread, TomS).

            Jean: Oswald didn’t come in contact with Kostikov until around Oct. 1, 1963. Like other KGB agents, Kostikov was required to perform routine business like visa applications. Does anyone here think Kostikov recruited Oswald to kill Kennedy for the Soviets?

            No, but this person here thinks it beggars belief they wouldn’t put the hounds of hell on Oswald before or after his return to the US for being a former defector illegally trying to enter Cuba and meeting with KGB.

            Jean: No, that’s the conspiracy book version. A lot of that behavior was hidden from officers…

            Only took a simple letter of opinion against U.S. injustice from Army private Seeger to get military intel AND FBI interest on his arse.

            Jean: Yes, the FBI collected a lot of silly information on celebrities in those days. May still be doing it, for all I know.

            So in 63 they’re all over Seeger’s arse but not in the least this guy who publicly takes on Cuban exiles and goes into the most heavily monitored embassies in the Western hemisphere to have a chat with Cuban and Russian officials. THAT doesn’t merit the attention of the feds. Please.

            Jean: Dangerous? When did anyone discover Oswald was dangerous, Bogman?

            They called Seeger a security risk for writing a letter. Yes, a former defector bringing a gun into an embassy and meeting with KGB at the height of the Cold War is dangerously provocative. If they considered him CIA, who knows what would happen?

            Jean: How many other people do you suppose “interfaced” with all these people? Or ever lied to get out of military service? The HSCA looked into his discharge and found that he had sufficient medical documentation from Marguerite to justify the early discharge. (He’d lied to her too, told her he was getting out early to come home and help her out.)

            Sorry, Jean, you have as many excuses for Oswald’s behavior here as you accuse the CTers around his behavior on the day of the assassination.

            Just as you feel about Oswald’s actions that day, I’m the same on the evidence of his intel background. There is no other plausible explanation for his walking through the raindrops.

          • Are you suggesting that the files created by mental health care professionals at Youth House (with ties to Columbia University School of Social Sciences) alleging anti-social behaviour of a young adolescent under the file name of Lee Harvey Oswald – files used by Jean Davison to argue young Oswald’s motive to murder the president of the United States in broad daylight – did not filter through to the US military when considering this kid as a Marine recruit?

            In the first place, I think you are overstating Jean’s position. The files showed Oswald to be a rather messed up kid, but were not any sort of “motive” for killing anybody.

            And did the Marine recruiting people have them? No, there is no evidence they did. In fact, it’s vastly implausible.

            As for the suicide attempt: that would not be evidence that Oswald might kill anybody else.

          • And my point is, professor, that if the Boston city bombers had been known by name to both the FBI and CIA as Muslim radicals, as Oswald would’ve been considered a Communist radical of his day, then there would’ve been hell for those agencies to pay, rightly or wrongly, after the bombing.

            Well the FBI knew about one of them, and there was not hell to pay (rightly or wrongly).

            http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2013/06/fbi-knew-earlier-of-boston-bombing-suspect-166313

            And, unlike Oswald, the reports were of jihadist radicalization.

          • Tom S. says:

            Do you understand that assassinating the President of the United States is a crime not comparable in its scope or repercussions with any crimes committed related to the Boston Marathon bombing? If not, this is another area walling
            so many of us off from your politics and analysis.

            If the democratic and a portion of the independent electorate, or the democratic party wanted LBJ to be the President of the United States in the second half of 1960, he would have headed the ticket and possible attracted the majority of votes
            of the electoral college. The Boston bombers were accused of bombings injuring or killing about 300 spectators and killing
            a police officer. The consequences of their crimes interrupted a sporting event, and briefly, the comings and goings in a major city. The assassination of JFK restored business as usual (continuity) of the only briefly interrupted WASP oligarchy.

  7. Ramon F Herrera says:

    Jeff:

    As you probably know by now, my big defect is my lack of diplomacy.

    One of my favorite maxims is:

    “Those who are afraid to offend are not interested in the truth”.

    Many writings of mine here have never seen the light of day.

    Having said that, I am encouraged by what seems to be a more open policy, which I applaud (are kudos to Tom S. in order?). Let’s not forget that we are competing for attention with the typical election scandals AND the Trumps of the word.

    Here it goes:

    The return of our esteemed professor McAdams (not to mention Photon and David Von Pein) can only indicate one thing. The 2017 release will be a big joke. At least that is the way the forces seem to be aligning.

    Will have more to say, of course.

    • The Powers that be have had half a century to set up this so called release of all the files. To spin it to the favor of the same old official narrative.

      If this turns out to be anything but more ‘Theater’, it will be an almost inconceivable stroke against precedent.
      \\][//

    • Bob Prudhomme says:

      You mean to say I’m not the only one who doesn’t get every one of his posts past the censor? 🙂

    • lysias says:

      Why do they continue to push these lies in which so few people believe so long after the fact?

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Ramon F Herrera
      December 14, 2015 at 4:32 am

      Jeff:

      “As you probably know by now, my big defect is my lack of diplomacy.”

      I admire your self criticism Ramon. Keep up the good work.

    • Gerry Simone says:

      I hope you mean a joke against the government or CIA, and not on the People or those who contend conspiracy.

      If there are no smoking guns, then maybe there’ll be just a lot of smoke, but that won’t make the mystery clearer.

      BTW, who decides what get’s redacted? Who oversees that so that it’s not abused? I hope someone from outside the agency.

      If the current CIA wants to come clean, they should let it all hang out.

      Past misdeeds need only to be used as a guide on how not to repeat mistakes or operate. They should not be afraid or culpable for the crimes of those involved long, long ago.

      We should encourage openness and the truth.

      Any redaction of past treasonous acts, whether blatant, implied or suspect, by the current administrative regime, would be a crime and should not be tolerated under any circumstances.

  8. D. E. Mitchell says:

    “…it is my opinion, the information within the files yet to be released is in fact so sensitive, that they cannot be released by 2017 in their current form. They are probably so sensitive, that they can not be released even in 2038…or ever for that matter!
    “What if…” what if, everything that they American people have suspected over the past fifty two years, would in fact, only be confirmed by those documents? Can you imagine what implications that would have on our Country?
    Let’s face it: Every single, solitary piece of evidence points toward only one conclusion: That the murder of the 35th President, was an orchestrated coup d’etat and cover-up by people on both sides of the aisle! It would’ve had to have been.
    Not only that; but every elected official on the Federal level, would either have been, or would be guilty of murder and…treason! they would be accessories either before or after the fact; guilty of withholding evidence of a capital crime, and on and on…
    First of all, try to imagine people in front of the White House! People throughout Lafayette Park, all the way past the Washington Monument and Reflection Pond, to the steps of the Lincoln Memorial…and beyond! People everywhere throughout Washington, D.C. protesting their government, demanding change?

    • bogman says:

      I caught one anecdote of LBJ watching Huntley/Brinkley spending a few minutes of air time contemplating a conspiracy scenario. LBJ was heard to mutter, “Keep it up, boys, if you want a revolution” or something to that effect.

      That’s what the establishment was truly concerned about – internal strife not nuclear war.

      • bogman says:

        Actually, here’s the story:

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/inside-lbjs-home-the-night-after-jfk-died/

        And an excerpt:

        He started talking back to NBC’s Huntley-Brinkley Report. He was determined that the country should be calm, and whenever the broadcasting duo said something he thought was inflammatory, Johnson would bark: “Keep talking like that and you’ll bring on a revolution just as sure as I’m standing here.”

        • “Keep talking like that and you’ll bring on a revolution just as sure as I’m standing here.”~Johnson

          Yes indeed, a revolution that was needed to make sure that S.O. B. did not remain standing there. Still long overdue.

          “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”~John F. Kennedy

          \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 14, 2015 at 2:29 pm

            “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible make violent revolution inevitable.”~John F. Kennedy”

            Well Willy, I guess JFK knew that from his tragic policy of removing (and attempting to remove) governments in foreign countries.

          • “I guess JFK knew that from his tragic policy” ~Bill Clarke

            Yea, guessing, that’s it Clarke. JFK inherited the policies in place when he was elected.

            If you want to know his preferred policies read his own words. Enough of your jejune guessing games here.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 15, 2015 at 3:59 am

            “I guess JFK knew that from his tragic policy” ~Bill Clarke

            “Yea, guessing, that’s it Clarke. JFK inherited the policies in place when he was elected.”

            Well Willy, couldn’t the president change a policy he didn’t like? Insert his own new policy?

            “If you want to know his preferred policies read his own words.”

            The words of a politician mean nothing. It is what he DID Willy that matters.

            “Enough of your jejune guessing games here.”

            Damn, now I have to look up “jejune”.

          • “The words of a politician mean nothing. It is what he DID Willy that matters.”~Bill Clarke

            It is what he was attempting to do and got cut down before he could accomplish it that counts; because those who cut him down did not want him to accomplish it and take their gravy train away.

            You keep trying to pretend that all Kennedy had to do was wave a magic wand to change the direction of a train with such momentum already built up that it would take a superhuman effort to turn around.
            Kennedy was vividly clear on his intent, your denial here is utterly disingenuous

            If you want to see jejune, just look in the mirror and look straight in it’s face.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 15, 2015 at 4:00 pm

            “You keep trying to pretend that all Kennedy had to do was wave a magic wand to change the direction of a train with such momentum already built up that it would take a superhuman effort to turn around.
            Kennedy was vividly clear on his intent, your denial here is utterly disingenuous”

            You might use your argument to some extent to justify the JFK excuse on the Bay Of Pigs but it would be marginal at best. There is no way you can use your argument on the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. JFK had around 3 years to handle that one and he handled it badly.

            It seems to me that the intent of JFK is rather hard to tie down here; He is trying to make peace with the Soviets but at the same time he allows the BOP to proceed and he escalates sharply in Vietnam. Look at what he did Willy, not what you wish he had done.

            If you want to see jejune, just look in the mirror and look straight in it’s face.

            Of course the fantasy you write is more thrilling to the Camelot Crowd than the hard fact I write. I have seen you very wrong many times here Willy. I don’t need your opinion.

          • Kennedy never introduced ground troops to Vietnam Clarke, A simple fact you can never defeat.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 15, 2015 at 9:36 pm

            “Kennedy never introduced ground troops to Vietnam Clarke, A simple fact you can never defeat”.

            If it is such a simple fact why can’t you get it? I would have more to say here but I don’t want to push my luck with Tom.

            I’ll spot you the escalation in total numbers JFK sent to Vietnam. I’ll spot you the 400 Special Forces troops he sent to SVN. I’ll spot you the air crews JFK sent with the air craft and helicopters units. I’ll even give you the 7th Fleet sent by JFK. I know you had rather forget these facts but they don’t go away.

            So Willy, JFK sends men to SVN to train ARVN. These men have a combat MOS. Do you know what that means? It means their training and experience has been in the combat arms, not some blanket counter. To train a small combat unit you have to go with them. If you get into a fight you fight with them. Sometimes you die with them.

            So if this ground combat trained soldier is killed in combat on the ground how in the hell can you say he wasn’t a ground combat troop? What more can the man do to be declared a ground combat soldier?

            I’ve helped you with this before Willy but here goes again. JFK sent ground combat troops to Vietnam as I’ve explained. This joke about calling them “advisers” was common back then. What he didn’t send was intact U.S. Combat Units. It wasn’t necessary during JFK’s time. It became so under LBJ.

          • “This joke about calling them “advisers” was common back then..”~Bill Clarke

            Semantics, that is your argument!

            “What he didn’t send was intact U.S. Combat Units. It wasn’t necessary during JFK’s time. It became so under LBJ.”~BC

            And just why did LBJ happen to end up as “Commander & Chief” rather than Kennedy, who obviously had an entirely different agenda for solving the crisis of S.E. Asia?

            This is your obvious blind spot soldier boy. Kennedy was removed by coup d’etat precisely so that the MIC could attend to the provocations needed to escalate the conflict into full blown war.

            You said earlier that you don’t need my “fantasies”; well, I don’t need your irrational interpretations of the history as it exists, that any candid observer can see for themselves.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 16, 2015 at 12:15 am

            “This joke about calling them “advisers” was common back then..”~Bill Clarke

            “Semantics, that is your argument!”

            Not at all. That is the argument of the Camelot crowd. “Hey, we’ll send some ground combat troops but call them advisers and fool the public again.” Well the only people they fooled was you and Anthony Marsh. It was what it was Willy. Just like I told you.

            “What he didn’t send was intact U.S. Combat Units. It wasn’t necessary during JFK’s time. It became so under LBJ.”~BC

            “This is your obvious blind spot soldier boy. Kennedy was removed by coup d’etat precisely so that the MIC could attend to the provocations needed to escalate the conflict into full blown war”.

            “You said earlier that you don’t need my “fantasies”; well, I don’t need your irrational interpretations of the history as it exists, that any candid observer can see for themselves.”

            BS Willy, just as so much of your other stuff. Well Willy, you very well need help from someone.

          • “BS Willy, just as so much of your other stuff. Well Willy, you very well need help from someone.”~Bill Clarke

            Your entire argument is just silly, like the dialog of a “Chatty GI Joe” from Mattel.
            A script driven into your psyche by military indoctrination. Obviously after half a century of this ingrained nonsense you are never going to snap out of it.

            Old soldiers never die, they are just melted down and recast in modern molds, in the military industrial toy factory.
            \\][/

          • lysias says:

            And now we’re sending so-called “advisers” and “trainers” to Syria and Iraq.

            The joke’s on us.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            lysias
            December 16, 2015 at 12:01 pm

            “And now we’re sending so-called “advisers” and “trainers” to Syria and Iraq.”

            “The joke’s on us.”

            I’m afraid so Lysias. It seems we never learn. The history of sending ground combat troops to SVN and calling them “advisers” is well known despite Willy’s total lack of knowledge here. For some reason you never hear about JFK sending air and naval combat soldiers, which he certainly did. But it is always about the “ground” combat soldier. This always puzzles me. Did the Air and Navy not count?

            Please don’t get me wrong here; there is a world of operational difference between the men JFK sent and the Infantry Divisions that LBJ sent. And that difference is more than semantics s Willy suggest. A grunt is a grunt is a grunt and home is where he digs it that night.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 16, 2015 at 11:21 am

            “Your entire argument is just silly, like the dialog of a “Chatty GI Joe” from Mattel.”

            I agree Willy, sometimes history is very silly. But it is what it is; not to be revised by you. Do I think it silly to send combat military personnel and call them advisers? Yes I do. It seems you are the one that missed the boat here.

            “A script driven into your psyche by military indoctrination.”

            Actually Mr. Military History, the military was part of this cover up and supported JFK on this subject. As far as I know they still do.

            “Obviously after half a century of this ingrained nonsense you are never going to snap out of it.”

            And you have spent the last half a century regurgitating the cry of the Camelot shiners. I don’t expect you to come up with any original thought at this late date.

            “Old soldiers never die, they are just melted down and recast in modern molds, in the military industrial toy factory”.

            Toy Factory? Very cheap shot Willy.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Bill Clarke said:

            The words of a politician mean nothing. It is what he DID Willy that matters.

            They didn’t let President Kennedy live long enough to fulfill what he wanted to do, regardless of his words (eg. speeches) and written policies (eg. NSAM 263).

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Gerry Simone
            December 17, 2015 at 12:22 pm

            Bill Clarke said:

            The words of a politician mean nothing. It is what he DID Willy that matters.

            “They didn’t let President Kennedy live long enough to fulfill what he wanted to do, regardless of his words (eg. speeches) and written policies (eg. NSAM 263).”

            Please don’t tell me you think NSAM 263 ordered “ALL” American personnel out of Vietnam by 1965

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ Bill Clarke,

            Please don’t tell me you think NSAM 263 ordered “ALL” American personnel out of Vietnam by 1965

            Not ‘all’, but the ‘bulk of U.S. personnel by that time’ according to the McNamara-Taylor report approved in NSAM 263.

        • “Do I think it silly to send combat military personnel and call them advisers?”~Bill Clarke

          That was their official designated role. How can an amateur “advise”?

          You are speaking to this as though Kennedy knew that these ‘advisers’ would end up acting as combat troops.
          You are insinuating that you somehow know his intent was to deceive. You cannot know any such thing, it is only conjecture on your part.

          Soldiers are toys in the game of war…pawns, as Kissinger once remarked:
          “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

          I know, nobody wants to fell like a chump. But I don’t see it as a “cheap shot” to point out the obvious.
          \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 16, 2015 at 8:09 pm

            “Do I think it silly to send combat military personnel and call them advisers?”~Bill Clarke

            “You are speaking to this as though Kennedy knew that these ‘advisers’ would end up acting as combat troops.”

            Oh, he did know. My god Willy, JFK wasn’t a stupid man.

            “You are insinuating that you somehow know his intent was to deceive. You cannot know any such thing, it is only conjecture on your part.”

            Wrong Willy. I read “any such thing”. In fact I read it from several different sources. If you knew anything about the history you would know this too. But you don’t.

            Soldiers are toys in the game of war…pawns, as Kissinger once remarked:
            “Military men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.”

            I know, nobody wants to fell like a chump. But I don’t see it as a “cheap shot” to point out the obvious.

          • “Oh, he did know. My god Willy, JFK wasn’t a stupid man.”~Bill Clarke

            That’s it Bill, stomp your foot and insist when you don’t have any evidence to support you suppositions.

            You’re just a broken record, it is useless trying to make sense with you.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Bill Clarke
            Your comment is awaiting moderation.
            December 22, 2015 at 1:27 pm
            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 22, 2015 at 5:36 am

            “Moderator, I’m begging you to stop Bill Clarke’s broken record that “JFK escalated the “‘”‘war’”‘””, hence that LBJ only continued the SE Asia policy of his predecessor.”

            I hit send too soon. My apologies.
            Stop whining Roy. It isn’t becoming of you. Now Roy, it is a documented fact that JFK escalated the war in Vietnam when he was president. Not only in raw numbers of troops but also in equipment. There was also a mission creep from true advisers to advisers involved in combat but we don’t have to discuss that since it seems to upset you and Willy. I’ve posted references for this on my broken record. If you and Willy would stop your broken record that Jack played no role in The Vietnam War (that dirty Max Taylor did it) I would gladly stop mine. This is JFKfacts, not JFKbull manure. For a fact LBJ continued the policy of JFK for 1964. 1965 was a different story.

            “A few FACTS”:

            Yes Roy, a damn few facts are correct.

            “— 1963, up to 16,500 ‘advisors’, (you don’t call that escalation?) CIA-DIA adventurer types just wanting to get out of the house and see what they could steal from the ‘gooks.”

            The “gooks” that I knew mostly lived in grass hooches. And you are going to rob them? That is funny.

            “Kennedy very disturbed to find out when Am. dead surpassed 100,”

            Are you saying these dead men were a surprise to JFK? What happened Roy, these men die of old age or what.

            “Bombing, chemical weapons, anti-personnel devices begin tentatively, then in earnest.”

            Do you not understand that these are indeed tools of war? They were used before Vietnam and are still being used today. What did you expect them to use; sticks and stones?

            “At Quangngai, 3/4 of the patients from napalm are village WOMEN. NONE of this happened under Kennedy.”

            It is the Quảng Ngãi Province, Roy. Two words. Quang Ngai province is home to My Lai and a hard core communist redoubt since the late 1940s. And yes, some of this did occur under JFK. Pray tell why JFK sent bombers and American pilots to Vietnam in 1962 if he wasn’t going to use them? Neil Sheehan has a good account of JFK bombing South Vietnam and the damage it caused the people trying to win “the hearts and minds”.

            “All accounts date the Vietnam War from 8-5-1964 to 5-7-1975, nearly 11 years. Notice that’s after the term of JFK.”

            Pure BS Roy. Some say the war began with Ike. Many say 1962 was the start of the war and others say 1965 when LBJ sent intact combat units to Vietnam was the start. I don’t remember anyone voting for 1964 except you.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        bogman
        December 14, 2015 at 1:50 pm

        “I caught one anecdote of LBJ watching Huntley/Brinkley spending a few minutes of air time contemplating a conspiracy scenario. LBJ was heard to mutter, “Keep it up, boys, if you want a revolution” or something to that effect.”

        “That’s what the establishment was truly concerned about – internal strife not nuclear war.”

        I agree 100% and I wonder why more emphasis isn’t placed on this fact. If you understand this fact I find it easier to understand the Katzenbach memo.

        • “I agree 100% and I wonder why more emphasis isn’t placed on this fact. If you understand this fact I find it easier to understand the Katzenbach memo.”~Bill Clarke

          Yes indeed, imagine the “internal strife” if the people grasped that the nation was taken over by a coup d’etat, and the usurpers were the very ones supposedly “investigating” themselves.
          That a goodly portion of the youth of the nation DID get this is obvious in the “internal strife” that in fact did ensue as protests against the illegal war of aggression against the people of Southeast Asia. Perhaps theirs was an ‘intutitive’ understanding of the situation, but history has proven that understanding correct. This despite the fact of 52 years of outrageous propaganda and lies to keep the lid on the burbling strife, that is just under the surface to this very day.
          \\][//

    • Paul M says:

      DE Mitchell, I am counting on someone at NARA letting a document “slip through the cracks”. No, it won’t be a smoking gun, but maybe a strong clue that only a very knowledgable researcher would recognize. Assuming most government employees are not experts on the assassination, I think it is possible that a very important document could pass through the gauntlet of agency reviewers, and find daylight. The ARRB yielded a trove of evidence previously unseen, as Jeff Morley has so eloquently posted on this website.
      We can hope it happens, to the benefit of all Americans.

    • Dennis Shank says:

      You can make a case for these records to stay hidden, but that is what the shadows want. They would tell everyone that you are not yet ready to know of this information. Of course not in our LIFETIMES!Remember that it was the peoples history that they hijacked and we should demand to get some of it back.

  9. larry webb says:

    Julian Assage said he’ll release them 2016

  10. Bill Hicks Puppet Show – “The Elite”
    https://youtu.be/B8IvKx0c19w?t=60
    \\][//

  11. MDG says:

    It is now is so abundantly clear after 52 years that it was decided that a made up story with Oswald as a patsy was what was best for the country.

    I agree with B Binnie that “those powers were wedded to a fixed even before the smoke settled on the angled fence of the GK”.

    I also agree with bogman “had Oswald no ties with intel ……we wouldnt be having this conversation right now”.

    And yes Jean Oswald did it. At least that’s what the Warren Report said over fifty years ago. That is obviously good enough for you.

    • Jean Davison says:

      MDG,

      “And yes Jean Oswald did it. At least that’s what the Warren Report said over fifty years ago. That is obviously good enough for you.”

      No, it wasn’t “good enough for me.” That’s why early on I checked many of footnotes in the WR to see if they were accurate just as I checked Mark Lane’s. I wanted to know who was lying to me. That would be Lane. That’s also why I’ve continued to study the case: because I really, really wanted to know who killed the first President I ever voted for.

      Don’t assume you can read minds and know what other people are thinking. You are projecting your suspicions onto them, that’s all.

      • Paul M says:

        Jean, give us a break. You are referring to the footnotes containing references to testimony derived from leading cross examination? Or the documentation and testimony in the 26 volumes that contradict the findings in the report itself? Or the testimony taken without benefit of adversarial cross examination? Or the testimony of dozens of relevant, reliable witnesses, many of whom were the closest to JFK when his head was blown off? Or the first night evidence of the Zapruder film showing an obvious, immediate shot from the front that was hidden away immediately, to be explained away by “jet effect” nonsense, or some phony neurological reaction? And you dare say Mark Lane deceived you? At least he had corroborating witnesses on video to back his claims. What did the WC have? Why did they not videotape their witnesses. The whole government case is a load of horseshit, and always has been.

        • A lot can be said about Lane, virtually all of it bad.

          Telephone interview where he tries mightily to force Helen Markham to say the shooter did not look like Oswald (she resists):

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/lane1.txt

          Lane intentionally misleads his readers about the Howard Hunt libel trial:

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

          Hugh Aynesworth on how Lane distorted witness testimony:

          http://web.archive.org/web/20031219051029/http://www.jfkbook.com/chapter_fifteen.htm

          Lane’s claims of atrocities by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Anti-war journalist finds them bogus:

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

          Left wing mag Mother Jones calls Lane “hearse chaser.”

          http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/L%20Disk/Lane%20Mark/Lane%20Mark%20Citizens%20Commission%20of%20Inquiry/Item%20003.pdf

          • Bill Clarke says:

            John McAdams
            December 19, 2015 at 10:04 pm

            A lot can be said about Lane, virtually all of it bad.

            Lane’s claims of atrocities by U.S. soldiers in Vietnam. Anti-war journalist finds them bogus:

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

            Neil Sheehan, a very anti-war writer that was in Vietnam during the Kennedy years tore Lane a new one about his dishonest book.

          • David Regan says:

            Mark Lane is hardly the only source U.S. atrocities in Southeast Asia.

            BBC News – Was My Lai just one of many massacres in Vietnam War? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-23427726

            Civilian Killings Went Unpunished – LA Times http://fw.to/ChqVkqb

            The burden of atrocity: How Vietnam was exposed as a “dirty war” http://www.salon.com/2014/05/02/the_burden_of_atrocity_how_vietnam_was_exposed_as_a_dirty_war/

            It’s interesting to note the obvious disdain the LN camp has for Mark Lane. An attorney who has been able to do something they have not – convince the general public the Warren Commission and it’s conclusions were a total sham. Gerald Posner even admitted if Lane had represented Oswald at trial “he would have won an acquittal”.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            David Regan
            December 20, 2015 at 8:57 am

            “Mark Lane is hardly the only source U.S. atrocities in Southeast Asia.”

            Very true David. You have two different groups of these sources. One group has done research on the subject and attempts to find the actual facts. We have excellent books on the My Lai tragedy.

            The other group does not let the truth interfere with a good story and it seems some creeps think it doesn’t get any better than an atrocity story.

            It is in this second group that Lane’s book, “Conversations with Americans” can be found. Along with John Kerry and Jane Fonda’s, “Winter Soldier Investigation” and the works of other dishonest writers.

            Lane is a dishonest man.

          • CONTENTS
            PRINT
            CITE
            In one of the most horrific incidents of violence against civilians during the Vietnam War, a company of American soldiers brutally killed the majority of the population of the South Vietnamese hamlet of My Lai in March 1968. Though exact numbers remain unconfirmed, it is believed that as many as 500 people including women, children and the elderly were killed in the My Lai Massacre.. Higher-ranking U.S. Army officers managed to cover up the events of that day for a year before revelations by a soldier who had heard of the massacre sparked a wave of international outrage and led to a special investigation into the matter. In 1970, a U.S. Army board charged 14 officers of crimes related to the events at My Lai; only one was convicted. The brutality of the My Lai killings and the extent of the cover-up exacerbated growing antiwar sentiment on the home front in the United States and further divided the nation over the continuing American presence in Vietnam.
            http://www.history.com/topics/vietnam-war/my-lai-massacre

            To propose that this single incident was a gross anomaly is in my view jejune and naive.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 20, 2015 at 3:42 pm

            “To propose that this single incident was a gross anomaly is in my view jejune and naive.”

            And your view, Willy, is about as worthless as “The View” on TV. The size of the body count of My Lai does in fact make it mostly a “gross anomaly”. Or do you know of another “My Lai” size atrocity? My Lai is now a tourist trap in Vietnam. Do you know of others dealing with atrocities. I don’t think so.

            This certainly doesn’t mean there wasn’t numerous other atrocities in Vietnam because of course there was. Best I can tell My Lai was overwhelming the biggest.

            These things happen in war, Willy. I’m not using that as an excuse because it certainly isn’t. But if you have your wars you are going to have these problems.

          • Charles says:

            Willy and Bill,

            I would consider the Christmas bombing campaign aka Operation Linebacker II as the largest atrocity of the war. As it was policy, it was not an anomaly by any means. Mad killers are not just in the field, the most dangerous ones usually have offices.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Charles,
            Willy and I can take it, but please take it easy on Bill C. He was in Nam and is still a Nam-monger/apologist/prevaricator (Kennedy started the Vietnam War, you know). Bringing up Operation Linebacker II could make him cry if he knows anything about it.

            I haven’t googled it yet (should have before I started this post), but I believe LbII was one of those “Operations” when I was a senior in high school class of ’72, either the mining of Haiphong Harbor (Paul and Linda McCartney are still crying about that one, and John Lennon’s still cursing.) OR the bombings of Hanoi. All over the States, even in my Southern high school, youngsters under 30 wore black armbands. Man, it was almost like the funeral train of Abraham Lincoln or FDR. We were mourning and p****d. Some of us still are.

            “The most dangerous ones (mad killers) usually have offices.” OUCH. I know Bill Clarke had a fit of pique over that one. Willy Whitten’s still laughing. I’m reminiscing about The Good Old Days and those gorgeous, brave hippie chicks and their black armbands.

          • “But if you have your wars you are going to have these problems.”~Bill Clarke

            I have never had MY war Mr Clarke, never engaged in one my entire life.

            However you have. Haven’t you.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Charles
            December 21, 2015 at 12:20 am

            Willy and Bill,

            “I would consider the Christmas bombing campaign aka Operation Linebacker II as the largest atrocity of the war.”

            A good choice. I’d vote for the use of Agent Orange however. Perhaps the 3,000 or so found after TET 68 in Hue killed by the communist. Hard to tell since both sides of the Vietnamese lie like hell about their losses and their kills.

            “As it was policy, it was not an anomaly by any means.

            True. So was Agent Orange.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 21, 2015 at 1:08 am

            Charles,
            “Willy and I can take it, but please take it easy on Bill C. He was in Nam and is still a Nam-monger/apologist/prevaricator (Kennedy started the Vietnam War, you know). Bringing up Operation Linebacker II could make him cry if he knows anything about it.”

            I don’t have to google Linebacker II to know more about it than you and I haven’t cried since my mother passed away in 1999. While I appreciate your concern for my well being you shouldn’t worry. I didn’t say JFK “started the war”; I said JFK escalated the war. It is very clear that he did so what is the problem.

            “The most dangerous ones (mad killers) usually have offices.” OUCH. I know Bill Clarke had a fit of pique over that one.”

            Not really Roy. I’m trying to decide how to tell a “mad” killer from just a regular old killer.

            “Willy Whitten’s still laughing.” He has a lot to laugh about.

            “I’m reminiscing about The Good Old Days and those gorgeous, brave hippie chicks and their black armbands.”

            Roy, you old dog you! You and the hippie girls! I think me and you are going to be just right.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 21, 2015 at 2:37 am

            “But if you have your wars you are going to have these problems.”~Bill Clarke

            “I have never had MY war Mr Clarke, never engaged in one my entire life.”

            Perhaps you should have Willy. Combat is a humbling experience. You could use a lot of that. Plus the experience would have taught you how ridiculous it is to think Taylor escalated in Vietnam without the knowledge of JFK.

            “However you have. Haven’t you.”

            Yes I have, Willy. I was a member of the Americal Division, the one that bought you the My Lai incident.

          • Charles says:

            No question Agent Orange was bad stuff but I would have imagined it was arguable at the time just how toxic it really was. I understand at briefings they used to drink it to demonstrate their confidence in its saftey. Everybody knew what a B-52 does.

            There was at least a plausible military purpose to defoliation and a desire to prevail. The Christmas bombing was only persuade the North to return to negotiate a treaty which no side had any intention to abide by. The resulting treaty did not conform to military or political facts on the ground.

            The war was over for the U.S. and the North knew it. “Peace with honor” was only a face saving gesture so the U.S. could point fingers at the North when they filled the vacuum created by U.S. withdrawal.

          • “Perhaps you should have Willy. Combat is a humbling experience. You could use a lot of that. Plus the experience would have taught you how ridiculous it is to think Taylor escalated in Vietnam without the knowledge of JFK.”~Bill Clarke

            Your infantile idea that someone would need combat experience to understand history is part and parcel to your entire juvenile conceptualization.

            If combat experience is so “humbling” as you claim why are there so many wise ass belligerent veterans of combat? I have met plenty in my life – and those life experiences count for as much as your own.

            If you are so exquisitely “humble” why is your commentary here so self righteous and arrogant?
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Charles
            December 21, 2015 at 1:03 pm

            I mostly agree on what you say here Charles. No mention of the 3,000 the communist killed in Hue during TET 68? You know that was policy too. So was the assassination of SVN officials. That could run up to 6 or 7,000 per year.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 21, 2015 at 4:29 pm
            “Your infantile idea that someone would need combat experience to understand history is part and parcel to your entire juvenile conceptualization.”

            The fact that you don’t think a little military service would have kept you from claiming Taylor escalated in Vietnam without the knowledge of JFK is telling on your arrogance. This one is a hoot Willy.

            “If combat experience is so “humbling” as you claim why are there so many wise ass belligerent veterans of combat?”

            Because you can’t spot a wannabe from a combat veteran, that is why. You were probably talking, at best, to a blanket counter that never got out of Saigon. At worst you were talking to a wannabe that had never seen Vietnam. A little experience here would have helped you Willy. Most times I can visit with these wannabes and spot them in 5 minutes max. They can’t speak the language. If you meet a stranger and he begins telling you war stories then a little red flag should come up.

            “I have met plenty in my life – and those life experiences count for as much as your own.”

            No, you just think you have met plenty. And hanging dry wall doesn’t compare to combat. That is rather silly, Willy.

          • Charles says:

            Willy, the only form of history taught to soldiers is a type of indoctrination in a perspective that is useful for the maintenance of morale. Anything too intellectually adventurous or imaginative obviously would be too dangerous. An army that begins to think for itself is no longer an army. High school textbooks are no better.

            Go to the K school at Harvard and you will see many serving officers up to OF-6 and 7s pursuing graduate degrees. Even their course work and the programs tailored for them only exist in a fairly narrow and circumscribed ideological range.

            After retirement things can get pretty interesting. I have been following the public statements Col. Lawrence Wilkerson with interest. At first he was widely regarded as Colin Powell’s unofficial mouthpiece but in the last few years has wandered far off the reservation.

            This interview is stunning and overlaps with many areas of Tabott’s book. I dearly wish he would review it because Wilkerson still carries weight in security circles. https://youtu.be/kgig1QVU2lY

            So Willy, don’t let the Hooahs get you down.

          • Charles says:

            Bill, the distinction that is important to me is the purpose of an action, not the body count. In war a lot of people die and usually badly. I can forgive or accept many things like Hue or Phoenix as there was a military purpose but Linebacker was pure politics for NOTHING but empty posturing at a significant cost of civilian lives and infrastructure in the north, and B-52 crews for the U.S.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Charles
            December 21, 2015 at 6:52 pm

            Willy, the only form of history taught to soldiers is a type of indoctrination in a perspective that is useful for the maintenance of morale. Anything too intellectually adventurous or imaginative obviously would be too dangerous. An army that begins to think for itself is no longer an army.

            Charles, you keep hanging around Willy and your credibility is going to suffer.

            Be advised the only history class the military gave me was a study in past wars with an emphasis on studying the tactics, strategy and leadership that had prevailed in the past. If you want “intellectually adventurous or imaginative” you need to read Willy.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Charles
            December 21, 2015 at 7:15 pm

            “Bill, the distinction that is important to me is the purpose of an action, not the body count. In war a lot of people die and usually badly. I can forgive or accept many things like Hue or Phoenix as there was a military purpose but Linebacker was pure politics for NOTHING but empty posturing at a significant cost of civilian lives and infrastructure in the north, and B-52 crews for the U.S.”

            I’m not so sure every thing we did wasn’t political, Charles. They say war is simply politics out the barrel of a gun and I believe that. Since we were not going to “win” the war in the old sense all we could hope for was to pressure the communist to negotiate. Nixon did bring them back to the negotiating table. At a terrible cost, sure.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Moderator,
            I’m begging you to stop Bill Clarke’s broken record that “JFK escalated the “‘”‘war'”‘””, hence that LBJ only continued the SE Asia policy of his predecessor.
            A few FACTS:
            — 1954, that slacker DDE takes SVN over from the French and makes them our lackey. SE Asia becomes the new place for American officers to practice their criminality. There’s never a shortage of work-allergic Am. military ‘volunteering for duty’ in the new land of easy pickins.
            — 1963, up to 16,500 ‘advisors’, CIA-DIA adventurer types just wanting to get out of the house and see what they could steal from the ‘gooks.’ Kennedy very disturbed to find out when Am. dead surpassed 100, and made immediate plans to get all the ne’er-do-wells the hell out. But then, he couldn’t follow through because his brains were shot out in the streets of the state of his successor.
            — 1964, troops pouring in, Tonkin, troops pouring in like grains of sand through an hourglass.
            — 1965, LBJ inaugurated for the second time, first active combat troops, Marines land at Da Nang. 200,000 soldiers by year’s end. Bombing, chemical weapons, anti-personnel devices begin tentatively, then in earnest. Curtis LeMay, “We are going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.” At Quangngai, 3/4 of the patients from napalm are village WOMEN. NONE of this happened under Kennedy.
            — 1966, 400,000 troops.
            — 1968, 500,000+.
            — 1969, Nixon does the yeoman’s work of getting us out gradually. So the MI Complex does everything they can to get HIM out of office.
            — 1973, virtually all out.
            All accounts date the Vietnam War from 8-5-1964 to 5-7-1975, nearly 11 years. Notice that’s after the term of JFK. In that time:
            — 9,000,000+ active military personnel.
            — 2,709,918 in uniform (combat). Average age 19; WWII was 26.
            — 58,148 killed, 61% of them before their 21st birthday.
            — 3,000,000 SE ASians dead, more than one million wounded.
            (cont.)

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            (cont.)
            In Southeast Asia, we dropped 7 to 8 million TONS of bombs, mostly on Vietnam. That’s two to three times more than all the world expended in Europe and Asia in World War Two. That’s a half ton of ordnance per capita, every man, woman, child on little old Indochina. A comparison in density is off the charts. AND JOHN KENNEDY DID NOT DROP A ONE.

            Nearly all the American dead came during Johnson’s time, well over 40,000 by 1969. So in 4 of the 11 years of THE REAL WAR (a little over a third of it), LBJ killed 3/4 of our boys in Nam. Nixon killed the other quarter in 2/3 of the war’s time, though he inherited it. That makes a difference.

            From Legacies of War, “Land of a Million Bombs,” half of Laos TODAY has unexploded ordnance. 78 million bombs left over from 1973. 34,000 Laotians have been killed by these since then.

            I won’t bore y’all with the stories of a thousand My Lais. We bombed and burned this ancient land and its people because they wouldn’t be our slaves. Mohammed Ali put it succinctly why he wouldn’t go: “No Viet Cong ever called me n****r.”

            Moderator Tom S.,
            Bill Clarke has hundreds of posts of pure dreck, all saying the same misrepresentative falsehood. It’s gumming up the works. Just imagine, as this site is archived, it will be so much harder for anyone to dig through BC’s BS to find the facts.

          • Tom S. says:

            Roy,

            I dropped the last part of your post because you attributed to Bill Clarke what was recently contributed by
            commenter Bill, a brief, personal account of meeting JFK. Both Bills provide enough information to satisfy me
            they are two distinct contributors to Jfkfacts.org comments.
            See Bill’s comment, re: his mother.:
            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/ballistics-experts-agree-oswald-lone-gunman/#comment-824542

          • Moderator Tom S.,
            Bill Clarke has hundreds of posts of pure dreck, all saying the same misrepresentative falsehood. It’s gumming up the works. Just imagine, as this site is archived, it will be so much harder for anyone to dig through BC’s BS to find the facts.

            Yes, let’s shut up dissenting views. We wouldn’t want people examining the archives to have to sort out truth and falsity. We have to decide for them.

            Or at least, we buffs need to decide for them.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Roy W Kornbluth
            December 22, 2015 at 5:36 am

            Moderator,
            I’m begging you to stop Bill Clarke’s broken record that “JFK escalated the “‘”‘war’”‘””, hence that LBJ only continued the SE Asia policy of his predecessor.”

            Stop whining Roy. It isn’t becoming of you. Now Roy, it is a documented fact that JFK escalated the war in Vietnam when he was president. Not only in raw numbers of troops but also in equipment. I’ve posted references for this on my broken record.

            A few FACTS:
            — 1954, that slacker DDE takes SVN over from the French and makes them our lackey. SE Asia becomes the new place for American officers to practice their criminality. There’s never a shortage of work-allergic Am. military ‘volunteering for duty’ in the new land of easy pickins.
            — 1963, up to 16,500 ‘advisors’, CIA-DIA adventurer types just wanting to get out of the house and see what they could steal from the ‘gooks.’ Kennedy very disturbed to find out when Am. dead surpassed 100, and made immediate plans to get all the ne’er-do-wells the hell out. But then, he couldn’t follow through because his brains were shot out in the streets of the state of his successor.
            — 1964, troops pouring in, Tonkin, troops pouring in like grains of sand through an hourglass.
            — 1965, LBJ inaugurated for the second time, first active combat troops, Marines land at Da Nang. 200,000 soldiers by year’s end. Bombing, chemical weapons, anti-personnel devices begin tentatively, then in earnest. Curtis LeMay, “We are going to bomb them back into the Stone Age.” At Quangngai, 3/4 of the patients from napalm are village WOMEN. NONE of this happened under Kennedy.
            — 1966, 400,000 troops.
            — 1968, 500,000+.
            — 1969, Nixon does the yeoman’s work of getting us out gradually. So the MI Complex does everything they can to get HIM out of office.
            — 1973, virtually all out.
            All accounts date the Vietnam War from 8-5-1964 to 5-7-1975, nearly 11 years. Notice that’s after the term of JFK. In that time:
            — 9,000,000+ active military personnel.
            — 2,709,918 in uniform (combat). Average age 19; WWII was 26.
            — 58,148 killed, 61% of them before their 21st birthday.
            — 3,000,000 SE ASians dead, more than one million wounded.
            (cont.)

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            December 22, 2015 at 10:12 am

            Roy,

            I dropped the last part of your post because you attributed to Bill Clarke what was recently contributed by
            commenter Bill, a brief, personal account of meeting JFK. Both Bills provide enough information to satisfy me
            they are two distinct contributors to Jfkfacts.org comments.
            See Bill’s comment, re: his mother.:
            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/ballistics-experts-agree-oswald-lone-gunman/#comment-824542

            Thanks Tom. I have always used my real name and I am certainly not this other Bill.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            John McAdams
            December 22, 2015 at 10:38 am

            Moderator Tom S.,
            Bill Clarke has hundreds of posts of pure dreck, all saying the same disrepresentative falsehood. It’s gumming up the works. Just imagine, as this site is archived, it will be so much harder for anyone to dig through BC’s BS to find the facts.

            “Yes, let’s shut up dissenting views. We wouldn’t want people examining the archives to have to sort out truth and falsity. We have to decide for them.”

            “Or at least, we buffs need to decide for them.”

            In my defense I have posted creditable references time and time again to back up my claim that JFK escalated the war in Vietnam. Willy and Roy; not so much to prove their BS that JFK didn’t know about the escalation going on in Vietnam. That it was Max Taylor, the dirty rascal.

          • leslie sharp says:

            http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-328-013.aspx

            “Willy and Roy; not so much to prove their BS that JFK didn’t know about the escalation going on in Vietnam. That it was Max Taylor, the dirty rascal.” — Bill Clarke

            Bill C. For the record, I believe I was the one that introduced the issue of Maxwell Taylor’s role in what can credibly be argued as escalation from ’61 thru Nov. ‘63 by providing the quote from Arthur Schlesinger’s book on this thread. My purpose is not to prove or disprove Kennedy’s position but to attempt to unravel this bowl of spaghetti. Relying on conflicting interpretations by numerous authors’ accounts of the NSAM’s and other records that reveal how the number of military personnel, advisors, Navy, Air, medical or “ground” combat troops increased from early February, 1961 thru November, 1963 seems to only fuel the debate. Maybe mine is an exercise in reinventing the wheel.

            However, thanks for the list of NSAM’s you provided, and I owe a qualified apology to the JFK Library; although they do not link directly to supporting documents from their Vietnam overview claiming the escalation, they do provide the NSAM’s. Then one can wade thru those to begin to understand the trajectory to a limited degree.

            NSAM #12: February 6, 1961, ‘Memorandum for General Lemnitzer’, “ . . . It is my recollection that the Vietnam Army now numbers 150,000, and that WE (emphasis mine) are planning to add 20,000 more, making a total of 170,000. . . . ”

            This suggests to me that Kennedy was confronted with a hold over policy from the Eisenhower administration.

            “Description: This folder contains a memorandum to Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Lyman L. Lemnitzer in reference to National Security Action Memoranda number 12 (NSAM 12) discussing the distribution of United States military forces in Vietnam to more effectively combat guerilla warfare.”

            http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/Archives/JFKNSF-328-013.aspx

            (apologies if mine is an amateur effort here, but so far, the conflicting interpretations espoused by credible authors do not satisfy, and simply yelling the loudest doesn’t either.)

            Next: how many Navy personnel might have been involved in that ship movement?

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Tom S.,
            Thank you once again for saving me from a real bad embarassment. Also it could’ve given Mr. Clarke more ammo about the sloppy slackertude of this particular CR. I coulda/shoulda found that post myself; it’s in my bookmarks. But then when someone bookmarks so many posts from JFK FActs, it almost defeats the purpose, you know?

            I think you, as moderator, are not only indefatigable, but you may be psychic as well, some kind of JFK ESP. Once again, mucho mucho gracias.

          • Roy W Kornbluth says:

            Bill Clarke and Tom S.,
            I don’t object to BC saying JFK “escalated” something because, sure he did send more “advisors,” whatever they are. I strenuously object to the word “WAR” in this context, which I thought was obvious by my putting about six sets of quotes around it in my first post about this. LBJ’s war, now that was a war. It was different from JFK’s not only in degree (oh boy, how much!), but in kind. If Nam through 1963 was a war, then there is no word for what it was 1965 on. Or if JFK’s war was as big as this three-letter word right here, about 3/16ths of an inch, then LBJ’s war was as big as Biltmore House (it’s big) in Asheville, North Carolina.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Roy W Kornbluth
          December 24, 2015 at 11:51 pm
          Part 1.

          “Bill Clarke and Tom S.,
          “I don’t object to BC saying JFK “escalated” something because, sure he did send more “advisors,” whatever they are. I strenuously object to the word “WAR” in this context, which I thought was obvious by my putting about six sets of quotes around it in my first post about this.”

          Bombs were falling (American pilots), Armored Vehicles were rolling (American “Advisers” sitting on top (3 killed at Ap Bac), ground combat going on with American “advisers” in the thick of it.

          Now I don’t want to offend you with the word “WAR” Roy but if that wasn’t “WAR” I don’t know what the hell is.

          Now Roy, I have never claimed that JFK escalated to the degree LBJ did. That would be stupid and we don’t want to be stupid here. But he did escalate.

          I’ll post the remarks of Dr. Edwin Moise of the history department of Clemson University. He is an expert on the Tonkin Gulf and other aspects of the war. He is of the left wing but I’ve never found him to be dishonest about the facts. He lets the chips fall. I gave Willy several opportunities to comment on these words but he didn’t do so for one reason or the other. Do me a favor and tell me what a real historian has to say about this. With all due respect Roy, you don’t know much about the war. If you are going to speak of it then please try to learn something about it. Use some references instead of simpy your word. Dr. Moise would be a good place to start.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            The words of Dr. Edwin Moise.

            part 2.

            AnthonyMarsh wrote in message …

            A. Marsh. > Can we agree that Eisenhower >increased the number of advisors in South
            >Vietnam before JFK came into office? And
            >that the number exceeded the Geneva >Accords?

            Dr. Moise. I believe the answer is yes to both questions, though I would not claim to have rock-solid documentation. Bear in mind that I have never tried to do a serious scholarly study of the 1960-61 period.
            Ed Moise May 13, 2004

            Marsh. > Can you explain to some people
            > here the difference between pilots and
            > ground combat troops?

            Dr. Moise. LBJ was the first president to send regular U.S. ground combat troops to Vietnam; JFK had not done that. If we take out that word “regular,” the issue becomes more ambiguous. In 1962 and 1963, JFK had Special Forces A-teams in Vietnam, training Montagnard troops and leading them in combat. Were those Special Forces guys “ground combat troops”? My answer would probably vary between “yes” and “well, maybe sort of” depending on what mood I was in on any given day. I don’t think there would be any days when I would give a simple “no.” Ed Moise
            13 2004, 6:02 pm

            ________________________________________________________
            I can’t quite agree with this. Kennedy did take the United States to war
            in Southeast Asia. When he came into office, there were less than a
            thousand U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam, and they were just
            advisers. When he died there were over fifteen thousand there, and they
            were conducting combat operations. A pretense was maintained that they
            were still just advisers, but this was just a pretense. U.S. Air Force
            pilots were flying bombing missions; U.S. Army and Marine helicopter
            pilots were flying combat missions both in troop-transport helicopters and
            helicopter gunships; U.S. Army Special Forces troops were commanding and
            leading locally recruited CIDG units in ground combat.

            Kennedy did reject some proposals to take the United States to war on a larger scale, but that does not mean he did not take the United States to war at all.

            He also initiated the program of paramilitary harrassment against North
            Vietnam that eventually, under Johnson, grew into OPLAN 34A.
            Ed Moise

          • R. Andrew Kiel says:

            Tom – you have done a great job of moderating – but please reprint my response to Bill Clarke from August 2015 that is still under moderation (after 4 months – why?)

            The August 2015 post certainly gives credibility to those insiders who worked with JFK on foreign policy & believed he never would have sent combat troops or bombed Vietnam as LBJ.

          • Tom S. says:

            R. Andrew,
            Thank you, and I cannot explain why your comment was not approved shortly after you submitted it in August.
            My guesses are that it appeared to Jeff to include more than 500 words, or it was a lengthy comment that did not include supporting links, or Jeff was pressed for time and thought it was too long to read. I really don’t know, but I will approve it now. Here is a link, http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/roger-hilsman-on-jfks-vietnam-plans/#comment-792355

            If you want more timely placement of it, copy it, submit it again, and I will approve the newer comment and disappear the
            original.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            R. Andrew Kiel
            December 25, 2015 at 10:53 pm

            Tom – you have done a great job of moderating – but please reprint my response to Bill Clarke from August 2015 that is still under moderation (after 4 months – why?)

            “The August 2015 post certainly gives credibility to those insiders who worked with JFK on foreign policy & believed he never would have sent combat troops or bombed Vietnam as LBJ.”

            I have never claimed JFK would have done the same as LBJ in Vietnam. I don’t know what he would have done and neither do you. To suggest otherwise is pure speculation. But it seems speculation is very acceptable to some people here.

            As Jean has often pointed out, much of this crap about what JFK “would have done” came late in the game, after the war had turned very ugly. Any of them saying this in 1964?

            And I assume you do realize that JFK bombed hell out of South Vietnam?

      • David Regan says:

        Speaking of Mark Lane, how ironic is it that he was retained by none other than Gerald Posner to represent him in media case against the Miami New Times.

        Posner offered his explanation for hiring Lane to defend against allegations about his work. “Although I’m convinced Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy, I’ve always believed that had Mark Lane represented Oswald, he would have won an acquittal. That’s why Mark Lane was the obvious choice as my own attorney.”

        Attorney Mark Lane Retained by Author Gerald Posner to Represent Him in Media… — NEW YORK, May 13 … http://prn.to/1QS4bZv

        • theNewDanger says:

          Mark Lane, communicant of the controlled opposition and collaborator of Jim Jones who “went missing” during the Jonestown massacre. Only one thing connects the two – CollectivistInfiltrationAgency.

  12. theNewDanger says:

    leslie sharp

    December 16, 2015 at 3:01 pm

    Whereas you, John McAdams, in spite of knowing full well the miraculous string of events and the people involved in those events that had to come together to position Oswald at 411 Elm, continue to write them off as coincidence, pure chance. Is that not the mirror opposite of your ridicule of “connecting the dots”?

    It’s a continuing pattern with this guy.

    John McAdams

    December 15, 2015 at 3:30 pm

    People make mistakes.

    The JFK assassination prologue and aftermath was a post-graduate dissertation entitled “Consistency in Making Mistakes”.

    “Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.” – James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy

    NOTHING went in the favor of presidential protection leading up to 11/22/63. NOTHING went in favor of a clean shooting (i.e. ONE kill shot, NO misses). NOTHING went in favor of proper post-mortem handling procedures in a capital murder case in Texas. NOTHING went in favor of correct autopsy procedures. NOTHING went in favor of verifiable chains of custody of multiple items in both JFK and JD Tippit’s death. NOTHING went in the favor of accurate representation of the facts in the media on the day of the murder. NOTHING went in favor of proper witness and witness testimony acquisition. Still today, NOTHING is going in favor of TRANSPARENCY. We should not have to petition the government for information if we are its masters and its employees our public (collectively paid) servants. This isn’t a coincidence. It isn’t a theory. A conspiracy did kill JFK and it is keeping him buried.

    • theNewDanger says:

      “Consistency has never been a mark of stupidity. If they were merely stupid they would occasionally make a mistake in our favor.” – James Forrestal, Secretary of the Navy

      To avoid being accused of the self-serving term “contextomy”, allow me to state Forrestal’s comment was not made regarding the JFK assassination, but the concept within the statement is valid in most all comedies of error that the government can’t seem to prevent from happening repeatedly (the attack on the Maine, the attack on the Lusitania, the attack on Pearl Harbor, FBI foreknowledge of WTC ’93 and 9/11, etc.)

      • theNewDanger,

        I appreciate your commentary here, but you surely know you are speaking far over the heads of our unimaginative adversaries on this thread. They seem to have this mental block based on Coincidence Theory, that leaves their minds in a little locked box inside their heads.
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy Whitten
          December 17, 2015 at 6:28 am

          “And then Bill Clarke with his “I KNOW WHAT KENNEDY WAS THINKING BY GOD!!!”

          Why Willy, you’ve been telling me what Jack was thinking ever since I’ve been here. And you’ve been wrong ever since I’ve been here. So don’t get so high and mighty with me.

          I don’t believe I said that; I believe I said JFK was not stupid, he knew what his troops were doing in Vietnam. Even though he lied about it.

          • “he knew what his troops were doing in Vietnam. Even though he lied about it.”~Bill Clarke

            This is fudging ridiculous! HOW to you know that? Are you a mind reader?
            It sort of, kinda, in a way, seems like the ONLY possibility here.

            Where as my views on Kennedy’s thoughts come straight from his mouth in no uncertain terms.

            So what are you going to do here Clarke? Do you intend driving your jalopy all the way to the center of the earth? You’ve already blown a head gasket and your timing belt is shot…
            \\][//

          • “I am delighted to come to Harlem and I think the whole world should come here and the whole world should recognize we all live right next to each other, whether here in Harlem or on the other side of the globe. We should be glad that Castro and Khrushchev came to the United States. We should not fear the twentieth century, for the worldwide revolution, which we see all around us is part of the original American Revolution.”~John F. Kennedy (1960 at the Hotel Theresa)
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke,
            This is how much control Kennedy felt he had over the CIA, as far back as 1961.
            So your trite interpretation of the way it is supposed to work, as to how it actually works in the real world is shown to be flagrantly naive:

            “During the coup attempt, Kennedy called Hervé Alphand, the French ambassador in Washington. He told him that America supported DeGaulle. But he could not vouch for the CIA, because “the CIA is such a vast and poorly controlled machine that the most unlikely maneuvers might be true.” JFK also asked for information on suspected Americans aiding the coup so he could deal with them after. Finally, Kennedy told Ambassador James Gavin that the USA should extend help to DeGaulle in resisting the coup. (In some versions—which Talbot does not explicitly cite—it is stated that Kennedy offered France the use of the Sixth Fleet.) Although he appreciated the offer, DeGaulle declined. But after the calls, Kennedy went public with this support for the embattled French premier.”~Talbot – ‘The Devil’s Chessboard
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten December 18, 2015 at 8:08 am

            “Where as my views on Kennedy’s thoughts come straight from his mouth in no uncertain terms.”

            BS. You couldn’t even find an order from Jack to withdraw all of our troops from Vietnam as you virulently claimed. What you rapped about it most certainly did not come from Kennedy’s mouth.

            “So what are you going to do here Clarke?”

            I think I’ll stop being nice and blow you away again Willy. Here are two email exchanges (from 2004 no less) with Dr. Edwin Moise of Clemson University. He is a noted authority on the Tonkin Gulf incident and has written what I consider the best book on the subject. Dr. Moise freely admits to being of the left so save your “right wing nut” BS for someone else.

            AnthonyMarsh wrote in message …

            >Can we agree that Eisenhower increased the >number of advisors in South
            >Vietnam before JFK came into office? And >that the number exceeded the
            > Geneva Accords?

            Ed. I believe the answer is yes to both questions, though I would not claim to have rock-solid documentation. Bear in mind that I have never tried to do a serious scholarly study of the 1960-61 period.

            > Can you explain to some people here the
            > difference between
            > pilots and ground combat troops?

            LBJ was the first president to send regular U.S. ground combat troops to Vietnam; JFK had not done that. If we take out that word “regular,” the issue becomes more ambiguous. In 1962 and 1963, JFK had Special Forces A-teams in Vietnam, training Montagnard troops and leading them in combat. Were those Special Forces guys “ground combat troops”? My answer would probably vary between “yes” and “well, maybe sort of” depending on what mood I was in on any given day. I don’t think there would be any days when I would give a simple “no.” Ed Moise

            And again for Willy.

            ________________________________________________________
            I can’t quite agree with this. Kennedy did take the United States to war in Southeast Asia. When he came into office, there were less than a thousand U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam, and they were just advisers. When he died there were over fifteen thousand there, and they
            were conducting combat operations. A pretense was maintained that they
            were still just advisers, but this was just a pretense. U.S. Air Force
            pilots were flying bombing missions; U.S. Army and Marine helicopter
            pilots were flying combat missions both in troop-transport helicopters and
            helicopter gunships; U.S. Army Special Forces troops were commanding and
            leading locally recruited CIDG units in ground combat.

            Kennedy did reject some proposals to take the United States to war on a larger scale, but that does not mean he did not take the United States to war at all.

            He also initiated the program of paramilitary harrassment against North
            Vietnam that eventually, under Johnson, grew into OPLAN 34A.
            Ed Moise

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 18, 2015 at 1:54 pm

            Bill Clarke,
            This is how much control Kennedy felt he had over the CIA, as far back as 1961.

            Then by god Willy JFK should have done something about it. Like firing en mass.

            What an embarrassment for our CIC to state he doesn’t have control of his government.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ”[Maxwell] Taylor was soon to recommend that 8,000 American combat troops be sent to the region at once. After making his report to the Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff, Taylor was to reflect on the decision to send troops to South Vietnam: “I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against, except one man, and that was the President. The President just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do…. It was really the President’s personal conviction that U.S. ground troops shouldn’t go in.”[4] . . . “Robert Kennedy: His Life and Times” Arthur Schlesinger

          • “I think I’ll stop being nice and blow you away again Willy.”~Bill Clarke

            Lol, “again” you say.

            Yes Kennedy should have gotten rid of all the warmonger scum around him…of course you don’t seem to get that is easier said than done. The start he got on firing the most virulent of these fascist was all it took for them to commit a coup d’etat.

            There is the greatest likelihood that the Joint Chiefs under the lead of Maxwell Taylor were covertly ordering the buildup you are so convinced Kennedy is responsible for.
            What do you do when practically everyone who surrounds you are traitors lying to you?

            I know your pat answers to that one Bill. I think you are delusional. Worse than that but there is a certain decorum here that I will of necessity attend to.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Bill, yes it’s an embarrassment for the CIC to state such but he was telling the truth. The CIA and MIC were loose cannons running amuck. He did try to do something about it. He fired the top 3 at the CIA and retired 1 in 5. He had previously fired Walker for his insubordination in Germany with the troops. He transferred the head of the JCS to Europe if I remember right. Wasn’t Arleigh Burke of the Navy also replaced? I beleive there were more as well. While some of his replacements were mistakes he couldn’t very well have replaced all of the armed services and maintained National Security .

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 18, 2015 at 8:16 pm

            “I think I’ll stop being nice and blow you away again Willy.”~Bill Clarke

            “Lol, “again” you say.”

            Yes, again I say. No need to bring up all the incorrect statements you’ve made about the war but I’ll post my “Best of Willy” I have knocked you, Willy from this;

            Willy Whitten
            September 3, 2015 at 11:53 am
            “I am not the one that made a false claim about what NSAM 263 had to say.”~Bill Clarke
            Oh yes indeed you are, those of us here who have dug into this controversy know you are the one who is making false claims. Kennedy was pulling 1000 troops by he end of 1963, and all of them by 1965 – yes, come hell or high water.
            \\][//

            To this, Willy;

            Willy Whitten
            November 23, 2015 at 7:01 pm
            No I don’t think ALL personnel would have been withdrawn,
            \\][//

            That must have been painful for you, Willy.

            “There is the greatest likelihood that the Joint Chiefs under the lead of Maxwell Taylor were covertly ordering the buildup you are so convinced Kennedy is responsible for.”

            And you call me delusional. Show me one thing to support this claim.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Ronnie Wayne
            December 18, 2015 at 10:48 pm

            “Bill, yes it’s an embarrassment for the CIC to state such but he was telling the truth.”

            “He had previously fired Walker for his insubordination in Germany with the troops. He transferred the head of the JCS to Europe if I remember right.’ Wasn’t Arleigh Burke of the Navy also replaced? I beleive there were more as well. While some of his replacements were mistakes he couldn’t very well have replaced all of the armed services and maintained National Security”.

            My memory is leaving me but best I remember you are correct on all points. And yes, he got ole “40 knots” Arleigh Burke. I believe JFK got rid of all of them over a period of time except for LeMay. The replacements were picked by Max Taylor with mixed results.

            I’m a firm believer in firing a General if he gets a bit too important for the good of the country.

          • Tom S. says:

            Bill,

            Edwin Walker was not fired. He was relieved of divisional command and reassigned, to Hawaii, and resigned in protest.:
            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=19611207&id=njZhAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TXQNAAAAIBAJ&pg=3224,1276591&hl=en

          • “And you call me delusional. Show me one thing to support this claim.”~Bill Clarke

            The war in Vietnam.

            The full on war prosecuted under Johnson and all the fascist warmongers that came after him.

            There is nothing more painful for me than to sit here arguing with fascists in the 21st century. Especially punk soldier boys playing at historian.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Arleigh Burke retired after an unprecedented 3 terms as CNO when two terms are distinctly unusual. He was hardly sacked by JFK. The implications of this thread in regard to this individual and his relationship with political authority are simplistic and not accurate .
            His nickname was “31 Knot Burke”.
            I hade the honor of knowing an enlisted veteran of the Little Beavers. He held Burke in awe. I suspect that JFK did also-he was not one of the armchair admirals who ” went to the Stork Club” but a combat veteran like himself who served in the same theater.Burke himself would never have stayed for a fourth term, as he always believed in opening up billets to create promotion possibilities for good officers.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill Clarke, are you disputing this version of events related to Maxwell Taylor?

            leslie sharp
            December 18, 2015 at 7:18 pm
            ”[Maxwell] Taylor was soon to recommend that 8,000 American combat troops be sent to the region at once. After making his report to the Cabinet and the Chiefs of Staff, Taylor was to reflect on the decision to send troops to South Vietnam: “I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against, except one man, and that was the President. The President just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do…. It was really the President’s personal conviction that U.S. ground troops shouldn’t go in.”[4] . . . “Robert Kennedy: His Life and Times” Arthur Schlesinger

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            December 19, 2015 at 4:29 am

            Bill,

            “Edwin Walker was not fired. He was relieved of divisional command and reassigned, to Hawaii, and resigned in protest.:”

            Thanks Tom. This is one of those I used to know but had forgotten.

            There are two ways to fire a general. The nice way where you leave the general with some face saving room. Walker is an example, he could have accepted his new assignment. And the regular old way where you call them in and tell them “you’re fired”. Like Truman did MacArthur (and not a second too soon in my opinion). The bad thing here is Truman didn’t bring him in and supposedly MacArthur heard it through the grapevine. Not good.

            When I was in the Army if you were relieved of a command your army career was washed up. They might let you hang around for a bit but usually sooner or later you were gone.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            leslie sharp
            December 19, 2015 at 1:19 pm

            “Bill Clarke, are you disputing this version of events related to Maxwell Taylor?”

            No, not at all, Leslie. Although I don’t trust Arthur Schlesinger as far as I can throw him I don’t doubt this account at all. My problem here, as so often it seems, is the bull manure put out by my good friend Willy. Here is what Willy said that is so so wrong;

            Willy said; “There is the greatest likelihood that the Joint Chiefs under the lead of Maxwell Taylor were covertly ordering the buildup you are so convinced Kennedy is responsible for.”

            In short, Willy thinks Taylor and his boys escalated the Vietnam War without JFK knowing about it. Taylor sent the 7th Fleet and the 7th Air Force to Vietnam and Jack never knew it? There is the greatest likelihood that hell will freeze over before this is true. Excuse me…I’m rolling on the floor again. That Willy cracks me up.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 19, 2015 at 5:45 am

            “And you call me delusional. Show me one thing to support this claim.”~Bill Clarke

            The war in Vietnam.

            “The full on war prosecuted under Johnson and all the fascist warmongers that came after him.”

            But we were talking about JFK and Max Taylor. Really about your claim that Max Taylor escalated in Vietnam without JFK knowing it. Show me some evidence Willy.

            “There is nothing more painful for me than to sit here arguing with fascists in the 21st century. Especially punk soldier boys playing at historian.”

            Call me a punk soldier boy again and you might find something more painful, Willy.

            But I know I’ve hurt your feelings by posting the words of Dr. Edwin Moise and your own 180 degree opposite words concerning withdrawal from Vietnam. I assume you don’t wish to reply to either one, both blowing you out of the water.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘Burke himself would never have stayed for a fourth term, as he always believed in opening up billets to create promotion possibilities for good officers.’ — photon

            And Arleigh walked out of military service straight into a plum directorship on the board of Texaco oil company as well as a lucrative business operation with former General George Olmsted whose financial empire set the foundation for the US operation of the Bank of Credit and Commerce the following decade. In the meantime, Burke was fundamental to the structure and success of premier military think tank Centre for Strategic and International Studies. So, as noble an act as moving aside to allow for good officers to advance, Burke certainly did not suffer, and in fact was in a position of even more influence than he had enjoyed as CNO seems to me.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill Clarke, I’ve come full circle on the issue of the increase of military personnel in SVN from 700 when Eisenhower left office to 16,500 when Kennedy was assassinated and am at a loss how to proceed. It seems to me this is a critical question to resolve: who actually authorized the increases? Here we have a direct quote from Maxwell Taylor related to 8,000 of those personnel. I’ve contacted the Kennedy Library because the summary page on Vietnam on their website reflects the figures 700 to 16,500, yet no one at the library was able to identify the supporting documents; in fact I was directed to peruse the National Archives rather than look for the documents on links at the library. That is odd imo, that if the library finds it tenable to maintain those claims, they are however not concerned with whether or not there is proof of such numbers. We’ve discussed this before, that perhaps the build up was so slow and steady, the alarm bells did not ring until the Diem disaster began to unfold? But is it possible that Kennedy was not kept apprised on a weekly basis how many were being deployed? And do you think these figures might have included the Navy personnel you reference?

            re: Schlesinger. You apparently don’t trust Schlesinger’s direct quote from Maxwell Taylor – and I recognize the debate over Schlesinger’s quote by Robert Kennedy that he and his brother were each fond of Allen Dulles did not involve you – but for the record, it seems Schlesinger is a credible historian to some when his claims suit. Such is the nature of debate I suppose.

            ‘Personally I like direct quotes, not interpretations. Arthur Schlesinger’s book on RFK says this:’ — Jean Davison

            “Allen Dulles handled himself awfully well, with a great deal of dignity,” Robert Kennedy said of the period after the Bay of Pigs, “and never tried to shift the blame. The President was very fond of him, as I was.” — Robert Kennedy and His Times, p. 459

          • “I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against, except one man, and that was the President. The President just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do..”~General Maxwell Tayler

            The general said. “that this was the right thing to do.” Tayler and his generals were all convinced that it was the right thing to do, to send ground troops.
            And yet this punk soldier boy doesn’t find the the obvious impetus to get rid of the only person standing in the way of “the right thing to do”. Proposing that these generals would do the “right thing” regardless is not in anyway an outrageous proposition.

            It simply cries out as exactly what these single minded warmongers would do; go around Kennedy and do it anyway.

            Of course by the time of NSAM 263, these traitors realized that Kennedy had out maneuvered them. this National Security Memorandum became Kennedy’s virtual death warrant.

            Only the hyper deluded cannot see the validity of this reasoning. It is simply denial in the face of the obvious.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘If something goes wrong, there has to be some nefarious motive behind it. These folks are way too competent to ever mess up.’ — John McAdams

            When all else fails, you and those like you who defend the Warren Report resort to “well, after all, humans are flawed and some conclusions may have ‘gosh all gee’ been wrong.” when in fact there is the probability that their failure was part of a compartmentalized operation to cover up a conspiracy to assassinate a sitting president/commander in chief.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 19, 2015 at 5:16 pm

            Only the hyper deluded cannot see the validity of this reasoning. It is simply denial in the face of the obvious.

            This “Taylor and his boys escalated the war in Vietnam” without JFK knowing it is simply one of the most comical things I have heard lately. I’d put it in for comment of the week but it is a bit off topic.

            Willy Rambo; do you have any idea of the logistics involved in the escalation in Vietnam under JFK. Do you really think Taylor could “HIDE” all this activity?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            leslie sharp
            December 19, 2015 at 5:02 pm

            “We’ve discussed this before, that perhaps the build up was so slow and steady, the alarm bells did not ring until the Diem disaster began to unfold? But is it possible that Kennedy was not kept apprised on a weekly basis how many were being deployed?”

            Possible but not very probable I think. I don’t think you could move that many men and that much equipment with out the president or his men finding it. We have discussed how difficult it is to find accurate statistics concerning Vietnam. After all these years I’ve decided it is impossible.

            “And do you think these figures might have included the Navy personnel you reference?”

            Oh yes. And the Air Force boys too. I found an article that claimed (I think) 24,000 Americans in SVN in 1964 and only 15,000 or so were military. So far I can’t find numbers for 61, 62, and 63.

            “re: Schlesinger. You apparently don’t trust Schlesinger’s direct quote from Maxwell Taylor”

            No, I’ll take both of Schlesinger’s points here. Much of his other stuff I can not.

          • Listen to Alan Dale’s interview of John Newman at this link:

            http://www.jfklancer.com/audioconversations.html

            \\][//

          • ““Taylor and his boys escalated the war in Vietnam” without JFK knowing it is simply one of the most comical things I have heard lately. I’d put it in for comment of the week but it is a bit off topic.”~Bill Clarke

            It in fact would be simple to trick Kennedy as to what was really going on in Vietnam, as those who were supposed to keep him informed were the ones playing the information tricks.

            This is not speculation on my part, this is something that John Newman goes into in detail. The conscious efforts put into keeping the real situation in Vietnam from reaching the civilian leadership in DC.

            Of course this is why you disparage Newman, because as a real expert on the history of this subject.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 20, 2015 at 2:07 pm

            ““Taylor and his boys escalated the war in Vietnam” without JFK knowing it is simply one of the most comical things I have heard lately. I’d put it in for comment of the week but it is a bit off topic.”~Bill Clarke

            “It in fact would be simple to trick Kennedy as to what was really going on in Vietnam, as those who were supposed to keep him informed were the ones playing the information tricks.”

            This has sunk to a new low level for you. I don’t know if it is your lack of military experience here or simply a lack of good sense on your part but this BS is simply BS. My god Willy!

            No one flew to SVN more that McNamara. Was McNamara and his boys “playing the information trick” too? So now I guess McNamara was in on it too. That or you don’t believe McNamara knew what was happening in his own department. Now I don’t like McNamara but I’m betting he knew what was going on in the military.

            “This is not speculation on my part, this is something that John Newman goes into in detail. The conscious efforts put into keeping the real situation in Vietnam from reaching the civilian leadership in DC.”

            More Newman speculation which does in fact make what you regurgitate from Newman pure speculation.

            “Of course this is why you disparage Newman, because as a real expert on the history of this subject.”

            I disparage Newman because he is a dishonest man. Most all I read in “JFK and Vietnam” was speculation presented as facts.

          • “No one flew to SVN more that McNamara. Was McNamara and his boys “playing the information trick” too? So now I guess McNamara was in on it too. That or you don’t believe McNamara knew what was happening in his own department. Now I don’t like McNamara but I’m betting he knew what was going on in the military.”~Bill Clarke

            The military was lying to McNamara as well.
            Newman documents how this was accomplished.
            Documents it with McNamara’s own files, and finally McNamara’s own admission.

            Listen to the interview with Alan Dale wherein Newman explains all of this.

            Or don’t! Your opinion is of no consequence to me whatsoever.
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill Clarke, are you saying that you accept the escalation figures between 1961 and 1963 without questioning the source of those figures? I’m not arguing they aren’t accurate, I’m arguing that if they were not recorded thru some chain of command how can they be represented as historical fact. Where are the substantiating documents and who signed them?

            After this has been established I want to pursue why the John F. Kennedy Library is not a resource for those documents, and if the library is not, why have they accepted the escalation figures out of hand? I have a theory and it’s not a pleasant one.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 20, 2015 at 6:39 pm

            “The military was lying to McNamara as well.”

            About the progress of the war in itself, yes they lied. I know of no instance in which they lied about how many troops or how much equipment we had sent to Vietnam. Do you. This is so silly Willy.

            “Newman documents how this was accomplished.
            Documents it with McNamara’s own files, and finally McNamara’s own admission.”

            Newman is not to be taken seriously. I’ll give you an example from Newman’s book, page322, “JFK and Vietnam”. This is the basis of his book.
            ___________________________________________
            “Kennedy decided to use Taylor’s and Harkin’ reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning.” Italics by Newman.

            “Kennedy kept his plan a closely guarded secret, but by March he was determined not only to withdraw—come what may—after 1964, but, if possible, to take a clear step in that direction….”
            _________________________________________

            “Withdraw come what may”. How grand! Total BS. You wonder why there isn’t supporting evidence for this blooper? There is none and none is listed in the book. No Kenny O’Donnell said Jack told him this, No senator saying Jack told him this. Nothing. Newman pulled it straight out of the air. Pure junk.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            leslie sharp
            December 20, 2015 at 7:15 pm

            “Bill Clarke, are you saying that you accept the escalation figures between 1961 and 1963 without questioning the source of those figures?”

            Well yes and no Leslie. Remembering how suspect statistics about Vietnam are to start with I think these numbers are about as good as we’ll get. As for the source, of course I would like to track that down. Last time I tried (when we last discussed this) I didn’t have much luck.

            “I’m not arguing they aren’t accurate, I’m arguing that if they were not recorded thru some chain of command how can they be represented as historical fact. Where are the substantiating documents and who signed them?”

            I’m with you here. The chain of command is an interesting avenue of attack and if a company or troop of soldiers were sent to Vietnam someone had to sign some papers. The Army moves on its stomach and paperwork.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “The Army moves on its stomach and paperwork.”

            So what if one were to work from the bottom up, by state or by Army base i.e. a General in charge of a training base in Georgia. He would get orders to deploy XXX number of personnel from his base, right? That would require paperwork and signatures. Any idea how many Army bases were involved in sending personnel to SVN from 1961-1963? Ft. Dix comes to mind. 15,800 personnel over 33 months (approx) = 480 @ mo. approx. Obviously it would not be an even distribution and there might be months and seasons that twice or three times that number are deployed en masse. It seems to me a good place to start would be the largest Army bases that were equipped to train ‘advisors’. Thinking out loud.

          • “Withdraw come what may”. How grand! Total BS. You wonder why there isn’t supporting evidence for this blooper? There is none and none is listed in the book. No Kenny O’Donnell said Jack told him this, No senator saying Jack told him this. Nothing. Newman pulled it straight out of the air. Pure junk.”~Bill Clarke

            You say it is “pure junk” out of pure desperation. No senator had to tell us that Jack told him anything – Jack told us all what he thought of war for empire. He was opposed to it heart and soul. You are the one who is pulling a trite little story out of thin air.

            Who ordered the build up Mr Clarke? As much bluff and bravado as you have spewed here, anyone paying attention knows that you do not know, that you cannot prove that Kennedy knew of the massive build up until it was a fait accompli.

            But you insist you are right because you have invested your entire dialog here on these spurious points.

            I fell sorry for you Bill.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            leslie sharp
            December 21, 2015 at 3:18 am

            I’m afraid starting at the bottom would simply be too large to handle. I bopped into headquarters one morning and the S-1 told me I had come down on orders for Vietnam. I won’t tell you what I said to him but I was the only one in the battalion to come down on orders for Vietnam that day. So we would have to track down a lot of individual records and that would be difficult. There was a name for the order drawing troops out of Fort Hood at the time. This might help but I can’t remember what the order was called.

            The combat advisers were trained at Fort Benning (infantry MOS), Fort Knox (armor MOS) and Fort Sill (artillery MOS). Trouble is they sent them all over hell before sending them to Vietnam. Be hard to trace that one.

            I wish you good luck and I’ll help you all I can. I’ll get back to work on this too. This has become rather interesting to me.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 21, 2015 at 10:26 am

            “Who ordered the build up Mr Clarke? As much bluff and bravado as you have spewed here, anyone paying attention knows that you do not know, that you cannot prove that Kennedy knew of the massive build up until it was a fait accompli.”

            This is much like Ronnie Regan and the Contra affair. If the old fart didn’t know he damn well should have known. And again I point out your silliness about this.

            11 May 61; In National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 52, President Kennedy approves the deployment of a 400-man Special Forces group to Nha Trang to accelerate ARVN training.

            11 August 61; In NSAM 65 Kennedy agrees to support an increase in the ARVN to 200,000 men, if Diem produces a plan for using the forces.

            11 October 61; President Kennedy, in NSAM 104, authorizes the introduction of the ‘Air Force “Jungle Jim” Squadron into Viet Nam for the inital purpose of training Vietnamese forces.’ Codenamed “Farm Gate”, detachment 2A of the 4400th Combat Crew Training Squadron departs for its covert mission in Vietnam on November 5th.

            22 November 61; In NSAM 111 President Kennedy adopts most of Maxwell Taylor’s “limited partnership” recommendations, but decides not to send combat troops to Vietnam. The U.S. will substantially increase the number of advisors and provide GVN with helicopters and transport aircraft. In return Diem is expected to broaden his government and streamline the military command structure.

            31 Dec 61U.S. military personnel in South Vietnam: 3,205

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill Clarke, “The combat advisers were trained at Fort Benning (infantry MOS), Fort Knox (armor MOS) and Fort Sill (artillery MOS). Trouble is they sent them all over hell before sending them to Vietnam. Be hard to trace that one.”

            If they were deploying “one at a time” it’s a fool’s errand. But School of the Americas makes complete sense and it’s probably fairly easy to track the commander and his subordinates during the time frame, ’61 thru late ’63. How to extract the records? FOIA filed on a federal or state level?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            leslie sharp
            December 21, 2015 at 7:45 pm

            If they were deploying “one at a time” it’s a fool’s errand. But School of the Americas makes complete sense and it’s probably fairly easy to track the commander and his subordinates during the time frame, ’61 thru late ’63. How to extract the records? FOIA filed on a federal or state level?

            Bill. I went through all of the NSAM dealing with Vietnam during the term of JFK. Didn’t help much. The 400 Special Force troops is the only one I found that gave the number of troops. One deals with Farm Gate but no numbers here. From the NSAMs I believe it is obvious that Jack knew what was going on. I’ll try again.

          • Bill Clarke’s comment of December 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm mentions these National Security Action Memorandums:
            (NSAM) 52, NSAM 65, NSAM 104, NSAM 111

            Every one of these concerns US trainers, ie, “advisers” as well as increases in Vietnamese forces. In every instance with the purpose of getting the Vietnamese up to speed to fight their own war.

            We have gone through all of these issues, including these very NSAM’s before. We have gone through all of these arguments before. And never once has Bill been able to prove that Kennedy would be willing to introduce ground forces or escalate the situation in Vietnam into an “American war”.

            Clark dismisses the work of John Newman, who has made the most intense and well documented study of the situation of Kennedy and Vietnam yet written. Newman has access to documents that no one had ever accessed before. We are dealing with more than mere opinion with Newman’s works, we are dealing with facts, facts that have been unearthed for the first time. But Mr Clarke discounts all of this and calls Newman “dishonest”.

            As we have seen time and again, Clarke considers anyone who disagrees with his amateur historical analyses as “dishonest” which is a euphemism for “liar”. But then Bill Clarke claims to be “humble”…

            I cannot take Bill Clarke seriously. I have never been able to. As is the nature of these conversations, it will be up to the individual reader to decide for themselves who they agree with.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 22, 2015 at 5:48 am

            Bill Clarke’s comment of December 21, 2015 at 7:42 pm mentions these National Security Action Memorandums:
            (NSAM) 52, NSAM 65, NSAM 104, NSAM 111

            “We have gone through all of these issues, including these very NSAM’s before. We have gone through all of these arguments before. And never once has Bill been able to prove that Kennedy would be willing to introduce ground forces or escalate the situation in Vietnam into an “American war”.

            Er…that would probably be because I’ve never tried since I don’t know what JFK would have done. Neither do you. Hard to prove “what Jack would have done”.

            “Clark dismisses the work of John Newman, who has made the most intense and well documented study of the situation of Kennedy and Vietnam yet written.”

            In my defense Willy I am not alone in dismissing Newman and his “JFK and Vietnam”. He and his book were roundly booed by the likes of some of the leading historians of the Vietnam War. The Camelot boys draw Newman to their breast since he says what they want to hear; not so much the true historian. Plus I think Newman is a bit of a flake.

            “Newman has access to documents that no one had ever accessed before.”

            Please; do tell us more.

            “We are dealing with more than mere opinion with Newman’s works, we are dealing with facts, facts that have been unearthed for the first time. But Mr Clarke discounts all of this and calls Newman “dishonest”.”

            BS Willy. Newman deals not with facts but with speculation he claims are fact. That makes him dishonest.

            “As we have seen time and again, Clarke considers anyone who disagrees with his amateur historical analyses as “dishonest” which is a euphemism for “liar”. But then Bill Clarke claims to be “humble”…

            “I cannot take Bill Clarke seriously. I have never been able to. As is the nature of these conversations, it will be up to the individual reader to decide for themselves who they agree with.”

            How serious do you think I take your “Max Taylor escalated Vietnam without JFK’s knowledge”? I realize you think you are a master historian Willy but you are so wrong most of the time that I have to wonder about your lack of common sense. I think most of the people here are above average in intelligence and I think they can determine who is right and who is wrong.

          • Tom S. says:

            Bill,
            My experience influences me to disagree with you about Newman.:

            Because of Newman’s research, I located the birth record of CIA agent Tom McCoy’s wife, Priscilla Livingston Johnson.:
            https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-3-g1yJLNZMk/UEoaae5UuCI/AAAAAAAAA0c/b5c3d8NmnRk/s720/USConsularReportsofBirths19101949_187253755.jpg

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8045&p=263845
            books.google.com/books?isbn=1602392536
            John Newman – 2008 – Preview – More editions
            ….Historians now have the unenviable task of trying to figure out whether the CIA was inventing a false Priscilla Johnson or whether it was incapable of telling the difference between two people born five years and three thousand miles apart .

            Bill, you run the risk that further research will confirm that John Newman has done much more than you give him credit for.:
            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/listen-in-on-lbj-and-hoover-talk-about-warren-commission/#comment-836269

            Rex Bradford : http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8045&p=76301

            Or maybe, Bill, you’ve got a reasonable explanation for why so many CIA connected figures* involved themselves in the ’68,
            “Clean for Gene” presidential campaign, and when that campaign lagged, and RFK won the California primary….what happened immediately?

            *Tom McCoy, his best friend and Clark Clifford law partner, Tom Finney, Larry Merthan spouse of Bill Harvey’s secretary, Rita Chapowicki Merthan……

            https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=oMZ5VtD6I4eh-AWWqrfIBQ#q=merthan+george+town+club+korean
            Tongsun Park’s Club – The Washington Post
            https://www.washingtonpost.com/. Oct. 16, 1977
            ..a club founder by Gray and by Lawrence C. Merthan, who at the time worked … According to the indictment, part of the Korean influence-peddling .

            Dr. Burkley and the U.S. Navy did not Appreciate JFK’s …
            http://jfk.education/node/15
            Nov 29, 2015 – Rita Regina Merthan, 50, the personal secretary to first lady Rosalynn … Tongsun Park set up the George Town Club with KCIA funds. … to Know of Park’s Ties to Korean CIA’: “The American Central Intelligence Agency had .

            It seems to me a straightforward test question, is this researcher/commenter/author making “things” more clear or
            thickening the murkiness. To his credit, Newman, when he could not solve something that piqued his interest, presented it without spin, in the hope it could be carried further by others. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Further_%28bus%29 )

          • leslie sharp says:

            “ . . . To his credit, Newman, when he could not solve something that piqued his interest, presented it without spin, in the hope it could be carried further by others.” — TomS

            This is an example of “good faith” investigation – one that relentlessly and fearlessly poses the questions to bring the Warren Commission Report and subsequent investigations under even more intense scrutiny?

            Of particular significance is TomS’ questions related to the history to the George Town Club. Thru the murkiness of this detail which some foolishly dismiss as minutiae at the expense of accurate history, and assuming one is educated in the history: Washington lobbyist Robert Keith Gray was a facilitator of the club on behalf of Park. He had also been an exec of Hill & Knowlton which was later responsible for the public relations of the US branch of Bank of Credit and Commerce in spite of allegations BCCI was involved at the very least on the periphery of Iran Contra and Clark Clifford played his own unique role in that scandal; the murky Franklin abuse scandal also involved the George Town Club … founding president of Franklin Credit Union Larry King who performed at a campaign rally at the Southfork Ranch outside Dallas for Ronald Reagan; the shadow of George H.W. Bush can be detected in each of these episodes. The astute observer can discern the development of the careers – political and private that have shaped our country’s history since November 1963. Determining their direct role in the coup is the challenge.

            Weave into this series of national/international events the fact that the US branch of BCCI, fronted by Clark Clifford (and for a brief time his law partner, former Sec of Air Stuart Symington) was established on a foundation built by Ret. General George Olmsted, CEO of First American/Financial General whose board included such DC luminaries as San Antonio native Henry Catto – close friend of George HW Bush when the two were intent on establishing the Republican Party in Democrat stronghold Texas and host in Aspen, CO (while Ambassador to the Court of St. James under Bush) to his boss and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on the eve of Sadam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait; Gen. Olmsted was a long time board member of Bell Helicopter and its financial affiliate Equity Corp (1963), a board member and investor of military contractor Atlas General, and a close business colleague of former Chief of Naval Operations Arleigh Burke who influenced the founding of the military think tank Centre for Strategic and International Studies.

            Considering this composite, one of a half dozen similarly stunning networks of individuals, one is forced to confront the implications of the detailed research TomS has compiled related to Priscilla MacMillan who was at best a conspicuous figure in events leading to and following the assassination of President Kennedy. Having assimilated that information, one is then confronted with the implications of a continuity of the coup d’état of 11.22.63.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            December 22, 2015 at 5:02 pm

            “Bill, My experience influences me to disagree with you about Newman.”

            As is your right and I appreciate that we can disagree and remain civil about it. From reading your post I know you are an intelligent fellow with good knowledge of the subject before us. I respect what you have to say although we don’t always agree.

            “Because of Newman’s research, I located the birth record of CIA agent Tom McCoy’s wife, Priscilla Livingston Johnson.”

            I should have noted that I’ve only read the one book from Newman; “JFK and Vietnam”. After that disappointment I didn’t feel the need to read anymore of his stuff. So I am not as knowledgeable about Newman’s other work as I should be.

            “Bill, you run the risk that further research will confirm that John Newman has done much more than you give him credit for.”

            Of course. If someone proves this is true I’ll state that I was wrong and apologize to Newman and his fans for being wrong.

            I’ll give you an example from Newman’s book, page322. This is the basis of the book. Newman provides no reference for this, no support what so ever. This lack of support for the very basis of the book is very concerning to me as I think it should be to everyone.
            _________________________________________
            “Kennedy decided to use Taylor’s and Harkin’ reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning.” Italics by Newman.

            “Kennedy kept his plan a closely guarded secret, but by March he was determined not only to withdraw—come what may—after 1964, but, if possible, to take a clear step in that direction….”
            _________________________________________

            “To his credit, Newman, when he could not solve something that piqued his interest, presented it without spin.”

            I have to disagree here Tom. Looks to me that Newman spun the hell out of the example from “JFK and Vietnam” that I just listed.

    • It’s a continuing pattern with this guy.

      John McAdams

      December 15, 2015 at 3:30 pm

      People make mistakes.

      Yes, we all know that government officials never make mistakes.

      If something goes wrong, there has to be some nefarious motive behind it. These folks are way too competent to ever mess up.

      • theNewDanger says:

        John McAdams
        December 19, 2015 at 9:16 pm

        If something goes wrong, there has to be some nefarious motive behind it. These folks are way too competent to ever mess up.

        At nearly every juncture, McAdams? Cut the crap. Modus operandi not only applies to multiple crimes, but the commonalities of the semantics within a crime also bare out a modus operandi (not the Wikipedia definition). Either your “how to think about the jfk assassination” agenda is preventing you from seeing it or you’ve gouged out your eyes in blind submission to the script, or maybe both concepts are your modus operandi. Either way, your contra-butions have been fruitless on the topic.

        • At nearly every juncture, McAdams?

          Where the JFK assassination is concerned, they didn’t mess up nearly as often as you folks claim.

          But in any extensive, complicated case, there will be a fair number of screw ups.

          Look at the LA cops and the OJ case.

          • theNewDanger says:

            John McAdams
            December 22, 2015 at 10:41 am

            At nearly every juncture, McAdams?

            Where the JFK assassination is concerned, they didn’t mess up nearly as often as you folks claim.

            But in any extensive, complicated case, there will be a fair number of screw ups.

            Look at the LA cops and the OJ case.

            The OJ case had nowhere near the level of the “continuity of screw up” as the JFK assassination. It is the continuity that you are flailing at to scatter from being ascertained or don’t understand for yourself. Considering something irrelevant like the OJ case as a proper comparison is legitimizing the opposite of what you don’t seem or are pretending not to understand but is exposing your spirit of simple sabotage (i.e. “intellectual terrorism”).

            From the SIMPLE SABOTAGE FIELD MANUAL:
            • Bring up irrelevant issues as frequently as possible.

            Your approach (to the explanations of the most important events that have undergone heavy historical revision) is called “purposeful stupidity”. You’ve been teaching and writing it for a while now, so you know better than anyone about its collectivist origins and how it is used against unwitting individuals born into and indoctrinated within the globalist-collectivist surveillance state fishbowl.
            The preprogrammed obfuscation was not a case of “a fair number of screw ups” – it was not only deliberate, it was made possible and an absolute certainty by the 360° systemically embedded continuity of screw up/sabotage/”mistakes happen”, exposing the modus operandi that the globalist-collectivists’ “intelligence” community is becoming better known for in destabilizing societies i.e. consistent, systemic incompetence “just happens” and poor investigations should not be interpreted as anything else other than poorly done.
            (More about “purposeful stupidity” from the declassified “SIMPLE SABOTAGE FIELD MANUAL” at http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/26184/pg26184-images.html or https://www.cia.gov/news-information/featured-story-archive/2012-featured-story-archive/CleanedUOSSSimpleSabotage_sm.pdf; the ContrivanceIntelligenceAgency and its offshoots (i.e. intelligence community; media; academia; globalist-collectivist corporations) profligate these concepts)
            No matter who was going to be investigating what was going to be an enormous investigatory effort that would enlist the deliberate continuity of incompetence from within multiple agencies, each agency had already been designed to fail the larger investigations get, especially where their or their unelected board of directors mercenaries’ behavioral (and actual) fingerprints are likely to be identified. This is why LBJ and Hoover wanted to keep the Senate out of the investigatory process; their commission would rely on the same “purposeful stupidity” apparatuses that had the native architecture of plausible deniability, as did the 9/11 Commission.
            P.S. Each individual is not “you folks”. Each individual … is individual.

          • David Regan says:

            Or the LAPD and the RFK case, for that matter.

  13. You might notice that after Jean whining about no one ever explaining how Oswald was made into a patsy, now that I did explain it … not a peep out of her or her handler McAdams. But you know, “Lee was a liar that left his wedding ring so no one would realize he was married and wouldn’t bother Marina after he shot the president…and gawd what a nut this guy was…blablabla…”

    It’s like these people write gossip stories for PEOPLE Magazine; pure junk.

    And then Bill Clarke with his “I KNOW WHAT KENNEDY WAS THINKING BY GOD!!!”

    And worst of all, DOCTOR DEMENTO, Photon the blithering bouncing partyhead, “Look boss, it’s the neck, the NECK!!”

    Hey suce de frickin’ keeyryst!!!
    \\][//

    • Jean Davison says:

      “You might notice that after Jean whining about no one ever explaining how Oswald was made into a patsy, now that I did explain it … not a peep out of her or her handler McAdams.”

      Baloney. No one tells me what to do. Do you always believe anything your suspicion tells you, Willy?

      I didn’t respond right away because you haven’t come close to explaining how Oswald was framed.

      “At this point, the counter intel group that has been penetrated realizes the penetrating org is being tipped off by Oswald of this plot to kill JFK. This is the point at which it is decided by the higher echelon plotters to keep Oswald in place, and use him as the patsy in their plot. Oswald is maneuvered into place from New Orleans to Dallas where deM and the White Russian milieu surrounds, absorbs, and directs his fate.”

      DeM wasn’t even living in Dallas when Oswald returned, and he wasn’t seeing the Russians at that point, either. He didn’t like them and the feeling was mutual.

      “Of course this is where the Paine’s come into Lee and Marina’s life, and the final leg of placing Oswald in the building on the obvious route to the Trademart, the obvious venue for a speech by JFK, who was being manipulated into place concurrently with the manipulation of the patsy.”

      Again, no evidence against these people, just guilt by accusation. Was Linnie Randall “manipulated” into mentioning the TSBD when Ruth told her Oswald was looking for a job? Was it also just a coincidence that her brother Wesley was already working there?

      After these plotters “manipulate him into place,” do they order him to take his rifle to work? If not, how do you suppose the M-C linked to LHO get there? Why was he near the back stairs just after the shooting? Following orders there, too?

      You haven’t come close to showing how Oswald was framed, but answering those questions would at least be a start.

      • “After these plotters “manipulate him into place,” do they order him to take his rifle to work? If not, how do you suppose the M-C linked to LHO get there? Why was he near the back stairs just after the shooting?”~Jean Davison

        There is no proof whatsoever of Oswald taking a rifle to work.
        Oswald was near the lunch room at the soda machines during the shooting. He was already eating his lunch in the Domino room, the lunch he brought in that paper sack.

        The evidence as to the Paine’s involvement in intelligence is sound. That Ruth had a relative working in the TBDB is not coincidence at all. The TBDB is part of the Intelligence milieu itself.

        Your attempt to disassociate deM from Oswald is simply silly.
        \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          Willy,

          “After these plotters “manipulate him into place,” do they order him to take his rifle to work? If not, how do you suppose the M-C linked to LHO get there? Why was he near the back stairs just after the shooting?”~Jean Davison

          There is no proof whatsoever of Oswald taking a rifle to work.”

          That’s not what I asked you, Willy. Please read it again.

          “Oswald was near the lunch room at the soda machines during the shooting.”

          He was seen by Truly & Baker near the back stairs c. 90 seconds after the shots. Mrs. Reid next saw him coming from that direction with a “full” bottle in his hand, she said. Did he just happen to go up for a drink at the same time reenactments showed the sniper would’ve been there after leaving the SN?

          “He was already eating his lunch in the Domino room, the lunch he brought in that paper sack.”

          A bag about 27″ long? Loaf of French bread maybe? Linnie Mae reported the bag to police because she’s in on it too, right? Isn’t it strange that Oswald was one of the few workers who didn’t bother to watch JFK drive by?

          “The evidence as to the Paine’s involvement in intelligence is sound. That Ruth had a relative working in the TBDB is not coincidence at all. The TBDB is part of the Intelligence milieu itself.”

          I hope you’re keeping count of the number of people involved in framing Oswald. You may need a calculator.

          “Your attempt to disassociate deM from Oswald is simply silly.”

          I wouldn’t want to do that — deM had one of the backyard photos with Oswald’s signature on the back. (I know, “fake, fake, fake…”) George de Mohrenschildt left Dallas in April. You placed him there at the wrong time, that’s all.

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean,
            FWIW :

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/demohr_j.htm
            …..
            Mr. JENNER. And you worked in the millinery department until just before—-
            Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Before we left for the east, before we made a trip east. And we left 19 April. We drove off from Dallas. Nineteenth of April we left Dallas. Instead of staying a week or 10 days as we planned, because George had so much trouble with his little girl, and then he was also in Washington.
            We returned almost at the last days of May. I had 2 days to pack the whole house, and store the furniture, and separate the clothes, and God knows–we almost went crazy, you know. We did it all in 2 days. And then we drove back to Miami, because we had to ship a car. Grace Line wasn’t going to Haiti any more. So we drove to Miami, and we flew over, and our car came over later on, on a boat, with our clothes, with everything.
            Mr. JENNER. From the time you left for Haiti from Miami, which, I think, was on the second of June—-
            Mrs. De MOHRENSCHILDT. We arrived 2 June. Oh, yes; that is right.
            Mr. JENNER. 2 June 1963, have you been back to the United States other than this trip you have now made to testify—-

          • “I hope you’re keeping count of the number of people involved in framing Oswald. You may need a calculator.”~Jean Davison

            I don’t think there is any profit in counting the numbers, but more in naming names and pointing to their connections.

            I gave you a general outline of how Oswald was framed.

            You have responded with the same innuendos that defines your trademark MO. But we have argued all these points in detail countless times.

            Your “reenactments” don’t prove anything.

            For example, if deM was involved in setting up Oswald, why would it be out of the question that he would have a forged photo of Oswald with a rifle in his “Black Bart” outfit? “Hunter of Fascits” indeed…

            You have zero proof that Oswald was on the 6th floor firing a rifle.
            We have more proof of malfeasance, broken chains of custody, and motives of those who set him up than anything you apologists for the National Security Ghouls have been able to cobble together.
            \\][//

          • Paulf says:

            Jean:

            So someone who is seen in the vicinity 90 seconds after a shooting, you call that evidence that Oswald was the shooter?

            I’m sorry, that is plainly ludicrous and typical of LN definition of “evidence.”

            If this were a rural farm, that might hold some weight, but this was a crowded workplace in a city at the time of a parade. Heck, the shooting was an industrial building with numerous places to hide and lots of people walking around.

            Evidence that Oswald was the shooter is just that. There just isn’t any, beyond, well, “we don’t suspect anybody else there, so it had to have been him.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            Thanks, Tom, but Oswald left Dallas on April 24th (filled out an application in New Orleans two days later.) Oswald wasn’t in Dallas when the deM’s returned in May.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “I gave you a general outline of how Oswald was framed.”

            You did no such thing, Willy. You evaded almost all my questions.

            “You have responded with the same innuendos that defines your trademark MO.”

            What “innuendos”?

            “But we have argued all these points in detail countless times.”

            No, you’ve criticized the WC’s explanation of the evidenc for 50 years without ever providing an alternative.

            “For example, if deM was involved in setting up Oswald, why would it be out of the question that he would have a forged photo of Oswald with a rifle in his “Black Bart” outfit? “Hunter of Fascists” indeed…”

            Good, you’ve given your explanation for the signed photo: yet another fake. No wonder you don’t want to count how many people had to be involved, how much evidence had to be faked, how Oswald’s own actions must be explained as coincidence or “following orders.” We never hear that story because it’s ludicrous.

            Oswald’s mother testified that Marina showed her a photo of her son holding a rifle and that she advised Marina to get rid of it. Your explanation is what?

            Speaking of “innuendos”:

            “…you apologists for the National Security Ghouls….”

            Real classy, Willy.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Paulf,

            “So someone who is seen in the vicinity 90 seconds after a shooting, you call that evidence that Oswald was the shooter?”

            If that were all of it, of course not. I’m talking about ALL the evidence that makes him look guilty. Not just one thing,but many things that point in the same direction.

            Oswald wasn’t just “in the vicinity,” he was near the sniper’s probable escape route c. 90 seconds after the shooting. Several people have reenacted this, not just the WC. The stand-in sniper also got to the second floor within 90 seconds, without even running.

            Even that might be written off as a coincidence, but the murder weapon’s serial number was traced to Oswald’s P.O. box… that still doesn’t look suspicious to you?

            “If this were a rural farm, that might hold some weight, but this was a crowded workplace in a city at the time of a parade. Heck, the shooting was an industrial building with numerous places to hide and lots of people walking around.”

            The building was searched and there were very few people walking around. Most either went outside for the motorcade or were watching it from a window.

            None of them were suspects because there’s zero evidence against them.

          • Paulf says:

            Jean, again, the evidence you cite is negative. There is no positive evidence Oswald was there, you just think you eliminated everyone else. That might work in the court of public opinion, but would not stand scrutiny In a trial.

            And no, the weapon was never really traced to Oswald. That has been proffered, but it’s another piece of ginned up evidence that has never been established.

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘Oswald’s mother testified that Marina showed her a photo of her son holding a rifle and that she advised Marina to get rid of it. Your explanation is what?’ – Jean Davison

            Jean, can you identify where in Marguerite Oswald’s testimony she indicates that she advised Marina to ‘get rid of it’?

            MRS. OSWALD: ‘ . . . Now, gentlemen, this is some very important facts. My daughter-in-law spoke to Mrs. Paine in Russian, “Mamma.” she says. So she takes me into the bedroom and closes the door. She said, “Mamma, I show you.” She opened the closet, and in the closet was a lot of books and papers. And she came out with a picture a picture of Lee, with a gun. It said, “To my daughter June”-written in English.
            I said, “Oh, Marina, police.” I didn’t think anything of the picture.
            Now, you must understand that I don’t know what is going on on television–I came from the jailhouse and everything, so I don’t know all the circumstances, what evidence they had against my son by this time. I had no way of knowing. But I say to my daughter, “To my daughter. June.” anybody can own a rifle, to go hunting. You yourself probably have a rifle. So I am not connecting this with the assassination–“To my daughter, June.” Because I would immediately say, and I remember–I think my son is all agent all the time no one is going to be foolish enough if they mean to assassinate the President, or even murder someone to take a picture of themselves with that rifle, and leave that there for evidence. . . . She says, “You take, Mamma.”‘ “Yes, Mamma, you take.” I said, “No, Marina. Put back in the book.” So she put the picture back in the book. Which book it was, I do not know.

            (continued)

          • leslie sharp says:

            (continued)
            testimony of Marguerite Oswald before the Warren Commission:

            {MRS. OSWALD} ‘ . . . So the next day, when we are at the courthouse this is on Saturday-she–we were sitting down, waiting to see Lee. She puts her shoe down, she says, “Mamma, picture.” She had the picture folded up in her shoe.
            Now, I did not see that it was the picture. but I know that it was, because she told me it was, and I could see it was folded up. It wasn’t open for me to see. I said, “Marina.” Just like that. So Robert came along and he says, . . .

            “Robert” I said, “No, no Marina.” I didn’t want her to tell Robert about the picture. Right there, you know. That was about the picture.

            Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever tell her to destroy the picture?

            Mrs. Oswald. NO. NOW I HAVE TO GO INTO THIS. I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT DESTROYING THE PICTURE. (emphasis mine) While there, Marina–there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with [hits] of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn’t burn completely, because it was heavy–not cardboard–what is the name for it–a photographic picture. So the match didn’t take it completely.

            Mr. RANKIN. HAD YOU SAID ANYTHING TO HER ABOUT BURNING THE PICTURE BEFORE THAT?

            Mrs. OSWALD. NO, SIR. The last time I had seen the picture was in Marina’s shoe when she was trying to tell me that the picture was in her shoe. I state here now that Marina meant for me to have that picture, from the very beginning, in Mrs. Paine’s home. She said–I testified before “Mamma, you keep picture.”
            And then she showed it to me in the courthouse. AND WHEN I REFUSED IT, THEN SHE DECIDED TO GET RID OF THE PICTURE. She tore up the picture and struck a match to it. Then I took it and flushed it down the toilet.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Mr. RANKIN. In regard to the photograph, I will show you some photographs. Maybe you can tell me whether they are the ones that you are referring to. Here is Commission’s Exhibit 134.
            Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture.

            Mr. RANKIN. And 133, consists of two different pictures.

            Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, that is not the picture. He was holding the rifle and it said, “To my daughter, June, with love.” He was holding the rifle up.

            Mr. RANKIN. By holding it up, you mean—-

            Mrs. OSWALD. Like this.

            Mr. RANKIN. Crosswise, with both hands on the rifle?

            Mrs. OSWALD. With both hands on the rifle.

            Mr. RANKIN. Above his head?

            Mrs. OSWALD. That is right.

            Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever see these pictures, Exhibits 133 and 134?

            Mrs. OSWALD. No, sir, I have never seen those pictures.

          • leslie sharp says:

            Marguerite Oswald has been ridiculed and dehumanized for decades while Ruth Paine has been elevated to the role of a duped saint.

            consider the following from her testimony:

            Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, sir–the 22d, Friday, the 22d.
            I am worried because Lee hasn’t had an attorney. And I am talking about that, and Mrs. Paine said, “OH, DON’T WORRY ABOUT THAT. I AM A MEMBER OF THE CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION, AND LEE WILL HAVE AN ATTORNEY, I CAN ASSURE YOU. (emphasis mine) I said to myself BUT WHEN? Of course, I didn’t want to push her, argue with her. But the point was if she was a member of the Union, why didn’t she see Lee had an attorney then . . .

            Mrs. OSWALD. Mrs. Paine . . . gave Marina $10. . . . I said, “You know, I do want to get paid for the story, because I am destitute, and here is a girl with–her husband is going to be in jail, we will need money for attorneys, with two babies.” She said, “you don’t have to worry about Marina. Marina will always have a home with me BECAUSE MARINA HELPS.

            Marguerite continues. . . “Now, Mrs. Paine speaks Russian fluently. “She helps me with my Russian language. She BABYSITS FOR ME AND HELPS ME WITH THE HOUSEWORK and you never have to worry about Marina. . .

            “Now, . . . Mr. Paine does not live here. So it is just the two women. So Mrs. Paine didn’t “GRACIOUSLY” {emphasis mine} do anything for Marina, as the paper stated–that Lee never did pay Mrs. Paine for room or board. Mrs. Paine owes them money. That is almost the kind of work that I do, or the airline stewardesses do . . . MARINA WAS EARNING HER KEEP, AND REALLY SHOULD HAVE HAD A SALARY FOR IT — what I am trying to say, gentlemen, Mrs. Paine had Marina there to help babysit with the children, with her children-if she wanted to go running around and everything. So actually she wasn’t doing my son or Marina the favor that she claims she was doing. . . .“

            Might a class prejudice have played out before the Warren Commission and the press? Ruth Paine, the erudite daughter of East Coast establishment never held to account. Yet it’s clear from this testimony Marguerite Oswald was a savvy woman who had struggled to survive and took very seriously the protection of her grandchildren and daughter in law during the ensuing chaos of her son’s arrest. She recognized the conditions under which Marina was ‘welcome’ in the Paine’s home. She knew that Marina was ‘employed’ and working out her living arrangements in exchange for wages. The lies and half truths that Ruth Paine was a benevolent friend have been propagated for far too long. One even has to wonder if she might have been held legally liable for taxes relating to Marina?

          • And no, the weapon was never really traced to Oswald. That has been proffered, but it’s another piece of ginned up evidence that has never been established.

            You mean aside from his palmprint on the rifle.

            And his fingerprints on the trigger guard.

            And the Backyard Photos, which show Oswald with the same rifle. A distinctive gouge on the forestock is a “random patterning” sufficient to match the rifle in the photos to the one discovered in the Depository.

            And then there is the paper trail linking Oswald to the Klein’s order.

            But you think all this is faked or forged, right?

          • Photon says:

            Paulf , the rifle had Oswald’s palm print on an area that could only come in contact with human skin if it was disassembled .
            The rifle buttplate had fibers from Oswald’s shirt.
            The bag that Oswald brought into the TSBD that held the disassembled rifle had fibers from the blanket that he stored it in at the Paine’s.
            He was photographed holding the same weapon by his wife.
            The money order he used to purchase it has been recently proven to be genuine -by CTers.
            If it walks like.a duck, swims like a duck, quacks like a duck it ain’t no hippopotamus .

          • Jean Davison says:

            Re this:

            “Jean, can you identify where in Marguerite Oswald’s testimony she indicates that she advised Marina to ‘get rid of it’?”

            Ms. Sharp is correct, and I acknowledge this error. It was Marina who testified that Oswald’s mother told her to get rid of it. Marguerite herself indicated only that she didn’t want the police or Robert to see this photo and that she was present when Marina burned it in an ashtray.

            They clearly described the same photo: Oswald holding a rifle over his head and an inscription on the back “To my daughter June.” (Marina’s version was “For my daughter June.”)

            My apology to all for this error.

          • My apology to all for this error.

            Well the clear implication of what Marguerite told Marina was that it would be better if the photo were destroyed — although the former tried to argue to the WC that if proved nothing.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Well the clear implication of what Marguerite told Marina was that it would be better if the photo were destroyed — although the former tried to argue to the WC that if proved nothing.” — John McAdams

            How very predictable of you John. The only thing clear is what Marguerite said under oath; that she did not tell Marina to burn the photo let alone tear it into bits.

            In fairness to Jean Davison, her acknowledgment is all the more significant because she so seldom makes mistakes when referencing specific detail. My dispute with her has long been her subjective interpretation of data which by the way she has included in her ‘apology’ response. Now you insert your interpretation of what Marguerite really intended as well, in spite of the fact she testified under oath otherwise. If one is going to speculate, why not speculate why Marina would have implicated Marguerite? She knew that she had burned the photo on her on volition and may well have realized the implications so better that her mother-in-law (sadly the only person standing between Marina, the authorities, and the circumstances she found herself in) take on the legal burden of destroying potential evidence? We know from testimony that Marguerite stood firmly between Hart Odum and Marina that evening, for instance. We know that she argued for financial support to take care of the infants immediately. This not the behaviour of ‘a deranged woman’ and I would posit your “hatred” of Oswald’s mother fuels and informs your purely subjective interpretation of what she meant when she testified.

  14. “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”~Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

    \\][//

  15. “You mean aside from his palmprint on the rifle.
    And his fingerprints on the trigger guard.

    And the Backyard Photos, which show Oswald with the same rifle. A distinctive gouge on the forestock is a “random patterning” sufficient to match the rifle in the photos to the one discovered in the Depository.”
    ~McAdams

    Of course the FBI found no such fingerprints until a pow-wow with the DPD when they got “all their ducks in a row”. Again shifting stories that plague the case like lite house keepers.

    And yes the infamous “back yard photos” … did Marina actually take these photos? You are certain of this even though there are very good reasons to believe they are fakes.

    Reasons enough for doubt. Especially when so much of the other so-called evidence falls apart on close inspection – the chains of custody, lack of proper crime scene protocol, lack of proper autopsy protocol. The almost certainty that CE399 is an FBI plant, for it is certainly not the Parkland Bullet.

    And how about that Hidell ID? What postal clerk would be so stupid as to not know a Selective Service card has no picture on it?
    Your ducks waddle off in different directions here, but you keep trying to corral them back. We watch bemused at your antics.
    \\][//

    • Of course the FBI found no such fingerprints until a pow-wow with the DPD when they got “all their ducks in a row”. Again shifting stories that plague the case like lite house keepers.

      They found no such print because J.C. Day had lifted it off.

      The FBI did confirm that the print was from Oswald’s rifle.

      On the day of the assassination, Day told an FBI guy that he had found a print he was going to lift:

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/day_palmprint.gif

      And yes the infamous “back yard photos” … did Marina actually take these photos? You are certain of this even though there are very good reasons to believe they are fakes.

      When real experts — and not buff hobbyists — examined the photos, they determined they were genuine.

      http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/photos.txt

      Of course, Marina said she took them, but of course if her testimony is inconvenient, you’ll call her a liar.

      But if the devil himself took them, the rifle still has a distinctive gouge in the forestock that matches the rifle recovered in the Depository.

      • McAdams,

        I never claimed Marina was lying. I am saying she suffered from the Stockholm Syndrome as was brainwashed by her captors.

        Day could have lifted that print off of anything that Oswald had touched; boxes in the warehouse, a doorway, his own Day’s own desk during interrogation… The point being that Day is a prime suspect as part of the plot to frame Oswald.

        As far as the photo of Oswald with a rifle over his head, it was seen by no one other than Marina and Oswald’s mother. It cannot be said to be the same rifle as in the back yard photo’s, it cannot be said to be Oswald in his Black Bart outfit, it cannot be said to be Oswald wearing a 38 in a holster on his hip — it cannot be proven to be part of that infamous sequence of backyard photo’s.

        “When real experts — and not buff hobbyists”~McAdams
        Yea like the “real expert” cops that couldn’t manage a proper crime scene investigation. Or real doctors who couldn’t manage a proper autopsy. Or real Secret Service Agents that could properly protect the President.

        Go “buff” your shoes.
        \\][//

        • I never claimed Marina was lying. I am saying she suffered from the Stockholm Syndrome as was brainwashed by her captors.

          But she has not, to this day, recanted any of the key testimony she gave the Warren Commission: Oswald told her he shot at Walker, he told her he had been to Mexico City, she took the Backyard Photos, etc.

          This in spite of being persuaded by buffs in the 1980s that there was a conspiracy.

          Day could have lifted that print off of anything that Oswald had touched;

          No, the print contained the impression of the irregularities of the metal of the rifle barrel. Further, Day told the FBI guy that the print was on the rifle (see the link above).

          The point being that Day is a prime suspect as part of the plot to frame Oswald.

          Only on the basis of the fact that he’s very inconvenient for you folks.

          As far as the photo of Oswald with a rifle over his head, it was seen by no one other than Marina and Oswald’s mother.

          Right. Since they destroyed it. But I thought you said the Backyard Photos were faked. Did they find a fake one on the evening of the assassination and destroy it?

          Or real doctors who couldn’t manage a proper autopsy. Or real Secret Service Agents that could properly protect the President.

          So, to evade the fact that bona fide photo experts authenticated the Backyard Photos, you bash the autopsy doctors and Secret Service.

          That’s the normal thing you do, eh? When cornered on the evidence, bash somebody in an irrelevant statement.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “Right. Since they destroyed it.” — John McAdams

            Mrs. Oswald. NO. NOW I HAVE TO GO INTO THIS. I WANT TO TELL YOU ABOUT DESTROYING THE PICTURE. (emphasis mine) While there, Marina–there is an ashtray on the dressing table. And Marina comes with [hits] of paper, and puts them in the ashtray and strikes a match to it. And this is the picture of the gun that Marina tore up into bits of paper, and struck a match to it. Now, that didn’t burn completely, because it was heavy–not cardboard–what is the name for it–a photographic picture. So the match didn’t take it completely.

            Mr. RANKIN. HAD YOU SAID ANYTHING TO HER ABOUT BURNING THE PICTURE BEFORE THAT?

            Mrs. OSWALD. NO, SIR.

            and in case you missed it, Jean Davison has corrected her assertion so perhaps you might as well?

            “Ms. Sharp is correct, and I acknowledge this error. It was Marina who testified that Oswald’s mother told her to get rid of it. Marguerite herself indicated only that she didn’t want the police or Robert to see this photo and that she was present when Marina burned it in an ashtray.

            They clearly described the same photo: Oswald holding a rifle over his head and an inscription on the back “To my daughter June.” (Marina’s version was “For my daughter June.”)

            My apology to all for this error.” — Jean Davison

          • “So, to evade the fact that bona fide photo experts authenticated the Backyard Photos, you bash the autopsy doctors and Secret Service.” ~McAdams

            It is obvious here that by your logic the only bona fide experts in this case, are those chosen by the government to give their opinions.

            What do you know about the art of fingerprints, and the forensics of lifting and analysis of them? Are you an expert yourself?

            What do you know about photography and the forensic analysis of them> Are you an expert yourself? I have been an expert in film and photography my entire life. I can see the anomalies in the backyard photos myself, and I consider them to be clearly fakes.

            The Prime directive of the Secret Service is to protect the President. These “experts” lost a President on 11/22/1963. Was this on purpose? Were some of the leadership of this detail part of a conspiracy to allow the President to be killed? You’ve got two choices there McAdams, they fk’d up, or they allowed it to happen.

            And lastly anyone who knows forensic pathology KNOWS that the JFK autopsy was a disaster from beginning to end. It was prosecuted by two general pathologists who had never done an autopsy of a murder by firearms. WHY the hell was this allowed to happen McAdams? With all of the qualified forensic pathologists in the nation at that time__how did this travesty take place?

            Happenstance and coincidence is all you can come up with here McAdams, because the aggregate of the evidence clearly defines a burlesque produced by ‘EXPERTS’ of deception; the US Intelligence services.
            \\][//

          • And lastly anyone who knows forensic pathology KNOWS that the JFK autopsy was a disaster from beginning to end. It was prosecuted by two general pathologists who had never done an autopsy of a murder by firearms. WHY the hell was this allowed to happen McAdams?

            Because Burkley believed that the autopsy needed to be done at a military facility, for security purposes.

            He let Jackie pick, but prodded her with “Jack was a Navy man.” And she said, “of course. Bethesda.”

            Read Manchester.

            When you are dealing with people who don’t know much, your “How did this happen!!??” routine works well.

            With people who do, not so well.

          • “Because Burkley believed that the autopsy needed to be done at a military facility, for security purposes.”~McAdams

            So what? Just because the autopsy was to be at Bethesda does not necessitate using only Bethesda personnel. Real forensic pathologists could have been called on from any of the military hospitals in the region.

            You are making up excuses that make no rational sense. Expedience cannot be the sole determinant in such a case, quality is the most important determinant.

            It is clear that the conspirators wanted a situation wherein they could determine the outcome by rank and coercion.
            Two inexperienced general pathologists are the perfect choice for such pressures to be applied to.

            McAdams lacks empathy. By that I do not mean ‘pity’, I mean the ability to put himself in the “shoes of another”, to be able to think in terms of another. Such as the imagination to think like a conspirator. It is either that or he is utterly disingenuous. And I just might put my money on the latter,
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Earlier in my participation on JFK Assassination forums, I would receive PMs from Gary Mack on a forum where he was a silent
            member. He had PMd me in response to a post I had made on another topic, and I asked him about his knowledge of this man. Gary ignored the question, fwiw.

            http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-05-24/news/9202160436_1_humes-autopsy-pathology
            Jfk: The Autopsy
            Doctors Say The Examination Was Not Impeded
            May 24, 1992|By Dennis L. Breo, national correspondent for the Journal of the American Medical Association.

            It was 5:15 p.m. (on Nov. 22, 1963, in Washington, D.C.) and Adm. Edward Kenny said, “Jim, you better hurry over to the hospital.“

            By the time he arrived at the Naval Medical Center in Bethesda, Md., Humes was “beginning to get the message that the president`s body was en route…

            https://books.google.com/books?id=7jrKTKDhvfkC&pg=PA140&lpg=PA140&dq=admiral+kenney+humes+bethesda+kennedy+autopsy&source=bl&ots=WmqHhFNZir&sig=V3dvOUracwPwcisikKy3XVu_FxA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV_pq43vPJAhWBPB4KHSjFBzkQ6AEIQjAG#v=onepage&q=admiral%20kenney%20humes%20bethesda%20kennedy%20autopsy&f=false
            Reclaiming History: The Assassination of President John F. …
            https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0393045250
            Vincent Bugliosi – 2007 – ‎Biography & Autobiography
            Now Humes bounds toward Admiral Kenney’s office, where the surgeon general gives the commander his orders: “Be prepared to do an autopsy on the late president.

            https://books.google.com/books?id=Q2YtAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT212&lpg=PT212&dq=Also+present+in+the+autopsy+room+were+:+Rear+Admiral+Kenney,+Surgeon+General&source=bl&ots=VbcmqvwyQc&sig=YdFXozQQNNhzGzIxFmyKmtvAU2Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiFiOKd3_PJAhUJFh4KHePjApgQ6AEIIjAB#v=onepage&q=Also%20present%20in%20the%20autopsy%20room%20were%20%3A%20Rear%20Admiral%20Kenney%2C%20Surgeon%20General&f=false
            Never Again!: The Government Conspiracy in the JFK …
            https://books.google.com/books?isbn=1628735155
            Harold Weisberg – 2013 – ‎History
            Boswell also had said that the Navy, through its Naval Medical School, … Also present in the autopsy room were: Rear Admiral Kenney, Surgeon General of the Navy;

          • “My orders were to find the cause of death and I was told to get anyone I thought necessary to help do the autopsy, but to limit it to only the help I needed. Hell, I could have called in people from Paris and Rome if I thought it necessary, but as it turned out, I didn`t. About this time, I also received a phone call from Dr. Bruce Smith, the deputy director of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, offering me whatever help I might need. Bruce was a friend and I thanked him, saying I would call later if I needed help.”
            ~ Adm. Edward Kenny

            Thanks for the link Tom, does this really make any sense to you? I still don’t get it! Adm Kenny’s own friend offered help, but he went with these inexperienced general practitioners.
            It doesn’t make any sense, unless there was pressure put on to use these inexperienced stooges for a particular reason.

            What was the rush?
            \\][//

          • So what? Just because the autopsy was to be at Bethesda does not necessitate using only Bethesda personnel. Real forensic pathologists could have been called on from any of the military hospitals in the region.

            Actually, one was. But Finck was called in late and relegated to a marginal role.

            The simple reality is that nobody in the Kennedy entourage understood the need for a forensic autopsy.

            You can huff and puff all you want, but nothing about that proves a conspiracy.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            “But she has not, to this day, recanted any of the key testimony she gave the Warren Commission[.]”

            She has stated, on more than one occasion, that she doesn’t think her late husband killed JFK. Whether that counts as recanting her testimony or not, that’s a fact, as opposed to your, shall we call it, Factoid.

            Not to mention that certain WC members were, shall we say, less than convinced that she was a reliable witness.

            Not to mention that James Hosty (remember him, the FBI agent to whom Oswald wrote that flushed-down-the-crapper letter about which the substance of said letter Hosty’s 1970s era testimony is Sacred Writ according to you) thought Marina was a Soviet sleeper agent.

            But then she’s not the only canary to sing an alternate tune in the long history of this case.

          • She has stated, on more than one occasion, that she doesn’t think her late husband killed JFK. Whether that counts as recanting her testimony or not, that’s a fact, as opposed to your, shall we call it, Factoid.

            That’s her opinion, based on what she has been told.

            But she has continued to insist that she took the Backyard Photos, that Oswald told her he shot at Walker, that Oswald told her he had gone to Mexico City, etc.

          • Not to mention that James Hosty (remember him, the FBI agent to whom Oswald wrote that flushed-down-the-crapper letter about which the substance of said letter Hosty’s 1970s era testimony is Sacred Writ according to you) thought Marina was a Soviet sleeper agent.

            Do you believe that to be true? And if so, does it mean you think the Soviets conspired to kill Kennedy?

          • Fearfaxer says:

            @ John McAdams:

            “That’s her opinion, based on what she has been told.”

            Really? Care to make that a bit more coherent? Tee many martoonis, Professor?

            “But she has continued to insist that she took the Backyard Photos, that Oswald told her he shot at Walker, that Oswald told her he had gone to Mexico City, etc.”

            And she’s to be believed when it’s convenient for your scenario of what happened, and disbelieved when it contradicts said scenario.

            Why don’t we settle for what any ADA would conclude? SHE’S COMPLETELY UNRELIABLE. Some statements seem more believable than others, but nothing can be trusted on its face, however much we might want to believe.

            My comment here: “Not to mention that James Hosty (remember him, the FBI agent to whom Oswald wrote that flushed-down-the-crapper letter about which the substance of said letter Hosty’s 1970s era testimony is Sacred Writ according to you) thought Marina was a Soviet sleeper agent.”

            The Good Prof here: Do you believe that to be true? And if so, does it mean you think the Soviets conspired to kill Kennedy?

            I think it’s quite possible she was some kind of Soviet plant, though obviously any such function (of an undoubtedly drab and mundane variety) she might have served ended on 11/22/63, at which point she became radioactive. As to your supposition that believing she might have been a Soviet plant equates believing the Soviets conspired to kill JFK, please, belief in the former does not equate to belief in the latter, though thank you for showing the desperate stretches of supposed logic you Lone Nut Buffs like to indulge in. Far more likely that any conspiracy came from the mucky underworld of the anti-Castro paramilitary infrastructure.

          • And she’s to be believed when it’s convenient for your scenario of what happened, and disbelieved when it contradicts said scenario.

            She is to be believed on her testimony on factual matters of which she has firsthand knowledge.

            Her opinions on things about which she lacks first hand knowledge are no better than anybody else’s.

  16. When we go through the litany of the comedy of errors of the so-called crime scene investigation, we are faced with a massive set of happenstance and coincidence that is simply impossible to swallow.

    And for our adversaries here to insist that we go through the check list of all these points again and again, it becomes obvious that theirs is a ‘war of attrition’, meant to wear us down, to create a puddle of mud where there is in fact a clear pool of reasoning showing all of their so called evidence is a bluff. All of it is stacked so precariously that the slightest jiggle of the base it sits upon makes it collapse like a house of cards.

    But the game trudges on, along with the ever hardening police state, morphed from a National Security State to a Panoptic Maximum Security State dedicated to Full Spectrum Dominance in a Global Tyranny.

    Meanwhile in the trenches of this mind-war, the fascist adversary sneers with glee at the seeming impasse they have constructed of rhetorical tripe. But it is all appearances, a cavalcade of smoke and mirrors in a fun-house in the carnival of deceptions.
    \\][//

  17. Heather says:

    it’s funny how Dan Rather can make a mistake and that just shows he made an error but Dan Talbot made a mistake and his whole book should be discredited?

    Interesting double standard.

    • Photon says:

      Dan Rather lost his job for reporting a false story.
      Isn’t Talbot’s invention of Allen Dulles’ travel history of Nov 22-23 just as egregious -and just as fictional?

      • leslie sharp says:

        photon, Surely you don’t want to go down the path of Karl Rove’s involvement in that charade? And surely you know that Dan Rather sued his former employer CBS, it’s parent Viacom AND Sumner Redstone for scapegoating him? That would be Viacom and Redstone who have long ranked among the top financial contributors to the John F. Kennedy Library which cannot find it in themselves to substantiate their own claim that there was an increase in military personnel from 700 to 16,500 following Kennedy’s election let alone who signed off on the increases. That would be the library supposedly honouring the memory of a slain president whose entire public service reflects a “Strategy of Peace” (Harper & Brothers, 1960) but has since been commandeered by the very noxious elements of US capitalism John Kennedy was attempting to confront prior to his assassination – a result of a conspiracy – on 11.33.63?

        Consider George W. Bush’s 2001 Ambassador to Ireland Richard Egan, founder of EMC which funded the digitization of files at the JFK Library. Look to Shannon Airport, Ireland. Egan was sworn in on ironically September 11, 2001; study the rendition flights thru that neutral nation since then, one beloved by John Kennedy. Count the number of US military personnel passing thru Shannon since then en route to an illegal war in the Middle East . . . 2.5 million annually. An affront to the memory of John Kennedy.

        Yes photon, let’s indeed review all of this.

        http://www.shannonwatch.org

      • David Regan says:

        I think not, sir. It isn’t simply cowards who might avoid duty. It is also silver spoon, lazy, incompetent, entitled men like Bush.

  18. Alan says:

    First, I wonder if the Agency would dare try to block the scheduled release of JFK declassified material in 2017 IF it was 1775 instead of 2017?

    Something tells me they’d have to apprehend and “neutralize” the likes of Patrick Henry if they dared to snub their noses at patriots of old like that.

    Once upon a time (mere seconds before a barrage of bullets rained upon President Kennedy’s motorcade on Friday, November 22, 1963) America had a democracy, where a mere alphabet agency was accountable to the people. Somehow, that dynamic no longer applies, because this mere alphabet agency has become the henchman for the same lying treasonous cowards truly responsible for the demise of an unarmed representative of the people.

    They couldn’t beat JFK fair and square at the ballot-box a year later in 1964, so these lying treasonous cowards resorted to what all gutless cowards do, lie, cheat and steal. Lied about who did it; cheated an innocent man and his family, and stole democracy from an entire nation.

    Hey!, CIA, only cowards shoot an unarmed man, lie about who is responsible and then hide like lil’ beeotches…

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Willy Whitten
      December 22, 2015 at 6:26 pm

      “Well you know… It is real hard to find the top of some of the longer threads on this page, so I am going to write this down here.”

      “I do not agree with Bill Clarke on his perspective on JFK and Vietnam.”

      Your agreement matters not at all to me. In fact I’d be alarmed if I ever agreed with the BS you post. But these people do in fact agree with me on “JFK and Vietnam”; Lloyd Gardner, William Duiker, John Prados, George Herring, William Gibbons, and Larry Berman. I doubt these names ring a bell with you Willy since all of them are leading historians of the Vietnam War.

      “I do not think it profitable to go around and round on that carousel with him any longer.”

      Then prove this and I’ll stop; “I’ll give you an example from Newman’s book, page322. This is the basis of the book.
      ________________________________________________________
      “Kennedy decided to use Taylor’s and Harkin’ reports of battlefield success to justify the beginning of the withdrawal he was planning.” Italics by Newman.
      “Kennedy kept his plan a closely guarded secret, but by March he was determined not only to withdraw—come what may—after 1964, but, if possible, to take a clear step in that direction….”
      ________________________________________________________________

      “I have opinions about his person that are best left unsaid.

      You’re just miffed because I point out that much of what you say is BS. It isn’t my fault that you post a bunch of crap.

      “Perhaps his opinions of me should remain unstated as well.”

      Bingo!

      • “You’re just miffed because I point out that much of what you say is BS. It isn’t my fault that you post a bunch of crap.”
        ~Bill Clarke

        So you are going to taunt in attempt to crank up your rusty mainstream carousel where you cite the go along to get along “historians” that want to blame the “hippies and the wishy-washy Kennedy” for loosing the war that he never started.
        Just total hogwash.
        \\][//

      • So we are now invited to imbibe the poison jingoberry pie made from the recipe of the scribes and apologists of empire, the official propagandists of the military industrial complex. And reject the “heresies” of independent minds like Newman, Prouty, and P.D. Scott. All for the love of war and victory at any and all cost.

        It’s really just a red, white, and blue boohoohoo from the moronic fools who got their war, shot their wad and lost anyway.

        And now, after dinking around with their phony “War on Terror” meme they have finally taken a deep swallow of that ancient swill to revive and instigate a redux of the “Cold War” – pumping up the punching bags of the Russians and the Chinese for rhetorical target practice. Hoping this time they may really get a chance to drop the BIG ONE in a Strangelovian burlesque of true Yankee Doodle proportion.

        Welcome to the New World Order dementia of Orwellian Newspeak; where Hate is Love, War is Peace, and Big Brother’s got his eye on you 24/7 as we count down to oblivion.
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy Whitten
          December 23, 2015 at 8:08 am

          “So we are now invited to imbibe the poison jingoberry pie made from the recipe of the scribes and apologists of empire, the official propagandists of the military industrial complex. And reject the “heresies” of independent minds like Newman, Prouty, and P.D. Scott. All for the love of war and victory at any and all cost.”

          For time and space only I’ll let slide Newman and Scott. But Willy, when a man begins to believe Prouty’s BS he has lost touch with reality. I know you consider yourself an equal to Newman, Prouty and Scott so go on and list your name with them. You’d fit right in.

          You’re turning into a real drama queen here Willy. Please stop.

          • “drama queen” – “liar” – “poster of crap”

            Thus sayeth the indoctrinated soldier boy.

            Thanks for the offer of lollipops Mr Clarke, but I never take candy from strangers.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Okay, last one. Keep your comments, Bill and Willy, to other than your opinions of each other, or they
            won’t appear here.

          • Bill Clarke,

            Show us where it says in, National Security Action Memorandum No. 52, that 500 US special forces were to be introduced to South Vietnam.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 26, 2015 at 12:02 am

            Bill Clarke,

            “Show us where it says in, National Security Action Memorandum No. 52, that 500 US special forces were to be introduced to South Vietnam.”

            Willy Whitten
            December 21, 2015 at 10:26 am

            “11 May 61; In National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) 52, President Kennedy approves the deployment of a 400-man Special Forces group to Nha Trang to accelerate ARVN training.”

            Willy, this is a cut and paste of the statement I made on December 21, 2015 at 7:42. Please note that it says “400-man”, not 500 men as you suggest. Is this a trick? There are many references to, “JFK sent 400 Special Force troops to Vietnam, and they all say 400 men.

            As for NSAM 52 saying this I believe it is much like NSAM 263; you have to look at the McNamara Taylor report to really know what the NSAM says. In the case of NSAM 52 you have to be familiar with the National Security Council meeting of April 29, 1961 to understand all that NSAM 52 says.

            Paragraph 2 of NSAM 52. “The approval given for specific military actions by the president at the National Security Council meeting on April 29, 1961 is confirmed.”

            http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/KDit5FSwHEmiuwttNVhDZQ.aspx

            I made a quick run to find this council meeting with no luck. I will attempt again tonight hopefully.

            In the meanwhile if you could give me some evidence that JFK didn’t know about the escalation in Vietnam that would be great.

          • “I made a quick run to find this council meeting with no luck. I will attempt again tonight hopefully.
            In the meanwhile if you could give me some evidence that JFK didn’t know about the escalation in Vietnam that would be great.”

            No, I just made a mistake in quoting the “500” per your “400”
            I have read National Security Action Memorandum No. 52, on the Military Historian site:
            https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d52

            There the whole thing is written in text rather than that small photocopy image at your link.

            This is why I wanted to know where you got your numbers from.

            In the meantime, if you could give me some evidence that JFK knew about the escalation in Vietnam that would be great.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 26, 2015 at 4:32 pm

            Bill; “In the meanwhile if you could give me some evidence that JFK didn’t know about the escalation in Vietnam that would be great.”

            Willy; In the meantime, if you could give me some evidence that JFK knew about the escalation in Vietnam that would be great.

            As you can see Willy, I asked first. I’ll be waiting on you.

            But I have to ask Willy: just what is it that you don’t understand about being the C.I.C.? You think JFK didn’t know where his 7th Fleet and 7th Air Force was located? Kinda hard to hide something that large. It would take a very incompetent CIC to not know this and that certainly wasn’t the style of JFK.

            Over the years I have seen many efforts to keep Camelot out of the blood and mud, truth be damned. But this one of yours takes the cake.

          • “As you can see Willy, I asked first. I’ll be waiting on you.”~Bill Clarke

            Fine wait as long as you want.

            I asked for a citation on the 400 special forces that you claimed was part of National Security Action Memorandum No. 52.

            Until then…
            \\][//

          • leslie sharp says:

            Bill and Willy,

            NSAM 52

            https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d52

            2. The approval given for specific military actions by the President at the National Security Council meeting on April 29, 1961,4[*]is confirmed.

            3. Additional actions listed at pages 4 and 5 of the Task Force Report are authorized, with the objective of meeting the increased security threat resulting from the new situation along the frontier between Laos and Vietnam. In particular, the President directs an assessment of the military utility of a further increase in GVN forces from 170,000 to 200,000, together with an assessment of the parallel political and fiscal implications.

            4. The President directs full examination by the Defense Department, under the guidance of the Director of the continuing Task Force on Vietnam, of the size and composition of forces which would be desirable in the case of a possible commitment of U.S. forces to Vietnam. The diplomatic setting within which this action might be taken should also be examined.

            *https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d40
            40. Editorial Note

            At its meeting at 10 a.m. on April 29, 1961, the National Security Council discussed the Program of Action for Vietnam (see Document 35) and approved paragraphs 3a-3e. The NSC also agreed that the task force should revise the program for further consideration of the Council. (NSC Action No. 2416; Department of State, S/S-NSC Files: Lot 66 D 95) NO RECORD OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE COUNCIL MEETING HAS BEEN FOUND (emphasis mine).

          • David Regan says:

            Kennedy’s policy toward South Vietnam rested on the assumption that Diem and his forces must ultimately defeat the guerrillas on their own. He was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that “to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences.”

            We know for certain that JFK’s refusal to Americanise the war was wise. LBJ retained virtually the entire team of national security advisers assembled by Kennedy, who gave Johnson the same hawkish advice they had given Kennedy. They urged him to intervene, to save the Saigon government from collapse and maintain America’s credibility with its allies, no matter how corrupt or incompetent the South Vietnamese government had become. America, they told LBJ (as they had told JFK), can save the day at little cost and risk. Unlike JFK, LBJ caved in to his inherited hawks again and again as he Americanised the conflict in Vietnam. The result was a costly and humiliating defeat for the US, and a foreshortened career for a president who lacked JFK’s cautionary impulse and steely determination to stand up to misplaced hawkish advice.

            In retrospect, it appears JFK’s fears of an LBJ presidency were justified.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            leslie sharp
            December 27, 2015 at 2:27 am

            At its meeting at 10 a.m. on April 29, 1961, the National Security Council discussed the Program of Action for Vietnam (see Document 35) and approved paragraphs 3a-3e. The NSC also agreed that the task force should revise the program for further consideration of the Council. (NSC Action No. 2416; Department of State, S/S-NSC Files: Lot 66 D 95) NO RECORD OF THE DISCUSSION AT THE COUNCIL MEETING HAS BEEN FOUND (emphasis mine).

            Thanks for posting this, Leslie. After a more intense search I still can’t find any record of this either. I have spent about all the time I can afford on the issue so looks like I’m going to take a rare hit from Willy. I hate it when that happens.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            December 27, 2015 at 1:02 am

            “I asked for a citation on the 400 special forces that you claimed was part of National Security Action Memorandum No. 52.”

            I regretfully inform you, Willy, that I can’t find it to date. Evidently the NSC meeting in which I believe includes the citation you request, can not be found.

            I apologize to you and the group for posting something that I can’t quickly back up.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “I have spent about all the time I can afford on the issue” — Bill Clarke

            I hear you Bill C., this is tedious and time consuming. I’ve not gone in search of published authors who might have pursued this, and I’m not experienced enough to determine for certain whether or not the documents are available in some obscure location. But now that we’ve reached this juncture, do you think there is anything significant in the fact that the minutes from that meeting cannot be readily located?

            I also think it’s important to acknowledge that four months into his administration, President Kennedy was asking questions: ” . . . in the case of a possible commitment of U.S. forces to Vietnam.”

          • David Regan says:

            Bill & Leslie, this document appears to provide a summary of actions approved by the President at the NSC meeting of 29 April 1961. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d42

            Kennedy did not act on the annex at the
            April 29 meeting when he approved the much more modest military proposals of the basic report. See United States-Vietnam Relations, 1945-1967, Book 11, pages 42-57 for details https://nara-media-001.s3.amazonaws.com/arcmedia/research/pentagon-papers/Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-B-1.pdf

          • 1. Augment the MAAG with two U.S. training commands—composed of approximately 1600 instructors each—to enable the MAAG to establish in the “high plateau” region of South Viet-Nam two divisional field training areas to accelerate the U.S. training program for the entire GVN army.
            . . . . . .
            >>2. Deploy, as soon as possible, a Special Forces Group—approximately 400 U.S. military personnel—to Nha Trang in order to accelerate GVN Special Forces training.
            . . . . .
            3. Assign CINCPAC the responsibility for coastal patrol activities (from the Cambodian border to the mouth of the Mekong River), employing U.S. Naval forces in conjunction with the Junk Force, to prevent the seaborne infiltration of Viet Cong personnel and materiel (into the southern delta area).
            https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d42

            Terms of the essence to keep this in context are:
            “in order to accelerate *GVN Special Forces *TRAINING.”
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            David Regan
            December 27, 2015 at 9:34 pm

            Bill & Leslie, this document appears to provide a summary of actions approved by the President at the NSC meeting of 29 April 1961. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d42

            Thanks a lot David. Good work.

          • Tom S. says:

            He is trying to make it more likely you and Willy will finally stop.
            Thanks a lot David, good work.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            December 28, 2015 at 1:18 am

            He is trying to make it more likely you and Willy will finally stop.

            For whatever reason I’m still grateful for David sharing this with us.

  19. Well you know… It is real hard to find the top of some of the longer threads on this page, so I am going to write this down here.

    I do not agree with Bill Clarke on his perspective on JFK and Vietnam.
    I do not think it profitable to go around and round on that carousel with him any longer.

    I have opinions about his person that are best left unsaid. Perhaps his opinions of me should remain unstated as well.
    \\][//

  20. The issue of JFK & Vietnam seems to be muddled. In my view the issue is not what Kennedy might have done had he lived, but what he did and didn’t do while he was alive.

    It has become crystal clear that what Kennedy did NOT do: He did not authorize combat forces deployed to Vietnam, against every proposal, coercive pressures, lies, deceptions and intrigue set against him to do so.

    It is also crystal clear that those putting these pressures on Kennedy were convinced that their “advice” was “the right thing to do”, and that they were increasingly frustrated and angry; convinced that Kennedy’s lack of going along with “the right thing to do”, amounted to “appeasement”, and was seen as virtual treason to the most virulent warmongers. And the most virulent warmongers composed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many top civilian advisers.

    Further I propose that this crystal clear situation can be seen as the motive for a coup d’etat, to remove Kennedy in order to do “the right thing”.

    Beyond this, there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald was a patsy set up by the perpetrators of the assassination in Dallas. All of the points of this evidence having been gone over ad infinitum in these threads for countless years, as well as being public knowledge for decades.

    My conclusion is that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in a coup d’etat, perpetrated by the military industrial complex.
    \\][//

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Willy Whitten
      December 28, 2015 at 10:39 am

      “The issue of JFK & Vietnam seems to be muddled. In my view the issue is not what Kennedy might have done had he lived, but what he did and didn’t do while he was alive.”

      Wow! We agree here Willy. Good going.

      “It has become crystal clear that what Kennedy did NOT do: He did not authorize combat forces deployed to Vietnam,”

      You are simply wrong here Willy. What he did NOT do is send intact American combat ground UNITs such as the 101st or the Big Red 1. Now you might think the 7th Fleet and the 7th Air Force were debate teams but they were not. As for our troops on the ground I again and again give you the words of Dr. Edwin Moise.

      AnthonyMarsh wrote in message …

      > Can you explain to some people here the difference between
      > pilots and ground combat troops?

      LBJ was the first president to send regular U.S. ground combat troops to Vietnam; JFK had not done that. If we take out that word “regular,” the issue becomes more ambiguous. In 1962 and 1963, JFK had Special Forces A-teams in Vietnam, training Montagnard troops and leading them in combat. Were those Special Forces guys “ground combat troops”? My answer would probably vary between “yes” and “well, maybe sort of” depending on what mood I was in on any given day. I don’t think there would be any days when I would give a simple “no.” Ed Moise

      • “What he did NOT do is send intact American combat ground UNITs such as the 101st or the Big Red 1.”~Bill Clarke

        Exactly.

        “Now you might think the 7th Fleet and the 7th Air Force were debate teams but they were not.”~BC

        These forces were not there to intimidate Hồ Chí Minh. Nor to “invade” Vietnam — as later done by Johnson.
        Under Kennedy they were there to intimidate the Soviets and the Chinese.
        \\][//

  21. Cabinet Meeting, April 27, 1961

    “if we do not fight in Laos, will we fight in Thailand where the situation will be the same sometime in the future as it is now in Laos? Will we fight in Vietnam? Where will we fight? Where do we hold? Where do we draw the line?

    … I went back [that same day]. I wrote a memorandum to the President, and you don’t just send a memorandum over to the President: You take it over. And I got thrown out…the President said, “This is settled.”
    ~Admiral Arleigh Burke
    (Interview with Joseph O’Conner, January 20, 1967, pp. 35-36)
    \\][//

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Willy Whitten
      December 28, 2015 at 11:37 am

      Cabinet Meeting, April 27, 1961

      “if we do not fight in Laos, will we fight in Thailand where the situation will be the same sometime in the future as it is now in Laos? Will we fight in Vietnam? Where will we fight? Where do we hold? Where do we draw the line?

      Looks like JFK made the decision here, Willy. “Coming out of that encounter (Vienna meeting with Khrushchev), he (JFK) confided to James Reston of “The New York Times; “Now we have a problem in making our power credible, and Vietnam is the place.”

      Stanley Karnow, “Vietnam A History”, Revised and Updated , page 265.

    • Deploy, as soon as possible, a Special Forces Group—approximately 400 U.S. military personnel—to Nha Trang in order to accelerate GVN Special Forces training.~NSAM 42

      Terms of the essence to keep this in context are:
      “in order to accelerate *GVN Special Forces *TRAINING.”

      This was the MISSION. Regardless of what happened on the ground, these were Kennedy’s orders: TRAINING.

      It is so entirely obvious that every move Kennedy made was an effort to get the Vietnamese ready to fight their own war.
      It is equally as obvious that the military command disregarded Kennedy’s purposes every step of the way.

      Going’round’nround, with someone insisting that plain language does not mean what it actually states. It is simply Orwellian nonsense.

      I refuse to participate in this disingenuous “debate” any further.
      Mr Clarke is free to spout any nonsense, he or any of his “academic” sources can come up with.
      \\][//

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Willy Whitten
        December 28, 2015 at 3:08 pm

        “I refuse to participate in this disingenuous “debate” any further.”

        Good. Now the “debate” will not be disingenuous.

        “Mr Clarke is free to spout any nonsense, he or any of his “academic” sources can come up with.”

        That you dismiss “my academic source” is typical. Dr. Moise knows what he is talking about. You don’t.

  22. Paul Turner says:

    John McAdams keeps saying conspiracy supporters “turn up the attacks”(his quotes)when we are attacked. A few days ago, I saw a post where John used the term “lying scum” in describing something said by a conspiracy supporter. Gee, do you think he was attacking us?

    • Context. The conspiracists always call inconvenient witnesses or experts liars.

      So I characterize their view as being that such people are “lying scum.”

      That’s a view I attribute to conspiracists. And it accurately characterizes the attitude of conspiracists toward everybody who given inconvenient testimony.

  23. Jordan says:

    It’s all about the evidence of behaviour and evidence of revision in my view. There is no “smoking gun” to be found in any well planned and well executed undertaking, and any evidence will have to be pieced together and hopefully shed new light on what is already known or “expected to be”.

  24. Jim R says:

    What have we learned in the almost 70 years since the creation of the CIA? It makes mistakes and will go to any lengths to hide those mistakes. I’m sure after 54 years the CIA does not want us to know that those involved in the assasination have CIA cryptonyms with weapons supplied by the CIA. We will probably see a limited hang out with the CIA admitting they know the individuals but stating they did not know what they were going to do. The FBI will say we did not get the info from the CIA until it was to late to stop the plot. Since the Secret Service destroyed all their documents, we will see a memo that went to Secret Service with vague warning that was Chicago and/or Tampa but not Dallas. Everyone will point the finger at the other guy and tell us what they have put in place to make sure it does not happen again.

  25. Ronnie Wayne says:

    500 posts. “Have any agencies formally requested a waiver yet?” ???
    If no, they will not until not until at least March or so of 2017.
    It might draw attention to the subject.

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