Comment of the week

bogman – December 22

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.

 

195 comments

  1. Jean Davison says:

    This question was directed to me, I think, and I didn’t reply because I considered it a loaded question.

    I don’t know what’s being referred to specifically, other than the Hosty note, I suppose.

    • Bogman says:

      Jean –

      It was in reply to a question from McAdams I believe asking how much evidence had to be fabricated to frame Oswald.

      Then I asked this question back. I was referring to the autopsy notes, the Harper fragment, the evidence washed away in the limo at Parkland, John Connally’s coat sent to cleaners a month after the assassination because the FBI never asked to examine it, and yes the Oswald tapes that the WC lawyers said they heard, the Joannides files, etc., etc., etc.

      Do appreciate the call out, TomS.

      • Jean Davison says:

        “It was in reply to a question from McAdams I believe asking how much evidence had to be fabricated to frame Oswald.

        Then I asked this question back. I was referring to the autopsy notes, the Harper fragment, the evidence washed away in the limo at Parkland, John Connally’s coat sent to cleaners a month after the assassination because the FBI never asked to examine it, and yes the Oswald tapes that the WC lawyers said they heard, the Joannides files, etc., etc., etc.”

        Good specific examples, Bogman.

        WC critics see all of these things as connected, having a single cause: a cover-up. But how many people had to be involved in just those examples above?

        As I see it, each of these incidents has its own individual explanation and they are not connected.

        How would you know Humes destroyed some notes if he hadn’t told you so himself? I suppose he’s conspirator #1 in your list.

        Someone apparently started to clean up the gore in the back seat but didn’t complete the job. Do people never do stupid things without thinking, especially after a traumatic event? (Conspirator #2, plus whoever gave him the order.)

        If I remember correctly a congressman who somehow ended up with Connally’s coat at the hospital had it cleaned and Connally’s wife washed his shirt after no one picked them up for weeks, not sure how long. Where you see a plot, I see a foul-up by the feds. (Like that never happens.)

        Here’s the HSCA discussion on the Harper fragment. It apparently went initially to Dr. Burkley, like the other autopsy materials:

        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82&relPageId=34&search=harper_fragment burkley

        The HSCA found that the brain and tissue slides that were in the original inventory had been removed while under Robert Kennedy’s care and control:

        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82&search=brain_burkley+robert#relPageId=35&tab=page

        My memory is vague on the details, so read the links. The point is that RFK had a personal reason for retrieving this material, including the Harper fragment, all parts of his brother’s body. (Unless you want to make him another member of the cover-up crew.)

        Documents have been withheld for decades for no apparent reason. A CIA document, “Oswald’s access to classified information about the U-2” was withheld for c. 30 years, and having read it I still don’t know why. Looking up the link just now, I noticed a note someone wrote on the cover sheet: “CIA’s critics…have made a big thing of the caption over the years — reading into it all kinds of sinister implications. It’s time to let it go!” It was finally released in 1992.

        http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=97502&search=%22Oswald's_access%22+%22U-2%22#relPageId=4&tab=page

        The memo starts on the next page.

        Briefly on Slawson/Coleman, I trust their contemporary report to the WC on their trip to Mexico, which was classified top secret for many years, instead of their 30-year-old memories. As Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB once said of the testimony to that group, memories that old are “profoundly unreliable.”

        • Paulf says:

          Jean:

          Please, please stop with the genial “ah, shucks, the federal government can be stupid” routine.

          The glaring mistakes, destruction of evidence, failure to record, failure to pursue solid lines of inquiry, failure to protect the accused, sabotage by the intelligence community and on and on, these are things that don’t get fouled up in local murder investigations of common citizens. To think that the investigation of the murder of the president of the US was slipshod by accident is to stretch the bounds of credulity beyond the breaking point.

          • Jean Davison says:

            How many conspirators do you think were involved, Paulf? Rough estimate.

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean,

            Great question! Do you allow for a conspiracy of cover up, distinct from a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, LHO,
            or both? (Four choices, all tolled….five if you include assassinate with cover up, even more, if individual agency cover ups (obstructions of the investigations of the shootings) are considered; see Shanklin’s and his deputy, Kyle Clark’s responses to Fenner, Hosty, et al, claims about the note.)

          • Add to Tom’s questions Jean, how many were cognitive of participation in the conspiracies, and how many were just doing their business as usual routines.
            You can’t just blow off compartmentalization and need to know as cavalierly as you and McAdams have attempted to, it is a completely irrational position when dealing with issues involving the so-termed, “Intelligence Community” (spies and espionage agents). You know those guys and gals? (wink wink nod nod)
            \\][//

          • David Hazan says:

            I’d like to play too, if it’s ok.

            If we include “knowing but staying quiet” as part of the conspiracy, my rough estimate would be around 300 million people.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Great question! Do you allow for a conspiracy of cover up, distinct from a conspiracy to assassinate JFK, LHO,
            or both?”

            Sure, Tom, as many different conspiracies as you like, just please keep a running total of the number of people involved in each. If possible, a list of all the fake or planted evidence, doctored films/photos, uncashed money orders, switched bullets, etc., would also be nice.

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean,

            You are consistent in maneuvering those who you expect are disagreeing with you, to seem ridiculous, regardless of the
            substance of their particular argument.

            “Sure, Tom, as many different conspiracies as you like, just please keep a running total of the number of people involved in each.”

            I think I weigh the 1975 statements of Gordon Shanklin and Kyle Clark as a reasonable person would.

            You know of my work on the money order, last month, yet you included it in your reply. Let’s recap. By early November, you commented on Brian Castle posting the question of whether the Federal Reserve Bank processing of the postal money order Klein’s was said by the Warren Commission to have deposited with First National Bank of Chicago in mid-March, 1963, included the key punching of machine code, round holes visible on the right side of CE 788,
            (photo of front of the Klein’s postal money order). Link to color image:
            http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-NA014738.jpg?size=67&uid=141ba329-2cde-4f1a-ba0e-420c5c4ff5f3

            You said the presence of these key punch holes could confirm that the money order was deposited by Klein’s
            and processed by Federal Reserve Bank.

            I read your analysis and I was intrigued. I started researching the details supporting your point about confirmation, and I found you and Brian would have been correct, if the money order had been sold in the Dallas Postal Region on or before, January 4, 1963. I presented my evidence here.: http://jfk.education/node/11 . I did not stop there, because I saw that other conspiracy claims were also answered to my satisfaction. I presented my research on the technological innovation that drove the elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank key punching of postal money orders.: http://jfk.education/node/12 . Before the month of November was
            over, a member of the Education Forum, attorney Lance Payette, discovered and shared a breakthrough (the presence on the upper front of the money order of a number string positioned identically to File Locator Numbers on processed US Government checks) included in the third portion of my money order research presentation, http://jfk.education/node/13 . Lance and I demonstrate we are not of a belief system. I cringe when I read some of the claims I expect you
            think are cringe-worthy. A prominent reason I volunteered to edit comments here is because I think Jeff is motivated by
            fact finding.

            I am not predictable Jean, anymore than the twists and turns in this case are. I try to leash myself to the reasonable person standard.
            See: http://www.sage-ereference.com/view/ethics/n679.xml

            Uncircle the wagons and find that you are separated by some of us mostly due to your willingness to nonchalantly accept numerous coincidences while some of us have lower coincidence proliferation tolerance.

            You long accepted that the money order was deposited and processed , but you could not explain how that happened or why it was found in Alexandria, VA and not in Kansas City, MO, or why the serial number was so much higher than the 2,202,000,060 serial on the Oswald money order purchase of 5 Jan., 1963…. until now.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “I’d like to play too, if it’s ok. . . . If we include “knowing but staying quiet” as part of the conspiracy, my rough estimate would be around 300 million people.” — David Hazan

            Me too, David.

            “Fritz said he made those notes sometime after the interrogation, not during. Should we add Fritz to the list of conspirators? Sure, why not.” — Jean Davison

            An answer for everything. Jean’s series of rebuttals to bogman’s list is exemplary of compartmentalization – witting or not – in an effort to explain, to isolate an alleged incompetence that any thinking person has recognized in the aggregate as somehow related. These particular ncidents, viewed in context and factoring in even more egregious examples of destroyed or tampered evidence, are at best indicators that something went down in Dallas that cannot – in spite of Jean’s protestations – be explained away as “human error”.

            One by one, Jean attempts to rationalize the collapse of decades of professional training and experience that should have been applied to the investigation of the murder of the century as a mere fault of the human condition. After the 6th or 7th manifestation of said ineptitude, shouldn’t she ask the question: Is there a pattern? To her credit, conscious or not. Jean has introduced a subtle irony in that these ‘professionals’ are united under an umbrella of her own construct: a blanket excuse.

            What is the probability that there was the level of incompetence as suggested by Jean including the chain of custody #399, yet in contrast – similarly seasoned authorities were highly competent and in fact extraordinarily efficient in their pursuit of an innocuous young guy acting strangely outside a theatre (completely unrelated to the assassination) during a city wide manhunt. Jean has frequently argued that the DPD in that time frame did NOT go to the Texas Theatre to arrest a suspect in the assassination; had they known they were pursuing an assassin, Jean would then have to explain HOW they knew.

            Does any of this prove that some of these individuals were conscious of their role in the cover-up? Of course not. Does this suggest there was an ethos in Dallas that suited and perpetuated a collegial bond of ineptitude and silence? Absolutely.

            The cover-up only needed a jump start – the issuance of the description of a defector to Russia with ties to Cuba. Confusion reigned precisely as anticipated by the time Kennedy’s body was removed from Parkland. In fact chaos ensued the moment the first shot was fired, and no amount of planning – compartmentalized or not – was necessary. “Human error? would justify any area of the cover up that could not be controlled directly. Jean Davison argues that very excuse.

          • You can’t just blow off compartmentalization and need to know as cavalierly as you and McAdams have attempted to,

            You think all the documents implicating Oswald were faked and forged? The people who did that would know they forged the documents, even if they knew nothing about a Grassy Knoll shooter.

            You think the Backyard Photos were forged? The people who did that would know they did that, even if they knew nothing about a Grassy Knoll shooter.

            You think the autopsists lied about the wounds? They would have known they were told to lie, even if they knew nothing about fakery of the Backyard Photos.

            And on and on and on.

          • John McAdams,

            As per your comment of December 23, 2015 at 9:32 pm, dealing with ‘compartmentalization and need to know’; I am having a hard time following your reasoning there.

            To posit compartmentalization is not to posit that all actors are innocent in merely doing there jobs. Of course those who forged the photos of Oswald would know what they were doing and have some idea of why.

            Those DISCOVERING such forged items would not necessarily be involved, although they may be led to such discoveries by those in the know.

            Now, I must say that such an explanation as I just made here is simply elementary. It is rudimentary in forensic science to use such thought processes.

            So elementary/rudimentary that as a youth reading Sherlock Holmes I understood such an approach to solving crimes and mysteries.

            I am often amazed at the thought processes of Coincidence Theorists. Very often to the point of exclaiming; “You can’t possibly be SERIOUS!!!”
            \\][//

          • Bogman says:

            McAdams: Connally’s clothes? What might they have shown? If you can’t explain how it might have shown conspiracy, you have no case.

            I have a case that the govt wasn’t all that interested in a thorough investigation.

            You realize of course the FBI got it “wrong” from the LN POV. Hoover was adamant it was three shots, three hits.

            He got it wrong, from your POV. You would think looking at the all the evidence – including the clothes of the victims – might’ve helped.

            But you and I both know Hoover and feds were only interested in getting the “investigation” over and done with.

            What other evidence did the FBI overlook?

          • Jean Davison says:

            “You are consistent in maneuvering those who you expect are disagreeing with you, to seem ridiculous, regardless of the
            substance of their particular argument.”

            I’m sorry you feel that way, Tom, because it’s certainly not my intention to ridicule anyone. I’m trying to show that some conspiracy *claims* are ridiculous, yes.

            “I think I weigh the 1975 statements of Gordon Shanklin and Kyle Clark as a reasonable person would.”

            I’m sorry I don’t remember their statements specifically. If you have a link…? Certainly they lied and covered up this note.

            “You know of my work on the money order, last month, yet you included it in your reply.”

            I was joking, a sort of wink and a nudge. As I told you on another forum, I was impressed by your research on the money order.

            “Let’s recap. By early November, you commented on Brian Castle posting the question of whether the Federal Reserve Bank processing of the postal money order Klein’s was said by the Warren Commission to have deposited with First National Bank of Chicago in mid-March, 1963, included the key punching of machine code, round holes visible on the right side of CE 788,
            (photo of front of the Klein’s postal money order). Link to color image:
            http://www.corbisimages.com/images/Corbis-NA014738.jpg?size=67&uid=141ba329-2cde-4f1a-ba0e-420c5c4ff5f3

            You said the presence of these key punch holes could confirm that the money order was deposited by Klein’s
            and processed by Federal Reserve Bank.”

            Yes, I was wrong about that. I made an assumption that I shouldn’t have and jumped the gun.

            “I read your analysis and I was intrigued. I started researching the details supporting your point about confirmation, and I found you and Brian would have been correct, if the money order had been sold in the Dallas Postal Region on or before, January 4, 1963. I presented my evidence here.: http://jfk.education/node/11 . I did not stop there, because I saw that other conspiracy claims were also answered to my satisfaction. I presented my research on the technological innovation that drove the elimination of the Federal Reserve Bank key punching of postal money orders.: http://jfk.education/node/12 . Before the month of November was
            over, a member of the Education Forum, attorney Lance Payette, discovered and shared a breakthrough (the presence on the upper front of the money order of a number string positioned identically to File Locator Numbers on processed US Government checks) included in the third portion of my money order research presentation, http://jfk.education/node/13 . Lance and I demonstrate we are not of a belief system. I cringe when I read some of the claims I expect you
            think are cringe-worthy. A prominent reason I volunteered to edit comments here is because I think Jeff is motivated by fact finding.”

            I’m sure that’s true. I’ve followed that money order discussion. You and Lance have done stellar work on that. It’s too bad some pro-Armstrong researchers apparently won’t accept it.

            (Cont. in part II)

          • Jean Davison says:

            Part II

            Tom wrote:

            “Uncircle the wagons and find that you are separated by some of us mostly due to your willingness to nonchalantly accept numerous coincidences while some of us have lower coincidence proliferation tolerance.”

            You may have an aversion to coincidences, but they happen every day. Those who think Oswald was framed apparently accept a lot of coincidences, too.

            “You long accepted that the money order was deposited and processed , but you could not explain how that happened or why it was found in Alexandria, VA and not in Kansas City, MO, or why the serial number was so much higher than the 2,202,000,060 serial on the Oswald money order purchase of 5 Jan., 1963…. until now.”

            I always assumed that the higher serial number was a meaningless anomaly. On other Armstrong claims, I was on the right track, at least. I posted this last year:

            “Concerning the money order, the only document I could find on Wilmouth was this one, which says nothing about endorsement stamps. Did Armstrong cite something else?

            https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=10408&relPageId=199

            On the next page someone from the Chicago bank says that although some money orders went to Kansas City, most would’ve gone to Washington DC. Couldn’t this explain the reference to Alexandria, VA?”

            On the same page, I wrote:

            “A possible explanation finally occurred to me: the money order doesn’t have bank stamps because it wasn’t deposited as an individual item. As Wilmouth said, Klein’s deposit was actually $13,827.96, which included this small money order and many others. (Another document says the Federal Reserve Bank received over 130,000 money orders daily.) Armstrong presented no evidence that the m.o. should have been stamped; he assumed that this was routine practice.”

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/sunshine-on-jfk-why-the-secrecy-around-assassination-related-records/

            Again, I was kidding about the money order, Tom. Sorry if I didn’t make that clear.

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean,

            Thank you for reply. You are correct, IMO, you’ve probably had a reliable
            opinion about the money order’s authenticity since you first learned of it.

            I predict I am going to strengthen at least several more of your claims. This particular comment of the week discussion makes me think it would be an interesting exercise to feature a comment centered around opinions of the most absurd theories related to the assassination, Jackie, Greer, or another Secret Service agent shot JFK, etc. Maybe if commenters can reach a consensus on what they generally reject, it will lead to a consensus on what they generally embrace.
            It was my hope that some of that consensus could take bloom in this discussion. I am at a disadvantage because I am a critic of much of what local, state, and federal agencies have said happened, but I don’t identify with CT or LN labels. Voicing LN POV online seems almost effortless, except for finding the motivation to keep at it, and the lack of consensus among CTs has been intensifying (examples, PM in the TSBD vestibule and “everything is fake” prerequisites) and troubling, at least from where I sit.

            My fear is I might post something that is inaccurate and will mislead readers. I do not see that posting a link to a 1964 photo of Marina and Priscilla with Jerre Hastings, spouse of Clark Clifford’s aunt, sitting between them, and asking what his role was, is misleading, or posting an image of the real John Howard Bowen’s death certificate and pointing out that his birthdate changed from Jan. 14, 1880 on his WWI draft document to Jan. 4, 1878 at his death, and that the 1880 D.O.B. was provided to the FBI by Osborne while he was still insisting he was Bowen.

            What weighs heavily on your mind, Jean? Is their something you could share that might influence usually reasonable commenters who harbor suspicions about you to discuss with you instead of confront?

            As far as Shanklin and his deputy Kyle Clark and the Hosty note investigation in 1975, these are links to my two recent comments.:

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-7/#comment-836614 Statement of Kyle Clark, he did not testify.

            http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-7/#comment-836611
            Excerpts from Agent Howe’s testimony….

          • Tom S. says:

            This is the link to the word count tool I’ve been using to attempt to confine my own comments
            to 500 words and to count the words in the comments of others that might exceed 500 words.

            http://www.wordcounttool.com/

          • To think that the investigation of the murder of the president of the US was slipshod by accident is to stretch the bounds of credulity beyond the breaking point.

            In the first place, you folks exaggerate how “slipshod” it was by claiming incompetence when none existed.

            In the second place, you have no baseline as to how many slip ups would be expected in a case like this, given the enormous complexity, and the fine tooth comb scrutiny to which is has been subjected.

            There has been no other case like this in U.S. history.

            You folks are just huffing and puffing.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “A possible explanation finally occurred to me: the money order doesn’t have bank stamps because it wasn’t deposited as an individual item. As Wilmouth said, Klein’s deposit was actually $13,827.96, which included this small money order and many others. (Another document says the Federal Reserve Bank received over 130,000 money orders daily.) Armstrong presented no evidence that the m.o. should have been stamped; he assumed that this was routine practice.” — Jean Davison

            Having operated the machine used to process bank instruments in the mid-’60’s, I have questioned this as well. If the money order was considered ‘cash’ it would be listed on the deposit slip but not run thru the machine; however my recollection is that every instrument, meaning any paper other than cash was processed thru the machine to imprint the destination of said funds i.e. the account number of the recipient. So I am still confused whether or not the m.o. has Klein’s bank account number imprinted on the back or was it processed as cash, meaning no bank account number imprint?

          • leslie sharp says:

            ‘In the first place, you folks exaggerate how “slipshod” it was by claiming incompetence when none existed.’ — John McAdams

            I believe ‘incompetence’ has been implied by ‘you folks’ under the rubric “human frailty.” Had this murder occurred in a less politically developed country by rookies, it might be argued that human frailty was a factor. But how can you argue human error with a straight face when for example, Dallas authorities assumed such an authoritarian, experienced role as they announced ‘we’ve got our man?’ within hours?

            ‘In the second place, you have no baseline as to how many slip ups would be expected in a case like this, given the enormous complexity, and the fine tooth comb scrutiny to which is has been subjected.’ — John McAdams

            “Enormous Complexity” Are you serious? It was so complex that they had a trail of a rifle, a history of a defector, and the arrest of a young guy seen acting strangely on the streets by late afternoon .. that would be within 6 hours of the murder of the president.

            ‘There has been no other case like this in U.S. history.’ — John McAdams

            We agree.

            ‘You folks are just huffing and puffing.’ — John McAdams

            And perhaps we folks will soon blow your Warren Commission conclusions to the winds.

        • bogman says:

          The disappearance of Hosty from Oswald’s address book? The shelving of the Siebert/O’Neill report? etc. etc.

          Not saying everyone has to be a conspirator. But after “Washington” called DPD and told them they had their man, and Katzenbach writes a memo to the same effect, and that man is now dead, the machinery of “cover your arse” and live by the new rules comes into play.

          You don’t have to have a massive conspiracy to make all this happen. You just to have the top authorities not giving a crap if they build a lock-solid case against Oswald. The govt has already convicted him!

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            “The disappearance of Hosty from Oswald’s address book? The shelving of the Siebert/O’Neill report? etc. etc.”

            Hosty’s name didn’t disappear, It’s still right there in Oswald’s address book (scroll down):

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=88&tab=page

            Sibert/O’Neill’s report was probably shelved because it was inaccurate — it failed to mention the throat wound seen at Parkland and repeated Humes’ speculation that the bullet must’ve fallen out of Kennedy’s back onto his stretcher. Humes learned better from Parkland the next day before he wrote the autopsy report.

            “… after “Washington” called DPD and told them they had their man…”

            I don’t know what you’re referring to there.

            “..Katzenbach writes a memo to the same effect, and that man is now dead, the machinery of “cover your arse” and live by the new rules comes into play.”

            Why does everyone omit the opening paragraph where Katzenbach said he wanted all the FACTS to be known?

            What’s amazing to me is not only how many people were supposedly involved in the coverup, but how they left the “evidence” for their dastardly deed right there in the record. Just how stupid were they?

            If you’ll check the contemporary record, it’s apparent that Oswald looked guilty to almost everyone, because the evidence clearly pointed to him alone. His weapon, he fled the scene, shot a cop, was arrested after a struggle… Obviously, he had nothing to do with it!

            “You don’t have to have a massive conspiracy to make all this happen. You just to have the top authorities not giving a crap if they build a lock-solid case against Oswald. The govt has already convicted him!”

            The govt didn’t leave a murder weapon linked to him in the Depository, etc., etc.

          • leslie sharp says:

            “The govt didn’t leave a murder weapon linked to him in the Depository, etc., etc.” — Jean Davison

            And you know that because? ….

          • JohnR says:

            On December 23, 2015 Jean Davison wrote:

            “Hosty’s name didn’t disappear, it’s still right there in oswald’s address book”

            I believe Bogman is referring to the TRANSCRIPT of the address book provided to the WC by the FBI. In that transcript, Hosty’s name was omitted. Like the Cheshire Cat, we only know it disappeared because it reappeared.

      • Your first problem is that you have no idea what the expected number of screw-ups in a case a complex and complicated as this one is.

        In the second place, conspiracists claim various things are suspicious when there is no reason to believe they are.

        Connally’s clothes? What might they have shown? If you can’t explain how it might have shown conspiracy, you have no case.

        We know what the Hosty note was about: Oswald was mad at Hosty from coming out to Irving to interview his wife.

        As for “washing the limo at Parkland:” look at the photos of the inside of the limo in the White House garage. The back seat was a mess. While somebody might have thought they should clean out the limo, they certainly didn’t get very far.

        As for the tapes: Jean has mentioned the 1964 report from Coleman and Slawson. Then in the 70s, both men told the HSCA that the tapes had been erased. In the 1990s they told Frontline they had heard the tapes, but then in the 2000s they told Shenon they had not heard the tapes.

        But let’s use some logic here: would Win Scott, after having told U.S. officials that the tapes had been erased, then just a few months later let WC investigators listen to the tapes? According to Slawson’s 1990s account, Scott volunteered to let them listen to a tape.

        The best guess is that he heard a tape of a Cuban official talking to Havana, as mentioned in the 1964 report.

        As to the Harper Fragment: it’s clear it was parietal bone:

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

        So it’s not “conspiracy evidence.”

        • Fearfaxer says:

          “We know what the Hosty note was about: Oswald was mad at Hosty from coming out to Irving to interview his wife.”

          No, we do not know what the Hosty note was about because it was destroyed, a fact not revealed until the 1970s. You claim that Oswald was mad about Hosty coming to interview Marina while he wasn’t there is what various people, Hosty included, said about it when the existence of the note and its destruction was revealed. A receptionist at the office said it included terroristic threats (just how would she have known this?), Hosty claimed its language was far less belligerent. We don’t even know who decided to destroy it. Hosty claimed he was ordered to by Gordon Shanklin, Shanklin denied this. Given their behavior, we have no reason to believe either of them about who ordered the note’s destruction, nor about what the note said.

          So unless you claim for yourself the ability to read Oswald’s mind (and the statements of a number of prominent Lone But Buffs do indicate that they think they can), you have no idea what that note said.

          • No, we do not know what the Hosty note was about because it was destroyed, a fact not revealed until the 1970s.

            In the first place, both Hosty and Fenner say the note expressed displeasure at Hosty going out to Irving and interviewing Marina.

            In the second place, both Ruth Paine and Marina report Oswald being irate at Hosty’s visit, and saying he would contact the FBI to complain.

            In the third place, Oswald was irate when Hosty was present during his interrogation by Dallas police.

            Hosty claimed he was ordered to by Gordon Shanklin, Shanklin denied this.

            Which has nothing to do with the contents of the note.

            And I don’t know anybody who believes Shanklin. Do you?

          • Fearfaxer says:

            I don’t care what they said, John, without the actual note we have no idea what it actually said. Both of these people had multiple reasons to lie about what the note said.

            As to what Ruth Paine and Marina said, if you consider either of them to be reliable witnesses, you’re hopelessly naive.

            Oswald might have had any number of reasons to have been irate over Hosty being present during his interrogation. We’ll never know what they were because shortly thereafter Oswald was oh so conveniently dead, at the hands of a man who not all that long after was also oh so conveniently dead.

            BTW, I notice you don’t include a link to your soporific website (and thank you for that I suffer from occasional insomnia and find it a blessing at times), suggesting there is perhaps no proof Oswald was angry at Hosty’s being there? 😉

            And no, I don’t believe Shanklin, and nothing I wrote suggests that I do, but I see no reason to believe Hosty on the note’s contents either. And neither would most people not yoked to the WC’s absurd version of events.

            BTW, what do you think would have been the reaction in January 1964 if Oswald’s note to Hosty and the latter’s destruction of same had been public knowledge? Even a couple of WC members not named Russel and Boggs might have insisted on a more vigorous investigation carried out by people other than FBI agents. And if they had things to hide, what about . . .

            Anyway, Merry Christmas again. 😉

          • As to what Ruth Paine and Marina said, if you consider either of them to be reliable witnesses, you’re hopelessly naive.

            Of course, I can never prove anything to your if you just insist on rejecting any evidence you don’t like.

            You really ought to pay attention to how all this fits together: the FBI witnesses (who differed on the tone of the note, but agreed on the content), Marina, Ruth Paine, and Oswald’s attitude during interrogation.

            Then you might ask yourself whether, if Oswald was some kind of spooky informant for Hosty, it would make any sense for him to communicate by leaving an unsealed note with a receptionist.

            Think on those things, and you might have a Christmas revelation. 🙂

        • Gerry Simone says:

          There were many slip ups but the government and the agency covered things up (and keep on doing so), or they lie about it, expecting people to believe them.

      • As for the autopsy notes: what do you think they showed?

        We have the autopsy photos and x-rays, and they show that Kennedy was hit by two shots from behind.

        • James says:

          Those autopsy photos were bogus

        • Phil says:

          Jean,

          Why are there so many missing autopsy photographs and X-rays? Do you have an estimate as too how many? If the Kennedy family were responsible, I can’t imagine how gruesome those pictures looked in comparison to the ones left in the collection. Does the government need to account for this?

          • This is an Aguilar thing. He finds witness testimony (virtually all from decades later) from people who thought they remembered different photos.

            But the extant set exactly matches the first inventory made, a few weeks after the assassination.

            Add to that the fact that any “missing” photos would have to be consistent with the authenticated photos we already have. We know what those show.

          • Phil says:

            Mr. McAdams,
            Jeremy Gunn took a deposition from a JFK autopsy photographer that did not recognize the existing photos as hers. She also was sure the film she used was completely different.
            Question: Is the only photo in the extant collection of the back of the President’s head, the one that shows the back of his head intact except for a small entry bullet wound?

          • Why are there so many missing autopsy photographs and X-rays?

            Here is the first list, in a part of the Sibert/O’Neill report little noticed.

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image5.htm

            Seems it matches the number we now have.

          • Phil says:

            Mr. McAdams,

            Thank you for responding to my questions. In the S/O report it says 11 X-rays were taken. If, as reported, at least five or six were taken of the President’s head, do you know why only three exist in the collection today?

          • Question: Is the only photo in the extant collection of the back of the President’s head, the one that shows the back of his head intact except for a small entry bullet wound?

            There are several extant ones, but they all show a small entry wound in the cowlick area. They also conceal the large defect in parietal bone since an autopsist is holding up the scalp, presumably to show the entrance wound.

            The complete list in at HSCA volume 7.

          • Thank you for responding to my questions. In the S/O report it says 11 X-rays were taken. If, as reported, at least five or six were taken of the President’s head, do you know why only three exist in the collection today?

            I was not aware of the report that five or six were taken of the President’s head.

            Again, I would check at HSCA 7, an see if the numbers match. If they do, I would put any discrepancy down to witness error.

          • http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image5.htm

            Seems it matches the number we now have.

            I was in error. It seems we have quite a few more than the Sibert and O’Neill report state.

          • “On the basis of the latter two developments, Dr. Humes stated that the pattern was clear…that one bullet had entered the President’s back and had worked its way out of the body during external cardiac massage and thet the second high velocity bullet had entered the rear of the skull and had fragmented prior to exit threough the top of the skull.” — MD44 – sibert & O’Neill Report on the Autopsy (11/26/63) “Gamberling Version”

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/arrb/master_med_set/md44/html/Image5.htm

            Yes…”the pattern was clear”…Lol
            \\][//

          • Jeremy Gunn took a deposition from a JFK autopsy photographer that did not recognize the existing photos as hers. She also was sure the film she used was completely different.

            That was Spencer. She wasn’t a photographer but a lab tech. But her account makes no sense. She described a “cleaner” and “nicer” set of autopsy photos.

            But why would anybody want such a set? The set we have matches the gore we see in the Zapruder film.

        • As for the autopsy notes: what do you think they showed?”~McAdams

          It is the fact that we will never know now that should be troubling to anyone concerned about the truth.

          Marina Burnt a photo of her husband with a rifle, and that is suspicious to you…”what was she trying to hide?”

          McAdams’ Dialectic:

          Humes burns the autopsy notes, but that is NOT in anyway suspicious…”what could there possibly be to hide?”
          \\][//

          • Sashay(tm)!!

            You can’t explain what there would be to hide.

            In the first place, as Jean noted, we would not know about the burned notes unless Humes himself has chosen to reveal it.

            In the second place, the autopsy photos and x-rays show the nature of the wounds. If the notes were at odds with those, the notes were inaccurate.

            As for the destroyed backyard photo: it was not those evil government officials who destroyed it, but Marina and Marguerite.

            And you have punted on what it might have shown. It would have been just another in the set, all showing Oswald in his silly “hunter of fascists” outfit, with his rifle and revolver.

          • “As for the destroyed backyard photo”~McAdams

            You can only ASSUME it was a “backyard photo” that fit the sequence of the other photos. Only Marina and Marguerite know what that photo was.

            Only Humes knows what was in those notes.
            . . . .
            Appendix B
            The Forensic Autopsy in Gunshot Wound Cases

            “The forensic autopsy differs from the hospital autopsy in its objectives and relevance. In addition to determining the cause of death, the forensic pathologist must establish the manner of death (natural, accidental, suicidal, homicidal or undetermined), the identity of the deceased if unknown, and the time of death or injury. The forensic autopsy may involve collection of evidence from the body, which can be used to either incriminate or exonerate an individual charged with a crime; determine that a crime had or had not been committed and provide clues towards a subject if it has.
            Because of the possible medicolegal implications of forensic cases, not only do these determinations have to be made, but the findings or lack of findings must be documented. In many cases the cause and manner of death may be obvious. It is the documentation of the injuries or lack of them as well as the interpretation of how they occurred and the determination or exclusion of other contributory or causative factors that is important.
            The forensic autopsy involves not only the physical examination of the body on the autopsy table, but consideration of other aspects that the general pathologist does not consider as part of the autopsy—the scene, the nature of the weapon (if any), clothing, toxicology, and the results of laboratory tests on evidence. The forensic autopsy begins at the scene. The pathologist should not perform a forensic autopsy unless they know the circumstances leading up to and surrounding the death. This is a very basic principle that is often violated.

            The scene should be documented with diagrams or photographs, preferably both. Individuals should be interviewed, and a written report given to the pathologist before the autopsy. At the scene, the body should be handled as little as possible. (pg. 396)

            Examination of the clothing is as much a part of the autopsy as examination of the wounds. The clothing must be examined for bloodstains and trace evidence as well as to determine whether the wounds in the body correlate with the defects in the clothing.” Di Maio,pg. 397
            . . . . .
            How do these proper autopsy protocols compare to the shoddy Bethesda autopsy of President Kennedy?

            The prosecutor of the autopsy should have demanded the Parkland doctors attendance in a pre-autopsy inquest on site to determine their firsthand knowledge. There would have been no doubt that there had been a bullet hole to the throat, had these simple protocol been followed.

            The prosecutor of the autopsy should have demanded that Kennedy’s clothes be present for examination in such an inquest.

            The Presidential limousine should have been present for this inquest as well, as it was the crime scene, more so than the plaza.
            \\][//

          • My last sentence above should have read:

            The Presidential limousine should have been present for this inquest as well, as it was the crime scene, more so than the plaza.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            I don’t know what Humes’ notes said, but my guess is that he may’ve made some notes on 11/22 reflecting the same wrong info as the Sibert/O’Neill report did, before he talked to Parkland the next morning and found out about the throat wound under the trach incision.

          • McAdams,

            What does this supposed to mean? “Sashay(tm)!!”

            That you is hip to the trip and shall not trip?

            That you is close the toast by shall not roast?

            That you are too cool to behold no matter how old?
            \\][//

        • We have the autopsy photos and x-rays, and they show that Kennedy was hit by two shots from the front.
          \\][//

          • Interestingly, no qualified forensic pathologist (including Wecht) draws that conclusion.

          • Jean Davison says,”I don’t know what Humes’ notes said, but my guess is”: Worthless conjecture.
            \\][//

          • “Interestingly, no qualified forensic pathologist (including Wecht) draws that conclusion.” McAdams

            A qualified crime scene investigator, Sherry Feister comes to that conclusion, and explains in exquisite detail how she reached that conclusion.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says,”I don’t know what Humes’ notes said, but my guess is”: Worthless conjecture.

            And the notion that it indicates a conspiracy is solid logic?

            You can’t explain what the notes might have said that indicate conspiracy.

          • A qualified crime scene investigator, Sherry Feister comes to that conclusion, and explains in exquisite detail how she reached that conclusion.

            But she’s not a forensic pathologist, and has no expertise in interpreting autopsy photos and x-rays.

            And her trajectory excludes the Grassy Knoll! You can’t be happy with that.

          • “And the notion that it indicates a conspiracy is solid logic?
            You can’t explain what the notes might have said that indicate conspiracy.”~McAdams

            No, ‘professor’ it is not “what the notes might have said that indicate conspiracy”: What indicates conspiracy is the FACT that Humes burnt the notes. This is not conjecture this is accepted fact.
            . . . . . .
            “But she’s (Fiester) not a forensic pathologist, and has no expertise in interpreting autopsy photos and x-rays.
            And her trajectory excludes the Grassy Knoll! You can’t be happy with that.”~McAdams

            Expertise in interpreting autopsy photos and x-rays, is not limited to forensic pathologists, but in fact is part of the field of crime scene investigation; for the very fact that practitioners from both fields interface and interact with one another in solving crimes. Common language and expertise is critical for successful communication between the two fields.

            DiMaio, a ballistics expert is well qualified to state proper forensic autopsy protocol, as he does in his famous work; ‘Gunshot Wounds'[CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1999.]

            Finally; I have told you before McAdams, I have no problem with excluding the Grassy Knoll as the spot where the head shot originated. I doesn’t mean a shot was not fired from that location, but it is not the origin of the wound to Kennedy’s head.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Willy, you and other medical neophytes make assumptions about how an autosy is conducted, how records are taken down, what constitutes a medical record, etc.Preliminary notes from an autopsy in 1963 are much less meaningful than you seem to believe when the dictated final report is the medical document that is referred to by real experts, ie. board -certified pathologists and in this case national recognized forensic pathologists.
            No forensic pathologist that has reviewed the data supports your version of the wounds of JFK and their etiology.
            No forensic pathologist that has reviewed the data supports Sherry Fiester’s fantasy about JFK being wounded from the front.
            Doesn’t that mean anything to you? How many autopsies have you conducted? How many have you attended?
            No “real expert ” in forensic pathology(save perhaps Wecht) supports any aspect of claims of JFK being shot from anywhere but behind. If you don’t believe that , contradict me with the testimony of real experts, not Opthalmologists, not Radiation Oncologists, not Neurologists.

          • “Willy, you and other medical neophytes…”
            ~Photon

            Garbage doctor Lite Particle. Your claims to medical expertise are highly exaggerated boasts impinging on hysterical arrogance. A modified limited abnormal neck with electrodes protruding from the sides.
            Perhaps sedation is in order. See a real doctor for advice.
            \\][//

          • I have posted citations to numerous sites that present proper autopsy protocol. Sites such as:
            Vincent J. M. Di Maio, M.D.

            To, FORENSIC AUTOPSY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
            The National Association of Medical Examiners

            To, AUTOPSY by Dr Dineash Rao:
            http://www.forensicpathologyonline.com/e-book/autopsy
            . . . . .
            But of course our adversaries here insist on relying only on the pathologists named to OFFICIAL government inquiries — that being, the government investigating itself.
            The rationale behind such reliance should be as clear as an azure lake in spring to the lucid thinking individual.

            But over and again we are treated to this carousel of re-visitation of these issues as if nothing has ever been said on the subject before. Relitigation ad infinitum; a roadblock to resolution.
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            John Mc Adams. “No qualified forensic pathologist (including Wecht)…” Glad you consider his eminent qualifications qualified.

            “there can be no doubt that the Warren Commissions findings that there was only one gunman and only three bullets is absurd”
            Pg. 3. Cause of Death, Cyril Wecht.

          • Photon says:

            Insults aside, there must be a reason why you can’t quote a single forensic pathologist who has reviewed the data and confirms your opinion. Could it be that you are simply incorrect?
            I am puzzled by your continued reference to Dr. DiMaio. He has stated publically that he supports the Warren conclusions of 2 shots from the rear. Are you implying that you know more than he does, that your interpretation of his textbook is more accurate than his own?
            It is simply not logical to believe that someone who has never attended an autopsy could possibly know more about pathology than the pathologist that does the procedure. It is simply not logical to believe that the most prestigious forensic pathologists in the country at the time of the HSCA were in a conspiracy to promote a government lie. It is also not logical to continually ignore the findings of those pathologists, those of the Rockefeller panel, those of the Clark panel, those who have independently reviewed the case.

          • I am puzzled by your continued reference to Dr. DiMaio. He has stated publically that he supports the Warren conclusions of 2 shots from the rear.”
            ~Photon

            I am implying nothing at all. I am speaking to Dr. DiMaio’s chapter on proper autopsy protocol, which enumerates in detail all of proper steps and procedures for a forensic autopsy.

            Dr. DiMaio’s opinions on the Warren conclusions are irrelevant to the issues of the travesty that the Bethesda autopsy of JFK was.

            I have offered other professional opinions on proper forensic autopsy protocol. Including the two in this afternoons comment.

            The Bethesda autopsy was amateurville burlesque produced by the usurpers who killed Kennedy themselves. THAT is my point.
            \\][//

          • “It is also not logical to continually ignore the findings of those pathologists, those of the Rockefeller panel, those of the Clark panel, those who have independently reviewed the case.”~Photon

            What do you mean “independently”?

            These are again, as in every panel convened by the government, pathologists chosen by that government. You have the foxes guarding the hen house here, and you clearly cannot see the implications of such conflicts of interest.
            As is said, “The Piper calls the tune.”

            Apt analogies whether you wish to admit it or not.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            I do not recall that Peter Cummings, M.D. was a member of any “official” review board. He is a recognized expert in neuropathology who has gone on record ( seen by millions of viewers) explaining that the findings seen in the x-rays and photographs were the result of a shot from behind. Willy, can you give a single individual with similar qualifications who contradicts Dr. Cummings ? Do you know more than Dr.Cummings on this subject?
            Has your incomplete study of a few textbooks made you an expert in forensic pathology such that you are more of an expert than the experts themselves? More of an expert than the author of a textbook that you like to quote?
            Instead of obfuscation, just give us the name of any forensic pathologist who has gone on record agreeing with your or Sherry Fiester’s interpretation of the head wound.

          • EXCUSES Incorporated

            Fumbling Bumbling Stupidity & Incompetence in the Investigation of the Murder of JFK

            From the beginning to the end, the same lame scenario of utter incompetence.

            From the alleged ‘”crime scene investigation” to the alleged “autopsy” to the alleged “inquiry” by the Warren Commission; a long and uninterrupted series of nonsense presented as the official narrative of the assassination of John F Kennedy.
            It is simply unbelievable. And anyone who does believe it is a fool.
            \\][//

          • And so now Photon, you are saying that it is Dr Peter Cummings who is correct rather than the pathologists in the investigative committees, whom he disagrees with. What is the criteria you use to chose which forensic pathologist is correct?

            It seems to be for your Argument Du Jour. In other words an argument of convenience.

            Why not admit that there is controversy on this matter among pathologists of every stripe, and you are picking and choosing according to your own biases?

            Never mind, that question answers itself.
            \\][//

          • “there can be no doubt that the Warren Commissions findings that there was only one gunman and only three bullets is absurd”
            Pg. 3. Cause of Death, Cyril Wecht.

            That’s out of context. Wecht believes in conspiracy for reasons other than what he has found in the autopsy materials.

            In the 70s, we was a “two gunman from behind” person. In that decade, he told the Rockefeller Panel that the autopsy materials did not support any shot from the Grassy Knoll.

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

        • Paul Turner says:

          I think that “artist” used by the WC had a lot to do in that matter, if not everything. Today we don’t know if the WC was shown the real autopsy photos and X-rays.

  2. Ronnie Wayne says:

    If you include redaction’s, destroyed documents, intimidated and eliminated witnesses it’s infinite.

    • Most of the accounts of “intimidated and eliminated witnesses” are bogus.

      • Tom S. says:

        Dr. McAdams,

        Is there any component of the investigation that would give you pause, whether at the center or much more subtle, or is what I read from you, your oft repeated question, “how is that evidence of a conspiracy to assassinate
        JFK?” (Or words to that effect) serve to close the open and shut case of the LN assassin? Does the Osborne – Bowen names component catch your interest, even once or twice, out of the
        corner of your eye? The name Osborne is centered around the witnesses who saw a man they were convinced was Oswald,
        sitting side by side with an Osborne during a bus ride in Mexico, while FBI reports tell us that Osborne was hiding for close to four decades behind the alias, John Howard Bowen, who recently was discovered to be a real person, right down
        to the D.O.B., Jan. 14, 1880, that Osborne provided the FBI as he stubbornly clung to the ruse that he was Bowen.
        Now we have proof the real Bowen used that very birth date on his WWI draft registration, but his Jan., 1962 death certificate displays Jan. 4, 1878 as his D.O.B. In the past month, it has been documented that there are three social
        security numbers associated with John Howard Bowen, all with the D.O.B. Jan. 14, 1880, one number is a match for the
        SS number Osborne using the Bowen alias gave to the FBI, another of the three SS numbers matches the SS number displayed
        on the 1962 death certificate of the real Bowen, and the third SS number also is of the account of a John H Bowen, D.O.B.
        Jan. 14, 1880. All three accounts had activity just weeks apart, over a four month period in 1955.:
        http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/two-misleading-cia-cables-about-lee-harvey-oswald/#comment-837555 No death was reported to
        Soc. Sec. Admin. for any of the three SS #’s, not even on the SS # displayed on the real Bowen’s 1962 death certificate.

        Oswald was found to have a library card displaying the name of JACK LESLIE BOWEN, a fellow employee of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall who was of a higher level position there, and was identified by an FBI photograph cross check as actually being
        John Caesar Grossi, a man with underworld connections. http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11133&relPageId=389&search=osborne_and%20library I wonder what sort of background check J-C-S was doing with employment candidates? Oswald
        was hired into a lowly position, but Grossi, aka Bowen, was not. Why was his Bowen alias, of all names, carried on a
        library card by Oswald. Finally, there is the matter of the two staff members of Jones Printing of NOLA who identified
        Oswald as the customer who ordered the printing of FPCC leaflets using the name Lee Osborne, and Weisberg’s later
        research indicating Kerry Thornley actually appeared at Jones Printing to pick up the printed pamphlets.:
        http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=11133&relPageId=67&search=jones_and%20printing

        http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/HW%20Manuscripts/Inside%20the%20Assassination%20Industry/Itai-18.pdf

        …I thanked Jones. I did not tell him whose pictures he had selected and insisted were the pictures
        of the man who picked that Oswald handbill print job up.
        He had selected pictures of a man who had served briefly in the Marines with Oswald, Kerry
        Thornley. Him alone….

        • Oswald was found to have a library card displaying the name of JACK LESLIE BOWEN,

          OK, give me a link to the library card. All you posted is an FBI report about a claim to that effect.

          Even an inventory of things taken off Oswald’s person by the Dallas cops would be a step in the right direction.

          [McAdams says, following Tom down the rabbit hole.]

          • Tom S. says:

            I’m bending over backwards to set an example of constructive engagement. The least you could do is work on
            your tone. Here is an image of the Oswald – Bowen library card, from a JFK Assassination investigation evidence
            reference source.: http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth49563/m1/1/

            Links to primary sourced material on Jaggar co-worker Grossi – Bowen in posts #2 and #12 – http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=11180

            Merry Christmas

          • OK, I see the card. So Bowen was a coworker at Jaggers Chiles Stovall.

            So again, how is this sinister?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Someone in this exchange is being militantly obstinate.

            Of course it can be argued that Bowen simply provided a Jaggars Chiles co-worker who was new to the area with an endorsement to secure a library card … that would not have been unusual in those days.

            But what is the probability that person who signed off for Oswald would have tracks to Osborne or tracks to a known underworld figure or someone tied to Oswald’s Marine history?

            What are the odds that a manager of Jaggars Chiles would live a few houses down from Roy Truly on Jade Street?

            What are the odds that Ralph Truly – who moved into 1412 Ohio Street, Midland, TX when George HW Bush and family moved out – could be traced to Roy Sansom Truly of the school book depository business?

            Paddy Power would make hay of these probabilities.

          • Tom S. says:

            Leslie,
            A little Christmas gift for you, and yours, but it would not surprise me if you already know this…..
            This is the story of the rural mail carrier family of Hubbard, Hill County, TX

            http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=trulyd&id=I0512
            Flectcher William Eliza Truly, Physician and Surgeon, Marthaville, LA, Aug. 10, 1902, to Jeff Truly, Fayette, MS.

            Dearest Friend:

            …… I am the only Truly that lives in Louisiana that I know of. All the rest of the family went to Texas soon after grandfather died. I understand they all have large family and are doing well.
            W.P. Truly family live at Eastland, Texas. Dr. Camp Truly died at (illeg) La. And his family moved to Ballinger, Texas.. 2 boys.. Pink Truly and R.B. Truly. Bennett Truly the youngest of my uncles I think is dead.. his family lives in Hubbard City, Texas, 3 boys Hamblin Truly, John Truly, and George Truly. ………

            Respectfully your friend,
            Fletcher W.E. Truly

            Hamblin died in 1925 (aka Bennet Hamblin Truly)

            US Census:
            Age in 1870: 5
            Birth Year: abt 1865
            Birthplace: Louisiana
            Home in 1870: Rusk, Cherokee, Texas
            Race: White
            Gender: Male
            Post Office: Rusk
            Value of Real Estate: View image
            Household Members:
            Name Age
            Bennett R Truly 32
            Martha E Truly 23
            Bennett H Truly 5
            Joseph M Truly 3

            Name: George T . Truly
            Age: 4
            Birth Year: abt 1876
            Birthplace: Texas
            US Census: Data: Home in 1880: Corsicana, Navarro, Texas
            Race: White
            Gender: Male
            Relation to Head of House: Son
            Marital Status: Single
            Father’s name: Bennett R. Truly
            Father’s Birthplace: Mississippi
            Mother’s name: Martha E. Truly
            Mother’s Birthplace: Texas
            Household Members:
            Name Age
            Bennett R. Truly 42
            Martha E. Truly 32
            Hamlin Truly 13
            John W. Truly 9
            George T. Truly 4 (Son of George: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=93499905
            Roy Sansom Truly)

            http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=11242111
            Bennette Hamblin Truly
            Birth: Dec. 13, 1865
            Louisiana, USA
            Death: Jan. 30, 1925

            Son of Bennett Richard & Martha Elizabeth (McGuffey) Truly.

            Husband of Ida B. (Hickman) Truly.

            Father of Rufus H., John W., Homer D., Lola B., David B., Fred & one daughter.

            http://search.ancestrylibrary.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?

            db=FindAGraveUS&h=11799526&indiv=try&o_vc=Record:OtherRecord&rhSource=7884
            Name: John William Truly
            Birth Date: 10 Jun 1893
            Birth Place: Hubbard, Hill County, Texas, USA
            Death Date: 26 May 1972
            Death Place: San Angelo, Tom Green County, Texas, USA
            Cemetery: Resthaven Memorial Park
            Burial or Cremation Place: Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas, USA
            Has Bio?: Y
            Spouse: Sallie Mae Truly
            Father: Bennette Hamblin Truly
            Mother: Ida Bobie Truly
            Children: Clyde Lanham Truly
            Monette Tubbs
            Ralph M. Truly – http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/mrt/obituary.aspx?n=ralph-m-truly&pid=170386250&
            …While with the FAA in Midland, the family bought a home at 1412 West Ohio Street, a house previously owned by President George H. W. Bush….his parents, John and Sally Truly…
            Helen Poff

            Ralph’s grandfather, Hamblin, (d. 1925) was Roy S. Truly’s uncle. Ralph’s obit does not plainly state he bought the house directly from George W Bush….or, did he?

          • leslie sharp says:

            yes I have all that, but Merry Christmas anyway. Cole Directory indicates the Bush family moved out of 1412 Ohio and the Truly family moved in over the 12 mo. period between annual publication. There is another Truly in Midland at the time working for Jimmy Allison’s Reporter Telegram and there is another Truly working for Neil Mallon’s Dresser Industries. I haven’t tracked the Dresser Truly to determine if he was related to Ralph in Midland which might that have been how the house transfer came about. And of course it’s possibly that Jimmy Allison was the conduit. In a “corporate” town like Midland it was all about networks in the early ’60’s.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Wait a minute as I re-read. Leslie, your saying Manager of the TSBD Roy Truly for owner Harold Dry Hole Byrd of the Dallas Petroleum Club (W/GHWB, DeMorenschild and others) lived down the street from the manager of Stoval Childs where Oswald formerly worked? Quite a strange coincidence considering Stovall-Childs produced maps of Cuba for JFK’s Cuban Missile briefing and presentation to the public. Is it possible they might have been in cahoots regarding Oswald’s hiring at the TSBD?

          • leslie sharp says:

            Ronnie, according to the 1963 Dallas ‘Cole Directory’, James C. and Martha Bethel resided at 4726 Jade Dr., or 0.13 of a mile from (according to Mapquest just 37 seconds) 4932 Jade Drive, home of Roy S. and Mildred Truly.

            According to Cole, James Bethel was a Vice President of Jaggars-Chiles-Stovall. Cole also reports that Roy S. Truly was superintendent of the Texas School Book Depository (located at 411 Elm). note: imo, emphasis on DH Byrd should have never distracted from the role of the owners of the book depository business, Jack Charles Cason and O.V. Campbell.

            Bethel and Truly – each with managerial ties to Lee Oswald in the months leading to the assassination – were living within seconds of one another in a relatively new suburb only minutes south and east of Oak Cliff and a short distance from Neely and Elsbeth streets.

            According to an online gravesite record James Bethel was a ‘lino type operator printer” at JaggErs Chiles Stoval (read Jaggars) residing at 6343 Belmont Ave., Dallas. Belmont is in the significantly more posh neighborhood of Lakewood adjacent to White Rock Lake so if nothing else, it’s important to consider carefully a reliance on personal (albeit well intentioned?) genealogical data online. For instance, why would James Bethel move from a modest neighborhood in South Dallas while he was enjoying the fruits of Vice President of Jaggars Chiles Stovall to the more expensive environs of Lakewood as a line-type operator for the same military contractor. Inheritance perhaps. Or error in the records. What strikes me odd is that someone in Bethel’s family OR an independent gravesite voyeur was not cognizant that James C. had been at Jaggars Chiles at the same time as Lee Oswald.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Leslie, thanks for your post 12/28, 10:05. I’d never read this. That they lived within a few yards of each other is not evidence they were acquainted. However, their employer’s make there actions worth question. Truly’s true boss, Oil man Byrd was the founder of the Civil Air Patrol see Oswald, Ferrie, …
            Oswald working not too long before for Jaggers-Childs-Stovall that provided photographs of Missile’s in Cuba, taken by a CIA U-2? Which he was familiar .

          • leslie sharp says:

            Ronnie, according to Roy Truly’s testimony he had worked for the Texas School Book Depository since 1934, meaning he was on the payroll of the book depository business not the owner of the building at 411 Elm on 11.22, meaning his bosses were Campbell and Cason and not DH Byrd. This may or may not be a significant distinction as Byrd, Cason and Campbell may have been of similar ideological persuasion, and Truly may well have been the liaison between the Cason/Campbell and Byrd.

            Mr. TRULY. I went to work for the Texas School Book Depository in July 1934.
            Mr. BELIN. And have you been employed by the Texas School Book Depository since that date, since July 1934?
            Mr. TRULY. That is right.

            Why were the floor repairs being carried out by the tenant rather than by the owner, Byrd? We can presume that Truly was managing the project.

        • Fearfaxer says:

          @ John McAdams

          I guess, like Leonardo DeCaprio in “Catch Me If You Can,” you have nothing better to do on Christmas Eve than call Tom Hanks (played tonight, in Mr. Hanks’ absence, by Tom S.)

          Life is Beautiful! You should get one. ;-))

          Merry Christmas, Prof!

      • Paul Turner says:

        Then what did the WC do, John, listen respectfully to each witness without any intimidation, and then fake their answers in the final report? Many WERE intimidated. The WC couldn’t get them to say what it wanted them to say, so they intimidated them.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        JMA “Most of the accounts of “intimidated and eliminated witnesses are bogus”
        So I feel sure you discount heroin addict, prostitute, Jack Ruby’s mule’s account of Rose Cheramie’s prediction of JFK’s death before it happened. Documented and investigated by a Louisiana State Police officer. And of course her death by having her suitcase set closer to the edge of the road than her passed out/OD’d head so a car would swerve to run over her head. But no investigation was done.

        Probably the same with Roger Craig. He didn’t tow the line and change his story about seeing Oswald, so he lost his job, was taken in by Penn Jones, had multiple attempts on his life and finally, supposedly, committed suicide.

        Then there was the steel worker whose name I can’t remember at the moment (the story is in Jim Marr’s Crossfire). He saw people leaving the back of the TSBD. His home was raided and searched for no apparent reason. He moved to (?) Minnesota, someone tried to blow up his car. Someone tried to kill him while passing through Florida, he killed them and was released by police based on self defense.

        There are more. The reporter in Dallas who was at Ruby’s apartment the night after he killed Oswald that was killed by a karate chop to the throat shortly after. The California reporter also there at Ruby’s apartment the night after he shot Oswald. Accidentally shot by a California cop, in a a police station.

        Yes, there are still more.

        • Tom S. says:

          Were all of your examples perfect crimes, or have any of those murders been confirmed as related to the Kennedy Assassination
          investigation? Penn Jones was wrong about the year of death of witness Benavides’s brother.
          http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-A_c-mkpofhc/U78gIQ8Jg2I/AAAAAAAA1w8/O7jE0bmvC9k/s3000/Edward-Benavidez-Death-Certificate.jpg
          Roger Craig’s own daughter explained why he died.:
          https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?5545-Anyone-want-to-discuss-HARVEY-amp-LEE&p=103677#post103677
          What did the two reporters who had a drink with Ruby’s roommate, George Senator, on Sunday evening, 24 November, at the
          apartment Ruby and Senator shared, know that Senator himself did not know. Senator lived to a ripe old age, despite the fact that his parents are buried in a graveyard containing less than 450 graves, two others of which are the graves of Junius Meyer Schine, and his wife. Knesseth Israel Cemetery – http://findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=cr&GSln=senator&GSbyrel=all&GSdyrel=all&GSst=36&GScntry=4&GSob=n&CRid=64955&df=all&pt=Knesseth%20Israel%20Cemetery&

          Lester Crown is Schine’s son-in-law. WC senior assistant counsel Albert Jenner was the Crown family’s, General Dynamics’,
          the Airline MFG. Assoc.’s and M. Frank Darling’s and later Dorfman’s lawyer. Jenner represented Darling at senate hearings
          on labor rackets because Darling was manager of the Union local that first purchased Dorfman’s health insurance “offerings.”
          Hoffa and the Teamsters soon followed.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_E._Jenner,_Jr.#Controversy

          Fact check deeply, the details of every one of those deaths yourself, Ronnie. IMO, Marrs and Penn Jones were
          promoters, and as I said, since they both claimed Benavides’s brother was killed before his brother’s WC testimony, and the two authors could have fact checked that claim, but did not, how reliable are they in the rest of their claims?
          Why put your own name on stuff, some of it 52 years old that either never checked out, or never panned out?

          • I’d like to chime in here on Benavides’s testimony and the claims of his brother’s murder.
            It is acknowledged that Benavides would not agree to a positive ID as Oswald who he saw…but only someone who looked a lot like Oswald. That was his first testimony. As far as I am aware He never gave a second testimony.
            But his first testimony is very clear, he would only state for certain that Tippit’s killer looked similar to Oswald.
            Anyone can read the exchanges between Ball and Benavides. How his testimony can then be said to be a “Positive Identification’ is simply a rhetorical trick.

            But correct me if I am wrong.
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Interesting Domingo Benavides, et al background from Larry Hancock:
            https://larryhancock.wordpress.com/2014/10/10/loose-ends-in-dallas-and-the-house-on-harlandale/

            Star witness leaves the scene without telling police anything, and at 4:00 pm, the only living adult in Dallas
            unaware that he president was shot nearly 3-1/2 hours before, is finally approached by police….:

            http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/benavide.htm
            ……
            Mr. BELIN – When the officers came out there, did you tell them what you had seen?
            Mr. BENAVIDES – No, sir.
            Mr. BELIN – What did you do?
            Mr. BENAVIDES – I left right after. I give the shells to the officer. I turned around and went back and we returned to work.
            Mr. BELIN – Then what happened? Did the officers ever get in touch with you?
            Mr. BENAVIDES – Later on that evening, about 4 o’clock, there was two officers came by and asked for me, Mr. Callaway asked me—I had told them that I had seen the officer, and the reporters were there and I was trying to hide from the reporters because they will just bother you all the time.
            Then I found out that they thought this was the guy that killed the President. At the time I didn’t know the President was dead or he had been shot…..

            Here is Domingo talking to CBS for their four night Prime Time, “Can We Now Trust the Warren Report?” in 1967.:

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Tom, I read what I can of authors I consider respectable based on my own evaluation of what others say about their work. I do this after work and on weekends, I’m not a researcher, I can’t fact check everything. Some of your post’s and say Leslie’s astound me in their depth. I appreciate them, much better than being called a buff or having something called a factoid.
            Do you believe no witnesses were intimidated or eliminated?
            For example, Roger Craig? He may have taken his own life but did not others try to do so for him previously?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I don’t know what the reporters at Ruby’s apartment on 11/24/63 knew or learned that night. But they ended up dead fairly soon thereafter. This is suspicious to me and should have been investigated in more depth in relation to JFK’s assassination. Can you provide more info on their deaths?

          • Tom S. says:

            Ronnie,

            I am replying here to both of your comments.:

            Bill Hunter : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hunter_%28journalist%29

            http://www.presstelegram.com/general-news/20131116/whats-hot-long-beach-reporter-bill-hunter-was-in-the-midst-of-the-jfk-conspiracy
            …..
            Throughout, however, Hunter’s colleagues at the Press-Telegram saw Hunter’s death as nothing but a tragic mistake.

            Hunter’s editor, Art Wild, wrote in a letter to the P-T in 1993: “For many years I maintained a quiet but thorough investigation into the (shooting of Hunter). I am convinced that the (conspiracy) theory concerning Bill Hunter has absolutely no validity.”

            And longtime I, P-T columnist George Robeson, who had
            plenty of friends in the LBPD during his time as a reporter and columnist, wrote in 1991 about his own experience with firearm horseplay with cops in his day.

            There is some interesting info on those investigated by Dallas police in the murder of Jim Koethe, before
            the thread at this link was derailed.: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=10430 – Larry Earl Reno and Jim Koethe . Ronnie, books that declare everything is alright, do not sell all that well, and authors are reluctant to
            challenge each other or give each other bad reviews. Sensationalism sells books and draws attention to those who present it.
            I know you, like most, cannot devote the amount of time to these studies that a few with time on their hands and motivation
            to do it, are able to. If you read something that impresses you, use a site such as McAdams’s to find what the other side
            is saying about it. This should not take much time and may quickly aid your understanding of why something seems so significant yet seems to have had little or no impact. Often I find that the current state of things lies somewhere midway
            between the versions told by the two sides, at least what can actually be proved after so many years.
            Try not to allow much attention toward things that cannot be proven, which rules out much speculation about claims of witnesses in Dealey Plaza and interpretations of still and motion picture evidence. Has anyone, for example brought us close
            to discovering who showed specifically what I.D. to whom, on or near the Grassy Knoll? I see so much attention devoted to speculation about unsolvable
            controversies. We’re almost past the time when a person claiming firsthand knowledge but who has not ever come forward,
            has arrived to clear much of it up, for us. Consider what Jeff has done, a methodical step of discovery, confined to narrow
            issues, taking a long time and some would argue, a great expense, but yields new information, stepping stones, footholds.

          • Tom, This further information dealing with Benavides, and the ties to DRE, and Tippit entangled as well, is utterly fascinating. It throws a whole new light on the situation.

            Especially the fact that Victor Murillo, who did volunteer translations for DRE, lived in a house with Domingo Benavides.

            A lot of interconnections with the anti-Castro Cuban community here, that are difficult to characterize as happenstance and coincidence.

            More to ponder. Thanks for the lead!
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Tom, R.E. 12/26 3:10 AM.
            I’d never read that bit about Hunter’s death.
            I use wikipedia as a reference sometimes but kind of question it as a source. Yhanks for it and the edu link. The first part of the latter is interesting.
            Here’s another from edu regarding both Hunter and Koethe.

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5274

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            I still find the circumstances of Hunter’s death questionable. He was in the police press room reading or making/reviewing notes. He was shot from 3 feet away per the autopsy/coroner’s report. The cop first said he dropped his gun. When this proved impossibe in court he changed his story and admitted he was “playing” quick draw with another officer and accidentally shot Hunter, in the heart. Still sounds a litttle fishy.
            What I’d really like to know now is was the officer at a minimum charged with manslaughter? Cops playing quick draw with loaded weapons in a press room? Officers of the law trained in weapons safety? Was he at least fired from the police department?

          • Tom S. says:

            Ronnie,
            It is what it is, they both resigned and received sentences of several years probation. If you want to do something in reaction, consider supporting
            black lives matter. It is irrelevant whether you continue to be suspicious and IMO, you make a decision to distract yourself under the influence of
            the speculation of authors writing at the time, in 1964, who proved nothing.
            https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/17721967/
            Both officers resigned.

            Probation for involuntary manslaughter as determined by grand jury investigation.:
            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19650209&id=ev8pAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lScEAAAAIBAJ&pg=7424,3931353&hl=en

            The mysterious deaths amount to infotainment, Ronnie. Focus your attention on the powerful. Godfrey Stillman Rockefeller was a Freeport director from 1931 on, his Yale Scroll & Key secret society fellow was Charles Albert Wight, later Freeport chairman. Rockefeller’s daughter
            Marion married Robert G. Stone, Jr., head of Harvard Endowment Fund investing disproportionately, compared to its portfolio history, in Quasha’s Harken Energy. Rockefeller was chairman from the 1920’s until his death, of Cranston Print Works. His V.P. of labor relations, lobbyist, and Cranston Print Works spokesperson was Dwight Owen. (see “Cranston Executive Dies at 66” https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1665&dat=19810316&id=XT5PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SSQEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5370,1485562&hl=en )
            At 19, Dwight’s older son, Dwight, Jr., was permitted to accompany a U.S. platoon in South Vietnam combat operations, based on a press credential issued by the Providence Journal newspaper. His younger son was Rob Owen.:

            The Stanford Daily
            http://stanforddailyarchive.com/cgi-bin/stanford?a=d&d=stanford19671006-02.2.3&e=——-en-20–1–txt-txIN-student+army+training+corps——
            At breakfast time on a jungle road in Vietnam last week, Dwight Owen killed a Communist and saw dozens of Americans die,” the Time magazine article began.

            http://articles.latimes.com/keyword/robert-w-owen
            After the Iran Contra hearings, the only place Rob Owen could find employment was at the Chrystal Cathedral, which hired
            both Owen and his wife. On the board of that religious institution was Beurt Servaas. Rob Owen had worked in VP Dan Quayle’s
            office, according to an article on the page at the link above, and Servaas’s son Eric’s brother-in-law, Mark D. Miles, was Quayle’s U.S. Senate campaign chairman.:
            https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=7kl_VpWHHYzA-AXP7q7YBQ#q=beuert+servaas+chrystal+cathedral
            Mark D Miles:
            https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=kVF_VoyzG4uK-gWJ1qroBA#q=Mark+D.+Miles+quayle
            Miles’s father’s obit ties in Eric Servaas :
            http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/indystar/obituary.aspx?pid=165775542

            John Hull, Once Oliver North’s Man in Costa Rica, Is Now …
            http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20120166,00.html
            People
            May 1, 1989 – “He’s already bit me, bit my wife, even bit my son. … Hull is equally firm in his views about Oliver North, calling his trial a disgrace … Later, as they part, Hull hands the man an envelope with the name ROB OWEN written on it.

          • “Hull is equally firm in his views about Oliver North, calling his trial a disgrace …”~Tom

            What is curious about Ollie North and the support he got from “the usual suspects”, is that it is never pointed out that Authority has no claim to the rights and privileges of the Individual, under the Principles of Liberty.

            For Oliver North to take the 5th Amendment in committee questioning, he would first have to resign, or be stripped of his commission as an officer of the military and of the administration.

            His position is doubly unlawful in that he had been given official immunity for whatever self incrimination that might be revealed in his testimony.

            So for him to clam up and take the Fifth as he did, it a breach of contract for his deal of immunity. And as first noted, and officer of the state, while in that capacity of “authority” is not entitled to the Rights of Liberty, which are reserved for Individual Persons exclusively.
            \\][//

        • So I feel sure you discount heroin addict, prostitute, Jack Ruby’s mule’s account of Rose Cheramie’s prediction of JFK’s death before it happened.

          She claimed to have worked in Ruby’s club. She claimed that Ruby and Oswald were gay and “had been shacking up for years.

          http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1212#relPageId=201

          Probably the same with Roger Craig. He didn’t tow the line and change his story about seeing Oswald, so he lost his job, was taken in by Penn Jones, had multiple attempts on his life and finally, supposedly, committed suicide.

          He changed his story about the “Mauser.”

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage7.jpg

          He changed his story about the time of the Tippit shooting:

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/images/craigandjonespage10.jpg

          As for a “suicide:”

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

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Roger Craig is indeed what the Joe Pesci character in JFK called a mystery wrapped up in an enigma. The Dallas County Sheriff’s Department Man of the year in 1960. Later fired by Sheriff Decker, character witness for mafia murder Joe Civello, for sticking to his story (and not shutting up about it) about what he saw when JFK was shot. His story about Oswald running down the slope by the by the grassy knoll/railroad tracks and getting in the Rambler was vindicated by three independent witnesses after he made it.
            He was in fact in Will Fritz office while Oswald was being questioned in spite of Friz denial of this by a photograph of him there.
            His daughters assertion questioning the sanity of her father, who she calls a bastard is questioned by his nephew who wonders who is mentally disturbed, him or her and her mother.
            Both his manuscript and his five part television interview seem to be from a lucid, though at times distraught man.
            He certainly never got rich from sticking to his story.
            Watch and read. Judge for your self.

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=3556

            http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.com/2013/01/roger-craig-vs-lone-gunman-zealots.html

            http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=roger+craig+jfk&view=detail&mid=2A3E9A2FD2D83EBFE48A2A3E9A2FD2D83EBFE48A&FORM=VIRE2

            Watch all five parts.

            http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/WTKaP.html

            Regards,

            Ronnie

          • Tom S. says:

            Ronnie,

            You did not mention the concentrated levels of substances of concern in the Roger Craig autopsy report, which McAdams will
            surely offer an opinion of its authenticity. Craig is not generally viewed as reliable. You are not going to change that, it was
            Craig’s own doing. You do yourself no service by citing Craig because doing so calls into question the quality of your own discernment. Who do you suppose knew Craig better, his daughter, or his nephew? Weigh your
            sources carefully. No reasonable person will criticize you for saying you think his daughter is a more authorative source than his nephew. His nephew would have to offer more to support his opinions of the “real” Craig than his daughter is expected to supply, because readers compare their own familiarity with relatives and form judgments that contribute to their own information filtering components.

            When I read someone citing Craig or speaking highly of his reliability, I know there is little point in engaging that person. I’m responding to you because you said you don’t have time to do much research of your own and have depended on books you’ve read to learn what you’ve been able to.
            These are the rules, Ronnie. I’ve learned to take them into consideration. You can have your own favorites
            that are not well supported or support is conflicting, but it is a trade off. You expend your credibility capital. Try to make your potentially receptive audience as broad as possible, Ronnie. It takes little discipline to reduce the size of your potentially interested reader group, and like it or not, we all have one.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Melba Christine Marcades, aka Rose Cheramie was found dead on the road in Big Sandy Texas in front of the property of Dallas billionare H L Hunt’ top security officer. Her head had been run over but a bullet wound in it was also found in her head. Blood was found on the property.
            After the JFK assassination her story of being on a drug run to Houston was checked out by the Louisiana State Police and U.S. Customs and found to be true.
            See Hit List by Richard Belzer, pgs. 47-52.

  3. “I don’t know what’s being referred to specifically, other than the Hosty note, I suppose.”~Jean Davison

    Hahaha!! How splendidly absurd! That is the only thing that you can think of aye Jean. Amazing, truly amazing.

    You leave me practically speechless Jean. But a good hardy belly laugh at the end of a long day is good for us all.
    \\][//

  4. James says:

    And ladies and gentlemen this sums these folks up. No specific point to pick up for a change which has no significance!

    When they are called out they disappear time and time again or try and hit you with obfuscation! Anyone with a degree of intelligence and morality knows there was no lone nut and it frustrates me so that still to this day after everything we now know, these truth deniers (just like the genocide against the Jews deniers in WWII),are still given a platform to obfuscate and push the CIA/government agenda in the name of democracy!! And yes I’m questioning their intelligence and morality.

    • And yes I’m questioning their intelligence and morality.

      But somehow you aren’t capable of debating the evidence.

      • “But somehow you aren’t capable of debating the evidence.”
        ~McAdams

        This is a blatant falsehood, verifiable by a reading of this blog – any thread from any year.

        More properly stated; YOU make assertions that are not backed by the facts, but instead your biases.
        \\][//

  5. Barto says:

    The denial of any interrogation notes being taken by Will Fritz only to surface in the late 90’s by the ARRB.

    Anyone actually wonder why Fritz never taped the 12 hours of the 46 (being in custody) that Oswald was being interrogated? Probably because he had no equipment (although I find that a stretch but ok), but at the same time it did not occur to him to ask someone from the gathered world press just outside his door to borrow some gear……go figure.

    Fab thread we should all chip in so we can compile a little list here to see how heavily loaded it actually is……

    • Jean Davison says:

      Fritz said he made those notes sometime after the interrogation, not during. Should we add Fritz to the list of conspirators? Sure, why not.

      • “Should we add Fritz to the list of conspirators?”~Jean Davison

        Absolutely! The Dallas Police Department had to be up in their eyeballs in the perpetration, cover-up, and framing of the patsy. All the evidence considered, it is utterly naive, disingenuous or worse to deny this.
        \\][//

        • “Should we add Fritz to the list of conspirators?”~Jean Davison

          Absolutely! The Dallas Police Department had to be up in their eyeballs in the perpetration, cover-up, and framing of the patsy. All the evidence considered, it is utterly naive, disingenuous or worse to deny this.

          Yep, that’s scores more people who were involved, with none of them coming forward to reveal their role.

          Keep going. Get the total up as high as you can.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Obviously, he was John, possibly not willingly in his case IMO, although that’s questionable regarding the not taking notes or having a transcriber there as any respectable police official should/would have regarding the importance of the case.
            Was he succumbing to the wishes of the SS, FBI, and Postal inspector Holmes present during Oswald’s questioning?
            He was head of the Homicide squad.
            Remember what his Superior, Cheif of Police Jesse Curry said later. “We never could put Oswald in that window, with that gun in his hand”.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Now if you would prefer to discuss Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade that’s a horse of a similar color. A long time dedicated LBJ acolyte. Reverent in his idolization per his letters (see them in “Betrayal in Dallas”, (while I don’t agree with it’s conclusion the Mafia did it alone)).
            HE did change his charge on the night of 11/22/63 regarding CONSPIRACY as a result of calls from LBJ’s aides. Documented, FACT.

          • HE did change his charge on the night of 11/22/63 regarding CONSPIRACY as a result of calls from LBJ’s aides. Documented, FACT.

            The charge was Oswald shot Kennedy “in furtherance of a Communist conspiracy.”

            Do you think that was true?

          • “with none of them coming forward to reveal their role.”~Jean Davison

            And just what would be the impetus to “come forward” and admit a crime that you had been part of and gotten away with?
            \\][//

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            No, I don’t think it was a communist conspiracy. But I think LBJ wanted to stop any kind of conspiracy charge and in turn investigation. He certainly didn’t want the nation rising up in indignation demanding a thorough investigation. I personally think he had foreknowledge even if he wasn’t involved in the set up (e.g. his reported ducking down in the back seat before any shots were fired). He was most likely afraid of where such an investigation might lead whether to the CIA, his right wing oil supporters, or maybe to his own doorstep.

          • (e.g. his reported ducking down in the back seat before any shots were fired).

            Reported by whom? Jean Hill?

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/youngblood.txt

            That instant, piercing through the shouts of the thinning crowd, and the stuttering and backfiring of police motorcycle’s, Youngblood heard the shattering crack! of a rifle. His reaction was immediate and instinctive.

            “Get down!” he yelled. “GET DOWN!” And in the time it takes to pull the bolt of a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, Youngblood had vaulted over the back of the limousine seat onto Vice President Johnson, pushing him to the floor of the Lincoln convertible and shielding Johnson’s body with his own.

            Johnson, in his statement to the Warren
            Commission, said that Youngblood reacted immediately after the first shot by the time the second shot and fatal third shot were fired into Kennedy.

  6. Barto says:

    The disappearance of the many original films and still negatives taken that day.
    Nix
    Wiegman
    Darnell
    Altgens6
    etc.

  7. DG Michael says:

    Here’s another take on how Kennedy’s murder should be looked at from both sides. If John Kennedy had been beloved, and if a single Krazy Kid like LHO would have decided to murder him, do you really think evidence would have been swept under the rug, altered, or destroyed, or held back from the public for over 50 years? If LHO had truly been just a complete, random whack job like the government tries to paint him, do you really think there would ever have been evidence that someone had been impersonating him in Mexico City, with the idea that he was trying to reach out to a Russian assassin? Do you think, in the final report of the case, one of the commission members would have scratched out “back” and added “neck” to describe his wound, even though *everyone* knows that wound was not in his neck? Do you really think that, during the accused’s transfer, one of his protectors would have broken the 4-point security system to allow his assassin to literally walk up and gun him down? Tim McVeigh had far more protection when they transferred him around from court to jail.

    Kennedy was only loved by the citizens who voted for him. He most probably would have won the 1964 election based on his poll numbers. But he really was despised by those who worked for him, especially those protecting their fiefdoms in government (Dulles, Hoover, etc.). And even his own Vice President. He was the usurper – Johnson thought he was going to be the front runner, and the establishment thought it was going to be Dick Nixon.

    For what it’s worth, I think Kennedy had a lot of potential and I think he was trying to bring in fresh ideas and to try to do away with the craziness of the fanatics in government who constantly stirred up fear about Communism. That’s why his American University speech was pretty impressive because it definitely went against the establishment’s thinking back then about fear-mongering about Communism. And ironically, only 9 years after his death, one of the loudest blowhards of the Red Scare movement – Dick Nixon – went to both China and Russia and he got accolades for it.

    Sadly, this fear-mongering continues on today, first with the debacle in Iraq, and now every single deadly action in America being trumped up to possible terrorism claims.

  8. kennedy63 says:

    The JFK Assassination, contrary to Warren Omission adherents, is NOT a cold case file. In fact, because of ongoing citizen based research, government declassification of withheld JFK files, disclosures by people involved in related aspects of the case, and a more informed retrospective of the Cold War era, concerned and motivated citizens are piecing together the fabric of the systemic, bureaucratic patterns and interlocking relationships between personnel of government, diplomats, business/mafia, military, intelligence, media, and academia. Within these confluent relationships, a core of influential like-minded “leaders”, holding public and private positions of power, influence, and wealth (or access to wealthy people) consolidated to form a “power center” with an agenda opposed to the legitimate and elected governmental power structure. Many people, although compartmentalized, were directly involved in toppling foreign heads of state falsely labeled as communist or socialist. This assassination capability was then co-opted and used by a covert group aligned with a legitimate governmental entity to stage a coup d’etat on November 22, 1963. While the plotters did not immediately, or fully reap the benefits they desired (not until Nixon became President), this corrupt para-governmental group was able to escalate the War in Vietnam, increase the amount of street drugs, foment division and dissension among grass root groups seeking social change and opposing the Vietnam War, increased the military budget, and began militarizing police forces throughout the country. These documented events benefited, financially and personally, US arms merchants**, war mongers (Joint Chiefs, CIA/Dulles Brothers, & Cold War/Right Wing Extremists) certain bureaucrats (Johnson & Hoover), and criminals (Trafficante, Marcellos, Giancana, Roselli)], the sponsors and plotters of the coup against JFK/America. The roots of these overlapping parallel events can be traced back to WWII, and the subsequent establishment of the CIA, Vice-president Richard Nixon and Cuba, JFK and RFK’s war on organized crime, Teamster’s and union corruption, Anti-Castro Cubans associated with or employed by gangsters (Rosselli, Giancana, Trafficante, Marcellos and others); Nixon, the CIA, and DICTATOR Hoover’s FBI.

    ** http://www.independent.org/publications/article.asp?id=1297

    • lysias says:

      You’ve got Nixon wrong. Why do you think the CIA and the Pentagon brought him down?

      (Oliver Stone in his movie Nixon came very close to getting Nixon right.)

  9. David Hazan says:

    Quick reader poll:

    Visit articles from one, two and five years ago and find any comments you and your adversaries might have made about the JFK assassination, compare it to where the discourse is today and answer this question:

    Do you feel any commenters here have changed their minds, have been persuaded to drop their beliefs from earlier times, or conceded to a dissenting opinion?

    Thank you.

    • bogman says:

      I went from lean conspiracy to a hard lean in the past couple of years. I think the circumstantial evidence is strong that agents and assets from JMWAVE were involved. Several high-level CIA/JCS had prior knowledge or were active participants.

      Hoover’s FBI went along for the ride.

      And I think it’s becoming clear that the conditions for conspiracy were there, including the absolutely insane JCS (e.g. Operation Northwoods), Bill Harvey’s widow confirming top echelon CIA officers’ treasonous attitude toward JFK (from the head of its assassination program no less!), and independent confirmations that the WH thought the CIA was out of control (e.g. Talbot’s book).

    • theNewDanger says:

      David Hazan

      December 23, 2015 at 1:21 pm

      Quick reader poll:

      Visit articles from one, two and five years ago and find any comments you and your adversaries might have made about the JFK assassination, compare it to where the discourse is today and answer this question:

      Do you feel any commenters here have changed their minds, have been persuaded to drop their beliefs from earlier times, or conceded to a dissenting opinion?

      Thank you.

      Interesting idea. The lack of search granularity on this site is not conducive to this type of lookback, though.

      • David Hazan says:

        You do have a point there, theNewDanger. It is indeed very difficult to fish out comments from the past, or from a certain individual. But, I have to say, with enough accurate keywords (plus the word “jfkfacts”,) Google does a pretty decent job.

    • “Do you feel any commenters here have changed their minds, have been persuaded to drop their beliefs from earlier times, or conceded to a dissenting opinion?”~David Hazan

      No, not to my knowledge David. All are hanging tight to their own POV, as far as I can tell.

      My views have changed some in the last few years, just on details though. I have thought the assassination a coup d’etat for most of my adult life. I have never found any information sufficient to change that view.
      \\][//

      • Fearfaxer says:

        “My views have changed some in the last few years, just on details though.”

        That pretty much mirrors my own thinking. I was in college when the various hearings began discovering the things the Warren Commission either ignored, or was kept in the dark about (willful ignorance played an enormous part in that). I remembered reading these memorial books published shortly after the assassination and before the WC Report was issued painting Oswald as this near idiot (IQ said to be in the 75-80 range) with a psychotic bent. Yet he was said to have read Marx’s “Das Kapital” as an adolescent. Once I read some of Marx myself in college, this portrait of Oswald, which I’d believed, suddenly fell apart. No one that young, alleged to be that dumb, could ever have made head or tail of “Das Kapital.” Hell, the smartest 15-16 year-old in your school would have probably given up before he or she had gotten anywhere near page 100. By that time having also tried to learn a couple of Western languages (Spanish and French), I realized how difficult a thing that is to do, and just how much work it requires. Oswald could speak and read Russian, a difficult language made ever more difficult by having to learn an entirely different alphabet.

        After all these years, my interest w/r/t this case is isn’t so much who actually pulled the triggers and where they were shooting from. I’m mostly keen to know just who Lee Harvey Oswald was, and exactly what was he doing in the last 4 years of his life. Because he cannot possibly have been some random, ordinary, mixed-up guy with a penchant for drifting aimlessly from one side of the Iron Curtain to the other who one day on a whim decided he’d murder the President of the United States because the POTUS just happened to be driving by the place where he held a crummy, dead-end job. The facts of his life are too fantastic for that to be true.

        • Because he (Oswald) cannot possibly have been some random, ordinary, mixed-up guy with a penchant for drifting aimlessly from one side of the Iron Curtain to the other who one day on a whim decided he’d murder the President of the United States because the POTUS just happened to be driving by the place where he held a crummy, dead-end job. The facts of his life are too fantastic for that to be true.”~Fearfaxer

          BINGO. Well said and reasoned.
          \\][//

    • David Hazan says:

      I had tried my best to phrase the question in a sincerely neutral fashion, while not giving the impression that I was pretending to be neutral on this issue myself. I am hoping that my position was somewhat clear from the question.

      It had been a while since I had stopped by here, mostly because my focus has been on the newly accelerated world affairs as it unfolds day by day, taking us from a dark present to an even darker future. The magic bullet from Dealey Plaza seems to be still continuing its journey.

      I came back to check on a few people whose minds and intellects I appreciate, and whose comments I enjoy. Started reading, and before too long, I was taken over by an intense sense of deja vu… Wondered to myself if I was being prejudiced… I wondered if there was something different there, but I was not able to see it, or feel it. So, decided to ask others. I appreciate the replies.

      Willy, I am afraid you are correct. None of the feverish discussions seem to sway anyone from their deeply held opinions, which, I feel, are based more on their world view than any single fact or a collection of facts about the assasination. I feel reading an exchange between the usual suspects and the people arguing against the lone nut narrative is sufficient to realize this fact. Which renders this whole exercise more a game, or a pass time, than actually trying to uncover the truth. My position is that, over the past 50 years, enough truth (and then some) to prove that this was a grand conspiracy and a coup has been revealed. The rest feels like just parlor game trivia.

      • “My position is that, over the past 50 years, enough truth (and then some) to prove that this was a grand conspiracy and a coup has been revealed. The rest feels like just parlor game trivia.”
        ~David Hazan

        I couldn’t agree more with your observations Mr Hazan. That is why I mention the allegory of the carousel, or round’a’bout.

        And your observation that our adversary’s blindness of the past is very much a continuum of their blindness to the present is also well taken. Mr McAdams denial of the Amrikan Empire being a totalitarian system both abroad and at home, is caused by the same blinders that blur his vision of the events of November 1963.

        The Jingo Patriot’s “grand old flag” rhetoric as espoused by our “favorite Nam Vet” is also indicative of this lack of Santanian Prescience.

        As you know my work well from other venues, you know the meme of INDOCTRINATION is a steady-state base to my sociopolitical philosophy. The vast majority have no sense of real history due to birth to grave indoctrination:

        “Those who control the present, control the past and those who control the past control the future.”~George Orwell
        \\][//

  10. Sandy K. says:

    Let’s not forget our old pal, the Single Bullet Theory that hangs by a thread known as CE399 aka the Prinstine bullet.

    • Sandy K. says:

      Hate it when the posting gremlins hit the button before I’m ready. As I was about to say, the Pristine Bullet would never survive as evidence in court due to NO chain of custody. CE399’s use as a WC basis for a single-shooter case versus LHO is asinine. Consider this – immediately after JFK’s murder de Gaulle knew it was a conspiracy, Castro knew it was a conspiracy and the Russians knew it was a conspiracy. So what accounts for the LN holdouts on this forum and elsewhere in the U.S. after 52 years? H.L. Mencken was right when he said, “Nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.”

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Add to this future President, at the time Warren Omissioner Gerald Ford’s moving the back shot up 5-6″ from the location on the autopsy sheet, JFK’s shirt and coat to make the Single, Pristine, Magic bullet theory SEEM possible.

        • Paul Turner says:

          If Ford’s action isn’t tampering with evidence, I’d like to know what it IS.

        • Jean Davison says:

          “Add to this future President, at the time Warren Omissioner Gerald Ford’s moving the back shot up 5-6″ from the location on the autopsy sheet, JFK’s shirt and coat…”

          No.

          The first draft of that chapter said:

          “… entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder…”

          What’s “slightly above” your shoulder, folks? More “back”? Could I see a photo of that, please?? On anyone I’ve ever seen, the only body part “slightly above the shoulder” is called “neck.”

          Ford’s draft revision:

          “…entered the back of his neck…”

          http://www.jfklancer.com/Ford-Rankin.html

          That sentence in the final report eventually said, “A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine.”

          That’s very imprecise, but the actual measurement was given in a later section specifically on the wounds, exactly as it was in the autopsy report: approximately 5 1/2 inches (14cm) below the mastoid process behind the ear:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=112&tab=page

          • The official death certificate signed by Dr Burkley puts the wound at T3. The shirt and coat have bullet holes at T3. The facesheet has a dot at T3. The photo of the wound is at T3.
            These points cannot be mere coincidence.

            Conclusion: JFK’s back wound was at T3.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            No, Burkley’s Naval Death Certificate puts the wound ” at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra”. It is an approximation, nowhere near as definitive statement as you imply.If you are going to take Burkley’s statement as the most precise information on JFK’s wounds you also have to accept that JFK never had a wound in the front of the neck and no shots were fired from the front. When you cherrypick statements from one source and ignore other statements from the same source that contradict your assumptions you impeach your own argument.
            The bullet wound locations in JFK’s coat and shirt have been explained so many times for so many years that any claim that they are evidence for a back wound lower than it really was is simply disinformation for the gullible uninformed.
            How about that forensic pathologist who supports the Willy Witten “shots from the front “hypothesis? Still can’t find one?

          • DaveK says:

            Hello Jean. First time poster – usually I just read the to and fro here. But when I read what you wrote on the “back” wound location, I just had to ask you to clarify something for me. You wrote –

            That’s very imprecise, but the actual measurement was given in a later section specifically on the wounds, exactly as it was in the autopsy report: approximately 5 1/2 inches (14cm) below the mastoid process behind the ear:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946#relPageId=112&tab=page

            Got it – bullet hole in “neck”, 5-1/2″ below the mastoid process.

            So now another piece of CRUCIAL evidence (IMO) – the location of the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket. From the HSCA panel –

            There is a defect in the shirt… with its upper margin 14 centimeters (5.5 inches) below the upper margin of the shirt collar.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82&search=hsca_shirt#relPageId=93&tab=page

            Hmmm… so which is it? 5-1/2″ below the mastoid process in the neck or 5-1/2″ below the top of the collar in the back. (I don’t think both can be true – that would mean the shirt was buttoned up so the collar was just below his ears.)

            Am I missing something here? Can you please clarify this for me?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Hello DaveK,

            “Got it – bullet hole in “neck”, 5-1/2″ below the mastoid process.”

            No, 5-1/2″ below the mastoid process is definitely *not* in the neck, unless you’re a giraffe, I suppose.

            Sorry if I wasn’t clear. Ford corrected a muddled sentence but his correction was misleading too. I doubt he had a clear idea of the wound’s location, since he hadn’t seen the autopsy photos. Something “above the shoulder” couldn’t be in the back, so he changed it to neck.
            (Moving it up *doesn’t* help the SBT, because it would make the angle through JFK too steep to work.)

            The wound wasn’t where Ford put it, it was where the autopsy measurement — or better yet, the autopsy *photograph* put it — i.e., the upper back.

            There are photos showing that JFK’s jacket was bunched up slightly just before the back wound.

            “Hmmm… so which is it? 5-1/2″ below the mastoid process in the neck or 5-1/2″ below the top of the collar in the back. (I don’t think both can be true – that would mean the shirt was buttoned up so the collar was just below his ears.)”

            Look at the autopsy photo of the back. It is where the photo shows it. Wounds don’t move, clothes do.

          • DaveK,

            As a first time poster you may have read my comment:

            *The official death certificate signed by Dr Burkley puts the wound at T3. The shirt and coat have bullet holes at T3. The facesheet has a dot at T3. The photo of the wound is at T3.
            These points cannot be mere coincidence.

            Conclusion: JFK’s back wound was at T3.*
            . . . . .
            Now many people have viewed that photo of the back wound and ruler and thought it was a wound near T1, but I dispute that. The angle the photo was taken from distorts the perception the T1 vertebrae is actually at the deep crease in Kennedy’s neck, at leas three inches higher than the hole in his back.
            If you follow the line from the shoulder to his neck, you will be able to discern that the crease is at T1 and the bullet hole is lower.

            Thus, if you review the 5 points in my original comment you can see why I add that photo as one showing the wound a T3.
            \\][//

          • That photo shows the wound at T-3. T-1 is at the deep crease in Kennedy’s neck. This has been gone over time and again with Jean.. The line from the shoulder to the neck runs from the tip of the shoulder where the humerus, the clavicle, and the spatula meet, ending right at T1, the crease in the neck.

            The bullet hole is some 3 inches lower.
            \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            “That photo shows the wound at T-3. T-1 is at the deep crease in Kennedy’s neck. This has been gone over time and again with Jean.. ”

            Sorry, Willy, these anatomy diagrams put T1 below the neck crease and T3 below the wound’s location:

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

            http://www.athletestreatingathletes.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/neckbone.jpg

            https://www.google.com/search?q=t3+neck&biw=976&bih=447&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwisip_brYbKAhUG7GMKHYPHAWwQ_AUIBygC#tbm=isch&q=t3+vertebrae+neck&imgrc=tLIbTO-4A8BChM%3A

          • DaveK says:

            Hi Jean. Thank you for your quick response. I will respond on two points and then hope to return to my observer role.

            The first point is your conflicting statements on what constitutes the “neck”. Using your words, in your two posts above, you wrote (with gratuitous sarcasm I might add) –

            “No, 5-1/2″ below the mastoid process is definitely *not* in the neck, unless you’re a giraffe, I suppose.”

            “What’s “slightly above” your shoulder, folks? More “back”? Could I see a photo of that, please?? On anyone I’ve ever seen, the only body part “slightly above the shoulder” is called “neck.” “

            I measured on my adult son and 5-1/2” below the mastoid process is a point “above the shoulder” and not in the “back” so I would say we are *definitely* stuck with “neck”. The bullet hole was in the neck.

            The second point would be your answer to my request for clarity on the conflicting evidence – the bullet holes in the shirt and jacket vs the location of the wound in the autopsy report and the Warren Report. You replied with two comments –

            “There are photos showing that JFK’s jacket was bunched up slightly just before the back wound.”

            “Look at the autopsy photo of the back. It is where the photo shows it. Wounds don’t move, clothes do.”

            I am familiar with this explanation (and I have read the “bunched” essay by John Hunt Jr on McAdam’s site; so you don’t have to point me there). I fully expected this would be your response – what other response is there? Not to put words in your mouth but from where I sit, your explanation comes to this –

            The President’s suit jacket and shirt moved up such that the resulting bullet holes in the clothing- which are 5-1/2” from the collar tops- were at a position 5-1/2” below the right mastoid process at the time of the bullet’s impact. (And, I might add, this happened with no folding or bunching of material as that would cause multiple or misshapen holes- both garments moved up in unison without folding…)

            My final word – INCONGRUOUS; defined as “strange because of not agreeing with what is usual or expected “. This word comes to my mind whenever I explore most if not all aspects of the JFK assassination. Applies to this topic too.

          • “Sorry, Willy, these anatomy diagrams put T1 below the neck crease and T3 below the wound’s location”~Jean Davison

            Sorry Jean,
            T-1 is exactly where I described it:

            The line from the shoulder to the neck runs from the tip of the shoulder where the humerus, the clavicle, and the spatula meet, ending right at T1, the crease in the neck.
            . . .
            You are fooled by the angle of POV and the unnatural way Kennedy’s head is being pulled back. The wound is clearly some three inches from the deep crease in Kennedy’s neck.

            The trapezius makes a smooth arch from deltoid to the occipital which can make it difficult to imagine the underlying bony structures – but in a man of Kennedy’s age, the wrinkles have become deep and permanent giving good hallmarks to see how his neck articulated.

            Put your finger on T-1 while looking forward, hold it there and look up. You will feel the skin of your neck fold over your finger at that point.
            \\][//

  11. Ronnie Wayne says:

    How about the C. I. of A.? Still withholding all those files illegally Jeff has sued for. Johanides, why did he maintain a residence in New Orleans (or safe house) when he lived in Florida in the summer of 63? Bill Harvey’s travel records that summer. LHO’s tax records? David Altee Phillips, why did he walk out on the HSCA? All still affect National Security? Let’s not forget El Indio, David Sanchez Morales, “We got that Son of a Bitch didn’t we”.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Oh yeah, James Jesus Angleton. “We never did establish an alibi for Hunt in Dallas that day did we”.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          JMO but I personally find the statement of the Director of Counter Intelligence more credible than the Rockefeller Commission. The statement was made as Angleton was being run out of the CIA at the end of his career and sounds like “I could say more if necessary”, again, just my interpretation. The Rockefeller Commission was set up by President/former Warren Commissioner and is considered by some rubber stamp of the WC, I.E. another not very thorough job was done. In addition while he has been dismissed by many, including some of his own family, Hunt’s son Saint John discredited his fathers testimony about being in Washington shopping for some type of unique foreign food to cook at the time of the assassination. It’s been reported there was no grocery store he named in Washington carrying this unique foreign food. Saint John found the thought of his father cooking laughable as he never did so.

          • The statement was made as Angleton was being run out of the CIA at the end of his career and sounds like “I could say more if necessary”, again, just my interpretation.

            Give me a source for the supposed Angleton statement.

            Also, you seem to have picked up stuff from Mark Lane. But Lane is vastly unreliable on Hunt:

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

  12. Ira Jesse Hemingway says:

    For the record The United States Government was involved in the execution of President John F. Kennedy.

    • Dan Klock says:

      That really is the bottom line, now, isn’t it. That independent thinker Mark Twain once said “Patriotism is supporting you country all the time … and your government when it deserves it.” This web site is a beacon of how important critical thinking and open discussion are to our personal and collective liberty in this era of non-stop, mass media indoctrination and fear-mongering.

    • Paul Turner says:

      Yes, and I think it’s time for Lone Nutters to show us with solid evidence that our Government was NOT involved.

  13. JohnR says:

    Don’t forget the creme de la creme: if Oswald was a Lone Nut, what’s the National Security angle? Why all the secrecy? Those are the great unanswered questions.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      In a similar vein, if Jim Garrison was just a grandstanding buffoon whose investigation amounted to nothing, why was so much energy devoted to derailing it and making it appear to be a ridiculous farce? If those charges hurled at Garrison were true, he’d have been exposed without anyone lifting a finger to do it. My own feeling is Clay Shaw probably didn’t have anything to do with the assassination, but he may have known people who did, and he might have had knowledge of the plot either before or after it occurred.

      • In a similar vein, if Jim Garrison was just a grandstanding buffoon whose investigation amounted to nothing, why was so much energy devoted to derailing it and making it appear to be a ridiculous farce?

        Well, one might say . . .

        If Joe McCarthy was just a grandstanding buffoon whose investigation amounted to nothing, why was so much energy devoted to derailing it and making it appear to be a ridiculous farce?

        Would you agree with that logic?

        Here is some material you should read:

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

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          No because McCarthy was a grandstanding buffoon whose investigation was falsely defaming peoples reputations, costing them their jobs and ruining their lives. Garrisons investigation resulted in a jury finding there was conspiracy in the JFK assassination. While they found Shaw/Bertrand not guilty that was due in part to things like a spy on his staff stealing his files and giving them to the defense, intimidation of witnesses, Governor(s) refusing extradition of key witnesses, the CIA lending assistance to the defense. Remember how the CIA top brass was monitoring and discussing the case at morning meetings on a daily basis, asking “are we doing enough to help them?”. Much of this is covered in Destiny Betrayed, which is well documented.

          • The more reputable conspiracy authors disagree with your views on Garrison:

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

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            When I saw the article you link was written by Dave Reitzes I thought take this with a grain of salt. Realizing the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird was in full swing from the late 60’s through Stone’s JFK blasting Garrison it’s not difficult to understand a the opinions of a couple of the respectable early writers mentioned.
            A couple of respectable writers actually went to New Orleans, investigated and interviewed people. Read Joan Mellen’s A Farewell to Justice and Jim DiEugnio’s Destiny Betrayed for a deeper perspective.

        • Fearfaxer says:

          No, I don’t agree with that comment, because McCarthy and Roy Cohn were a genuine threat to the civil liberties of every American citizen. Garrison, OTOH, whatever his personal and professional flaws, threatened the National Security State, not a bad thing IMHO.

          And I’ve already read that material, John. As I’ve informed you on numerous occasions, I’ve been through your soporific “The Warren Report Is Holy Writ!” website more than once, and will not be going there again as it is so boring and predictable, and if I want to remind myself of the Officially Approved Story I’ll go back and reread the Warren Report. BTW, you might bank yourself a tad more credibility if you posted to something other than your own site once in a while. I’ve long thought the main reason you post here is to get people to click on the links you so narcissistically provide in the hopes of driving up your site’s traffic.

    • Phil says:

      Oswald was tied to everyone. The natural inclination was to cover it up? Many felt they were helping prevent World War III by going along to get along. However, if true, I am troubled by Hoover’s memo of someone using Oswald’s identity and the phone call by an Oswald impersonator in Mexico City.

    • Stephen Miller says:

      A very good point indeed! Even the nutters like McAdams, Davison, and DVP have never adequately addressed that one.

      • Paul Turner says:

        Speaking of Lone Nutters not addressing vital issues pertaining to the assassination-I read where Vincent Bugliosi and the “Case Closed” author couldn’t say why there were 3 cars parked very close to the picket fence behind the Grassy Knoll just before the shooting; the drives of these cars having JUST arrived.

        • What is your source on this?

          In fact, lots of cars were parked there, and there were apparently no places available.

          I think you are talking about Lee Bowers testimony, but he described cars that did not park.

    • Paul Turner says:

      That was a huge concern of the late Jim Tague, the third person hit on 11-22-63. I really doubt that the debris that hit Tague was caused by a bullet fired by LHO.

  14. Paul Turner says:

    Jean Davison claims that the Katzenbach memo opened with his desire that all the facts be known. She forgets to add that he goes on to say..”in a way that will satisfy people in the United States and abroad….” That part I believe left it open for the later named Warren Commission to fool us with “facts”.

  15. The JFK Assassination: Why CIA’s Richard Helms Lied About Oswald
    Not Ancient History — But Preamble to the Present
    By Prof Peter Dale Scott — Global Research, December 24, 2015

    “Why Helms Perjured Himself

    I wish in this essay to show how Richard Helms first lied to the Warren Commission about the CIA and Lee Harvey Oswald. I argue that his performance, and that of other CIA officials up to the present, constituted significant obstruction of justice with respect to one of this country’s most important unsolved murder cases.

    Furthermore, we can deduce from the carefully contrived wording of Helms’s lies what the CIA most needed to hide: namely, that the CIA had recently launched a covert operation involving the name of Lee Harvey Oswald (and perhaps Oswald himself), only five weeks before President Kennedy was killed.

    That operation—either in itself, or because it was somehow exploited by others—would appear to have become a supportive part of the assassination plot. It seems almost certain moreover that the “Oswald operation” became the focal point of the ensuing CIA cover-up, and of Helms’s perjury.

    As I relate in my book Dallas ’63: The First Revolt of the Deep State Against the White House, there was culpable lying and cover-up from many others in high places, including individuals in the FBI, the Secret Service, ONI, and probably still more military intelligence agencies.”

    http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/12/23/why-cias-richard-helms-lied-about-oswald-part-1/
    \\][//

  16. “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”~William Casey – 13th CIA Director

    Source; Barbara Honegger, who was present at the meeting, and heard it from Casey’s own lips.
    \\][//

  17. Tom S. says:

    I keep finding new, interesting things, most recently related to Oswald’s 1959 Lyke’s steamer cabin mate Billy Joe Lord’s letter to newly sworn in President Carter in 1977.: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963#relPageId=175&tab=page

    Billy related what Henry Hurt told him…. “Jim Beamis” turned out to be a match for this guy, Gerry Bemiss.:
    http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963&relPageId=270&search=hotels

    http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=65388323
    Oct. 2, 1922 – Feb. 7, 2011
    Former State Senator FitzGerald Bemiss died at home with his family on the evening of February 7, 2011 at the age of 88.
    Senator Bemiss was born on October 2, 1922, the son of Samuel Merrifield and Doreen FitzGerald Bemiss.
    He was predeceased by his parents and his sister, Cynthia Bemiss Stuart. ……

    http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=89080540
    Samuel Merrifield Bemiss (1894 – 1966)*< Parents: Eli Lockert Bemiss (1859 - 1924) Cyane D. Williams Bemiss (1867 - 1952) Civic leader, conservation advocate FitzGerald Bemiss dies ...http://www.richmond.com/news/article_c09a03df-7975-529b-acc6-b0a11591fd07.html
    Feb 9, 2011 – Civic leader, conservation advocate FitzGerald Bemiss dies at 88 …. Mr. Bemiss, known to his friends as “Gerry,” eventually became a Republican, … George H.W. Bush — the men were in each other’s weddings — and Rep……

    As Billy Lord described, Bemiss had hotels.:

    http://www.shannontech.com/ParkVision/Shenandoah/Shenandoah10.html
    ….In 1937 the Virginia Skyline Company, now known as Aramark, was named the park concessionaire. Pollock sold all of his interests in the Skyland Lodge and the land he owned to the company, and it took over the management of Skyland Lodge…

    The China Diary of George H. W. Bush: The Making of a … – Pag
    https://books.google.com/books?id=jRvdwoKQOgQC&pg=PA311&dq=bush+china+bemis+devine&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB0Q6AEwAGoVChMI7ZqtudnkxgIVi3g-Ch2kNwe-#v=onepage&q=bush%20china%20bemis%20devine&f=false
    Jeffrey A. Engel – 2011
    But there is Mel Laird holding the behind-the-scenes press conference, saying, “Well we’ll keep Bush on till after the … Bemis, Lias and Devine had a meeting regarding my political future—very thoughtful of them.5

    Henry Hurt’s wife was the niece of Langbourne Williams, chairman of Freeport Sulfur :
    http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/%7Ebattle/reps/hurt.htm
    1. Robert Hurt: b. 16 Jun 1969 New York, NY; U.S. Representative from VA

    http://www.dhr.virginia.gov/registers/Counties/Pittsylvania/071-0188_Philip_Craft_House_20xx_Draft_Nomination.pdf
    2. Henry Charles Hurt, Jr.: editor of Reader’s Digest; m. 2 Oct 1968 Rapidan, VA

    [Danville Register (Danville, VA), 4 Oct 1968: “The marriage of Miss Margaret Nolting Williams, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. George Dandridge Williams of ‘The Campbell Field,’ Rapidan, to Henry Charles Hurt Jr., son of M. and Mrs. Henry Charles Hurt of Chatham, took place Wednesday, Oct. 2…in Emmanuel Episcopal Church, Rapidan…”]

    Jim, aka Gerry Bemiss’s grandmother, Cyane D. Williams Bemiss, was the aunt of Freeport’s chairman Langbourne Williams.:
    http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=88891802

    • Photon says:

      “After the first day I hardly conversed with Oswald at all.” That was from Lord’s statement to the Warren Commission . That statement describes how little Lord actually interacted with Oswald and confirms the Church statement that he was a loner who kept to himself.
      Two questions about Mr. Lord. #1. Why did he wait 12 years to come up with his story after similar allegations about Oswald had previously been published in the Conspiracy literature? Why didn’t he bring it up in 1964 when it would have mattered, and when he was under oath? If he hardly conversed with Oswald at all any intelligence revelation would have stood out like a sore thumb.As a recent High School graduate do you think that he would be able to recognize an undercover agent? #2. What was someone who supposedly audited classes at the Sorbonne doing as an Airman 3rd Class in the USAF in 1964? What had happened to him after his trip to France? More important, what had happened to him from 1964-1977 that he would feel the need to write a letter to the President with information on Lee Oswald that he would not have been privy to anyway?

  18. Photon says:

    In the letter to Carter Mr. Lord makes a reference to recently being pressured by a Mr. Allison, publisher of a right wing newspaper.
    The individual had died 2 years before the letter was written.
    Lord also claimed to have been “teaching” in Japan the year before he wrote the letter. Teaching what?
    Instead of researching the genealogy of everybody even remotely connected with this letter, why didn’t you check out the credibility of the author himself? You could have saved a lot of time.

    • Tom S. says:

      Photon,
      I did not write the letter to President Jimmy Carter in 1977, Billy Joe Lord did.
      Curiously, Lord’s recounting of a recent conversation with Henry Hurt included a name and a description closely matching the name and resume of Gerry Bemiss, and my
      research indicates Bemiss and Hurt’s wife were related, and that both were related to former Freeport Sulfur chairman, Langbourne Williams. I don’t understand how your two part reply addresses any of those interesting coincidences. It seems Hurt,
      according to Lord, was aggressively seeking to interview him, to put it politely.

      Why didn’t you check out the genealogy of James N. Allison, Sr., who died in 1975? You could have saved a lot of face.

      http://www.mrt.com/top_stories/article_df3d9642-5e96-5c14-8742-046767cadbd6.html
      Thursday, January 10, 2013
      Hearst Newspapers names Michael Distelhorst as Reporter-Telegram’s new publisher

      From 1940-1979, the Allison family, specifically James N. Allison and James N. Allison Jr., assumed the lead role of Midland’s newspaper….

      https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=bush+%22jim+allison%2C+jr.%22

      • Photon says:

        What was Lord teaching in Japan the year prior to this letter? Why did he have to take a job with a newspaper if he was a teacher-and what did he teach? If Allison was alive and still publishing his paper at the time of the Lord letter there must be some corroborating evidence for Lord ‘s claims
        But here is something that you didn’t pick up on this death certificate: Was the deceased in the U.S. Armed Forces: Yes. If yes give war or dates of service : WWII
        On VJ Day the Allison of the Death certificate would have been 14 years old.
        Is this certificate genuine?

        • Tom S. says:

          “Is this certificate genuine?”
          Why not do your own research and get back to us? I concentrated on the details Mr. Lord intended for President Carter.
          This is a link to the actual text of the second page of Lord’s letter to Carter.:
          (Lord says he never met Jim Allison, but out of necessity works for the Midland newspaper, and the other name is Mr. Bemis(?) )
          http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=9963&search=allison#relPageId=270&tab=page

          http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/mrt/obituary.aspx?pid=138104644
          Linda Wickett Allison of Dallas, Texas, passed away after a short illness on December 28, 2009, surrounded by her children and grandchildren. She was born Aug. 14, 1931

          She worked at Goals for Dallas in the late 1960’s before marrying James N. Allison, Jr., of Midland, Texas, the love of her life, on Nov. 11, 1971. They lived in Virginia while Jimmy had a political consulting business in Washington, D.C.; later they moved to Midland after the death of Jimmy’s father where Jimmy owned and ran the Midland Reporter-Telegram until his untimely death in 1978. ….

          Allison, Jr.’s obit describes his military service and confirms he was publisher of Lord’s employer at
          time of his death. Text will not paste and will not appear even when manually typed in….:

          https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/61672823/
          The Taylor Daily Press 31 Aug 1978, Thu » Page 9
          MIDLAND, Texas

          http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/14870894/
          12 December, 1978
          “MIDLAND, Texas (AP) — The Hearst Corp. has agreed to purchase the Midland Reporter-Telegram and the Plainview Daily Herald, it was announced Monday. Purchase prices have not been disclosed. Hearst executives John R. Miller and Frank A. Bennack Jr. made the announcement jointly with Mrs. James N. Allison Sr.. the majority owner of the Reporter-Telegram Publishing Co. and Allison Communications Inc. Miller is president and chief executive officer of The Hearst Corp. Bennack. executive vice president, succeeds Miller in January. The Hearst executives said the Midland Reporter- Telegram has been one of the most sought-after newspaper properties in the nation since the death last August of its publisher, James N.Allison Jr. The newspaper circulates 21.000 daily and 23,000 Sunday. It was published by James N. Allison Sr. from 1940 until his death in 1975. when he was succeeded by his son….”

          If any of Photon’s criticism of my approach to Lord’s letter or of the actual details I have presented is valid, I’ll leave it for other readers to determine.

        • Tom S. says:

          “But here is something that you didn’t pick up on this death certificate: Was the deceased in the U.S. Armed Forces: Yes. If yes give war or dates of service : WWII On VJ Day the Allison of the Death certificate would have been 14 years old. Is this certificate genuine?”

          Midland Publisher Succumbs . – Google News
          https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=861&dat=19780901&id=GMNHAAAAIBAJ&sjid=b4AMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2026,7529746&hl=en
          The Victoria Advocate – Sep 1, 1978
          …President and publisher of the Midland Reporter-Telegram.
          Allison died of . pneumonia … Allison owned the Plainview Daily Herald and the Alpine Avalanche. … He was in the ROTC and was com missioned a second lieutenant in the US Air Force upon his graduation from He then served two years oversea before returning to Midland to join the reporter-telegram as a vice president…
          ….He directed George H.W. Bush’s successful paign for Congress from Houston and later joined Bush’s staff in Washington. Allison was named deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee in April 1969 and served in that post until Dec. 15, 1970 when he resigned in order to organize a political consulting firm in Washington. He liquidated the firm and returned to Midland in the summer of 1974 to rejoin the Reporter-Telegram as executive vice president. He became president and publisher of the newspaper on Jan. 28, 1975, succeeding his father, who had died on Jan. 14.

          • Photon says:

            “Succeeding his father, who had died on Jan. 14. (1975).” The plot thickens!
            So there WAS an Allison who died in 1975, who was the more likely right wing ideologue who raised the ire of Mr. Lord. How much time did the younger Allison contribute to the paper before his lymphoma caused him to cut back? Lymphoma can be an insidious disease with a prolonged course.
            Tom, are you sure that you have all of the right ducks in a row?
            More to the point, did Lord have his ducks even in the water?

          • leslie sharp says:

            ” . . . who was the more likely right wing ideologue who raised the ire of Mr. Lord.”

            Instead of “right wing ideologue”, the better appellation for any political agenda in Midland TX would be “OIL wing ideologue”.

            I’m as skeptical about Billy Joe Lord’s letter to President Carter as is photon for reasons diametrically opposed to those proposed by photon.

            It is unlikely that Billy Joe Lord’s family represented the antithesis of the right wing in Midland TX if they were involved a successful business in the region during the ’50’s-’70’s. It is likely they were beneficiaries of the “oil-wing”. If memory serves, his father’s business was Lord Construction? I doubt Billy Joe traveled to Europe without benefit of a significant financial foundation, and in the “corporate” town of Midland his family’s wealth would have been inherited from ranching, the Northeastern establishment, and or earned in some capacity related to the energy industry.

            ” Allison was named deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee in April 1969 and served in that post until Dec. 15, 1970″

            This aligns Allison (I argue both Sr. and Jr.) with Jack Porter and Peter O’Donnell of the Texas Republican Party, as well as San Antonio native Henry Catto who married into the Culp/Hobby family (the Culp’s with a history in Midland, TX, the Hobbys of the Houston Post) and became close friends with George HW Bush to join forces to build the Republican Party in the formerly Yellow Dog Democrat state of Texas.

            Catto is a sleeper, yet to be considered seriously as related to BCCI and the lead up to Saddam’s invasion of Kuwait. Continuity of a Coup d’etat. The Allisons and Billy Joe Lord were but walk-on characters.

      • leslie sharp says:

        Allison Sr. died in 1975. Allison Jr. died in 1978.

        Reporter-Telegram’s birthday is today

        On March 10, 1929, the Midland Reporter-Telegram came into being on March 10, 1929, when the Midland Reporter merged with The Midland Daily Telegram. The former was owned by a group headed by T. Paul Barron; the latter was owned by C.C. Watson and was the city’s first daily.

        The following is a timeline of noteworthy events since that 1929 merger.
        — James N. Allison bought the Reporter-Telegram from Barron in August 1940.
        Allison, a third-generation newsman, worked for the Associated Press for 14 years before moving to Midland.
        When he bought the Reporter-Telegram, the plant was on Missouri Avenue. Eight years later, operations were moved to a building at the corner of Main Street and Illinois Avenue. The paper moved to its current location in 1959.
        Allison died Jan. 14, 1975. His son, James Allison Jr. — who also grew up in the business — assumed ownership of the paper. The younger Allison died three years later.
        — The Allison family sold the Reporter-Telegram and its sister paper, the Plainview Daily Herald, to the Hearst Corp. in January 1979.

        Read more: Reporter-Telegram’s birthday is today – MRT.com: Top Stories http://www.mrt.com/top_stories/article_f26284ec-893a-11e2-9f21-001a4bcf887a.html#ixzz3vSek0mUu
        Under Creative Commons License: Attribution

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.