5 JFK theories of U.S. presidents

Donald Trump isn’t the first.

While the front-running candidate’s fact-free claim that Ted Cruz’s father once associated with accused assassin Lee Oswald, has provoked criticism, at least five previous inhabitants of the Oval Office have expressed strong opinions related to the Kennedy assassination story.

  • The assassination of JFK prompted former president  Harry Truman to call for the abolition of the CIA.
  • President Lyndon Johnson publicly endorsed the official theory that a “lone gunman” had killed his predecessor. Privately LBJ “never believed” Oswald acted alone.
  • Richard Nixon obsessed about “the Bay of Pigs thing,” which aides thought might be a coded reference to JFK’s death. In a tense 1971 meeting, Nixon told CIA director Richard Helms he didn’t care “Who shot John.”
  • Gerald Ford, as a member of the Warren Commission, edited the description of JFK’s back wound in the commission’s final report to bolster the so-called “single bullet theory,” more than the evidence warranted
  • Bill Clinton, campaigning for president in 1992, said he believed JFK was killed by a conspiracy. When he moved into the White House, he changed his mind.

Clinton oversaw the implementation of the JFK Records Act, which led to the release of some 4 million pages of government records on the assassination. These records are transforming public understanding of the events of 1963.

You can search many of these records at MaryFerrell.org

254 comments

  1. Peter says:

    LBJ’s view of the assassination being an act of retribution is interesting because of the timing and the source. Around the time Jim Garrison started suggesting there was a CIA connection to the JFK assassination, LBJ soon received information about the CIA and Mafia plots to kill Castro and that Castro found out and threatened to do the same to JFK.

    The original source of this information was Bill Harvey’s good friend Johnny Roselli who had taken part in the plots against Castro. Roselli later told the story of the assassins being caught by Castro and being turned around on JFK. It should be noted that Harvey who was in charge of executive action for the CIA as well as Task Force W, more or less had his career ended by Bobby Kennedy after the Cuban missile crisis, eventually being given the postion as COS Rome in mid 1963.

    So was Roselli’s story a red herring to contradict the Garrison investigation and take attention away from the real perpetrators or was he just seeking leverage for his own problems with the law and immigration that he had at the time. Maybe both.

    Fast forward to the mid seventies and there’s another investigation into the JFK assassination. Out of the blue the Director of the CIA William Colby receives a telephone call from Clare Boothe Luce who tells him the same story of Castro being behind the assassination. Where it gets really interesting is that there is a document in the CIA files that show that in mid 1963, the COS Rome sought a Covert Security Approval to contact Clare Boothe Luce whenever he was in the US or she was in Rome. Of course the COS Rome at that time was Bill Harvey.

    • Vanessa says:

      I didn’t know those connections, Peter. It’s amazing how the same group of names keeps cropping up.

      Just between you and me, how did you got access to those CIA files?

      • Peter says:

        Unfortunately Vanessa there is nothing clandestine or exciting about me gaining access to the CIA files. I just went to the CIA section of the JFK Assassination Documents at maryferrell.org

        • Vanessa says:

          Ah. You had me going for a moment there.

          Well, finding the right document on there is an art in itself.

          Sounds like it is an area for more research though.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Reading this now, I chuckled when you said to Peter “just between you and me”.

            WE are also watching Vanessa :p

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      What we have here is a classical case of misdirection, a red cape.

      A bull (public opinion) charges in the direction of the “torero” (Johnny Roselli, William Harvey, CIA). They cannot possibly deflect the charge completely (“Hey, bull, turn around! The real killers are behind you!” IOW: “It was Oswald, alone”), so what can they do?

      They get a red cape, place it in front, and at the last possible second, they move away while the animal keeps on impacting his sharp horns against a flaccid piece of cloth.

      First, the Harvey/Roselli duo attempted to derail the Garrison trials. A few years later, during HSCA, the bull became furious again and the 2 men enlisted Jack Anderson to help them place the blame on Fidel. This has to be one of the most ridiculous conclusions of any JFK versions:

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

      Its excellent premise makes the documentary the more disappointing.

      Interestingly, Harvey and Roselli died within weeks of each other. While the death of Harvey can be legitimate: the results of a heart operation, the brutal death of Roselli was ordered with the intention to shut him up, he was making too much noise.

  2. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Roselli was a tool of the CIA. He was used.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      His connections with Harvey are well proven.
      I guess they should be proven again?

      • Peter says:

        I’m not sure if I understand what you mean Ronnie. I agree with you that Roselli’s connections with Harvey are well proven. I was only suggesting that when investigations into the JFK assassination pointed the finger at elements of the CIA, people that appear to have a close connection with Bill Harvey, came forward and placed the blame on Castro. It may have been a coincidence but I don’t think so.
        More on topic, it appears that LBJ developed his view of the assassination based on information provided by Johnny Roselli and accepted that version.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Spot on Peter. Never heard that Raymond.
          good luck on tips.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Peter, I meant should the subject be re presented for a new generation, further discussed and refined? Your analysis is excellent IMO.

          • Peter says:

            I see what you mean now Ronnie. I think the subject should definitely be further discussed and refined. No matter how much we think we know, there always seems to be a bit more to the story. To me it’s like a giant jigsaw puzzle and occasionally we manage to put a few pieces together.

          • Vanessa says:

            Agreed Ronny. I also think it’s an excellent analysis and definitely worth a new look.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        Ronnie:

        I seem to recall that Harvey was godfather to one of Roselli’s children (*), but for the life of me, I cannot find that again on the Internet.

        Any tips are most welcome.

        (*) Perhaps it was the other way around, but it would make less sense, since Harvey was the alpha male and Roselli the subordinate.

        • Peter says:

          Ramon, I don’t think I’ve ever come across the godfather story, Harvey was 47 and Roselli was 57 when they first met in April 1962 (at least according to the official version), so they were both getting a bit long in the tooth although when Roselli was 62, he had a 21 year old girlfriend so anything’s possible. Harvey had an adopted daughter who was born around 1958.

    • Peter says:

      No doubt Roselli was a tool of the CIA but it wasn’t all one way traffic. Roselli, Giancana and Maheu all used their involvement with the CIA backed plots to assassinate Castro as leverage when they ran into trouble with authorities.

    • sgt_doom says:

      Thank you, and it always annoys me how so many commenters here and elsewhere fall for the same CIA disinformation bullcrap: it was the mob — or the anti-Castro Cubans — or the pro-Castro Cubans.

      A little logic goes a long way: Who was in Dallas in that timeframe when President Kennedy was murdered?

      Lyndon Johnson — who became president (and escaped indictment)

      George H.W. Bush — who became president

      Richard Nixon — who became president

      And Gerald Ford did the dirty on the Warren Commission — and later became president.

      A little logic goes a long way!

      • John Kirsch says:

        Re: George HW Bush, my understanding is that he was in Texas on or about 11/22 — he lived in Houston — but that it is not clear to this day that he was in Dallas on around the assassination.
        It would be nice to clear up that question before he passes away.

        • RonnieWayne says:

          That won’t happen. There is no “on or about 11/22”. it’s well established he was in Dallas the night before speaking to a group of oil field equipment executives the and spent the night there.
          He was in Tyler Texas 98 miles east about an hour an a half after the assassination for another speaking engagement. Both in conjunction with his first run for congress.
          What’s more interesting is he is one of a very few Americans who don’t remember where they were or what they were doing at 12:30 PM 11/22/63.
          More interesting than that is the memo from FBI director Hoover stating he briefed George Bush of the CIA regarding the assassination on 11/23/63.

          http://www.familyofsecrets.com/

  3. Alan Dale says:

    ^ Well said, Peter.

    You may be interested in this: http://www.jfkconversations.com/

    Scroll down to Larry Hancock’s special presentation (on behalf of the AARC), “How Johnny Roselli and William King Harvey preempted the Garrison Investigation in Washington, D.C.”

    • Peter says:

      Thanks for the link Alan, I’ll definitely check it out.

    • Alan Dale,

      The Larry Hancock interview is excellent, if complex.

      I agree with the conjecture that the “Castro did it” story was invented to blunt the Garrison investigation from leading to Bill Harvey, the Cuban Exiles and CIA.: A “smokescreen”.
      \\][//

    • Gerry Simone says:

      Thanks for the reminder link to your site. There are a lot of interesting interviews that I’d like to hear/watch.

    • sgt_doom says:

      And Harvey was head of CIA station/Italy, when Pfc. Eugene B. Dinkin, stationed at an NSA site in Metz, France, intercepted the cables between that station and the OAS in France.

      And later Harvey would journey to Dallas just prior to the assassination of JFK there.

  4. J.D. says:

    Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, who was president of France from 1974 through 1981, said in 2013 that Gerald Ford had told him that the assassination was a conspiracy, but that the Warren Commision had not been able to determine who was responsible.

    http://ctka.net/2013/VGEonJFK.html

    • Bogman says:

      Wow. Just another crazy CTer – the former president of France.

      How can this not be true? Doesn’t say much for Ford or the WC.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Here’s the original interview, translated:

      https://goo.gl/RSqy7n

      I for one find very hard to believe that Ford would confess something of that magnitude to a man who had full access to media and credibility.

      • Bogman says:

        I think it would be considered between leaders. It’s harder for me to believe that Giscard d’Estaing would make this up out of whole cloth. Can’t put him in the mold of “attention-seeking” CTer.

  5. Bogman says:

    Great. Three presidents who, at least at certain times, thought it was conspiracy and one president who took it upon himself to alter the investigative report to make it more convincing that only one man did the crime. Not very reassuring.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Bogman:

      I am convinced that all presidents from LBJ to Obama know exactly what happened on 11/22/63. See for instance the declarations of John Kerry (best friend of Teddy) the year of the 50th. anniversary. Obama had to approve what his State Secretary said.

      [The only exception is probably Carter who had a very unusual reaction: he covered his eyes and ears and ran around in the Oval Office, yelling “Na, na, na, na, na, na!!!”.]

      Furthermore, anything that a powerful person knows, it is also known by their staff (their “people”). Therefore, add the likes of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, etc. to the list of people who know the details.

  6. Photon says:

    LBJ ” never believed that Oswald acted alone”-but there is no evidence that he didn’t think that Oswald was the only shooter. He apparently believed what RFK suspected- that Castro got JFK before JFK got him. That is assuming that Oswald was influenced by Cuban elements; not only would that scenario make some sense after the MC visit, it could be interpreted as a justifiable act of self-defense if news of the many WH authorized attempts on Castro got out.
    Bill Clinton abandoned his conspiracy viewpoint after reaching the White House. At that point he was exposed to the facts and came to the logical conclusion- something quite common with CTers who actually look at documented facts, not myths like Prayerman, Badgeman,etc that continue to infest the CT community

    • Jordan says:

      Oh yeah..There’s nothing like assuming the White House to ensure that one is exposed to the facts….Hahaha….That’s downright comedic….

    • J.D. says:

      Actually, there is evidence that LBJ didn’t think Oswald was the lone shooter. He told Richard Russell that he shared his disbelief in the single bullet theory.

      http://22november1963.org.uk/richard-russell-warren-report

      There were no “White House authorized attempts on Castro.” Decades of investigations — and relentless efforts to smear Kennedy — have not unearthed any convincing evidence that JFK authorized any of the attempts to kill Castro.

      • Bill Clarke says:

        J.D.
        May 6, 2016 at 7:19 pm

        “There were no “White House authorized attempts on Castro.”

        You don’t know this. You might be right but you might be wrong. It is a rather bold statement with little to back it up.

        “Decades of investigations — and relentless efforts to smear Kennedy — have not unearthed any convincing evidence that JFK authorized any of the attempts to kill Castro.”

        Perhaps they need to keep looking! No doubt JFK approved the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem. Although JFK didn’t order, or even desire the death of Diem he caused it by approving the overthrow.

        Here is some interesting material on the subject.

        “Following World War II, the United States became secretly engaged in a practice of international political assassinations and attempts on foreign leaders. For a considerable period of time, the U.S. Government officials vehemently denied any knowledge of this program since it would be against the United Nations Charter. The Church Committee uncovered that CIA and other governmental agencies employed a so-called tactic of “plausible deniability” during decision-making related to assassinations. CIA subordinates were deliberately shielding the higher-ranking officials from any responsibility by withholding full amount of information about planned assassinations. Government employees were obtaining tacit approval of their acts by using euphemisms and sly wording in communications.[2]”

        “2. Alleged Plots Involving Foreign Leaders, U.S. Senate, Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, S. Rep. No. 755, 94th Cong., 2d sess. PDF”

        Who they were shielding was the president of the United States. That is the basis of the CIA. If it wasn’t necessary to keep the President innocent of these distasteful missions the regular military could have handled it. To think the CIA conducted these missions without presidential approval is like believing Dulles went around overthrowing regimes on his own authority. Rather silly. As for “sly wording” every trade has its own language. They speak it well.

        “According to CIA Director Richard Helms, Kennedy Administration officials exerted a heavy pressure on the CIA to “get rid of Castro.”[2]:148-150 It explains a staggering number of assassination plots, aiming at creating a favorable impression on President John F. Kennedy.[8

        8. “Escalante Font, Fabián. CIA Targets Fidel: Secret 1967 CIA Inspector General’s Report on Plots to Assassinate Fidel Castro. Melbourne, Vic., Australia: Ocean Press, 1996.”

        “Besides attempts on Fidel Castro, the CIA has been accused of involvements in the assassination of such foreign leaders as Rafael Trujillo, Patrice Lumumba and Ngo Dinh Diem.[16] The Church Committee rejected political assassination as a foreign policy tool and declared that it was “incompatible with American principle, international order, and morality.”[2]:1 It recommended Congress to consider developing a statute to eradicate such or similar practices, which was never introduced. Instead, President Gerald Ford signed in 1977 an Executive Order 11,905, which stated that, “No employee of the United States government shall engage in, or conspire in, political assassination.”[17]

        17. Executive Order No. 11,905, 3 C.F.R. 90 (1977).

        • The Church Committee uncovered that CIA and other governmental agencies employed a so-called tactic of “plausible deniability” during decision-making related to assassinations. CIA subordinates were deliberately shielding the higher-ranking officials from any responsibility by withholding full amount of information about planned assassinations. Government employees were obtaining tacit approval of their acts by using euphemisms and sly wording in communications.[2]”~Church Committee

          “Who they were shielding was the president of the United States.”~Bill Clarke

          That isn’t what is said in your quote from the Church Committee is it Mr Clarke. That is YOUR interjection, using using a euphemism and sly wording.

          \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            May 8, 2016 at 1:05 pm

            “Who they were shielding was the president of the United States.”~Bill Clarke

            “That isn’t what is said in your quote from the Church Committee is it Mr Clarke. That is YOUR interjection, using using a euphemism and sly wording.”

            Come on Whitten. Try to keep up please. Also note what the Church Committee had to say. This isn’t my opinion of what the Committee said; it is actually what the committee had to say. Please read it until you understand it. Also please point out any “euphemism and sly wording” I have used. I see none.

            “A U.S. Senate committee, the Church Committee, in 1974-1975 conducted an investigation of the intelligence agencies. In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that the CIA, going back to the Kennedy administration, had plotted the assassination of a number of foreign leaders, including Cuba’s Fidel Castro. But the president himself, who clearly was in favor of such actions, was not to be directly involved, so that he could deny knowledge of it. This was given the term ‘plausible denial’.[3]”

            3. Zinn, Howard (1991). Declarations of Independence: Cross Examining American Ideology. Perennial. ISBN 0-06-092108-0., pg 16

            “Non-attribution to the United States for covert operations was the original and principal purpose of the so-called doctrine of “plausible denial.” Evidence before the Committee clearly demonstrates that this concept, designed to protect the United States and its operatives from the consequences of disclosures, has been expanded to mask decisions of the president and his senior staff members.— Church Committee[4]”

            4. Church Committee Reports United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, Senate, Nov. 20, 1975, II. Section B Covert Action as a Vehicle for Foreign Policy Implementation Page 11

          • Yes Bill, the so-called doctrine of “plausible denial” has long been known of as a part of the list of revetments and covers for Intelligence operations.
            However as you note yourself, each case must be analyzed specifically to determine how far up the food chain the “authority” went for a certain op.

            There are many indications that CIA was rogue at the point of the JMWave station as far as the assassination attempts against Castro went.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            May 8, 2016 at 9:26 pm

            “There are many indications that CIA was rogue at the point of the JMWave station as far as the assassination attempts against Castro went.”

            This could well be true and I won’t argue the point. I wish we knew just how rogue they became.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Yes, but the rouge behavior of specific elements of JMWave were most likely tacitly approved by higher ups in Washington.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Ronnie Wayne
            May 8, 2016 at 11:59 pm

            “Yes, but the rouge behavior of specific elements of JMWave were most likely tacitly approved by higher ups in Washington.”

            Oh I think that is certainly true Ronnie. I just wonder how high it actually went.

        • J.D. says:

          Bill:

          This is from the 1967 CIA inspector general’s report:

          “Can CIA state or imply that it was merely an instrument of policy? Not in this case.”

          http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/f527.htm

          In other words, the CIA itself admitted, in an internal report not meant for the public to see, that it was not “merely” following President Kennedy’s orders, but simply continuing plots that had originated in 1960, during the Eisenhower administration.

          If JFK was really determined to bump off Castro, why was he trying to reach out to him in 1963? Why did he order a crackdown on the anti-Castro extremists’ raids against the Cuban government?

          I think the simplest explanation is that JFK had his policy and the CIA had their own.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            J.D.
            May 8, 2016 at 11:53 pm

            Bill:

            “This is from the 1967 CIA inspector general’s report:”

            “Can CIA state or imply that it was merely an instrument of policy? Not in this case.”

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo2/jfk4/f527.htm

            “In other words, the CIA itself admitted, in an internal report not meant for the public to see, that it was not “merely” following President Kennedy’s orders, but simply continuing plots that had originated in 1960, during the Eisenhower administration.”

            I think there is good evidence of that. Seems for some reason Ike gets a walk on some of his dirty dealings.

            “If JFK was really determined to bump off Castro, why was he trying to reach out to him in 1963? Why did he order a crackdown on the anti-Castro extremists’ raids against the Cuban government?”

            I believe the answer to both questions is that JFK tried to overthrow Castro and failed. So he tried, to quote Obama, “something new”. Also I think the Missile Crisis was an eye opener for JFK. He saw what a dim future our children (and his)faced under a mushroom cloud. And he wanted to do something about that.

            “I think the simplest explanation is that JFK had his policy and the CIA had their own.”

            That may well be what happened.

      • sgt_doom says:

        LBJ, the dood who passed the Civil Rights legislation from the Kennedy Administration because he needed all the troops he could get when he flipped on Vietnam (JFK was about to withdraw all military advisors) and also because LBJ wanted to send troops to Egypt (false flag operation against the USS Liberty, which failed, thanks to the arrival of a Soviet intel trawler on the scene)?

        The same LBJ who sent in the CIA to Indonesia, when one-half to one million Indonesians were killed?

        The LBJ dood responsible for the coup in Ghana?

        The LBJ dood who offered military assistance (Operation Brother Sam) to the military in Brazil to help that coup?

        The LBJ dood who ended the financial transaction tax (known today for some reason as the Tobin Tax)?

        Now why do I suspect everything that LBJ dood says?

        • Bill Clarke says:

          sgt_doom
          June 13, 2016 at 7:14 pm

          “(JFK was about to withdraw all military advisors)

          If you have evidence of this I would certainly appreciate seeing it.

      • Actually, there is evidence that LBJ didn’t think Oswald was the lone shooter. He told Richard Russell that he shared his disbelief in the single bullet theory.

        Unfortunately, at the time, LBJ could not have known anything about the validity of the SBT.

        His statement is probably best understood as LBJ humoring his friend the powerful senator.

        There is also this:

        Johnson: Well, what difference does it make which bullet got Connally?

        Russell: Well, it don’t make much difference. But they said that . . . that the Commission believe[s] that the same bullet that hit Kennedy hit Connally. Well, I don’t believe it.

        Johnson: I don’t either.

        So LBJ asked “what difference does it make.”

    • Fearfaxer says:

      “Bill Clinton abandoned his conspiracy viewpoint after reaching the White House. At that point he was exposed to the facts and came to the logical conclusion”

      No doubt it was the revelation that Kennedy’s neck was malformed, or whatever phrase you used, was what convinced him, right? 😉

    • Gerry Simone says:

      “but there is no evidence that he didn’t think that Oswald was the only shooter.” – Photon

      http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/08/lbj-oswald-wasnt-alone/309486/

      In YOUR mind, but obviously, he didn’t believe in the WC’s LN conclusion or their evidence pointing to a lone gunman.

      Even if the evidence in LBJ’s mind was circumstantial, that apparently was enough for him to draw his own conclusion to the contrary.

  7. Jean Davison says:

    On Truman, how was it determined that he was referring to the assassination of JFK? He wrote, “This quiet intelligence arm of the President has been so removed from its intended role that it is being interpreted as a symbol of sinister and mysterious foreign intrigue…”

    How is “foreign intrigue” a reference to Dallas? Or could he have been referring to the CIA’s role in the overthrow of Diem or some other foreign “adventure”?

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

    NIXON: On “the Bay of Pigs thing,” the linked article says,
    “Perhaps more plausibly [than a reference to the assassination] it was a reference to plots to kill Fidel Castro; there are indications that the assassination of Castro was planned to coincide with the exile invasion, something that might tie the two things in Nixon and Helms’ minds.”

    The phrase “who shot John” dates to the 19th century:

    http://www.nytimes.com/1986/12/21/magazine/on-language-who-shot-john.html?pagewanted=all

    JOHNSON said, “I never believed Oswald acted alone although I can accept that he pulled the trigger.” He told another reporter he suspected that Oswald acted “either under the influence or the orders” of Fidel Castro.

    FORD:
    The WC placed the back wound where the autopsy placed it, despite Ford’s revision of one sentence in the introduction. Moving the location to the neck definitely does NOT “bolster” the SBT. It would make the trajectory too steep.

    • Jeremy Gilbert says:

      This “Ford moved the back wound” claim is nonsense. Some of the testimony stated he was struck in the “neck” and Ford was there for most of the testimony. Further, technically, since the bullet grazed C6 of the vertebrae, the “back” entry wound actually entered the rear of the neck (C6 being the second-lowest neck vertabra). To the layman, by the sketches and photographs, the entry looks like the “back,” but also recall that some of the sketches Ford saw had the “back” wound even higher.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        Please show us the evidence indicating a bullet grazed cervical vertebra C6. A link will suffice.

        • Jeremy Gilbert says:

          Sure, Bob. HSCA Appendix VII, pg 96 on.

          https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82#relPageId=107&tab=page

          The x-ray panel noted indications of bullet fragments and damage to the transverse processes of C-6, C-7 and T-1. There was no consensus on damage/bullet fragments, but any bullet path lower would have punctured the lung and there was only bruising noted, and also noted was the lack of penetration of the thoracic cavity, corroborating the conclusion of a higher entry of the bullet.

          So, while the panel did not conclude that the bullet grazed C-6, there is evidence indicating it may have.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Those bullet holes we see are in the back, not the base of JFK’s neck, no matter the back view or how it may have been contorted when held into position for autopsy photos.

      • “This “Ford moved the back wound” claim is nonsense.”~Jeremy Gilbert

        To the contrary Mr Gilbert:

        “Third Thoracic Vertebrae”
        –JFK Death Certificate signed by Burkley > Backwound

        This should make it perfectly clear where T-3 is located:

        https://i2.wp.com/mcadams.posc.mu.edu/back.jpg

        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in that photograph.
        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in his shirt.
        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in his coat.
        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is in Burkey’s autopsy report.
        > Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is as told by SS Agent Sibert.

        https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/08/Orientation.PNG

        https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/03/05/sherry-fiester-on-enemy-of-the-truth/#comment-6041
        \\][//

        • Jeremy Gilbert says:

          Hi Willy:

          Claim 1: “Third Thoracic Vertebrae”
          –JFK Death Certificate signed by Burkley > Backwound

          The problem with that is Burkley received the Autopsy Report from Humes Boswell and Finck, and nowhere is it specified that the entry was at T-3. How he could have ascertained that as a witness to the autopsy is unclear. It seems he got that off the facesheet which schematically places the wound around T-3, but the description in relation to the body landmarks is several inches higher.

          Claim 2: This should make it perfectly clear where T-3 is located [autopsy photo]

          The wound here is clearly too high to be T-3, as that would be in the middle of the shoulder blade, not on top as in the photo. T-1 perhaps, most likely C-7 or C-6.

          Claim 3, 4, 5: The wound in the photo of the back is clearly higher than the holes in the shirt and coat, suggesting the fabric was not flush against the skin or bunched up.

          Claim 6, 7: Again, Burkley’s position is several inches LOWER than what the autopsy report which he accessed describes. And Sibert says “below the shoulder” which is consistent with the official report. Further, the wound Sibert described is angled downward so steeply that a sniper would have had to have been on the trunk of the car or in a helicopter overhead. (Or laying on the floor of the limousine in front of JFK if that wound is an exit wound.)

          However, the autopsy report and subsequent analyses of the x-rays and photos (strange how many avoid mentioning the actual autopsy reports) are consistent with the WC conclusion, save for the precise location of the head entry wound.

        • “The wound here is clearly too high to be T-3″~Jeremy Gilbert

          I have read these Warrenista talking points rattled off too many times; like mantra.

          The C-7/T-1 vertebrae junction is at the base of the neck NOT in the back.
          In the autopsy photo C-7/T-1 would be at the deep fold at the base of Kennedy’s neck. The wound is clearly in the back.

          You seem to forget that Dr Burkley was at the autopsy himself and saw where the back wound was personally.

          That autopsy photo is somewhat deceptive because of the odd angle it is shot at. But if you know anatomy the wound is just left of the right shoulder blade, even with the base of the scapular spine.
          That would align with both the bullet hole in the shirt and in the coat.

          Humes chose to measure the position of JFK’s back wound from the Mastoid Process to the Acromion – a distance that can vary 70% depending on the relative positions of the head and shoulder; thus it is a rather preposterous choice for such a measurement.

          Furthermore; The location given by Humes conflicts with known and established empirical evidence.
          There is an established history of Humes lying about the notes and number of autopsy reports.
          There is evidence that Humes initially did place the back wound at T3 in earlier notes and reports.
          Humes has a ‘conflict of interest’ as he is a participant in a cover-up.

          Take note Mr Gilbert, I have been an artist all my life and have studied human anatomy deeply; especially comparative anatomy. No one is going to blow smoke in my eyes on these matters and get away with it.
          \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Hi Willy:

            You are conflating two things – whether Ford changed the description of the location from back to neck based on a “cover up” as some claim or on evidence presented (as I make the case he did); whether there was evidence that in fact the entry wound was in the “neck.”

            “In the autopsy photo C-7/T-1 would be at the deep fold at the base of Kennedy’s neck. The wound is clearly in the back.”

            Yes, the wound is in the back, but, technically, the bullet grazed the neck bones C6 and C7 according to some evidence, which is part of the neck. The x-ray evidence shows this. (see the link provided above)

            “You seem to forget that Dr Burkley was at the autopsy himself and saw where the back wound was personally.”

            Obviously you didn’t read my note above where I noted he was at the autopsy, but the definitive evidence is the x-ray. The autopsy surgeons did not state T-3, and the photo shows that wound to be too high for T-3.

            “Furthermore; The location given by Humes conflicts with known and established empirical evidence.”

            Such as? How about the bruising of the lung? Wouldn’t an entry at T-3 collapse the lung?

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Hi Willy: Should I address you as that? or would you prefer Mr. Whitten instead? I’m fine with “Mr. Gilbert” or “Jeremy.”

            Since you have a background in human anatomy, perhaps you can elaborate on one of your points above, the list of evidence you say corroborates the T-3 wound placement:

            “Exactly where Kennedy’s back wound is as told by SS Agent Sibert.”

            Here is what Sibert said in his report: “a bullet hole which was below the shoulders and two inches to the right of the middle line of the spinal column. …it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.”

            My first problem with this as corroboration of the lower back wound is that all he says is “below the shoulders,” which is so vague it could mean an inch below the shoulder down to his pelvis – how does this confirm T-3? If it is assumed he meant below the shoulder BLADE, isn’t this too low, T-7 or so?

            The second problem is, as I mentioned above, the angle stated. “45 to 60 degrees downward” is simply not credible. I can think of no way this can be correct (for the reasons I stated earlier) whether you believe the official scenario or a multiple sniper scenario.

            And, in general with Sibert, since his description of the head wound and entry point sound fairly consistent with the WC conclusion, isn’t this a problem for those who claim a shot struck from the right front? (You didn’t say so, but if that is what you believe, could you address that?)

          • “My first problem with this as corroboration of the lower back wound is that all he says is “below the shoulders,”~Jeremy

            You can call me Willy.

            I placed the back wound precisely where it is located; So if you know anatomy the wound is just left of the right shoulder blade, even with the base of the scapular spine.
            This IS below the shoulders.

            C7/T1 junction is horizontally even with the clavicle at the lateral end where it joins the acromion process of the scapula.

            As you triangulate these points and consider their relationships to the vertebrae, you will find the point is at T3. And this is in fact where it is in the autopsy photo if you look at the uncropped version that shows the tip of the right acromion process.
            We can make out the underlying shape of the scapula as well if we know what we are looking at.

            You continue with this:
            “Such as? How about the bruising of the lung? Wouldn’t an entry at T-3 collapse the lung?”

            If you will recall, the backwound was a shallow wound, and it was postulated that the bullet head had worked it’s way out during cardiac massage at Parkland. Which is a sound idea. The Humes and Boswell et al only dropped that idea when they thought they might have found an exit wound, when told about the throat wound.
            But this does NOT resolve the finding that the back wound was determined to be a shallow wound.

            Now, you inquired as to my opinion of the throat wound. Yes I consider it to have been a wound of entry, just like Perry thought when he first saw it.

            Since there was no dissection of the wounds as should have been done at this sham of an autopsy, there is now no proof that either of these wounds is connected to the other.
            This is why it can firmly be stated that the notion that the throat wound was one of exit from the bullet that hit the back is nothing but conjecture–pure speculation.

            As far as Sibert writing, “it was determined that the trajectory of the missile entering at this point had entered at a downward position of 45 to 60 degrees.” That is Sibert writing what was reported by the autopsy doctors.
            But as he said, he was no farther than two feet from the body, and that is close enough for his personal testimony of the placement of the back wound.

            I must say Jeremy, you are fighting the odds by arguing against so many established pieces of evidence proving the bullet hit JFK in the back at the level of the T3 vertebrae.

            I think I have covered this issue sufficiently here.
            \\][//

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            Hi Willy:

            Thanks for the reply. The problem I have here is that far from confirming your T-3 conclusion, the evidence you have presented either contradicts that claim, or is too vague to be conclusive.

            Sibert said “below the shoulder” which is too vague to reasonably conclude it confirms T-3. Besides, there is clearly no way the wound angled down so steeply as he stated, which suggests his recollections were not accurate on key points and therefore not reliable. Also recall, Dr. Burkley did not exactly say “T-3,” he said the back wound was “about the level” of T-3, hardly definitive, and he signed off on the autopsy sheet which describes the location to be higher. The photo? The HSCA board said it was consistent with the entry and trajectory for the SBT. This was the committee which concluded “conspiracy,” recall.

            And the bullet holes in the jacket and shirt are CLEARLY below where we see the wound on the back. I’m surprised you suggest otherwise. SO they can’t be relied on in terms of placing it.

            But there are far bigger problems with your solution to my point that a bullet that low would have punctured a lung and/or the thoracic cavity, which we know did not occur.

            If that bullet was only lodged a few inches in and fell out, as you suggest, then the house of cards collapses – too much evidence is at odds with this scenario. The wound in the throat, if one of entry, has no exit wound. It is not so easy to explain what happened to it – if it didn’t penetrate, it could only have been stopped by bone and there is nothing on the x-rays. Further, the tie and collar show threads away, and not towards the wound, suggesting a bullet exiting, not entering, the throat.

            More, this scenario now requires at least FOUR bullets – back/throat/head of JFK, Connally another bullet.

            But the vast majority of witnesses – 95-97% per cent, depending on tally – say THREE or fewer shots were fired. Also, the angles and timing would require at least two snipers, but a similar percentage of witnesses – ~95% – say there was a single source of the shots. And, may I remind you, about 10 witnesses either SAW the TSBD sniper, his rifle, or heard the shells drop on the floor above their heads. So all shots came from there. What about the Grassy Knoll witnesses? Almost with unanimity, they say a single source for the shots – but no knoll sniper was seen, suggesting sound perception was not reliable.

            In the end, a single bullet solves these problems: no need for a second sniper, the lung bruising is explained, the C-7 x-rays make sense, Connally oval wound and other damage consitent with a tumbling, slowed-down bullet. And the laterally flattened CE399, which hit ribs sidewise, all entirely consistent evidence of a SB.

            Your scenario, Willy, doesn’t add up.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Jeremy Gilbert said:

            Such as? How about the bruising of the lung? Wouldn’t an entry at T-3 collapse the lung?

            You accept that the bullet went deep enough or through when that is subject to debate.

          • Jeremy Gilbert says:

            “You accept that the bullet went deep enough or through when that is subject to debate.” – Gerry

            Hi Gerry:

            As I stated above, if you don’t accept that that bullet went through Kennedy’s body, then a host of problems ensue as other evidence is at odds with that conclusion.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Hi Gerry:

            As I stated above, if you don’t accept that that bullet went through Kennedy’s body, then a host of problems ensue as other evidence is at odds with that conclusion.

            You mean problems for the SBT?

            It’s already problematic!

          • Yes, the wound is in the back, but, technically, the bullet grazed the neck bones C6 and C7 according to some evidence, which is part of the neck. The x-ray evidence shows this. (see the link provided above)

            Note that a bullet doesn’t have to actually hit bone to fracture it.

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21926649

            There was a fracture of the transverse process of T1.

    • Bogman says:

      Really, Jean?

      “We have grown up as a nation, respected for our free institutions and for our ability to maintain a free and open society. There is something about the way the CIA has been functioning that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.”

      Published exactly one month after the assassination? Looks pretty clear to me that Truman was waving a red flag on the assassination.

      • Jean Davison says:

        Bogman,

        You quote Truman saying, “…something about the way the CIA has been functioning…,” but that description suggests an ongoing policy, not an isolated event like Dallas.

        “….that is casting a shadow over our historic position and I feel that we need to correct it.”

        We need to correct it? No kidding. That’s not the strong language and action I’d expect from HST if he actually thought the CIA was involved in killing Kennedy. His reputation was to “give ’em hell.” But what did Truman do besides write this editorial?

        The headline given the article was “Limit CIA Role to Intelligence.” Here’s the entire text:

        http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html

        It doesn’t sound to me like he’s talking about the assassination.

        “Published exactly one month after the assassination?”

        But “after” doesn’t necessarily mean “because of.” It also appeared approximately two months after several newspaper columns highly critical of the CIA’s role in Vietnam (by Richard Starnes and Arthur Krock, e.g.):

        https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#safe=off&q=cia+vietnam+war+%22flatly+refused%22+%22richard+starnes%22+1963

        Those articles criticize “the way the CIA has been functioning.”

        • Bogman says:

          Impeccable timing and incredibly bold of Truman to throw the CIA under the bus in a time of tumult for the country.

          Like most everyone in the govt, nobody addressed the 800-pound gorilla in the room – that those strange cloak and danger operations might have resulted in the president’s death. Which 50 years later, the documented and circumstantial evidence is strong that’s exactly what happened.

          And if it was just a benign tract against the existence and purpose of the CIA, wonder why it got excised from other editions of the Wapo that day and was not picked up by other papers. Or why Dulles did his level best to make it look like Truman didn’t mean it.

          Face it. The president who formed the CIA displayed his ever-lasting regret to the American people a month after the assassination for a reason. And the establishment shut its eyes as it did with all other signposts to conspiracy.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            I don’t know why Truman’s article didn’t appear in other editions or newspapers, but respectfully, neither do you.

            From what I’ve found so far at the MF site, the powers-that-be didn’t freak out about Truman’s article or associate it in any way with the assassination.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16200&relPageId=36&search=truman_AND

            Clark Clifford is quoted as saying Truman’s article “took the CIA to task for engaging in activities which were not within the function of CIA as originally created.” Which is what I think the article actually says, if anyone will only read it.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1961&relPageId=49&search=truman_AND cia

            During Clifford’s Church Committee testimony, Frank Church brought up Truman’s article and asked Clifford about it (several pages starting here):

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1393&search=truman_AND+CIA+AND+role#relPageId=85&tab=page

            Again the discussion was about the CIA’s covert activities in foreign countries, not the Kennedy assassination.

          • Jean,

            You did not address any of Bogman’s perceptive and relevant points.

            The CIA had NO designated authority to act within the domestic field, but they did and do. It is not conjecture it is known fact.

            The timing of Truman’s letter cannot be dismissed out of hand as you are attempting here.

            It is established that Allen Dulles tried to play it down, and attempted to get Truman to retract that letter. What about the utter lack of propagation of it? It was obviously sent down the Memory Hole by the Public Relations Regime. And you are pulling the same game here.
            \\][//

          • Bogman says:

            Truman couldn’t write, “The CIA might’ve done this.”

            The WC was formed “to settle the dust of Dallas.”

            The CIA couldn’t tell the WC about working with the mob to kill Castro.

            The CIA couldn’t let the HSCA find out about Joannides connection to the DRE.

            The FBI destroyed evidence. The military head of the autopsy destroyed evidence.

            Dan Rather couldn’t tell the American public that JFK’s head went violently back and to the left.

            Surely, you see a trend here.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Surely, you see a trend here.”

            The trend I see is the usual CT tendency to assume that every unexplained anomaly must be part of the coverup. And yet each example may well be unconnected to the others and have its own individual explanation. Other suspicious-looking incidents that have been explained over the years have turned out to be “false alarms” (Oswald/Lovelady in Altgens, e.g.).

            If Humes himself hadn’t revealed that he’d destroyed some of his notes, how would we even know about it? (Just speculating, but I’ve sometimes wondered if he may’ve written something he considered embarrassing, like mentioning a back wound that had no exit, for instance.) If Humes did it to cover up, why did he rat himself out?

            If the CIA had revealed its anti-Castro plots, I think some CTs would argue that that was suspicious, too: “they wanted to make the WC think Castro did it in retaliation.”

          • Bogman says:

            Please, Jean. The spy agency withholding the fact from a supposed investigation into the assassination of a president that they were working with the mob to whack the leader next door is pure treason in my book, and reason alone to dismantle the CIA.

            As for the rest, I don’t believe in the massively coordinated cover-up. I do think when word came down from LBJ that no one would have to pursue anything but lone nut, everyone went along. And that word came from Johnson to DPD that very night. He might’ve wanted everyone to tow the line for what he believed were good reasons. But in the end, he was wrong to not demand an aggressive and thorough investigation wherever it led. Nobody has trusted the govt again in this country since because of the whitewash.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “I do think when word came down from LBJ that no one would have to pursue anything but lone nut, everyone went along. And that word came from Johnson to DPD that very night.”

            Could you tell me what you’re referring to, specifically? With a direct quote or link, maybe?

          • Bogman says:

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

            Cliff Carter, on behalf of President Lyndon B. Johnson, phoned Wade three times on the night of the assassination. According to Wade, Carter said that “any word of a conspiracy – some plot by foreign nations – to kill President Kennedy would shake our nation to its foundation. President Johnson was worried about some conspiracy on the part of the Russians… it would hurt foreign relations if I alleged a conspiracy – whether I could prove it or not… I was to charge Oswald with plain murder.”

          • Jean Davison says:

            “According to Wade, Carter said that “any word of a conspiracy – some plot by foreign nations – to kill President Kennedy would shake our nation to its foundation…”

            I’ve heard that story but I was looking for an original quote from Wade or Carter, not something from Spartacus. I think it’s reasonable that Washington wouldn’t want the D.A. to make allegations accusing Russia or Cuba if they couldn’t be proved, but I don’t know what actually happened.

            All I’ve found so far are secondary sources repeating one another and a Dallas Morning News article I’d never seen before. It quotes Wade DENYING that Cliff Carter or anyone else told him what charges to file. (DMN, “Gag Attempt on Oswald Ties Denied,” 5/20/64, p. 6.)

            I have a PDF of the article but don’t know how to upload it. I could e-mail it to Tom if he’s willing to put it up here.

            Wade could be lying, of course, but what’s the evidence that he was? Did Carter ever tell his side of it?

          • Bogman says:

            Wade referred to the calls in his WC testimony:

            Mr. WADE. And I told him, and then I got a call, since this happened, I talked to Jim Bowie, my first assistant who had talked to, somebody had called him, my phone had been busy and Barefoot Sanders, I talked to him, and he they all told that they were concerned about their having received calls from Washington and somewhere else.”

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

            As I said, this could’ve been well-intentioned. But it also resulted in Wade and DPD essentially getting the message from Washington that no further investigation was needed.

            By the next day, Wade was telling the press Oswald was guilty “beyond a moral certainty.”

            Yet in his WC testimony linked above, he said that up until that day he had never seen the letters to the FPCC or the Russian embassies. So he had no clue, and no real evidence to rule out conspiracy at that time.

            Curry lined up behind him, claiming Oswald was the “only one” and the paraffin test proved he fired a rifle that day, which it had not.

            The word came forth and the word was followed. There was no real investigation beyond lone nut the evening of the assassination to the present day, IMO.

            And you dodged the first part of my post about the CIA committing treason by not telling the WC about its attempts to kill Castro.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            5/10/16, 11:33, Bogman. Wade was a puppet for Johnson. Read his Idol Worship letters to him. I’ll look for the link tomorrow.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            You’re right, Wade referred to phone calls in his testimony, though without specifics. He apparently said different things at different times.

            I haven’t found the source yet, but I think the media may’ve reported that Oswald was going to be charged with murder “in furtherance of an international communist conspiracy” based on the mere fact that “communist” literature was among Oswald’s belongings and he’d been a defector.

            If Washington let Dallas officials know they objected to this kind of unfounded, reckless accusation, I don’t see what’s wrong with that. That’s not AT ALL the same thing as telling the DPD to stop their investigation entirely. You seem to be assuming that, but based on what? If the DPD had arrested local accomplice(s), why would Washington care?

            “By the next day, Wade was telling the press Oswald was guilty “beyond a moral certainty.””

            Considering the evidence and his job, is that really surprising?

            “Yet in his WC testimony linked above, he said that up until that day he had never seen the letters to the FPCC or the Russian embassies. So he had no clue, and no real evidence to rule out conspiracy at that time.”

            But those letters weren’t evidence of involvement in the assassination. Curry wasn’t an expert on paraffin tests or M-C rifles, but the evidence they had pointed to Oswald as the shooter and to no one else. What leads did the DPD have that they didn’t follow up on? The FBI was investigating by that time — what leads should they have pursued? (They actually pursued hundreds of tips they received — the record is online.)

            As I said, if the CIA had revealed their plots, they’d be accused of pointing the finger at Castro, imo. But the HSCA was highly critical of the CIA for failing to disclose this information. If you haven’t read this, I’m sure you’ll enjoy it:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83&search=plots_AND+castro+AND+relevant#relPageId=488&tab=page

          • Bogman says:

            Jean: ““By the next day, Wade was telling the press Oswald was guilty “beyond a moral certainty.””

            Considering the evidence and his job, is that really surprising?
            —-
            See, this is where I really see LNers as disingenuous.

            This was POTUS in an intense period of the Cold War. To say “case closed” by the next day is pure horseshyte, and I think you know it.

            The fact Wade and Curry were making these statements is clear evidence they were being told to shut down speculation, just as the WC was told to.

            If you’ve ever read accounts of what the FBI was doing to “investigate” the case, it’s laughable. Hoover had his mind made up too. I’m sure right after LBJ told him to. The FBI’s report was made in record time and featured 3 shots, 3 hits. I still believe they tried to hide Tague’s shot by cementing over the mark in the curb.

            So, now, it was FUBAR from the start. If it was an honest, open investigation they would admit that the circumstantial evidence on first blush says Oswald did the shooting but we are looking carefully at all his past relationships to be absolutely sure no one aided him.

            But they didn’t say or do that. And we’re left with the puzzle of CIA lying their asses off to the WC, HSCA and the American public for decades.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Wade didn’t say “case closed” by the next day. The “moral certainty” quote is from Sunday p.m. and here’s the context:

            Q. Has your office closed its investigation into the death of President Kennedy?

            WADE. No, sir. The investigation will continue on that [….]and we have no concrete evidence that anyone assisted him in this. But the investigation I’m sure will go on with reference to any possible accomplice or– that assisted him in it.

            Q. Do you have any suspicion now that there were?

            WADE. I have no concrete evidence nor suspicions at present.

            Q. Would you be willing to say in view of all this evidence that it is now beyond a reasonable doubt at all that Oswald was the killer of President Kennedy?

            WADE. I would say that without any doubt he’s the killer –the law says beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty which I–there’s no question that he was the killer of President Kennedy.
            Q. That case is closed in your mind?

            WADE. As far as Oswald is concerned, yes.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1140&relPageId=841&search=“moral_certainty”

            More later…

          • Bogman says:

            “But the investigation I’m sure will go on with reference to any possible accomplice or– that assisted him in it.”

            Never saw it. But let’s imagine what a real, open and honest investigation would’ve produced in those early days without federal govt intransigence, cover-up and subversion with the knowledge we have now.

            o I would’ve started with the little-known press release by the DRE in NO. Amazingly prescient evaluation of the danger Oswald represented to the country just 3 mos prior to the assassination.

            o If the feds were cooperative, that would’ve led to JM/WAVE and George Joannides right off the bat. Can you imagine investigators’ surprise when they find the group is funded and guided by the CIA? Amazingly short trip to the US intel community. And I’d like to see Joannides and half the JM/Wave operators interrogated on what they knew about Oswald and when.

            o Then MC. I’d like Hoover to tell those DPD gum-shoe detectives about the tapes and imposter’s voice. Yes, I know the LNers think they never existed. But I think it’s absolutely clear there’s more compelling evidence they did.

            So there’s a pretty good start to a real investigation. CIA guided anti-Castro group involved with Oswald. Tapes from MC don’t match alleged assassin’s voice.

            I haven’t even gone into the misleading memo on Oswald from CIA HQ to MC stations, the Kostikov connection, the strange letter to the Russian embassy in DC, or the FBI note, the FBI meeting in NO, 511 Camp Street, or the botched autopsy.

            Yeah, Wade and DPD conducted a real thorough investigation completed on whether Oswald was aided – or set up.

            As an investigator interested in the whole truth, I would also have noticed Oswald’s speech to the Jesuits where he sounds less like an anti-US commie misfit than an intel insider concerned about a possible coup at the highest levels. Doesn’t sound at all like the commie nut who wanted to kill a president. In fact, I can’t imagine it’s the same person.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            I think you’re again lumping together several things that each may have its own, unrelated explanation. Anything unexplained or puzzling always seems to be interpreted as the work of plotters, but if these incidents were actually related I believe the underlying story would make more sense.

            Why would the DRE issue a press release asking for a Congressional investigation of Oswald if he’s already being set up as a patsy? What did it accomplish? Nothing I can see, other than arousing the suspicion of WC critics years later. IMO, Bringuier said what any anti-Castro Cuban of that time might have said about a pro-Castro demonstrator he’d confronted. He didn’t suggest Oswald was a physical threat to anyone, so he wasn’t predicting the future.

            What was the point of an impostor in Mexico? Those who rely on the “broken Russian” note may not realize that Oswald’s Russian grammar was always poor according to several witnesses. He could get his ideas across very well and was considered fluent in that sense, but his Russian might’ve sounded “broken” to a professional translator because of his grammar mistakes, IMO.

            I don’t agree that the Mexico station was misled. The cable in question quoted an old State Dept. message from 1962 which was clearly not recent. What would be the point of impersonating Oswald or misleading the Mexico station?

            “As an investigator interested in the whole truth, I would also have noticed Oswald’s speech to the Jesuits where he sounds less like an anti-US commie misfit than an intel insider concerned about a possible coup at the highest levels.”

            The speech was mentioned in the WR, with footnotes to testimony.

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=946&relPageId=752&search=jesuit

            “Doesn’t sound at all like the commie nut who wanted to kill a president. In fact, I can’t imagine it’s the same person.”

            Oswald was smart enough to tailor his speech to his audience. This reminds me of CE100, a handwritten document in which he gave two sets of answers to a list of questions that he apparently expected to be asked when he returned to the U.S.
            Here’s the first, apparently sincere, version (scroll down):

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=460&tab=page

            And the sanitized version:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1133#relPageId=462&tab=page

          • Bogman says:

            [here’s the second part]

            My opinion, the documented record and circumstantial proves beyond any doubt that Oswald was either being used or was considered for use by the CIA and FBI. That much is clear to me. Oswald may or may not have known he was being manipulated (Did CIA pretend to be Castro agents to urge him on his mission? It’s the netherworld of Cold War espionage. Everything is possible.)

            The remaining possibilities for me are:

            o Did Oswald just surprise his handlers, or was the assassination blowback when he figured out he was being manipulated?

            o Did Oswald get hijacked from whatever operation the intel agencies either had him in or had planned for him (embarrassing the FPCC?) by rogue CIA and anti-Castro Cubans?

            o Did JM/WAVE agents (Harvey, Morales, Phillips – all credible candidates for killing POTUS, IMO – moral free as far as I can tell) conduct the assassination with sponsorship from one or several in DC (Angleton, LeMay).

            You don’t need a massive, coordinated cover-up to bury any of the above. Just a few agencies willing to do so and a new govt wants to put the JFK assassination for political reasons as quickly as possible. In the 70s, you needed a subversive CIA to stonewall the investigation, which is exactly what the first chief counsel and his replacement now say.

            As for the Jesuit speech, do you know it was day after the 5th anniversary of Castro’s revolution and he never once mentioned Cuba? And a week or so later he was on the streets of NO starting his pro-Cuba campaign.

            He also says sensible things about Russia and the U.S. He also FEARS a coup in the U.S. by the military. And sounds truly concerned about civil rights. The crazy “loner” was invited by his cousin and accompanied by his wife and uncle and aunt piled into a station wagon for a two-hour drive.

            Sounds insanely normal to me.

        • Gerry Simone says:

          To say that Oswald was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or beyond a moral certainty, without a trial, is not only unprofessional but slanderous, and extremely prejudicial if not unconstitutional!

          What a farce!

          • sgt_doom says:

            From everything I’ve ever read, witnesses cannot place Oswald at the scene of the crime, but do place him at the cafeteria, drinking a Coke. Also, witnesses say the size bag he brought to work couldn’t possibly have contained any rifle.

            Now why is this always ignored by certain individuals? (Not directed at you, Gerry, just a rhetorical questions.)

          • From everything I’ve ever read, witnesses cannot place Oswald at the scene of the crime, but do place him at the cafeteria, drinking a Coke.

            No witnesses placed Oswald anywhere at the time of the shooting.

            Also, witnesses say the size bag he brought to work couldn’t possibly have contained any rifle.

            But the bag discovered in the Sniper’s Nest, with Oswald’s prints on it, was long enough to fit the rifle.

            Now why is this always ignored by certain individuals?

            The answers to the questions are ignored by buffs.

      • Bogman says:

        [Tom S – splitting this post into two to meet the word count]

        Jean said: “I think you’re again lumping together several things that each may have its own, unrelated explanation. Anything unexplained or puzzling always seems to be interpreted as the work of plotters, but if these incidents were actually related I believe the underlying story would make more sense.”

        I don’t know if they’re related or not. I just know elements of the government have decided not to answer these questions. In fact, the CIA chose to feloniously subvert a Congressional investigation into the murder of the president. And wanted to keep Joannides’ identity hidden forever and won’t give up his files that have been released on other agents who managed the DRE.

        “Why would the DRE issue a press release asking for a Congressional investigation of Oswald if he’s already being set up as a patsy? What did it accomplish?”

        I don’t either. I don’t believe everyone was in on a conspiracy. All I know if I was looking to see if Oswald truly did the act alone and unaided, I’d like to know what the CIA – Joannides and JM/WAVE in particular – knew about Oswald then and what they thought of this release from the group they guided.

        BTW, I tell people there was a press release on Oswald by a CIA-funded group 3 mos before the assassination and people’s mouths drop. It was buried. To me, it’s a signpost to something strange going on.

        “What was the point of an impostor in Mexico?
        Those who rely on the ‘broken Russian’ note may not realize that Oswald’s Russian grammar was always poor according to several witnesses.”

        I just recently saw a quote from a Russian speaker who saw Oswald at the Jesuit university who said he spoke it quite well. I think your point is highly debatable.

        The tapes – verified in existence in by several including WC lawyers – might’ve told the tale. But we don’t have them and David Phillips LEFT A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING when he’s caught in a lie about them. And never prosecuted for it.

        “I don’t agree that the Mexico station was misled. The cable in question quoted an old State Dept. message from 1962 which was clearly not recent. What would be the point of impersonating Oswald or misleading the Mexico station?”

        There’s lotsa theories. They hid the message for decades and never let any investigative body know about it. Their DRE group publicized the shit out of him in NO but somehow the CIA didn’t know about it? Hard if not impossible to believe.

        Again, I would’ve loved Angleton to explain why his people wrote the memo like this. One of those people said the memo represents a “keen interest” in Oswald, as Jeff has noted many times. She’s recorded saying it. What do you think it could mean? I’m happy to have the CIA explain it. Why don’t they?

        • Jean Davison says:

          I doubt we’ve have heard of that press release, Bogman, if Bringuier hadn’t brought it up in his testimony. It’s a WC exhibit:

          http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1136#relPageId=193&tab=page

          It’s not a very polished statement, is it? Bringuier gave copies to the local media, but I suspect it went straight into the round file.

          In his testimony Bringuier seemed quite proud that he’d called for an investigation of Oswald “three months before the assassination.” Like Humes, he seems to have ratted himself out. Isn’t it odd that he’d bring up something that some CTs interpret as evidence against him and his organization? Doesn’t that suggest there is something wrong with that interpretation?

          Oswald’s speech to the Jesuits wasn’t in Russian so I don’t know if your witness talked with Oswald very much in that language, but Paul Gregory, a Russian major who knew the Oswalds, told the WC:

          Mr. LIEBELER. What about Oswald’s proficiency in Russian?
          Mr. GREGORY. He spoke a very ungrammatical Russian with a very strong accent.
          Mr. LIEBELER. What kind of accent?
          Mr. GREGORY. Well, I can’t tell you, because I am not that much of a judge. You would have to ask an expert about that. It was this poorly spoken Russian, but he was completely fluent. He understood more than I did and he could express any idea, I believe, that he wanted to in Russian. But it was heavily pronounced and he made all kinds of grammatical errors, and Marina would correct him, and he would get peeved at her for doing this. She would say you are supposed to say like this, and he would wave his hand and say, “Don’t bother me.”
          UNQUOTE

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

          Ruth Paine said much the same thing: that Oswald’s vocabulary was better than hers but that his grammar was worse.

          The “Oswald” that appears in conspiracy books is a fictional sock puppet that doesn’t resemble the person described by the witnesses who knew him. He was a strong supporter of civil rights. I don’t know of anyone who claims he was insane (psychotic). Certainly the WC didn’t say that. His own mother once called him a “loner,” but he wasn’t a hermit, either.

          • “It was this poorly spoken Russian, but he was completely fluent.”~Mr. GREGORY.

            Isn’t that the point Jean? That Oswald was fluent enough in Russian to express himself in the language. Having a thick American accent is not the same thing as speaking in “broken Russian”

            Have you ever heard a Texan speak French? It may be laughable as far as accent, but a French person can understand it perfectly well. “Pair ley voo france aye pardner?”
            \\][//

          • Bogman says:

            Jean, here’s the link and excerpt that features a quote from a Russian-language student who heard Oswald speak the language that day at the Jesuit university:

            http://www.mobilebaymag.com/Mobile-Bay/January-2014/Sixties-Flashback-Lee-Harvey-Oswald-Visits-Spring-Hill/

            “Fitzpatrick, who did not become a priest and is now president of EuroDisney (the Paris version of Disney World) declined an interview. But his account to F.B.I. agents of his chats, first with Marina then with Oswald shortly after the speech, give interesting details. Fitzpatrick said Oswald ‘spoke fairly good Russian; however, it was not as smooth or correct grammatically as Mrs. Oswald’s.'”

            I’ll add this little nugget from the article:

            “As to their homelife in New Orleans, the F.B.I. interview with Fitzpatrick reports that ‘[Fitzpatrick] said she told him Oswald is away from home a great deal and she did not know of any of his associates or any of his activities.'”

            You didn’t address why this Cuba-loving fanatic and subversive never mentions Cuba in a discussion about communism with the open-minded Jesuits.

            We could go on like this forever. You believe the WC and see every piece of evidence, anecdotes and new revelations in that light. I stand on the side of the only real investigators in this case – Sprague and Tannenbaum – who said the evidence they were finding pointed to the JM/WAVE anti-Castro crowd BUT THEY WERE STONEWALLED BY THE CIA. And they said this BEFORE the Joannides revelations.

            You can impugn their credentials, character, etc. but both came in with NO preconceptions and had successfully prosecuted big city mob/union murder conspiracies previously. Sprague went on to an exemplary legal career, BTW:
            http://profiles.superlawyers.com/pennsylvania/philadelphia/lawyer/richard-a-sprague/b2f6c2eb-0cc5-4a92-9c62-cdade8f67f47.html

            No other investigators came at this case more honestly than those tWO. And both believe there were leads into possibly conspiracy but they were thwarted by the CIA.

            I don’t think a reasonable person needs any further evidence that this case is still open, IMHO.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            It seems to me that Fitzpatrick’s opinion was similar to what Gregory said. It’s true that Oswald spoke “fairly good Russian” but it was not “as smooth or as correct grammatically” as Marina’s.

            “As to their homelife in New Orleans, the F.B.I. interview with Fitzpatrick reports that ‘[Fitzpatrick] said she told him Oswald is away from home a great deal and she did not know of any of his associates or any of his activities.’”

            Here’s the FBI document:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1142&relPageId=69&search=fitzpatrick_AND marina AND activities OR associates

            Marina told several people that Oswald didn’t discuss his political activities with her. She didn’t even know at first about his arrest in N.O. — he just didn’t come home that night.

            As I said, Oswald was smart enough to tailor his comments to his audience. He probably thought that Jesuit students, whether “open-minded” or not, wouldn’t want to be reminded of the Castro revolution, which was an enemy of the Church.

            “You believe the WC and see every piece of evidence, anecdotes and new revelations in that light.”

            No, that’s absolutely untrue. I began by believing Rush to Judgment, until I compared it with the original testimony and documents. I’ve never trusted any secondary source since then. (Take care that you’re not doing what you accuse me of, though.)

            “I stand on the side of the only real investigators in this case – Sprague and Tannenbaum – who said the evidence they were finding pointed to the JM/WAVE anti-Castro crowd BUT THEY WERE STONEWALLED BY THE CIA.”

            What information did they ask from the CIA that they didn’t get? What did they find that pointed in JM/WAVE’s direction, specifically? Surely they must’ve said?

          • Bogman says:

            Nothing to see hear, Jean?

            From Dan Hardway’s affidavit just last month in the case Morley vs. the CIA:

            “Had we known then what we have learned since 1978 about Mr. Phillips’s and Mr. Joannide’s
            activities, I firmly believe that the results would have been much different than they were. I believe that, at a minimum, the information would have led to a Lying to Congress charge against David Atlee Phillips and a strong
            recommendation that the activities of the CIA, George Joannides, David Atlee Phillips and Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, Dallas and Mexico City be subjected to further, additional, intense investigation.”

            http://aarclibrary.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Doc.-156-1.-Dan-L.-Hardway-Declaration.pdf

          • Bogman says:

            “It seems to me that Fitzpatrick’s opinion was similar to what Gregory said.”

            Beg to disagree. That’s a far cry from the “broken, barely recognizable Russian” the CIA translators said the caller on the wiretap spoke.

            “No, that’s absolutely untrue. I began by believing Rush to Judgment, until I compared it with the original testimony and documents. I’ve never trusted any secondary source since then. (Take care that you’re not doing what you accuse me of, though.)”

            Wasn’t intending any offense. But you may have been open to other possibilities other than LN in the past but I think it’s safe to say you now seem to sift any new revelations through the official story.

            I saw Mark Lane as not sticking to the facts as well. But I’ve read Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist Sylvan Fox’s “The Unanswered Questions of the Kennedy Assassination” published before Lane’s book and it is cogent, reasonable and factual.

            “What information did they ask from the CIA that they didn’t get? What did they find that pointed in JM/WAVE’s direction, specifically? Surely they must’ve said?”

            It’s all there for anyone who cares to look.

            For instance, from Gaeton Fonzi’s book:

            “Sprague… wanted complete information about the CIA’s operation in Mexico City and total access to all its employees who may have had anything to do with the photographs, tape recordings and transcripts. The Agency balked. Sprague pushed harder. Finally, the Agency agreed that Sprague could have access to the information if he agreed to sign a CIA Secrecy Agreement. Sprague refused…. “How,” he asked, “can I possible sign an agreement with an agency I’m supposed to be investigating?”

            “…if he had it to do over again, he would begin his investigation of the Kennedy assassination by probing ‘Oswald’s ties to the Central Intelligence Agency.’”

            Or from an interview with Tanenbaum:

            “What the evidence suggested when we were in Washington was there were certain rogue elements who were involved with Bishop and others, the ‘plumber’ types in the Nixon White House, who were involved with Oswald, who were substantially involved with anti-Castro Cubans who, the evidence suggests, were involved in the assassination. I keep saying that the evidence suggested it because we weren’t there long enough to make the case. So, there was a short-circuiting that occurred. But, that’s the area we were moving inexorably toward.”

            Just by asking the question about evidence of obstruction, you show your hand, IMO. These were top-notch criminal conspiracy prosecutors with no ax to grind. And they smelled a rat (and still do).

            And Blakey finally agreed with their assessment of the CIA felonious obstruction when the Joannides HSCA dodge surfaced.

            Again, I don’t believe a reasonable person needs to know more. But then I think the Joannides deception and Phillips’ lies are at least as damning as all the circumstantial evidence against Oswald at Dealey. But that’s me.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Bogman,

            I agree that Joannides’ connection to the DRE should’ve been revealed. I too want all files released, including those. Let the chips fall (or the heads roll) where they may.

            “Wasn’t intending any offense.”

            None taken.

            “… but I think it’s safe to say you now seem to sift any new revelations through the official story.”

            I ended up agreeing with the official story, but who in his right mind would want to believe something if it’s not the truth? Not me. But I need more than suspicion.

            You quoted Fonzi:

            “Sprague… wanted complete information about the CIA’s operation in Mexico City ….Finally, the Agency agreed that Sprague could have access to the information if he agreed to sign a CIA Secrecy Agreement….”

            So Sprague wanted “complete information,” which I assume included the camera locations, hours of operation, whose phone was bugged…” etc.? “Complete information,” but no secrecy agreement. Do you think there could be any non-sinister reason that an intelligence agency might refuse to do that?

            You quoted Tanenbaum:

            “What the evidence suggested … was there were certain rogue elements who were involved with Bishop and others, the ‘plumber’ types in the Nixon White House, who were involved with Oswald, who were substantially involved with anti-Castro Cubans who, the evidence suggests, were involved in the assassination. I keep saying that the evidence suggested it because we weren’t there long enough to make the case….”

            If there is evidence for any of that, what is it? I don’t accept anybody’s opinion as fact, Bogman. (Imo, the most important question researchers should ask is, “What is this based on?” What’s the answer to that here? “Tanenbaum said it, it must be true”?)

            I’m not accusing him of lying. I assume that’s his honest opinion, but without knowing the evidence, why should I believe it?

            “These were top-notch criminal conspiracy prosecutors with no ax to grind.”

            Blakey was a top-notch prosecutor too and he thought the evidence pointed to the Mafia.

            You consider Fitzpatrick’s opinion “a far cry from the ‘broken, barely recognizable Russian’ the CIA translators said the caller on the wiretap spoke.” But we don’t know all the circumstances. Marina said somewhere that after Oswald returned to the U.S. his Russian gradually got worse, as would be expected when he wasn’t speaking it as much. And the translator may’ve been a harsher critic that Fitzpatrick was. Or Oswald may’ve been nervous that day. Or any combination of the three.

            To me the alternative just isn’t as likely an explanation as Oswald’s poor grammar. It would have the idiot plotters showing up again, too dumb to use an imposter who spoke at Oswald’s supposed level. And where did we get that translator’s note, anyway? From the CIA, who thereby “revealed” an impostor.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Something else occurred to me. De Mohrenschildt described his first meeting with Oswald:

            Mr. JENNER. Did you speak in Russian or English?

            Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. In English at first, and then he switched to Russian.

            Mr. JENNER. What was your impression of his command of Russian?

            Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Well, he spoke fluent Russian, but with a foreign accent, and made mistakes, grammatical mistakes, but had remarkable fluency in Russian.

            Mr. JENNER. It was remarkable?

            Mr. De MOHRENSCHILDT. Remarkable–for a fellow of his background and education, it is remarkable how fast he learned it. But he loved the language. He loved to speak it. He preferred to speak Russian than English any time. He always would switch from English to Russian. (IX, 226)

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

            The Mexico City translator’s note said:

            QUOTE:

            American: … speaking in broken Russian…”I was in your Embassy and spoke to your consul…just a minute.”

            SOVIET: … asks the American in English what does he want?

            American: In Russian: “Please speak Russian.”

            UNQUOTE

            That sure sounds like Oswald to me.

            ——————
            Translator’s note:
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1137#relPageId=592&tab=page

          • Bogman says:

            So on the one hand, Jean, you say Sprague’s request for all the information from MC on wiretaps from that time is too intrusive but Tanenbaum’s assumptions aren’t based on enough specific evidence?

            Wow.

            The facts are clear the CIA was disassembling on the MC tapes. Did Blakey get full access once he signed the secrecy agreement? No. He got bupkis. It was just a threat to keep damning information about the MC out of the hands of investigators. For me, that’s as obvious as it can be.

            Again, from your committed LN POV, there is NOTHING that is outrageously illegal or outrageous or suspicious anyway the CIA has acted in this case for the past 5 decades.

            And as I’ve said, for me, there’s as much circumstantial evidence that the CIA is deliberately hiding a major eff-up or conspiracy than there is to say Oswald did the crime alone.

            Two different POVs based on the same historical record. Time will tell who is correct.

          • Bogman says:

            Again, regarding the voice speaking in “barely recognizable” Russian, the CIA could’ve cleared this up long ago with the tapes that were heard by FBI, WC lawyers, and in the contents of Win Scott’s safe.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “So on the one hand, Jean, you say Sprague’s request for all the information from MC on wiretaps from that time is too intrusive but Tanenbaum’s assumptions aren’t based on enough specific evidence?”

            No, that’s not what I said at all. I asked a question that you didn’t address: “Don’t you think there might be a non-sinister reason why an intelligence agency might balk” at turning over “complete information” about its Mexico City surveillance without any secrecy agreement? No restrictions at all? I don’t think that was a realistic expectation on Sprague’s part.

            And I didn’t say Tanenbaum’s arguments weren’t “based on enough specific evidence.” I don’t know what his arguments were based on. He didn’t say!
            That was my whole point, Bogman. Are you assuming his evidence was “specific enough” without even knowing what it was?

            This page from the Lopez report shows that soon after Hoover’s claim about a tape, Dallas and Mexico City both corrected him, saying no tape was received or sent:

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0012a.htm

            In those first few days Hoover made a lot of foolish, inaccurate statements, e.g., saying there was a shootout at the Texas Theater.

            For several reasons I don’t believe the impostor story, but there’s no point in debating that, is there?

            I sincerely hope that Hardway’s statement will help persuade the court to release those documents. I want to see them, too.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            This page from the Lopez report shows that soon after Hoover’s claim about a tape, Dallas and Mexico City both corrected him, saying no tape was received or sent:

            No Jean. It’s called after-the-fact damage control. There’s no way one can confuse ‘tape’ with a ‘transcript’. No way. Both recording and photograph were not Oswald.

            You can’t make such a determination on the sound of a voice by referring to a written transcript.

            There are no retraction letters by Hoover to Rowley or LBJ (who was also apprised of the problem) for such a significant ‘error’ if it was true.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “It’s called after-the-fact damage control.”

            “Damage control” or cover-up typically travels down the chain of command, not up it. These agents, the ones who would know firsthand what was sent from Mexico, were telling their boss he was wrong.

            “There’s no way one can confuse ‘tape’ with a ‘transcript’. No way. Both recording and photograph were not Oswald.”

            No one *looking* at them could confuse the two, but Hoover’s info was third-hand hearsay. The confusion came about, imo, because the photo was “not Oswald” and someone misunderstood “transcript of a tape of his voice” as simply “tape” and assumed that the “not Oswald” applied to both. If it wasn’t a misunderstanding, as Lopez suggests, how do you explain two FBI agents in different locations quickly telling J. Edgar Hoover he was wrong?

            Show me where Hoover ever wrote a retraction of any error he personally made. He made many silly mistakes in transcripts of his conversations with LBJ, none retracted so far as I know:

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/contents.htm

          • Bogman says:

            Jean –

            I don’t believe you or I know if any negotiation took place between the CIA and Sprague’s request for the MC taping operation. Just seeing how the CIA operates above any authority to this day (see the ‘accidental’ destruction of the ‘only’ torture report), I doubt the CIA offered any compromise back then.

            Just to be clear, the CIA and its various personnel were considered SUSPECTS in this case by Congressional investigators. But as one agency veteran told Gaeton Fonzi, who is Congress? Congressional investigations come and go all the time while the CIA remains.

            And that’s why we don’t know the full truth of the assassination.

          • Bogman says:

            “I sincerely hope that Hardway’s statement will help persuade the court to release those documents. I want to see them, too.”

            You do realize that all the insights Hardway brings to his declaration stem from documents that were released by the relentless determination of every CTer you criticize – from Lane to Garrison to Stone.

            Without their efforts, you wouldn’t have Hardway’s declaration and wouldn’t be looking forward to seeing more on George Joannides. You wouldn’t even know his name. And you wouldn’t even have this site.

            Who’s been in the moral and democratic right all these decades? The strict LNers or the “crazy” CTers?

          • No Jean. It’s called after-the-fact damage control. There’s no way one can confuse ‘tape’ with a ‘transcript’. No way.

            This is what Jean calls a “zombie factoid.” Not matter how often it’s debunked, the buffs ignore the information.

            Check this:

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

            And particularly these two documents:

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

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

            Both are from the night of the assassination, and way too early to be “after the fact damage control.”

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Reply to Jean Davison’s post of May 21, 2016 at 7:44 p.m.

            The after-the-fact record corrections by those underlings were consistent with the chain of command because the taped telephone conversations between Hoover and LBJ, OR Hoover’s memo to Rowley are more privileged and secret.

            Hoover’s info is consistent with early reports by agents.

            Unless you can show me specifically otherwise, the link you provided only is about Hoover telling LBJ that the tape of ‘Oswald’ doesn’t sound like him.

          • Hoover’s info is consistent with early reports by agents.

            Untrue. The claim that any tapes made it to Dallas didn’t exist before Belmont talked to Shanklin, and apparently misunderstood what Shanklin told him.

            All of the Dallas agents told the HSCA they had heard no tapes.

          • Tom S. says:

            All of the Dallas agents told the HSCA they had heard no tapes.

            The supervisors of the Dallas agents denied they had any preassassination knowledge of the “Hosty note”.
            The supervisors were calling, in response to HSCA inquirers, Hosty and others in the Dallas office, liars.

            http://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-9/#comment-842214
            John McAdams – 2015/12/24 at 10:54 am
            …..
            In the first place, both Hosty and Fenner say the note expressed displeasure at Hosty going out to Irving and interviewing Marina.
            ……
            And I don’t know anybody who believes Shanklin. Do you?

            You claim to accurately discern who to cite in support of your opinions. I guess I’m envious of your superior abilities.
            I’m endeavoring to avoid adding weight to claims I agree with. The result is I’m cranky from watching you slip your thumb on the scale.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Reply to John McAdams’ post of June 14, 2016 at 1:45 a.m.

            I’ve read your selective info but don’t buy the spin Professor.

            Just like the incredible SBT, I don’t believe that a transcript can be confused with a tape and especially a voice not sounding like Oswald. Hoover and others in earlier reports might have made errors like confusing the 5th floor for the 6th floor, but they weren’t material mistakes to the LN scenario. But to say that a transcript doesn’t look or sound like Oswald is a leap. Moreover, and this is even more incredible, you have to have not just Hoover making the same mistake, but also his underlings, which is B.S.!

            Jim Garrison’s conclusions were based on ‘the totality of the evidence’, and Rex Bradford does a fine job of doing that in his article here, which I buy.

            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenMinuteGap/FourteenMinuteGap.htm#_ftn18

          • Jean Davison says:

            Gerry,

            “The after-the-fact record corrections by those underlings were consistent with the chain of command because the taped telephone conversations between Hoover and LBJ, OR Hoover’s memo to Rowley are more privileged and secret.”

            The teletypes to Hoover from his underlings were also secret and privileged at the time. The HSCA said “… the FBI reported that no tape recording of Oswald’s voice was in fact ever received. This explanation was independently confirmed by the committee…”

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800&relPageId=280&search=tape_AND mexico

            “Hoover’s info is consistent with early reports by agents.”

            What early reports by agents?

            The two relevant early reports I’m aware of contradicted Hoover. All the information Hoover was getting had to be second- or third-hand at best, so why should I believe what he said and not the two agents who were directly involved?

          • Tom S. says:

            All the information Hoover was getting had to be second- or third-hand at best, so why should I believe what he said and not the two agents who were directly involved?

            Uhhh….because no one in their right mind would be involved in putting Hoover in a position in which he would be giving such critical information, erroneously to the new POTUS or to Chief Rowley. Hoover is competent and brimming with integrity when it suits one argument, and out of touch, spewing third hand, critical but inaccurate details to LBJ and Rowley when another argument demands it, but it has to be argued, because Eldon Rudd was just such a patriot and a man of integrity, all of his professional life, right?

            Wouldn’t it be more convincing, once in a while, not to go all in….possibly to concede what you are describing is totally out of character for Hoover, considering his highest priority and it was drummed into everyone who reported to him, “do not embarrass the bureau,” and Hoover was “the bureau”?

          • Jim Garrison’s conclusions were based on ‘the totality of the evidence’, and Rex Bradford does a fine job of doing that in his article here, which I buy.

            You are not paying attention.

            Please do pay attention, and please read the key documents.

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

            This is the memo Rudd brought from Mexico City on the night of the assassination.

            This is before anybody in Dallas saw any of the Mexico City materials.

            This is before anybody could have heard any “tapes” in Dallas.

            It says: “CIA advised that these tapes have been erased and are not available for review.”

            So you theory is that Rudd brought tapes, and with them a memo saying no tapes were available.

            You actually believe this?

            Now look at this:

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

            This memo was probably written as Rudd was flying up from Mexico City.

            Belmont has told Shanklin that “pictures” and a “transcript of the call” are coming up from Mexico City.

            Nothing about any tapes.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Uhhh….because no one in their right mind would be involved in putting Hoover in a position in which he would be giving such critical information, erroneously to the new POTUS or to Chief Rowley.”

            No, Tom, you’re assuming that whoever gave Hoover the misinformation knew it was misinformation. You think federal agents never misunderstand something, never get things wrong? They’re infallible, you think? Where do you live?

            “Hoover is competent and brimming with integrity when it suits one argument…”

            Not in any argument I’ve ever made. I don’t know anyone else who’s said that about Hoover either nor made an argument based on Rudd’s character.

            I’m looking for the most reasonable explanation for the evidence that exists. So what is your explanation for a document like this one, e.g., saying a transcript was being sent to Dallas (not a tape):

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

            Do you think this and the other documents telling Hoover no tape was sent are forgeries, or what?

            If you think Hoover wasn’t “spewing third-hand” inaccurate details to LBJ you apparently haven’t read the transcripts of their phone calls.

            “…..possibly to concede what you are describing is totally out of character for Hoover, considering his highest priority and it was drummed into everyone who reported to him, “do not embarrass the bureau,” and Hoover was “the bureau”?”

            What, it’s “totally out of character” for Hoover to be wrong?

          • “Had we known then what we have learned since 1978 about Mr. Phillips’s and Mr. Joannide’s activities, I firmly believe that the results would have been much different than they were. I believe that, at a minimum, the information would have led to a Lying to Congress charge against David Atlee Phillips and a strong recommendation that the activities of the CIA, George Joannides, David Atlee Phillips and Lee Harvey Oswald in New Orleans, Dallas and Mexico City be subjected to further, additional, intense investigation.”

            And what was Hardway’s evidence?

            The mere opinion of a buff counts for little.

          • Photon says:

            Tananbaum is lying, unless you can post a transcript or video of Phillips walking out on the Committee. Why has no other witness to the event confirmed Tanenbaum’s claim?
            Just another hanging claim by a CTer unsupported by any other individual in a position to confirm. Isn’t that the rule of CT authenticity-if someone states something that supports a conspiracy it must be true, no matter what the source nor the real evidence. Look at Willy’s flechette claim-any rational individual should question how a metal object could just dissolve in human tissue. That should be the end of it right there- but no, some CTers will buy it.

          • Tom S. says:

            From HSCA executive session minutes, dated 9 December, 1976, two weeks after Phillips’ security classified testimony.:
            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33085&search=phillips_and+tape#relPageId=29&tab=page

            Photon, you associate the description and suspicion about the flechette to Tanenbaum’s partially, meticulously documented claim to dirty up Tanenbaum, or to attempt to taunt or ridicule me, in lieu of any relevant detail related to Tanenbaum’s claim? What Photon is attempting here supports why I urge a high bar in submitted comments and minimum speculation. Photon will seize every opportunity to hang anyone he disagrees with, with their own rope. In the present example, Photon predictably attempts to hang Tanenbaum and my well supported comments, with the “rope” Willy has made.

            All in a day’s work?

          • “Tanenbaum and my well supported comments, with the “rope” Willy has made.”~Tom S.

            Oh no you don’t Tom. You can’t blame me for Photons stupid commentary here.

            Is that an example of your “raising the bar”?
            Blaming another commentator for the remarks of a third?

            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            Tananbaum is lying, unless you can post a transcript or video of Phillips walking out on the Committee. Why has no other witness to the event confirmed Tanenbaum’s claim?
            Just another hanging claim by a CTer unsupported by any other individual in a position to confirm. Isn’t that the rule of CT authenticity-if someone states something that supports a conspiracy it must be true, no matter what the source nor the real evidence. Look at Willy’s flechette claim-any rational individual should question how a metal object could just dissolve in human tissue. That should be the end of it right there- but no, some CTers will buy it.

            “Tanenbaum and my well supported comments, with the “rope” Willy has made.”~Tom S.

            Oh no you don’t Tom. You can’t blame me for Photons stupid commentary here.

            Is that an example of your “raising the bar”?
            Blaming another commentator for the remarks of a third?

            Now, this is about me, Willy? Haven’t I figuratively gotten down on my knees and begged commentors to post according to the
            definition of reasonable person legal standard? Is Photon wrong or unfair to react to your flechette presentation, especially considering
            you put it out here without qualifying it? Did you accompany it with. “this is one scenario to consider,” or “Church Committee testimony indicates
            this technology was in development,”?

            I objected to Photon using your unqualified flechette presentation/opinion in an attempt to reduce what I had spent a bit of time on researching and presenting.

            I don’t want to only be as persuasive as the least reasonable, unrelated comment anyone can hold up to attempt to reduce the impact of my comments with.

            IOW, if you want this site to more closely resemble rense.com or infowars, what will likely influence a trend toward that, my reasonable person standard, or for example, unqualified flechette presentations and subsequent defenses of them?

            Are we building off each others comments, or satisfying some other impulse, regardless of the general impression they leave on JFKfacts.org readers? You still do not seem to recognize that when you post of multiple shooters or flechettes, you handcuff yourself
            to me, Jeff, and to all commentors, as Photon demonstrated in the tactic he used.

            This could be avoided, you’ve indicated numerous times you are indifferent to the effect your comments have on JFKfacts.org and on
            the impression readers form of commenters, generally. You post ten percent of all approved comments. Should I stop appealing to your
            better judgment and instead attempt the seemingly useless effort of bringing my “be reaonable” appeal to Dr. McAdams?

          • “Now, this is about me, Willy?”~Tom

            No, apparently it’s about me.

            Or, you and I.

            Or the forum and you and I.

            Or the forum and Photon and you and I.

            Or who will determine what is reasonable.

            “But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.

            “When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.”

            “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.

            “The question is, said Humpty Dumpty, is who will be master — That is all.”
            \\][//

          • Tom S. says:

            George, is that you commenting under Willy’s name and email address?

          • Photon says:

            As I stated, do you have any transcript, recorded testimony or any other witness to the claim of Tenanbaum that Phillips walked out on the Committee , or any evidence that they called him back after the altercation claimed by Tanenbaum?
            One source-Tanenbaum.
            I am certainly not trying to link Tom S. to Willy. I was trying to emphasize that too many CTers rely on single sources, often of questionable original veracity. My position is that Phillips had nothing to do with the physical evidence that exists with the JFK assassination and that no matter how much a zealot wants to brand him as a shady character facts do matter.

          • Tom S. says:

            Photon, it does not work that way. Consider carefully what Tenenbaum is saying. I have provided links to pages of the March 9, 1977 executive session.
            On March 29, it was announced that Sprague had resigned to insure the investigation would continue.:
            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1696&dat=19770329&id=JLkdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=6UYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6659,4401889&hl=en

            Tenenbaum resigns four months later.
            https://books.google.com/books?id=imUtAgAAQBAJ&pg=PT217&lpg=PT217&dq=1977+tanenbaum+resignation&source=bl&ots=EoQ3qJuouE&sig=Ngr8gBWDmEJ_lwlied7YOYwxk-Y&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwis84zq3q_NAhULMz4KHVj7DkEQ6AEIKTAC#v=onepage&q&f=true
            Gaeton Fonzi – 2013 – ‎History
            DID NOT MEET G. Robert Blakey,the new staff boss of the House Assassinations Committee, until right before Bob Tanenbaum resigned late in July of 1977.

            Phillips returns to testify on April 25, 1978 :
            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49338&relPageId=4&search=inconvenience

            If Tanenbaum is correct, the most opportune time to place Phillips getting up and walking out is after the March 9, 1977 executive session and before Sprague’s resignation
            on March 28. The corroboration we are seeking is not likely to be found in HSCA records. Possibly it happened after Blakey replaced Sprague but before Tanenbaum resigned in
            late July.

          • If Tanenbaum is correct, the most opportune time to place Phillips getting up and walking out is after the March 9, 1977 executive session and before Sprague’s resignation

            I don’t see how that follows.

            Actually, I don’t particularly trust Tanenbaum to tell the truth about this.

          • Phillips returns to testify on April 25, 1978:
            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=49338&relPageId=4&search=inconvenience

            This document shows Phillips giving extensive testimony on the “tapes” issue.

            Nobody calls him a liar. He is fully cooperative. He is thanked by the committee at the end.

            http://maryferrell.org/search.html?q=Tapes&docid=49338

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Tananbaum is lying, unless you can post a transcript or video of Phillips walking out on the Committee. Why has no other witness to the event confirmed Tanenbaum’s claim?

            – Photon

            What evidence do you have that he’s lying?

            It was an executive session and may have been off the record.

            Saying that Tanenbaum lied is also like saying that the executive committee also lied about what happened.

            Has anyone from that session come forward accusing Tanenbaum of making stuff up?

            Are you suggesting a conspiracy by committee members about this issue?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            The teletypes to Hoover from his underlings were also secret and privileged at the time.

            -Jean Davison

            They didn’t know that stuff would be sealed for 75 years.

            I’m sure Hoover’s confidential memos or convos were more private than the standard reports of his underlings.

            The early report is Belmont to Tolson per the Lopez report:

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0011a.htm

            This other memo which appears to be from the CIA, acknowledges that tapes were reviewed earlier in Dallas.

            “Include tapes previously reviewed Dallas if returned to you”

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/fbi/105-3702/124-10230-10434/html/124-10230-10434_0002a.htm

          • Jean Davison says:

            Gerry,

            “The early report is Belmont to Tolson per the Lopez report:

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0011a.htm

            Please notice that Lopez refers to the “confusion” about whether a tape were sent or not. In the last paragraph he’s saying that the Hoover memo to Rowley was based on a memo from FBI official Belmont to Hoover’s aide Tolson, which in turn was based on a phone conversation between Belmont and Shanklin. IOW, Tolson told Hoover that Belmont said that Shanklin said….

            But on 11/23 Shanklin wrote Hoover telling him that he’d received no tape, only a transcript. Somewhere in that chain of hearsay, somebody got it wrong.

            “This other memo which appears to be from the CIA, acknowledges that tapes were reviewed earlier in Dallas.”

            No, it’s from the FBI in Washington to its Legat in Mexico City on 11/25 and it shows that somebody at FBI headquarters still hadn’t gotten the message. On the same date the Legat in Mexico told Washington: “There appears to be some confusion in that *no* tapes were taken to Dallas…”

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/lopezrpt/html/LopezRpt_0012a.htm

            Who would know better what was sent to Dallas than the person who sent it?

          • Gerry Simone says:

            This document shows Phillips giving extensive testimony on the “tapes” issue. – McAdams

            Yes, but Tanenbaum’s not in this session either.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Who would know better what was sent to Dallas than the person who sent it?

            Pardon me Jean, yes you are correct that, that was from the FBI Washington (not the CIA), but I still believe that they (FBI outside of Washington, whether in Dallas or Mexico City) retracted an admission of tapes, soon afterwards.

            The only comparable between “tape” and “transcript” is that they both begin with the letter T.

            The confusion excuse doesn’t fly.

            Belmont initially says that a tape and photo don’t pertain to Oswald.

            Well, if a tape was really a transcript, how can you tell from a transcript that it doesn’t pertain to a person when you can’t hear it?

            Now, if the photo was taken at the exact time of the transcribed recording, then we have an impostor don’t we, if this is about an alleged visit by a LHO?

            Also, and I say again, I see no correction by Hoover to LBJ or Rowley, which are more privileged communiques.

            The subordinates had to fix things or do damage control later, but that correction doesn’t fly to any rational observer.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            My position is that Phillips had nothing to do with the physical evidence that exists with the JFK assassination and that no matter how much a zealot wants to brand him as a shady character facts do matter.- PHOTON

            I like the way you phrase your statement. There’s lots of circumstantial evidence, which is relevant in any criminal investigation, but I’d say this is physical evidence too.

            http://www.ctka.net/2013/veciana_docs.html

        • But we don’t have them and David Phillips LEFT A CONGRESSIONAL HEARING when he’s caught in a lie about them. And never prosecuted for it.

          No, when he was called a liar, and in fact was telling the truth.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            OMG, how convenient.

            So when you appear before a congressional committee and are questioned over conflicting information, you can leave because you’re offended?

            Can you adequately answer the question posed by Tanenbaum (IIRC)?

          • So when you appear before a congressional committee and are questioned over conflicting information, you can leave because you’re offended?

            In this case, he could leave when he was called a liar. IIRC, he had voluntarily come in to give testimony.

            Tannenbaum called him a liar when he said the Mexico City tapes were erased.

            But Phillips was telling the truth.

            Tannenbaum was a fanatic.

          • Tom S. says:

            Isn’t a fanatic someone who deliberately retrains his speech and writing in describing (slurring) one of the two major U.S. political parties, motivated by political partisanship, despite asserting he is a political scientist?

            https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=democrat+party
            Search term: democrat party

            Did you mean: democratic party

            http://jfkfacts.org/the-secret-assassination-files/#comment-881941
            John McAdams – June 14, 2016 at 1:21 am
            ……
            Tom just posts random stuff that leftists are mad about (saying “Democrat Party”) that has nothing to do with the assassination…

          • Gerry Simone says:

            In this case, he could leave when he was called a liar. IIRC, he had voluntarily come in to give testimony.

            Tannenbaum called him a liar when he said the Mexico City tapes were erased.

            But Phillips was telling the truth.

            Tannenbaum was a fanatic.

            – John McAdams

            According to this article’s excerpt of Lane’s Book, Last Word, Phillips was subpoenaed to appear before the HSCA committee in executive session.

            http://www.dcdave.com/article5/120608.htm

            And sorry, but it seems like Phillips couldn’t handle the truth, because he avoided answering the question posed.

          • Tom S. says:

            In this case, he could leave when he was called a liar. IIRC, he had voluntarily come in to give testimony.

            Tannenbaum called him a liar when he said the Mexico City tapes were erased.

            But Phillips was telling the truth.

            Tannenbaum was a fanatic.

            – John McAdams

            The record indicates Dr. McAdams’ core point is inaccurate. Are any of the opinions above accurate?

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=255&search=tape#relPageId=4&tab=page
            HSCA Interview of David Atlee Phillips, Saturday, 27 Nov. 1976

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=255&search=tape#relPageId=84&tab=page
            On this page, included in the same David Atlee Phillips, 27 Nov. 1976 testimony transcript
            …Mr. Phillips. You asked me last night in the subpoena to bring any documents that I have and so forth.

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=255&search=tape#relPageId=138&tab=page
            As the executive session of 27 Nov. 1976 is about to wrap up….
            ….from the Committee, and I take it that Mr. Thone agrees with me on this,
            that matters discussed in Executive Session should not be discussed.
            And you will consider yourself as remaining under the subpoena until further notice.
            Is their anything further that we need? I want to thank you, Mr. Phillips, and I thank all of
            you members of the staff….

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=266&search=tanenbaum_and+phillips#relPageId=2&tab=page
            Evening Session March 9, 1977

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=266&search=tanenbaum_and+phillips#relPageId=27&tab=page
            ….Mr. Thone. Mr. Sprague, I am now thoroughly confused. Mr. Preyer and I spent a Saturday
            taking testi- mony from Phillips.

            Next page:
            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=266&search=tanenbaum_and+phillips#relPageId=28&tab=page
            HSCA Executive Session of 09 Mar 1977 B (Duplicate)
            …..Mr. Sprague. …..Jumping ahead a little bit — and Mr. Tanenbaum will get into it —
            …We have just come across a memorandum by J. Edgar Hoover where in his memorandum to the Secret Service he is
            advising the Secret Service that FBI agents listened to that tape from Mexico City and those FBI agents who were
            familiar with Oswalds voice — he was under arrest at the time — said that the voice on the tape is not Oswald….

          • According to this article’s excerpt of Lane’s Book, Last Word, Phillips was subpoenaed to appear before the HSCA committee in executive session.

            You are going to need a better source than Lane.

          • The record indicates Dr. McAdams’ core point is inaccurate. Are any of the opinions above accurate?

            Where is the transcript of the testimony were he supposedly walked out?

            The transcript you linked to has Phillips cooperating fully, and being thanked at the end.

          • Tom S. says:

            Are you still saying Phillips was not under subpoena. I presented documents supporting that he admitted he was appearing on Sat., 27 Nov., 1976
            under subpoena and was advised at the end of his testimony that he remained under subpoena. I presented a document dated 9 ?March, 1977 in which
            the committee counsel, Thone, was present when Sprague introduced the memo from Hoover described by Tanenbaum in the foreword of Mark Lane’s book.

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=266&search=tanenbaum_and+phillips#relPageId=27&tab=page
            ….Mr. Thone. Mr. Sprague, I am now thoroughly confused. Mr. Preyer and I spent a Saturday
            taking testi- mony from Phillips.

            After 9 March, Sprague and Tanenbaum were replaced. I do not expect there is documentary support for Tanenbaum’s description of Phillips walking out.
            I reconstructed what I could find, it matches what Tanenbaum said, and it influences an understanding by a reasonable person that….if Phillips walked out,
            it happened after March 9, 1977, and he was under a continuing subpoena originating the night before Sat., 27 Nov., 1976.
            Tanenbaum described a suppression and there is March 9, 1977 documentation I presented of the concern that Phillips lied about the tape. It is not reasonable to argue
            that Phillips was not under subpoena and was not called back in and questioned after March 9, but I anticipate you’ll attempt to.

          • Are you still saying Phillips was not under subpoena. I presented documents supporting that he admitted he was appearing on Sat., 27 Nov., 1976 under subpoena

            But the session you linked to doesn’t show him walking out. It shows him fully cooperating, and being thanked at the end.

            Is Tannenbaum actually telling the truth about this?

            Perhaps there was some informal interview on which Phillips walked out. You need to find that and show he was under subpoena then.

            Again, Phillips was telling the truth when he said the tapes had been erased, and Tannenbaum was being a reckless fanatic if he call Phillips a liar over that.

          • Tom S. says:

            Perhaps there was some informal interview on which Phillips walked out. You need to find that and show he was under subpoena then.

            Dr. McAdams, your argument in the sentence above is unreasonable, considering the details in the documents I presented.
            Phillips was not necessarily cooperative on 27 Nov., 1976, he was testifying in response to a subpoena. Doesn’t a subpoena compel an appearance and resulting testimony? The testimony on that date ended with instructions to Phillips that he remained under subpoena.

            Sometime before the documentation I presented dated 9 March, 1977, Sprague learned of and read the Hoover memo to Chief Rowley. Dialogue I presented indicated
            Phillips had not been questioned since 27 November, 1976.:

            http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=266&search=tanenbaum_and+phillips#relPageId=27&tab=page
            9 March, 1977
            ….Mr. Thone. Mr. Sprague, I am now thoroughly confused. Mr. Preyer and I spent a Saturday
            taking testi- mony from Phillips.

            IF Tanenbaum is reliable, it is unreasonable to speculate that Sprague or Tanenbaum had authorized
            suspension or cancellation of Phillips’ indefinite subpoenaed status, especially since we learn from the 9 March, 1977 document that, http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=266&search=phillips#relPageId=45&tab=page
            9 March, 1977

            ….Tanenbaum. When I say that, it was just released that we know of…..

            It is impossible to engage you meaningfully. You simply demand more evidence in every response. In this instance, it is easily demonstrated that your demands and your analysis are unreasonable. You offer no incentive to attempt discussion with you, even accompanied a reserved, solid supporting presentation.

            An investigation functions through comparing testimony of persons of interest with other testimony and evidence. There is no basis to react as you have. I predict you would eventually demand proof of Phillips’ ongoing subpoenaed status each day between 11/27/76 and 03/09/77. I described my presentation and comments as conservative because I concede there is no documentary evidence that Phillips was called back in in reaction to Sprague briefing Stokes on the Hoover memo on 03/09/77. What we do now know is that Phillips was on indefinite subpoena from at least the evening before 11/27/76, it is reasonable to assume he was still under indefinite subpoena on 03/09/77. Nothing presented conflicts with Tanenbaum’s recent claims in the foreword of Mark Lane’s book.

            If there were supporting documents for what Tanenbaum described happening post 03/09/77, researchers likely would have presented on the details along with the supporting documents.

            If you expect me to participate in an exchange again in which I present all of the evidence and you reply solely spinning your spider web, I hope you consider actually replying reasonably to the points presented in this comment, or, not at all.

          • Dr. McAdams, your argument in the sentence above is unreasonable, considering the details in the documents I presented.

            No, it’s not.

            You presented evidence that he was under subpoena after that hearing, but no evidence he walked out on an interview after the hearing.

            If there were supporting documents for what Tanenbaum described happening post 03/09/77, researchers likely would have presented on the details along with the supporting documents.

            Then we have to wonder whether Tanenbaum was telling the truth.

          • And sorry, but it seems like Phillips couldn’t handle the truth, because he avoided answering the question posed.

            You really should know better than to believe what conspiracy books say.

            How many times do you have to be led down the garden path before you catch on?

            Tom has posted links to Phillips’ HSCA testimony.

            He is fully cooperative. Nobody calls him a liar. He is thanked by the committee at the end of his testimony.

          • Tom S. says:

            He is fully cooperative. Nobody calls him a liar. He is thanked by the committee at the end of his testimony.

            Dr. McAdams, it is always entertaining to read you or Photon going out of your way to praise power and professional liars.
            Photon with Dulles, you with Phillips, not at all dissimilar to a couple of shoe shine boys polishing these spies reputations.
            Those who agree with you don’t need to watch your show, and everyone else must find it kind of creepy…..

            Phillips is testifying on April 25, 1978. Blakey replaced Sprague thirteen months before, Tanenbaum had been gone nine months.

            April 10, 1976, Sprague heads the investigation on this date.:
            REQUEST FOR DETERMINATION OF CREDITABLE SERVICE- MR DAVID A. PHILLIPS
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=18282&search=phillips_and+contract#relPageId=2&tab=page

            On the day after Phillips testified on 27 November, members of Sprague’s staff arrived in Mexico City.:
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=258&relPageId=25&search=november_28,%201976
            1. HSCA Interview of Boris and Anne Tarasoff, 28 Nov. 1976, pg – –
            Found in: HSCA Security Classified Testimony
            Blackmer 11-28-76 to 12-4-76 We initially had reservations to depart on an American Airlines Flight at 7:15 a.m. on Sunday, November 28, 1976. Jonathan had
            for the Embassy. …. reservations for us to Guadajalara — it is
            approximately 11:00 p.m. Following our telephone conversation on Tuesday, November 30, we taped the formal interview….

            Two weeks after Phillips’ responded to a subpoena and gave testimony on November 27, 1976, Sprague and his staff were aware
            Phillips could hide behind CIA restrictions whenever it was convenient for CIA and Phillips:
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33085&relPageId=44&search=phillips_and%20contract
            26. EXECUTIVE SESSIONS – HEARINGS, pg 44
            Found in: HSCA Numbered Files
            CIA advised Mr. Phillips prior to his responding to our subpoena under oath that he was technically bound by that contract. Mr. Phillips chose to appear
            technically bound-by contract. Mr. Gonzalez. May I interrupt? In the Marchetti case where you actually had a hearing, the court upheld the CIA contract. Mr. Sprague

            Background:
            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1379&relPageId=7&search=phillips_and%20contract
            TESTIMONY OF DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS, 31 JUL 1975, pg 7
            Found in: Church Committee Boxed Files
            were running a printing press? Mr. Phillips. Yes. Mr. Schwarz. That was publishing what kind of.things? Mr. Phillips. An English-language weekly called
            Mr. Phillips. From the time the CIA first picked me up in 1950 until I left Chile in March of 1954. Mr. Schwarz. Did you then become a contract employee
            employee of the CIA? Mr. Phillips. I was a contract employee. Mr. Schwarz. Did you ever become an actual employee of the CIA. Mr. Phillips. Yes, I did, I became
            see all page hits in this document »

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=105171&relPageId=1&search=phillips_and%20contract
            7. RECORD OF CONTRACT SERVICE FOR DAVID A PHILLIPS, pg 1
            Found in: HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, Box 51
            17:09:16:900390 JFK 80T01357A JFK51 F8 RECORD OF CONTRACT SERVICE FOR DAVID A PHILLIPS N 6/30/1966 BROOKS, ROGERS C, CONTRACT PERSONNE N CHIEF, TRB N 1 CIA U RIF PAPER
            PAPER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CIA PHILLIPS
            see all page hits in this document »

            continued

          • Tom S. says:

            Part II

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31237&relPageId=1&search=phillips_and%20contract
            8. AGENCY SERVICE OF DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS, pg 1
            Found in: HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, Box 51
            COMMENTS CIA OFFICE OF FINANCE CHIEF, CONTRACT PERSONNEL DIV AGENCY SERVICE OF DAVID ATLEE PHILLIPS 06/16/66 1 CIA PHILLIPS PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT UNCLASSIFIED
            see all page hits in this document »

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=31130&relPageId=2&search=phillips_and%20contract
            15. FOREIGN DIVORCE DECREES, AGENCY EMPLOYEES – STAFF OR CONTRACT, pg 2
            Found in: HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, Box 45
            – Staff or Contract REFERENCE : Memorandum for Director of Security dated 18 December 1969 from Director of Personnel Mr. David A. Phillips was married
            also an Agency employee. Mr. Phillips and his former spouse were divorced in December 1967. Reinvestigation of Mr. Phillips in August 1968 revealed no record

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=15565&relPageId=3&search=phillips_and%20contract
            22. RECOMMENDATION FOR HONOR OR MERIT AWARD FOR PHILLIPS, DAVID A, pg 3
            Found in: HSCA Segregated CIA Collection, Box 45
            Mr. David A. Phillips is retiring after a distinguished career with the Agency. He has been an employee of the Agency since 1951 when he initially joined
            joined as a Contract employee. He served with dis- tinction in Santiago, Guatamala City, Havana, Beirut, Mexico City, Rio de Janeiro, Brasilia, and Caracas
            all of whom recognized the uniqueness of his outstanding service. Mr. Phillips has been highly effective as a senior member of the Latin American Division

          • Gerry Simone says:

            John McAdams said:

            You’re going to need a better source than Lane

            Oh please Professor.

            How about Tanenbaum himself?

            http://www.jfk-info.com/pr796.htm

          • Gerry Simone says:

            John McAdams said:

            You really should know better than to believe what conspiracy books say.

            How many times do you have to be led down the garden path before you catch on?

            Tom has posted links to Phillips’ HSCA testimony.

            He is fully cooperative. Nobody calls him a liar. He is thanked by the committee at the end of his testimony.

            Huh?

            Wasn’t it YOU Professor who said that they called him a liar in your post of June 14th, 2016 at 1:50 a.m.?

            No, when he was called a liar, and in fact was telling the truth

            I never said that. Only that Phillips was caught in a lie.

            http://www.jfk-info.com/pr796.htm

            BT: Oh, yeah. Absolutely! They’re all in the film. They’re all there. But, the fact of the matter is the Committee began to balk at a series of events. The most significant one was when [David Atlee] Phillips came up before the Committee and then had to be recalled because it was clear that he hadn’t told the truth. That had to do with the phony commentary he made about Oswald going to Mexico City on or about October 1st, 1963.

          • I don’t know what your point is, Tom.

            You linked to this document:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=33085#relPageId=43

            It has Sprague saying that Phillips came in to talk voluntarily, and that he was fully cooperative.

            So what is your point?

          • Dr. McAdams, it is always entertaining to read you or Photon going out of your way to praise power and professional liars.

            Photon with Dulles, you with Phillips, not at all dissimilar to a couple of shoe shine boys polishing these spies reputations.
            Those who agree with you don’t need to watch your show, and everyone else must find it kind of creepy…..

            Tom, don’t you think people notice that you turn ad hominem when you are getting your ass kicked on the evidence?

            There are two issues here:

            Did Tannenbaum tell the truth about Phillips walking out of an interview?

            Was Phillips telling the truth when he said the tapes had been erased?

            We can tackle either question.

            But perhaps the first one should be whether Tannenbaum told the truth. Any evidence of that?

          • Tom S. says:

            kind of creepy…..

            Tom, don’t you think people notice that you turn ad hominem when you are getting your ass kicked on the evidence?

            There are two issues here:

            Did Tannenbaum tell the truth about Phillips walking out of an interview?

            Was Phillips telling the truth when he said the tapes had been erased?

            We can tackle either question.

            But perhaps the first one should be whether Tannenbaum told the truth. Any evidence of that?

            Dr. McAdams is it fair to describe the reaction to the claims of Tanenbaum by you and Photon indistinguishable from a PR blitz of CIA spokespersons or lobbyists?
            In your case, the only instance I can recall you not siding with the privileged, those with overwhelming influence/advantage, or with great wealth was when you took up the cause of making the classroom an unintimidating, inviting place for the homophobic. You’re predictably dismissive of anyone who questions entrenched authority, power, or great wealth. As usual, your opinions and analysis are questionable yet there is nothing tenative about your presentation. I’m going to support Bradford’s fifteen year old observations with some reporting in newspapers during the time Bradford describes. The links will appear in order, oldest article first.:

            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkgen/LastingQuestions/Lasting_Questions_5.htm
            Lasting Questions about the Murder of President Kennedy
            Rex Bradford November 2001
            …..In Deep Politics and the Death of JFK, Peter Dale Scott traces the connection between many individuals in these seemingly disparate groups.

            The country was a little more sophisticated in the 1970s, after Watergate and the exposes of the Rockefeler Commission, Pike Committee and Church Committee. The House Select Committee on Assassinations seemed a promising avenue to the truth for many, for a moment at least. But the fate of Richard Sprague, the original lead investigator for the Committee, is instructive. Sprague, a tough Philadelphia DA famous for the Yablonski case among others, was the original Chief Counsel of the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Within the first few months, he and his team began chasing the “Oswald in Mexico City” story very hard. They deposed David Phillips, head of Covert Operations in the CIA station there. They interviewed the CIA translators who transcribed the “Oswald” tapes. Refusing to sign secrecy oaths, Sprague took on the CIA and seemed determine to get to the bottom of the Mexico affair, as recently declassified HSCA records reveal. Then a funny thing happened. Stories in the press began questioning Sprague’s ethics in some of his cases as District Attorney. Then, HSCA Chairman Henry Gonzalez suddenly started attacking Sprague publicly, accusing him of misconduct and mismanagement, disputing his budget, accusing him of not following the Committee’s directions, etc. After a bit of this, Gonzalez fired Sprague. Stunned, the other Committee members unanimously supported Sprague, telling him not to accept the dismissal. Henry Gonzalez ended up resigning, but the damage was done. In the face of a Congress unwilling to continue funding the HSCA with this “renegade” prosecutor at the helm, Sprague resigned. …

            continued…

          • Tom S. says:

            Part II ….links to news reporting of 1976 – 1977 will build in this reply, beginning with the oldest article.:

            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2199&dat=19761207&id=w9MxAAAAIBAJ&sjid=XOUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4079,1992610&hl=en
            JFK Probe to cost $6.5 million
            December 7, 1976

            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1499&dat=19770211&id=FwwqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=TikEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6922,42047&hl=en
            The Milwaukee Journal – Feb 11, 1977
            …Gonzalez orders Sprague to clear out his desk, the other eleven members of the committee spurn Chairman Gonzalez’s order,
            describing firing of Sprague an illegal act, Gonzalez threatens to dissolve the committee….

            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1982&dat=19770417&id=-h1gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=FW4NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1519,3113087&hl=en
            The Evening News – Apr 17, 1977

          • Wasn’t it YOU Professor who said that they called him a liar in your post of June 14th, 2016 at 1:50 a.m.?

            Probably so, since I was taking what Tannenbaum said at face value.

            But, partly due to the links Tom has posted, I’m coming to doubt Tannenbaum’s veracity.

          • I never said that. Only that Phillips was caught in a lie.

            http://www.jfk-info.com/pr796.htm

            BT: Oh, yeah. Absolutely! They’re all in the film. They’re all there. But, the fact of the matter is the Committee began to balk at a series of events. The most significant one was when [David Atlee] Phillips came up before the Committee and then had to be recalled because it was clear that he hadn’t told the truth. That had to do with the phony commentary he made about Oswald going to Mexico City on or about October 1st, 1963.

            What was the “lie” in which Phillips was caught?

            Interestingly, this shows Tannenbaum talking about a bogus “film” that turned out not to exist.

          • Tannenbaum:

            I had Phillips subpoenaed to appear before our committee in executive session. I asked him under oath where we could locate the tape of the so-called Oswald conversation of October 1, 1963, while inside the Russian embassy in Mexico City. Phillips stated that it was CIA policy at the time to recycle the tapes every six or seven days and it was no longer in existence after the first week in October 1963. I then handed him the Hoover memo which, according to the FBI director, clearly revealed that the tape was evidently available in Dallas on November 22 and 23, 1963. Phillips read the memo, then folded it, placed it in his jacket pocket, arose, and walked out of the meeting.

            http://www.dcdave.com/article5/120608.htm

            But the executive session transcript exist, and they show no such thing.

            I was being too generous to Tannenbaum to speculate this might have been some informal interview.

            Tannenbaum has simply lied about this.

            I’ve screwed up several times by giving buffs the benefit of the doubt.

          • In your case, the only instance I can recall you not siding with the privileged, those with overwhelming influence/advantage, or with great wealth was when you took up the cause of making the classroom an unintimidating, inviting place for the homophobic.

            Thank you for making it clear, Tom, that this is all about your leftist politics, and all your opinions derive from that.

            And do you think it’s “homophobic” to oppose gay marriage? If so, you need to be more tolerant of opinions that differ from yours.

            Being a leftist, you don’t feel the need to show tolerance to those who disagree with you.

          • Tom S. says:

            Dr. McAdams, the “record” gathered by the student you had formerly been faculty advisor to via the sound recording he allegedly denied he was capturing through the microphone on
            his phone indicates he wanted to present this material in an upcoming class conducted by Ms. Abbate.:

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/23/us/opponents-of-same-sex-marriage-take-bad-for-children-argument-to-court.html?_r=0
            Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage Take Bad-for-Children Argument to Court
            By ERIK ECKHOLMFEB. 22, 2014
            ….For some conservatives, that decision amounted to a call to arms.

            In meetings hosted by the Heritage Foundation in Washington in late 2010, opponents of same-sex marriage discussed the urgent need to generate new studies on family structures and children, according to recent pretrial depositions of two witnesses in the Michigan trial and other participants. One result was the marshaling of $785,000 for a large-scale study by Mark Regnerus, a meeting participant and a sociologist at the University of Texas who will testify in Michigan….

            http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/22/us/michigan-ban-on-same-sex-marriage-is-struck-down.html
            Federal Judge Strikes Down Michigan’s Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
            By ERIK ECKHOLMMARCH 21, 2014
            …..Lawyers for the plaintiffs described the scholars who appeared for the state as religiously motivated and part of a “desperate fringe,” and subjected them to withering cross-examination. Judge Friedman agreed with the criticism, describing the state’s witnesses as “unbelievable” and calling their studies deeply flawed.

            He wrote with particular animus about the best-known — and most widely discredited — of the researchers, Mark Regnerus, a sociologist at the University of Texas. Mr. Regnerus was the author of a 2012 report that, he said, raised questions about the prospects for children of same-sex parents.

            Judge Friedman, citing evidence that the study had been commissioned and paid for by conservative opponents of same-sex marriage, wrote, “The funder clearly wanted a certain result, and Regnerus obliged.”

            Judge Friedman in turn praised several scholars called by the plaintiffs, who described a virtual consensus in the field that other things like income and stability being equal, children fared just as well with same-sex parents….

            Dr. McAdams, it is not about my political bent, unless of course my politics are what enable me to discern and accurately describe why you insist Tanenbaum is lying,
            and CIA and WC are innocent victims of CT ignorance and mendacity. Your claim, refuted above, indicates you literally do not discern right from wrong.

          • Dr. McAdams is it fair to describe the reaction to the claims of Tanenbaum by you and Photon indistinguishable from a PR blitz of CIA spokespersons or lobbyists?

            You dodged the question I asked, which was whether Tannenbaum was telling the truth about Phillips walking out?

            Or do you think that it’s OK for buffs to lie, since you think the CIA lies?

            Did Tannenbaum lie, or did he not?

          • Tom S. says:

            Did Tannenbaum lie, or did he not?

            I cannot determine whether he did or didn’t and I do not understand how you can be so quick to dismiss what he claims, as lies.
            I am working to verify his claims, or to find if verification is even possible. I don’t know that all executive session documents are released or
            whether the executive session transcripts were sanitized, abbreviated, or if Sprague or Tanenbaum, or the transcriber attested to their accuracy
            or completeness.

            Inability to identify documents exactly parallel to Tanenbaum’s claims is not grounds to dismiss his claims as lies.

          • Your claim, refuted above, indicates you literally do not discern right from wrong.

            You haven’t refuted any claim of mine. You simply want to argue about gay parenting.

            If Abbate wanted to keep arguing with the student about that, that would have been fine.

            But she told him he was not allowed to oppose gay marriage in class.

            Both Abbate and the student seemed to think that gay marriage and gay parenting are the same issue. They are not, but Abbate went off the deep end when she told the student his opinions were “homophobic” and “offensive.”

            You are arguing that Abbate was right. The problem is your wanting the student bullied and shut up.

          • Tom S. says:

            You are arguing that Abbate was right. The problem is your wanting the student bullied and shut up.

            My original point, you can be counted on to support the privileged, powerful, extremely wealthy. You claimed it was about objecting to gay marriage in class conducted
            by presumably any instructor at Marquette, but it wasn’t. As I said, you choose to concern yourself with ginned up “causes” abuse of the reputations of Phillips, CIA,
            WC, and homophobes.

          • why you insist Tanenbaum is lying, and CIA and WC are innocent victims of CT ignorance and mendacity.

            You seem to just instinctively want to side with anybody who attacks the CIA.

            You seem really hurt if somebody like Tannenbaum is shown to be lying.

            But you’ve seen the posts.

            He claimed the Phillips “walk out” happened at an executive session.

            But we have the transcripts of the executive sessions, and they show no such thing.

            And Jean has shown that Tannenbaum describes wanting to confront Phillips about the Hoover memo, and not being allowed to by the Committee.

            I don’t care how much you dislike the CIA. Evidence is evidence.

          • As I said, you choose to concern yourself with ginned up “causes” abuse of the reputations of Phillips, CIA, WC, and homophobes.

            This makes clear the way you think.

            You don’t like the CIA. So you’ll defend anybody who attacks the CIA, even if they are lying.

            You don’t like “homophobes” (which you think is anybody who opposes gay marriage). So you’ll defend anybody who tries to silence “homophobia” and not care about free speech.

            In short, for you it’s only a matter of whom you like and whom you dislike.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            What was the “lie” in which Phillips was caught? – McAdams

            Hello Professor

            If you read the whole link, Tanenbaum knows Phillips lied about tapes being recycled when, according to Hoover’s memo or taped convo, they weren’t.

  8. Tom S. says:

    kennedy63, your comment exceeds 500 words.:
    http://www.wordcounttool.com/

  9. Arnaldo M. Fernandez says:

    Whoever interprets that Castro would have killed JFK “as a justifiable act of self-defense” knows neither Castro nor the logic of the conflict. As self-defense Castro took the most rational measure from the very beginning: sending agents to the U.S. for penetrating both the exiles groups and the CIA. Killing Kennedy was simply irrational, since the attempts wouldn’t cease just because a man, not the system, was removed. Castro always thought systemically. He could have killed Batista in Varadero on July 26, 1953, as many of his followers proposed, but he chose to attack the Moncada garrison.

    • As always Arnaldo, a fascinating and succinct argument. Your insight is invaluable.

    • Photon says:

      But the attempts did cease as soon as Johnson became aware of them so your claim has no merit. Castro didn’t have to send a team of assassins if he had a disgruntled American running around who reportedly threatened to kill JFK while at the Cuban embassy. Obviously Johnson was not concerned about Castro making a claim of self-defense-he would have been more concerned about world opinion. As he was privy to what Oswald did at the Mexico City embassy it is easy to see what he thought motivated Oswald-and despite RFK ‘s loathing of Johnson he apparently held similar suspicions. Castro wanted to start a Revolution with the Barracks attack a springboard-he reserved political assassination for his close associates and potential political rivals like Pais and Cienfuegos.

      • “But the attempts did cease as soon as Johnson became aware of them so your claim has no merit.”~Photon

        You misconstrue history here Mr Agent Man. Johnson was aboard for the larger fish to fry in Southeast Asia. That is where the big bucks for the Military Industrial Complex were waiting.
        That is why Cuba and Castro went off the radar after JFK was out of the way.
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy Whitten
          May 6, 2016 at 6:49 pm

          “You misconstrue history here Mr Agent Man. Johnson was aboard for the larger fish to fry in Southeast Asia. That is where the big bucks for the Military Industrial Complex were waiting.”

          BS. Johnson was in it for the great society. He looked on the war as a parasite on his great society and would have loved not being constrained by the war; in money and attention. I think JFK wished not to be bothered with the war. Nixon…I don’t know about that dude.

          “That is why Cuba and Castro went off the radar after JFK was out of the way.”

          Perhaps LBJ took Cuba and Castro off the radar because he had no reason to keep them on the radar. Castro put egg on the face of the Kennedy boys, not LBJ. And the Kennedy boys would have been better off leaving Cuba alone.

          • “BS. Johnson was in it for the great society.”
            ~Bill Clarke

            Of course what Mr Clarke does not grasp is that it doesn’t matter in any way whatsoever what “Johnson was in it for”. The coup d’etat put the office of the Presidency firmly back in it’s titular position, leaving the Military Industrial Complex in full dominance over the political burlesque and all of the ‘political actors’ on its payroll, reading its scripts.

            The only change of this situation has been for the situation to worsen to the point of a theater of the absurd.

            The Public Relations Regime has its finger on the Laugh Track, and it is laughing at all of us. The tragedy is in those who buy into this game as if it were ‘reality’.
            \\][//

          • David S says:

            “Perhaps LBJ took Cuba and Castro off the radar because he had no reason to keep them on the radar. Castro put egg on the face of the Kennedy boys, not LBJ.”

            I think this is right. Think about JFK’s short term in office, and how it was dominated by Cuba:
            1961 – Bay of Pigs (invade Cuba)
            1962 – Operation Mongoose (Sabotage Cuba/kill Castro)
            1962 – Cuban Missile Crisis (escalate nuclear tensions over Cuba)

            JFK and Castro were like scorpions in a bottle. Two enter, 1 leave. Castro clearly prevailed. That Oswald took it upon himself to serve Castro’s ends either alone (doubtful) or through coaxing and modest assistance by Castro agents straddles the line between the lone gunman theory and coordinated complicity. Kind of a like a “gang initiation” rite – the Walker attempt doesn’t impress us, how about something bigger & bolder….

            It’s truly a sad fact of history that Castro got 53 more years of living, while JFK was cut down so young. Sidestepping this intense animosity was wise of LBJ. He did have bigger fish to fry. (Which also turned out poorly for him)

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Oh come on Mr. Clarke.

            Johnson had a laissez-faire approach and more conciliatory to the MIC.

            Cuba became less important but was also like the Berlin Wall of the West.

            Vietnam was open territory.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Gerry Simone
          June 15, 2016 at 12:22 pm

          “Johnson had a laissez-faire approach and more conciliatory to the MIC.”

          Yes, I believe that to be true.

          “Cuba became less important but was also like the Berlin Wall of the West.”

          I don’t remember it that way Gerry. After Johnson was president I don’t believe Cuba held a light to the Berlin Wall.

          “Vietnam was open territory.”

          Yes, it was when I left it.

      • Brian Joseph says:

        Your claim that Castro had Cienfuegos assassinated seems like the claims of a conspiracy theorist Photon. While Castro may have had Cienfuegos assassinated that certainly isn’t the official version of events in or outside of Cuba as far as I know but I may be wrong. I know that there are some JFK conspiracy theorists who make claims without a shred of evidence that even connects to their claims or use vast conjecture based on little or no information. Please tell me that you are not one of those types. I’m no fan of Castro that’s for sure and I certainly don’t think he was above havving those he perceived as political enemies assassinated but can you provide some evidence or a link that supports your conspiracy theory.

        • Photon says:

          It is well known that Castro tasked Cienfuegos to arrest Huber-Matos when the latter stated that he wanted to leave the 26th of July movement because of the Communist influence. He sent Cienfuegos to Huber-Matos’ headquarters, alone and unsupported. Obviously if Huber-Matos was going to start a counter-revolution he would have killed Cienfuegos right there-and given Castro a martyr and removed his chief rival. Unfortunately for Fidel Huber-Matos had no interest in pursuing a counter-revolution and was still not aware that Fidel was as much a Marxist as Raul and had been so since he had been released from prison following the Moncada fiasco. So he went quietly to his decades long imprisonment and left Camilo alone, leaving Fidel only one option-immediate assassination. The unofficial line is that a Sea Fury “accidentally” shot down an unknown airplane violating Cuban airspace on the same day he went missing. (The official story is that he simply disappeared.)
          Unofficially it may have been a tragic blunder. But the SeaFury would never have fired without orders, the Government ( ie., Fidel) knew what the aviation traffic was that day, they knew Camilo was returning after completing his task. It may have been a coincidence, but Cienfuegos died almost immediately after meeting Huber-Matos-when any rational observer would have expected him to be killed or arrested. Of course, there was no real investigation-the plane is still probably in the ocean unless it was recovered and disposed of shortly after the incident.
          The only other rival Fidel had was Frank Pais-who was actually leading an urban revolutionary effort while Fidel was fooling around in the Sierra Maestra accomplishing little. Pais was well-known and respected among the urban elite and students. Arguably he was more respected among revolutionary elements than Fidel. After he merged his organization with the 26 of July movement he became a real threat to Fidel’s leadership (and Marxist convictions). Ultimately, shortly thereafter “someone” revealed his hiding place to the Batista police and he was captured and killed. The only two people to benefit from Pais’ death were Batista and much more so Castro. The urban revolutionary movement essentially collapsed after Pais left the scene, leaving the stage to Fidel.
          See Twilight Zone episode ” He’s Alive” how to turn an associate into a martyr.

          • Tom S. says:

            It is well known that Castro tasked Cienfuegos to arrest Huber-Matos when the latter stated that he wanted to leave the 26th of July movement because of the Communist influence.

            I am reminding you again that “it is well known,” you purposefully avoid sharing links in your comments supporting your evidence and opinions. Please consider these reminders are intended to be helpful to you and your readers.

            http://jfkfacts.org/comment-policy/
            ……
            8. Preference is given to comments that include links to, or citations of, credible sources.

          • Brian Joseph says:

            “The only two people to benefit from Pais’ death were Batista and much more so Castro.”

            That doesn’t sound a whole lot different than those who say Johnson was behind the JFK assassination because, “Johnson benefited from it.”

            That said, you may be right about Castro being behind it. You do however appear to be using the same type of conjecture as some of the wilder JFK conspiracy theorists who base their conclusions on who they think benefited and little if anything else.

      • Let’s get back to some basics here, this Prouty material is essential for gaining a POV of sanity in the JFK assassination.

        https://youtu.be/CjfBwWVFPNw?t=794

        Hand-wave Fletcher Prouty at your own detriment.

        \\][//

  10. President Gerald Ford to French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing – JFK assassination was a conspiracy: “We arrived at an initial conclusion: it was not the work of one person, it was something set up. We were sure it was set up.”
    Weblink: 1) http://ctka.net/2013/VGEonJFK.html

    Original article from 11-21-2013: http://www.rtl.fr/actu/international/kennedy-le-reve-a-ete-assassine-avec-l-homme-dit-giscard-7767111282

    «Gerald Ford (president of the United States from 1974 to 1977, editor’s note) was a member of the Warren Commission», Valéry Giscard d’Estaing resumes. «Once I was making a car trip with him, he was then President as I was myself. I said to him: ‘Let me ask you an indiscreet question: you were on the Warren Commission, what conclusions did you arrive at?’ He told me: ‘It’s not a satisfactory [i.e., positive (ntr)] one. We arrived at an initial conclusion: it was not the work of one person, it was something set up. We were sure that it was set up. But we were not able to discover by whom.’»

  11. Avinash says:

    Reagan also doubted the Warren Report.

  12. This is an article on 9/11, but it is relevant to the JFK Assassination as well, and was put forward in the 1960’s as “Revelation of the Method”.

    MITOP and the Double Bind
    By Michael David Morrissey — March 15, 2008

    http://web.archive.org/web/20091027001050/http://geocities.com/mdmorrissey/logical6

    \\][//

  13. Hideji Okina says:

    “Cold Case Kennedy”(Flip De Mey) capter 11 described
    from Johonson to Clinton’s opinion about assassination.
    Well resereach,especialy Reagan’s opinion.

  14. Bill Clinton told Webb Hubbell to find out Who Killed John Kennedy
    Webb Hubbell:

    “Of my many regrets at that moment, I remember thinking that I hadn’t accomplished something the President had asked me to do when I [he means Clinton] was first elected. “Webb,” he had said, “if I put you at Justice, I want you to find two answers for me. One, Who killed JFK? And two, Are there UFO’s?” He was dead serious. I had looked into both, but wasn’t satisfied with the answers I was getting.”

    [Webb Hubbell, “Friends in High Places,” p. 282]

    • Hideji Okina says:

      Slobodan Milosevic told Bill Clinton to JFK assassination
      conspiracy.

      “He(Milosevic) promptly cited the Kennedy assassination,asserting that elements of the CIA had killed
      JFK amid swirling passions over Cuba,Vietnam,and the underworld.””You Americans have done a good job of covering
      it up all these years,”Milosevic concluded,”but everybody knows
      that’s what happened.” He spoke with a calm assurance that
      Clinton found sad and chilling.For Milosevic,he said,conspiracy
      and violence filled the entire political landscape”
      (Taylor Brance,”THE CLINTON TAPES”p.326).

      And perhaps a ordinally U.S citizen did’nt know,
      late Robert Morrow(not you,but author of “First
      Hand knowledge”) interview with Japanese author and
      writer Youichirou Kayai,he explain Roscoe White participate JFK hit team(as a secret tale),this fictional tale not
      contain in his book.

      In 1993,David Lifton interview with a Japanese newspaperman,
      he described “Dear Mr.Hunt” letter(KGB forged letter) as
      “First Hand material”.

  15. Gerry Simone says:

    What did President Eisenhower think about JFK’s assassination?

    Or did he heed his warning on the Military Industrial Complex and keep his opinion to himself?

    We know what President De Gaulle thought.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Here is Ike’s news conference on the evening of November 22. He mouths anodyne phrases, but he appears to be extremely shaken, and to my eye his heart is clearly not in what he is saying.

      • Fearfaxer says:

        Ooopppsss! Forgot to paste the link. Here it is:

        https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=eisenhower+november+22

      • fearfaxer, this from last year at jfkfacts:

        leslie sharp
        November 9, 2015 at 3:34 am

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

        min. 2:38: “the American nation is a people of great common sense and they are not going to be stampeded or bewildered.” — Dwight Eisenhower

        This begs the question, stampeded or bewildered by whom? a lone gunman?

        at minute 2:50 Eisenhower begins speaking from the same playbook that would be presented by former CIA Director Allen Dulles (who served under his administration) to the first session of members of the Warren Commission on December 16th; the booklet recapped presidential assassinations perpetrated by “a lone gunman” in the course of US history. Eisenhower’s spontaneous recount of those assassinations is remarkably accurate under the circumstances and is followed with his revelation “and it’s just these occasional psychopathic actions occur ….”

        What information was he relying upon at that impromptu press conference that he would use the phrase “occasional psychopathic actions …”?

        min. 4:00 Eisenhower responds to a question about global reaction to the assassination with, “. . . in civilized countries of the world, this doesn’t happen (pause …..) so often …”

        at minute 4:45, the former president talks about Archduke Ferdinand and says, ‘I think that was his name’ and then he begins a nervous ramble.

        at min. 4:53 Eisenhower tells a reporter that he has cancelled his dinner date.

        and as the interview winds down, Eisenhower repeats that ‘the American people will not be “stampeded”’.

        Who does Eisenhower think is attempting to “stampede” the American people? Why does he repeat the term ‘stampede’? Is he suggesting that Lee Harvey Oswald might be attempting to stampede Americans?

        According to a letter from CIA Director John McCone to the former president dated December 23, 1963, just a month after the assassination in Dallas, the two were planning to meet over the holidays. There is no mention in that letter, not even the most obligatory recognition that Kennedy had been gunned down in Dallas. For a man who was allegedly fearful of the Military Industrial Complex, it is interesting that Ike maintained such a cordial friendship with one of its stalwarts who was intimating in that letter that Vietnam (not the murder in broad daylight of a sitting president) was occupying his attention.

        Why did President Eisenhower wait eight years to warn the American public of the Military Industrial Complex?

        http://jfkfacts.org/cia-admitted-to-lying-about-jfks-assassination-but-no-one-noticed/#comment-826187

      • Gerry Simone says:

        Thank you Fearfaxer and Leslie!

  16. Ronnie Wayne says:

    While Carter was barely mentioned in this discussion another President from the period since 11/22/63 has not been.
    His only comments on the subject I know of were at Ford’s funeral, where he couldn’t keep a grin off his face.

    https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=George+H+W+Bush+Gerald+Ford+funeral&view=detail&mid=2BE1A3A608BE3A5006EC2BE1A3A608BE3A5006EC&FORM=VIRE

    Yeah George, how Funny. Ford’s Word. The same Ford that moved the back wound and reported to Hoover on the daily goings on of the Warren Omission. Reportedly because Hoover had tapes of Ford in a hotel with a woman not his wife.
    But Ford did reward Bush for “being there” (ha, ha) for Nixon during Watergate by appointing him Director of the CIA.
    With Bush’s connections to the CIA since at least 62 via his position as a recruiter for Operation 40/The Bay of Pigs it was an easy pick for Ford.

    http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKoperation40.htm

    Then Carter asked him to have his desk cleared out by Carter’s first day in office (from an earlier post on this thread, I’d never read it before). This of course severed all ties for him with the Company. Thus he could not have had any connection to the October Surprise.

    • Tom S. says:

      Ronnie….Wikipedia rejects Simkin spartacus links as reliable sources.

      Dig deeper, Ronnie. Paul Kangas is a problem.:
      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7348

      The Bush details are in contention, which is why they make little headway. Clinton seems smart enough
      to disassociate himself from GHWB, if the information presented by Simkin was compelling and consistent.:
      Read the comments in response to Kangas.:
      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=7347

      Kangas’s 1990 article in the realist.:
      http://jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20Subject%20Index%20Files/K%20Disk/Krassner%20Paul/Item%2002.pdf

      Ronnie why not focus on what is proven….does not depend on an assertion of an individual or a quote?

      Our government presented that LHO acted alone, and the closest person to him in Dallas until April, 1963, was DeMohrenschildt.
      Devine comes with his M.I.T. frat brother, Coit. Coit is assigned by CIA to Priscilla Johnson in January, 1964…..

      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2544&p=271096
      ……..
      Students Don Ear Muffs to Shut Out Band Music
      Daily Boston Globe – Aug 14, 1947

      … rhumba music yesterday asked the Boston Licensing Board to shut down
      the Hotel … one of 16 Tech students livings in the adjoining Sigma Chi
      fraternity house … Other student were Thomas Devine of Rochester who
      told of taking refuge in ..

      Spring 2009 – Beaver Sig – Sigma Chi Fraternity – MIT
      http://sigmachi.mit.edu/docs/beaver_sigs/BeaverSig-spring2009.pdf‎
      This being the first issue of The Beaver Sig ….. we visited Barbara Coit, the recent widow of another Alpha Theta Sig,. Garry Coit

      Beaver Sig Vol. 1946, No. 1 – Sigma Chi Fraternity – MIT
      http://sigmachi.mit.edu/docs/beaver_sigs/1946_bsig_vol1946_no1.pdf‎
      school; Brother Coit enlisted in the Naval Radio Training Pro- gram. Fall Term, 1944. Shortly after the inception of the fall term of 1944, Brothers. Devine and….

      http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=12758&relPageId=2

      http://www.adst.org/OH%20TOCs/Wrampelmeier,%20Brooks.toc.pdf
      BROOKS WRAMPELMEIER
      Interviewed by: Charles Stuart Kennedy
      March 22, 2000
      …..
      Q: Well, Macomber had also been a favorite of Rooney’s…the
      appropriations man for the department of state.
      WRAMPELMEIER: Well, Macomber was brought into State by John Foster Dulles. His
      family and the Dulles family came from Rochester. Macomber came out in January 1961,
      a bachelor just 40 years old. Mills was in his sixties. I think the idea was that having an
      ambassador in Amman closer in age to King Hussein would be an advantage…….

      http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9A06E0DB1038E53ABC4F51DFB667838D659EDE
      1946 Nancy Bush wed, Macomber best man.

      http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=14052#entry170455
      …….
      Miss Alexandra Mills Is Bride of TJ Devine
      – New York Times – Apr 15, 1973
      Miss Alexandra Mills, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Samuel Wynne Mills of Locust … William B. Macomber Jr., United States. Ambassador to Turkey, was best man. …

      Alexandra Mills to Marry in April
      – New York Times – Jan 21, 1973
      … Miss Alexandra Mills, to Thomas James Devine of New York, son of the late Mr. and Mrs. … Mr. Devine is with Train, Cabot Associates, a company here. .

      Macomber, defectors, 1960:

      http://jfkfacts.org/trumps-lame-conspiracy-theories-everything/#comment-879910
      Tom S. – June 2, 2016 at 10:26 am
      ………
      First meeting was 25 April, 1963, two weeks after Gen. Walker was shot at.
      Dryer, Jr. told author Joan Mellen he was close friend of Devine, growing up in Rochester, and he held separate meeting with DeM and Charles on 25 April, 1963. ……
      ……….

      ……….

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        I found the Wikipedia article lacking in comparison to Spartacus. In spite of Wikipedia’s opinion of Spartacus though I realize you are more well read on the subject than I.

        • Tom S. says:

          Ronnie, I didn’t suggest a wikipedia article on the topic of Bush.
          My point is that wikipedia attracts a large audience of information seekers from english speakers across the world. Simkin is so determined to produce a huge number of comparatively poorly sourced articles (more than 11,000) yet he is willing to forfeit inclusion of links to his articles in footnotes and other cites in wikipedia articles.

          http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19554#entry260708
          ‘Tom Scully’, on 30 Sept 2012 – 04:47 AM, said:
          I believe strongly that assassination related articles/pages on the wikipedia site and on John’s Spartacus site should be reviewed and edited in preparation for heightened interest in the 50th anniversary year commencing as early as this coming 22 November, little more than 50 days from now.

          I’ve wondered why more of what is posted in these threads does not appear in revisions of related Spartacus pages and I believe it is mostly because John’s focus is on creating new articles.

          John Simkin – Posted 02 October 2012
          The JFK assassination section is only a small part of my website. The Spartacus Educational Encyclopaedia has over 11,000 articles (apparently this is the word count of 23 copies of “War and Peace”). It has not been possible to keep my pages updated with the latest evidence. As people like Greg Parker have pointed out, I have not always kept to my intentions of providing in one place the different interpretations of people and events. Although I have expressed strong opinions about the case on the Forum I have tried on the website to provide a balanced view (as an historian I am aware that complete objectivity is not possible)…..

          More than three years later, and the error in the name of the article’s topic persists….

          http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=19554#entry272183
          Tom Scully – Posted 21 April 2013 – 11:02 AM
          John, an edit suggestion submission.:

          http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKjohnsonPR.htm
          Priscilla Livingston Johnson was born in Glen Cove, New York, on 19th July, 1928….

          Priscilla’s name was Priscilla Mary Post Johnson
          Priscilla Mary Post Johnson – History Matters
          http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh11/pdf/WH11_PriscillaJohnson.pdf

          Ronnie, should we be very careful to be at least as accurate as the WCR, or wait to present a claim
          until we are? Is that not the point….the weakness and inaccuracy the WCR is accused of presenting?

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      And if you believe the last sentence of my post about Bush and the October Surprise I have some ocean front property in Amarillo Texas I’d like to sell.

      One wikipedia article calls it a “news event” and distracts from it’s true meaning. Another is a little more accurate.
      The last first.

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

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

      • Tom S. says:

        Ronnie, it doesn’t matter if wikipedia articles are accurate….wikipedia is “the table”.
        It’s about getting a seat, or at least getting into the dining room. Why write 11,000+ articles
        and not be compatible with.:

        http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wikipedia.org
        How popular is wikipedia.org?
        Global Rank
        Global rank icon 7
        Rank in United States
        United States Flag 6

        Quoting Simkin, middle of page.:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spartacus_Educational

        I am afraid this has been a constant problem. Some visitors are sometimes confused by my willingness to include different interpretations of the past.

        The result is the links to articles on Spartacus won’t be included here.:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy#Notes
        Along side examples such as:

        16. McAdams, John (2012). “Changed Motorcade Route in Dallas?”. The Kennedy Assassination. Marquette University. Retrieved 2012-11-26.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Harvey_Oswald#Notes
        ……
        152. Knuth, Magen. “The Long Brown Bag: Did Lee Harvey Oswald Bring a Rifle Into the Depository Concealed in a Long Paper Bag?”. Kennedy Assassination Home Page. John C. McAdams. Retrieved September 16, 2013.
        153. McAdams, John C. (2011). JFK Assassination Logic: How to Think about Claims of Conspiracy. Potomac Books, Inc. pp. 167–73. ISBN 978-1-59797-489-9. Retrieved September 16, 2013.

        The effort Simkin put into his site should not result in it being entertainment. It is “left out” because of his approach. He was not aiming for accuracy, but for a variety of POV.

        • “He was not aiming for accuracy, but for a variety of POV.”

          And therein lies the threat that certain assassinate forums pose to the investigate by providing nothing other than an exercise in collecting points of view That is hardly the stuff of a cold case investigation and most likely has delayed serious inquiry, which is to suggest this has become entertainment for tens of thousands.

          As a matter of interest related to authenticity, I recently came across a wiki post that linked to a character named Joe Farmer. The Mr. Farmer that wiki led me to had no pertinence to the JFK investigation in spite of indications on the wiki site otherwise. A cautionary tale.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          ” it doesn’t matter if wikipedia articles are accurate”??? But yet we seek Historical accuracy and truth. For those who look for it…

          • Photon says:

            Such as what? A phantom named Cheryl McKinnon gets placed on the most praised map of the assassination and has an educational history created for her by CTers-without a shred of evidence that the named individual even existed, let alone has ever been to Dallas.
            Tink Thompson basing a CT career on the false placement of the Harper fragment and a misleading claim about what a motorcycle cop actually said and never correcting either item despite the correct information being in the public realm for decades.
            Dr. Aguilar repeatedly claiming that a witness to the autopsy being a Ph.D candidate in Pathology when in reality he was nothing more than a high school graduate Corpsman with no formal training in autopsy procedures.
            And of course the highlight of CT conspiracy research-basing an entire line involving claims about the ” blow-out wound to the back of the head” on the recollections of a witness who was so unsure of where the head wound was that in the only written report he composed on Nov 22, 1963 he described the wound AS HE WAS TOLD IT LOOKED LIKE by somebody else. And that description was by all accounts WRONG. The same individual has been quoted on this blog to have stated that for the first eleven years after the assassination he was UNSURE about the specifics of the head wound.
            And the “research” community is interested in facts? If it really was somebody in that community would have brought up these inconsistencies. Instead, it is believe everything that implies a conspiracy and for heaven’s sake don’t ever ask if that source is actually correct.

    • Yeah George, how Funny. Ford’s Word. The same Ford that moved the back wound

      You folks keep ignoring the evidence on this:

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

      and reported to Hoover on the daily goings on of the Warren Omission.

      And Earl Warren talked about what the WC with Drew Pearson. So what?

      Reportedly because Hoover had tapes of Ford in a hotel with a woman not his wife.

      Source?

  17. Gerald Ford, as a member of the Warren Commission, edited the description of JFK’s back wound in the commission’s final report to bolster the so-called “single bullet theory,” more than the evidence warranted

    This is bogus, Jeff, and you should know better:

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

    • “This is bogus, Jeff, and you should know better”~McAdams

      McAdams makes this bold charge at Jeff and then has the audacity to give a link to a page of utter balderdash.

      It has been established beyond the slightest doubt that the wound in JFK’s back was at T-3. This bizarre carousel the nutty professor persistently cranks up is long past due for the trash heap.

      Gerald Ford is a known liar and crook.
      \\][//

      • Photon says:

        And yet Caroline Kennedy personally awarded Gerald Ford the “Profiles in Courage” award.
        Do you honestly think that the closest survivors of JFK would grant the most important award that the family gives in his name to someone who “lied” about his assassination?
        Oh wait a minute-I get it. Caroline must be part of the conspiracy.

        • Photon says:

          And Willy, what beside Burkley’s incomplete death certificate that placed the back wound at “about” ( not a definitive “at”) T3 is your source for the placement of the back wound? It certainly is not the pathologists. It is certainly not the radiographs. It is certainly not the photographs, which none of you CT “pathologists” realized show a cushingoid neck. It certainly is not every forensic pathologist who has reviewed the data.
          But instead high school graduate Mr. Witten knows more about anatomy than dozens of genuine experts with decades of training and experience.
          Willy, exactly what substance was the flechette composed of that you claim hit JFK in the neck and then dissolved? Transparent aluminum?

        • Gerry Simone says:

          And yet Caroline Kennedy personally awarded Gerald Ford the “Profiles in Courage” award.

          Lol. That had NOTHING to do with the WC!

          • Photon says:

            How can you be so sure? If you review Ted Kennedy’s interview on NPR at the time of Ford’s death it is obvious what great respect and regard the Kennedy family had for Ford and the fact that Ford and JFK were personal friends. I do not think for a moment that if anybody in the family had the slightest suspicion of Ford’s motives on the WC that he would have won the PIC award, nor received the public praise from Caroline and Edward Kennedy.
            Facts matter. It is the same with the Kennedy family relationship with Allen Dulles. Despite the innuendo and unsupported claims of the geographically challenged Mr. Talbot there is no evidence whatsoever that Dulles’ relationship with JFK and RFK was not the cordial and respectful interaction that all of the real communications prove it to be.

          • Tom S. says:

            I had to hold my nose and grit my teeth to click the “approve” link on that one, Photon.
            I’m interested in purchasing a bridge, do you happen have one for sale?

          • Photon says:

            Tom S., did Ford get the Profiles in Courage award or not?
            Do you honestly think that the Kennedy family would have awarded him it if they had any problem with his Warren work?
            The interesting thing is that Sen. Kennedy in the NPR report stated that at the onset of discussion the consensus was that Ford was wrong and should not get the award.

          • Gerry Simone says:

            How can I be so sure? Because I recall a documentary or interview which covered this. The PIC award was given to Ford because of his decision to pardon Nixon in the face of criticism to the contrary, but that Ford held his ground.

            I’m sure this can be verified independently.

      • It has been established beyond the slightest doubt that the wound in JFK’s back was at T-3.

        The photo of the back shows it at T1.

        And the transverse process of T1 was fractured.

    • J.D. says:

      As usual, the link to Professor McAdams’s website leaves the reader with more questions than it answers.

      1. Who is Kyle Whelton? For that matter, who are the other authors who write for Professor McAdams’s site? What are their credentials, background, expertise? Are they simply former students of McAdams who have adopted his approach to the JFK case?

      2. Apart from sources for the quotes by “conspiracists,” as the writer calls them, why is an alt.assassination.jfk post by Jean Davison the only outside authority cited by this allegedly authoritative essay?

      3. Why does the final paragraph of this essay have nothing to do with the rest of it? Whelton simply changes the subject and insists that “nothing Ford wrote” could matter, because other evidence indicates that JFK’s wound was “consistent with the single bullet theory,” end of story. Doesn’t this merit some further discussion? According to JFK’s death certificate, the wound was “at about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.”

      • Tom S. says:

        …end of story. Doesn’t this merit some further discussion?

        No J.D., end of story. Why are you peppering Dr. McAdams with so many questions?

        http://jfkfacts.org/whats-judgment-rush-judgment/#comment-881176
        John McAdams – 2016/06/09 at 2:38 pm
        …..
        As for my posting links to my site: I could just copy and paste the material from my site, which is indeed evidence, but that would make the board bloated.

        …and J.D., the reason I’m upbraiding you for your temerity is because none other than the very influential wikipedia.org administrator who created the wikipedia.org bio page of Dr. McAdams

        https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_C._McAdams&offset=&limit=250&action=history
        17:13, 26 January 2010‎ Gamaliel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,545 bytes) (+1,545)‎ . . (←Created page with ””John C. McAdams”’ is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University. He earned his PhD from Harvard University in 1981. McAdams tea…’)

        …has declared links from Dr. McAdams site to be approved, trusted, uncontroversial sources, however you care to describe it.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald/Archive_10
        ……
        Yet, even after Hauptmann, (unlike Oswald, who receive none) received every opportunity to defend against the criminal charges against him in court, and then in appeals, this huge section describing the controversy over Hauptmann’s guilt or innocence or participation in a conspiracy, is included in the Wikipedia article about him.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruno_Hauptmann#Hauptmann.27s_guilt_questioned

        Why are the standards of what can be include in the Oswald article so much more restrictive than what has been permitted to be included in the Hauptmann article, related to similar controversies? Ruidoso (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald/Archive_10#Focus_intro_on_Oswald.27s_life_not_JFK
        Sooooo…. a couple of things here:
        ……
        4. The reason the question of Hauptman’s guilt is discussed in his main article is that (a) doing so doesn’t make the article intolerable long, which the Oswald article borders on; …..

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lee_Harvey_Oswald/Archive_10#Fourth_break
        Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald/Archive 10

        The version at the very top of this section is a fine example of one proposed that contains, in my opinion, too much extraneous information regarding those very topics. Those topics are biographical trivia, the debate about Oswald’s guilt is central to his importance, what particular blue collar job he held or where he went to elementary school is not. I assumed my use of the word “trivia” in the previous post here was self-explanatory as to my reasoning regarding why I favored minimizing that material. Gamaliel (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

        Result: Neat, brief, loaded “Oswald guilty” bio page.:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lee_Harvey_Oswald&diff=692085206&oldid=692084503

        Hauptmann however, who was afforded trial and Supreme Court appeal:
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Hauptmann#Hauptmann.27s_guilt_questioned

        J.D., this is just how the world works, so get off the good assistant professor’s back, willya?

        Update: I just noticed that Dr. McAdams’s “juice” at wikipedia.org very recently “retired”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gamaliel
        Here is a link to a recent, inside look of how “the torch” was passed from Gamaliel to a new defender of the status quo.: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Amakuru&oldid=715291134

      • Jean Davison says:

        People assume that Ford changed a sentence to “bolster the SBT.” I’ve asked this before but never got an answer. How did raising the wound help the SBT? I think it does the opposite.

        In this photo the angle of the string on the wall and the rod Specter is holding represents the trajectory from SN to limo. Notice where a bullet hitting the back of the stand-in’s neck would’ve exited — just under his chin:
        http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RoucRB2pM-c/TvWYueE8I2I/AAAAAAAABUg/s1jtdpPrX-E/s1600/Specter-02.png

        The actual bullet exited lower than that, nicking the tie knot.

        So I ask again, to anyone here, how does “raising” the wound to the neck bolster the SBT?

        • “So I ask again, to anyone here, how does “raising” the wound to the neck bolster the SBT?”`Jean Davison

          A simple matter of trajectory Jean.

          A bullet fired from that angle from the TSBD would not have exited from his chin, it would have exited from below the sternum.

          \\][//

          • Jean Davison says:

            Willy,

            Right, it’s a matter of trajectory. The angle from the SN window to the limo was measured. That measured trajectory (c. 18 degrees) is illustrated by the string on the wall.

            Now tell me how a bullet traveling at that angle and hitting the back of the neck could possibly “bolster” the SBT. Remember, in the SBT the bullet exits below the Adam’s apple, not above it.

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Jeez Jean. Even Ford, Dulles and Specter recognized the need to move the wound from T3 to make the SBT not possible but saleable.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Even Ford, Dulles and Specter recognized the need to move the wound from T3 to make the SBT not possible but saleable.”

            How do you know what they “recognized”?

  18. I find it curious that some would balk at the idea that the common routines and practices of espionage aka spycraft, would be such an outlandish idea when applied to the JFK assassination.

    Such things as generating false documents, costumes, disguises, the use of doubles or look-alike characters, planting false evidence, the use of ingenious weaponry, all manner of subterfuge.

    To scoff at such prospects as “absurd” or claim that such is the result of too fertile an imagination; “having seen too many spy thrillers”, etc… it is such incredulity that is itself the absurdity. After all the best and most realistic fiction is drawn from reality.

    Just a few examples of authors that were real spies: Gene Coyle, Kenneth Benton, John Bingham, William Mole, Alan Judd, Max Knight, John Masterman , le Carre, Hammet…and of course Ian Flemming.

    \\][//

    • Photon says:

      Ah yes, the famous Ian Flemming.Really a source of accuracy there Mr. Whitten.Are you sure that he didn’t discover penicillin?

  19. Oh, what about Ronald Reagan trying to blame the JFK assassination on the KGB or Castro? Which I know is absurd:

    Reagan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyGzVQGgdqw

  20. Ronnie Wayne says:

    The October Surprise opened my eyes a little bit. Enough to read Seth Kantor’s The Ruby Cover Up in about 1980.

    • HIDEJI OKINA says:

      Reagan’s team October Surprise is exist,but this conspiracy is
      soon failed.
      Because a Iran-side refused a negotiation with Reagan’s team.
      I read many book about this theme.
      If you interested this theme,you should read a
      “Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in the West’s
      War on Militant Islam”(Mark Bowden) and “The Persian Puzzle: Deciphering the Twenty-five-Year Conflict Between the United States and Iran “(Kenneth Pollack).
      Perhaps you confuse real conspiracy and conspiracy myth.

      • theNewDanger says:

        HIDEJI OKINA

        June 16, 2016 at 2:41 am

        … you should read a “Guests of the Ayatollah: The First Battle in the West’s War on Militant Islam” (Mark Bowden) and “The Persian Puzzle: Deciphering the Twenty-five-Year Conflict Between the United States and Iran “(Kenneth Pollack)

        HIDEJI OKINA –

        You’ve got to be kidding. You’re espousing books that are written by CFR people.

        (The CFR, formed as a response to the failure of the criminal League of Nations initiative, is a radical globalist, feudal-communist, terrorist organization that uses the UN and its charter members to form, foment, and crystalize its agenda as the way of life for indigenous peoples who would otherwise be living under their own systems of free will that are of no profit to the CFR and have control of their local natural resources.)

        The authors who are responsible for the tripe you read are disinformationist presenters utilizing the Hegelian dialectic of a contrived threat to push the agenda of the CFR onto its readers.

        Bowden is also responsible for the despicable Black Hawk Down tripe.

        Pollack has repeatedly written disgusting warhawk essays and books (http://goo.gl/8w2voV) about invading oil-rich middle eastern countries that pose NO threat to the United States and would be bombed off the earth by neighboring Israel if there were no intentionally inept rules of engagement in defending against any unprovoked hostility by any non-OPEC oil-rich countries.

        These authors and their global police state friends’ rules of engagement are set up for no other reason than to portray the UN and its charter members as “peacekeepers”, even though the UN is issuing edicts for wars on the individual from within its security council, to which the charter members have been subjects since the 1940s with no public referendum and extremely limited disclosure to the charter members’ citizens.

        Reading these dishonest people’s words is generating the “pretense of knowledge” for some readers when they don’t even exhibit understanding the origins and purposes of those books; the CFR’s books are composed to sow the seeds of systemic simple sabotage, to disinform, and to revise history – Bowden and Pollack are masters of this intellectual deception.

        Get from behind the 8-ball.

  21. Kennedy was killed in an ambush of triangulated gunfire involving at least three and probably five shooting positions. There were shooters from the front and rear and both sides in a matrix. There is evidence of a shooter from the window on the other side of the TSBD from the “Oswald window” on the fifth rather than 6th floor. There were shooters from the Daltex building both on the roof, and a lower sniper on a fire escape latter. So there WERE shooters from the rear. All such events are based on contingency, there are always glitches in the best laid plans. There were shooters from the grassy knoll area to the right of the limousine and shooters from the front nearer the triple overpass (Elm), one on the northwest side at the and one at the southwest side just above Commerce Street. it was the sniper at the last position that made the head shot. Both Kennedy and Connally were hit from behind and Connally from the side as well. JFK in the back, likely from the shooter on the fire escape on the Daltex Bldg due to the angle of entry. The shooter on the fifth floor of the TSBD likely hit Connally in the back/armpit. A shooter from the grassy knoll likely hit Connally in his right wrist.
    Finally the first hit to Kennedy was in the throat by a flechette fired from within an open umbrella from the curb just to the right of the FWY sign on Elm, when the limo was about 30 to 40 feet from that spot. This flechette was tipped with shellfish toxin, which paralyzes the victim.
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    “If the sixth floor window was staged, why were the hulls subsequently moved along with the boxes in the window?”~Hayes [Amazon]
    . . . . . .

    > Obviously the staging of the “snipers nest” was time sensitive and had to be staged just before the motorcade arrived. It was likely set up by one or two employees of the TSBD. The subsequent discovery may not have been successfully carried out by the party or parties meant to find the snipers nest. At this point after the shots were fired and the limo had left the scene, the ensuing confusion and panic would necessitate playing it by the ear as things developed. Fritz picking up the bullet hulls and pocketing them may have very well been simple stupidity. There may have been other motives; perhaps it was realized that more hits had been scored than planned and there was to be an attempt to add a shell to the “nest” scene. More than likely just allowing the scene to be overrun by the scores of people that ended up there was enough to satisfy the intent to provide a confusion of contradictory evidence that would benefit the planners.
    . . . . .
    \\][//

    • Photon says:

      Well, that about ends the credibility of Mr. Whitten.Everybody and his brother are shooting at JFK and manage only one fatal head shoot. And preceding this exhibition of marksmanship incompetence we have somebody shooting a flechette tipped with shellfish toxin ( tetrodotoxin ?) to paralyze the target, when any rational assassination attempt using a poison-coated instrument would be an attempt to KILL the victim. Why go through all of the trouble of inventing a disappearing dart just to immobilize someone?
      This seems so wild I wonder if Mr. Whitten might be a disinformation agent after all.

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Willy Whitten
      June 15, 2016 at 12:44 pm

      “Finally the first hit to Kennedy was in the throat by a flechette fired from within an open umbrella from the curb just to the right of the FWY sign on Elm, when the limo was about 30 to 40 feet from that spot. This flechette was tipped with shellfish toxin, which paralyzes the victim.”

      So Willy, did they find this flechette? If they didn’t find it how did they know it was tipped with “shellfish toxin”? Actually I’ve had some experience with flechettes in the 152mm anti personnel round for the Sheridan “tank” we used. Very wicked.

      • The answers to all of these questions and the analysis of the evidence must begin historically with the development of the weapon system itself. There is no better way to describe it than to hear about it from ex-CIA directors William Colby and Richard Helms and weapon developer Charles Senseney. Here is their testimony before the Church Committee on September 16 to 18, 1975, as published in Volume One (1976) of that Committee’s final report, under the title, “Unauthorized Storage of Toxic Agents.”
        . . . .

        Church: Have you brought with you some of those devices which would have enabled the CIA to use this poison for killing people?

        Colby: We have indeed.

        Church: Does this pistol fire the dart?

        Colby: Yes it does, Mr. Chairman. The round thing at the top is obviously the sight; the rest of it is what is practically a normal .45, although it is a special. However, it works by electricity. There is a battery in the handle, and it fires a small dart. [Self-propelled, like a rocket.]

        Church: So that when it fires, it fires silently?

        Colby: Almost silently; yes.

        Church: What range does it have?

        Colby: One hundred meters, I believe; about 100 yards, 100 meters.

        Church: About 100 meters range?

        Colby: Yes.

        Church: And the dart itself, when it strikes the target, does the target know that he has been hit and [is] about to die?

        Colby: That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used. There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.

        Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

        Colby: Well there was an attempt–

        Church: Or the dart?

        Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

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

        \\][//

      • “So Willy, did they find this flechette?”~Bill Clarke

        No they dissolve and the toxin cannot be traced in the bloodstream. That is what makes them the perfect assassination weapon.

        Of course, the head shot was for dramatic effect. If all they wanted to do was kill Kennedy that could have been done subtly and without fanfare.
        \\][//

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Willy Whitten
          June 15, 2016 at 8:43 pm

          “So Willy, did they find this flechette?”~Bill Clarke

          “No they dissolve and the toxin cannot be traced in the bloodstream. That is what makes them the perfect assassination weapon.”

          I don’t want to be a pest here Willy but the flechettes I used were metal and did not dissolve. So you see why I am confused here; I don’t understand how they dissolve.

          • Oh, I forgot Bill, only the stuff you know about personally actually really exists.
            Well then, uh.

            Don’t read the link I gave to the Church Committee hearings testimony. They never happened, you weren’t there to verify. So nothin’ to see there folks.
            \\][//

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Willy Whitten
            June 16, 2016 at 6:45 am

            “Oh, I forgot Bill, only the stuff you know about personally actually really exists.
            Well then, uh.”

            Of course not Willy. But having some experience beats the hell out of buying the BS of Fletcher Prouty in your second reference.

            “Don’t read the link I gave to the Church Committee hearings testimony. They never happened, you weren’t there to verify. So nothin’ to see there folks.”

            I believe I have read all the pertinent pages in the two references you gave. No where did I read anyone explain why or how this “flechette” “dissolves. You have a reference for that?

            I didn’t realize they were talking about a missile that was self propelled on a solid-state fuel. Seems this would make the projectile more of a rocket than a fleshette. What say ye?

          • Photon says:

            Bill, the problem is that Willy bought into a crazy claim made years ago that the Umbrella Man was some mysterious figure who either signaled the assassins to commence fire or immobilized JFK for the assassins-never mind that he was identified and admitted that he was making a statement equating JFK with Neville Chamberlain . Why the assassins would need somebody to tell them when to take a shot, or need somebody to immobilize a target when that has never been necessary in the history of sniping is never made clear. Probably because they are two of the most idiotic claims ever made by the CT community in an attempt to make something out of nothing.
            Willy can’t explain the ” disappearing flechette” problem probably because he never knew that they were made out of metal. I suspect that JFK’s blood pH was 7.4, making it highly unlikely that his blood or tissue would be able to dissolve metal. I am reasonably certain that JFK didn’t have a blast furnace in his neck that could melt a metal flechette , let alone a means to remove the melted residual material.
            As I said, his post marks the end of what ever credibility he may have had-although I am sure that some CT excuse will pop up claiming that the CIA used invisible weapons.
            Occam’s Razor .

          • Gerry Simone says:

            Bill, the problem is that Willy bought into a crazy claim made years ago that the Umbrella Man was some mysterious figure who either signaled the assassins to commence fire or immobilized JFK for the assassins-never mind that he was identified and admitted that he was making a statement equating JFK with Neville Chamberlain … etc.

            – Photon

            It seems that the person who voluntarily claimed to be Umbrella Man, and his explanation therefor, seems to be a stretch as demonstrated by this excellent article by Russ Baker.

            http://whowhatwhy.org/2011/12/05/jfk-umbrella-man-more-doubts/

            Occam’s Razor.

          • It seems that the person who voluntarily claimed to be Umbrella Man, and his explanation therefor, seems to be a stretch as demonstrated by this excellent article by Russ Baker.

            Baker, I’m afraid, is a crackpot.

            He is one of the “Bush didn’t know where he was when Kennedy was shot” people.

            His essay says this:

            According to John Simkin, a retired British history teacher and textbook author who runs the historical website Spartacus Educational, the umbrella was never the symbol of Chamberlain that the “umbrella man” claimed it was.

            Simkin is simply wrong. Here is a British editorial cartoon from the late 30s:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/umbrella.gif

          • Gerry Simone says:

            @ McAdams

            Baker’s no crackpot. Chamberlain waived the treaty paper, not the umbrella.

            The guy who alleged to be Umbrella Man was too young to read or understand that cartoon (is that the only source?)

            Who was his dark-complected buddy that he was chummy with?

            In any event, I must read the transcript posted by Tom. According to the interview of Tanenbaum by DiEugenio, it seems that Lane might have embellished. (I must also check the forward to Last Word). But Tanenbaum at least got Phillips to perjure himself.

      • Photon says:

        I remember reading an article in “True” or “Argosy” about early 1965 that talked up the SPIW which was supposed to take over from the M14 ( the AR-15 still not popular at the time). It fired flechettes and had a large magazine but it never took off after millions spent on development. I think that the flechette concept was much more successful as a anti-personnel device as Bill stated-good to know that that POS Sheridan was actually useful for something. The Marines used flachettes to great advantage in a 106 mm recoilless rifle round fired by the weirdest ( but maybe pound for pound the most useful) vehicle used in Vietnam-the Ontos. It was supposed to be an air-dropped anti-tank weapon, but would never have survived that mission. Instead, as they do the Marines adapted the unwanted stepchild as a close infantry support weapon that could lay down immediate massive fire support-once. After that the crew had to get out and reload the six rifle tubes for the next volley-a little hairy under fire. A few thousand flechettes usually were enough to break up a human wave attack.
        But as an individual round fired by an infantryman? The flechette never made it. By the time I started working with Marines the Ontos was long gone and close fire support had gone on the back burner- as we found to our detriment in dealing with rounds coming out of the Shouf.

      • “Willy can’t explain the ” disappearing flechette” problem probably because he never knew that they were made out of metal.”Photon

        It says nowhere in the testimony that the dart was made out of metal. If the object was to be undetectable in an autopsy (and it was), the dart would naturally be made of a substance other than metal.

        “Colby: That depends, Mr. Chairman, on the particular dart used. There are different kinds of these flechettes that were used in various weapons systems, and a special one was developed which potentially would be able to enter the target without perception.

        Church: Is it not true, too, that the effort not only involved designing a gun that could strike at a human target without knowledge of the person who had been struck, but also the toxin itself would not appear in the autopsy?

        Colby: Well there was an attempt–

        Church: Or the dart?

        Colby: Yes; so there was no way of perceiving that the target was hit.

        \\][//

        • Ronnie Wayne says:

          Willy, I think Photon is baiting you here on talking about the flechette. It’s a subject I think many find too incredible or James Bondish for the time. First to be not detectable in an thorough autopsy it would have to be a minuscule needle to not leave a bruise or drop of blood. I’,m not saying the CIA of 1963 would not or could not develop something similar, but, unless it was a proven very effective dependable weapon the use of it in assassinating the POTUS is questionable to me. I mean it was supposed to have been fired out of an arm of the umbrella. How do you aim it accurately?
          That Umbrella man, sitting next to radioman where they were, pumped the umbrella for more shots because it was not evident for sure to him that JFK was dead yet is much more plausible to me. The story of the guy who finally came forward with the Churchill protest is a bit questionable I’ve read “somewhere”. I’ll look for a link.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Sorry, UM & RM Sat AFTER the Assassination. They were standing during it. They then walked away into history.

            For a good “old” discussion of Umbrella Man”

            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=2783

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            And, it was Neville, not Churchill.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Ronnie Wayne
            June 16, 2016 at 10:37 pm

            “First to be not detectable in an thorough autopsy it would have to be a minuscule needle to not leave a bruise or drop of blood.”

            “I mean it was supposed to have been fired out of an arm of the umbrella. How do you aim it accurately?”

            I think so too Ronnie. Besides the question of aiming as you mention there is a question of accuracy. If the missile was indeed a very light weight “minuscule needle” (and I think it would have to be too) the least breeze would have blown it to Fort Worth.

          • Photon says:

            What is the Umbrella Man Flechette scenario anything but a (planned) deception?
            Why would a trained sniper ever want to take his eyes off of a target prior to being sure that it was neutralized?

        • Photon says:

          Gee Willy, why not just claim that JFK was shot with a hand phaser?

  22. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Here’s Tink Thompson on Umbrella Man.

    http://www.nytimes.com/video/opinion/100000001183275/the-umbrella-man.html

    BTW, experienced Dr. Malcom Perry did not identify a feschette wound on 11/22/63 but a bullet entry wound.

    • Thank you Ronnie,

      I happen to disagree with Thompson on this issue.

      Dr. Malcom Perry identified the entrance wound of a missile, it could have been a flechette as well as a bullet.
      \\][//

  23. Randy Lombard says:

    Willy, first of all, in your first paragraph you declare how JFK was murdered. With no equivocation or qualifiers. You don’t say you’re speculating, you come right out and declare what happened without any corroborative links. Thank you for solving it! Guess we can all rest easy and call it a day!

    With the exception of “Finally the first hit to Kennedy was in the throat by a flechette fired from within an open umbrella from the curb just to the right of the FWY sign on Elm, when the limo was about 30 to 40 feet from that spot. This flechette was tipped with shellfish toxin, which paralyzes the victim,” you were doing pretty good.

    I don’t agree with all of your theories, but you at least were keeping it plausible. Despite the lack of corroborative links, which IMO distinguishes a serious researchers from a jejune Hobbyists.

    IMO the flechette theory is as looney as the theories that Hickey, Greer or Jackie shot JFK. (See below for links.) Why would JFK need to be immobilized? He as a sitting duck already. I cringe whenever I read or hear such outlying theories. In fact, I think it does a the investigation a serious disservice by playing right into the Lone Nutters hands and helps them classify all CTers as card carrying tinfoil hat wearers.

    As a veteran with a great deal of firearms experience, I agree with Bill Clarke, and as much as it pains me to say it, I agree with Photon on this issue as well.

    http://www.patspeer.com/the-smoking-gun-that-lied

    http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/palamara/greer.html

    https://johnkimber.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/cia-agent-jackie-killed-jfk/

    • “I don’t agree with all of your theories, but you at least were keeping it plausible. Despite the lack of corroborative links, which IMO distinguishes a serious researchers from a jejune Hobbyists.” ~Randy Lombard

      This Mr Lombard is a corroborative link, complete with testimony from the Church Committee Hearings:

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

      Let me also say here Mr Lombard, that it is OBVIOUS that each of us here are expressing our opinions.
      To expect the redundant phrase, “It is only my opinion” in each and every post is in itself jejune.

      I respect your right to your own opinions as expressed in the summation of your comment to me. I don’t agree with such, but if you want to parse the distinctions between the flechette proposition and “theories that Hickey, Greer or Jackie shot JFK,” be my guest.

      I am well aware of the urge for “consensus” among a great deal of researchers. I think that such demands for conformity are misplaced.
      In the first place, to the general public, ANY proposals to “Conspiracy Theories” are met with derision. They see all such theories as of equal merit. So JFK researchers are regularly bunched together with ‘Moon landing hoaxers”, “Elvis sightings”, and “UFO believers”

      I would advise you place your concerns towards the mainstream Public Relations Regime and the illegitimate syndicate squatting in DC, rather than splitting hairs with researchers with opinions that are an affront to your emotional sensitivities.
      \\][//

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