Rob Tannenbaum’s ‘spellbinding’ presentation on the HSCA’s thwarted JFK investigation 

We were trying to investigate like we would any other murder case,” Tannenbaum said, but added it was not possible to do so. He cited examples of evidence that disappeared, a CIA agent providing false testimony, and numerous other examples of improprieties which led him to believe that the “search for truth” in the case was going nowhere.

Source: Spellbinding presentation at Mystery Writers fest | KeysNews.com

216 comments

  1. Matt says:

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oUZG4Ki0DTA

    The above link is to a video of Tannenbaum speaking at the Wecht Conference a few years back. Very interesting…in particular, watch for Tannenbaum’s chilling account of David Atlee Phillips’s perjury before the HSCA.

    • Tom S. says:

      Matt, the video seems to defeat McAdams’s predictable tactic.:

      http://jfkfacts.org/five-jfk-theories-u-s-presidents/#comment-882251
      John McAdams 2016/06/15 at 8:44 pm

      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.

      • Matt says:

        I know, right?!? Good ol’ J. Edgar Hoover…

      • Matt, the video seems to defeat McAdams’s predictable tactic.:

        How?

        I saw that at Wechtfest. I never said it never happened, but I did say that if it did happen Phillips was not lying, and that Tanenbaum is a fanatic.

        Further, all the HSCA testimony you linked shows Phillips being fully cooperative.

        And why do you think Tanenbaum is a reliable witness?

        • sgt_doom says:

          Tannenbaum a fanatic? I linked to facts about the JFK assassination awhile back (on the zerohedge.com site) and McAdams replies that it has nothing to do with the assassination!

          Clearly, academia has not been good for McAdams’ brain.

          I know Mr. Tannenbaum is a reliable witness because he has been a most reliable prosecutor in several municipal localities, etc.

          Why does anyone bother to even acknowledge McAdam’s existence?

          • You have not been following the discussion.

            Not only are there no documents supporting what Tanenbaum claimed happened with the HSCA, interviews in the 1990s flatly contradict what he has been saying since.

      • Jean Davison says:

        Wow, Tanenbaum and his supporters treating J. Edgar Hoover of all people as an unimpeachable source — how ironic is that? In the video Tanenbaum read the memo and instantly concluded Phillips committed perjury, end of story.

        I can’t seem to find a record of this dramatic confrontation, not even an account from Tanenbaum himself until years later. If I overlooked it please let me know.

        • “Wow, Tanenbaum and his supporters treating J. Edgar Hoover of all people as an unimpeachable source — how ironic is that?”~Jean Davison

          It is not ironic at all Jean, no more than quoting the contradictory content of the Warren Commission itself.

          How does one illustrate lies, other than comparing contradictory statements that prove the lies and liars?
          \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          In this 1998 Probe interview, Tanenbaum’s story was different.

          QUOTE:

          BT (Tanenbaum): …… This document was a memo to all FBI supervisorial staff stating, in substance, that FBI agents who have questioned Oswald … can state unequivocally that the voice on the tape is not the voice of Lee Harvey Oswald, who is in custody.

          JD [DiEugenio]: Did you have this document while you were questioning Phillips?

          BT [Tanenbaum]: No. It was a whole separate sequence of events that occurred. But, I wanted to get him back before the Committee so we could confront him with this evidence, because we were in a position to demonstrate that that whole aspect of the Warren Report, and what he had testified to, was untrue. And of course, the Committee was not interested in doing that.
          UNQUOTE

          https://web.archive.org/web/20070702092119/http://www.ctka.net/pr796-bti.html

          Maybe this explains why there’s no record of that scene where Phillips pockets the memo and walks out?

          • “Maybe this explains why there’s no record of that scene where Phillips pockets the memo and walks out?”~Jean Davison

            Maybe it’s because it was a later incident, Tanenbaum stayed until Blakey came in.

            The problem with his story was, we had obtained a document, it was from the desk of J. Edgar Hoover, it was dated November 23rd, 1963, the very next day after the assassination. This document was a memo to all FBI supervisorial staff stating, in substance, that FBI agents who have questioned Oswald for the past 17 hours approximately, have listened to the tape made on October 1st, by an individual identifying himself as Lee Henry Oswald inside the Russian Embassy, calling on the phone to someone inside the Cuban Embassy and the agents can state unequivocally that the voice on the tape is not the voice of Lee Harvey Oswald, who is in custody.

            JD: Did you have this document while you were questioning Phillips?
            . . . . .
            BT: “No. It was a whole separate sequence of events that occurred. But, I wanted to get him back before the Committee so we could confront him with this evidence, because we were in a position to demonstrate that that whole aspect of the Warren Report, and what he had testified to, was untrue. And of course, the Committee was not interested in doing that.”
            . . . .
            JD: How long did you stay on after Sprague left?

            BT: Until about mid-summer I guess. About three months.
            \\][//

          • Maybe it’s because it was a later incident, Tanenbaum stayed until Blakey came in.

            So there was a dramatic later incident, where Phillips took a document and walked out in a huff, and Tannenbaum didn’t bother to mention it to DiEugenio.

            He only mentioned a bland interview where not much happened.

          • McAdams,

            Tanenbaum says right in that interview:

            BT: “No. It was a whole separate sequence of events that occurred…”

            It is obvious it was a separate event AFTER the one he spoke of to DiEugenio.
            DiEugenio should have gone back to the point and clarified when, where and what that event was. But hind sight is always superior to the moment.
            Now, you Warrenistas are taking the opportunity to frame Tanenbaum as a liar, when it is as clear as an azure lake in spring that Philips was the liar, a skilled and trained liar, just like Allen Dulles, and Helms, Angleton, and the rest of those pathological thugs that ran and run CIA.
            \\][//

          • It is obvious it was a separate event AFTER the one he spoke of to DiEugenio.

            But that contradicts what Tannenbaum said. He said he wanted to follow up, but the Committee did not.

            Now, you Warrenistas are taking the opportunity to frame Tanenbaum as a liar, when it is as clear as an azure lake in spring that Philips was the liar, a skilled and trained liar, just like Allen Dulles, and Helms, Angleton, and the rest of those pathological thugs that ran and run CIA.

            It’s all about whom you hate, isn’t it? Never mind the evidence.

          • Larry Schnapf says:

            Bob Tanenbaum does not regularly use email so no one should infer any meaning to a lack of response by him from anyone in this thread who have attempted to contact him about this issue. I do speak to Bob regularly. I will share the comments of Prof. McAdams, Photon and Jean Davidson and provide you with his response.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Thank you for doing this Larry.

        • Bogman says:

          Uh, I think Phillips walked out of the hearing. He could’ve refuted it in detail if he so chose.

          • There is no evidence he walked out of any hearing. See Jean’s post about how Tannenbaum’s story has changed.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Uh, I think Phillips walked out of the hearing. He could’ve refuted it in detail if he so chose.”

            That’s not what Tanenbaum told DiEugenio in 1998. He said he didn’t have the document when he questioned Phillips and,
            “I wanted to get him back before the Committee so we could confront him with this evidence…. And of course, the Committee was not interested in doing that.”

            In addition, no one seems to be able to find any record of a hearing in which Phillips “walked out.”

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Irregardless of whether his walking out can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he committed perjury and got away with it.
            Per Gaeton Fonzi in The Last Investigation.
            He lied to his own government, ‘as a servant of it’ just as Dulles told his fellow Warren Omissioner’s an agent would.

          • Photon says:

            Tanenbaum’s claim should be seen for what it was -an unsubstantiated accusation from a bitter CTer who got kicked off of a Committee largely composed of other CTers. It is the same old ” the CIA did it because they hated JFK ” nonsense that requires regular embellishments by its partisans because there is no real physical whatsoever that the theory has any merit. So the CIA didn’t want to reveal sensitive intelligence sources that could be compromised simply by the revelation that they existed? The Warren investigation destroyed the most effective source of intelligence in regards to Cuban diplomatic activities outside the Soviet Bloc. Instead of ascribing ulterior motives for trying to restrict the release of information CTers should contemplate the National Security risks of release of information that by all previous accounts has had absolutely nothing to do with the assassination during the height of the Cold War . Perhaps if they would just look at the times that these investigations took place they could see that other issues were present.

          • “Tanenbaum’s claim should be seen for what it was -an unsubstantiated accusation from a bitter CTer who got kicked off of a Committee largely composed of other CTers.”

            Photon’s claim above should be seen for what it is, a bald faced lie, as it is known that Tanenbaum quit the committee, and not “kicked off”.
            \\][//

          • “CTers should contemplate the National Security risks of release of information that by all previous accounts has had absolutely nothing to do with the assassination during the height of the Cold War.”~Photon

            The damned shame of it is I know you are serious.

            Anyone sane knows that the claim, “National Security” is and has been a mantra to hide the egregious crimes of agents of the state for more than 60 years. The denials are not even plausible anymore.
            \\][//

          • Irregardless of whether his walking out can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt he committed perjury and got away with it.

            And your evidence is?

            Fonzi is not reliable.

            He fell for this nonsense:

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/bogus.htm#fonzi

            He also claimed that the CIA had penetrated the Garrison investigation with multiple agents. But he had no evidence of that, and the evidence is clearly that the CIA did not.

          • pat speer says:

            Y’know Photon, I’m hoping you’re right for a change. The thought you’re making this up is just too nauseating. You wrote: “The Warren investigation destroyed the most effective source of intelligence in regards to Cuban diplomatic activities outside the Soviet Bloc.” What in blazes are you talking about? The camera outside the embassy everyone knew about?

          • Bogman says:

            “Instead of ascribing ulterior motives for trying to restrict the release of information CTers should contemplate the National Security risks of release of information that by all previous accounts has had absolutely nothing to do with the assassination during the height of the Cold War.”

            Cold War’s been over for awhile there, Photon. Why can’t the CIA explain why they used Joannides to stonewall Hardway and other investigators?

          • Bogman says:

            “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.”

            Your position on the Oswald tapes wasn’t shared by Phillips with his dramatic reaction to the memo.

            Tanenbaum soon resigned the HSCA in disgust.

            If you’d like to hear the story from Mr. Tanenbaum himself, go here: http://www.c-span.org/video/?315655-3/kennedy-assassination-conspiracy-theories-robert-tanenbaum-james-lesar

          • Bogman says:

            To add from Tanenbaum:

            “I immediately urged the committee to recall Phillips and advise him to obtain legal counsel so that he be given an opportunity to purge potential criminal charges of contempt and perjury. Also, there were many more questions that he needed to answer. I further advised the committee of the urgency of the matter and gave them legal options. They chose to do nothing.”

            Maybe we can get the CIA in a court of law and have this all straightened out.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Your position on the Oswald tapes wasn’t shared by Phillips with his dramatic reaction to the memo.”

            But how do you know that this “dramatic reaction” actually happened? That’s not the same story Tanenbaum told Probe or the ARRB in the 1990s. Aside from his revised version years later, what evidence is there that this confrontation happened?

            Here’s a pdf of Phillips’ 11/27/76 testimony to Sprague’s HSCA. On the first page Tanenbaum’s name is not listed as one of the people present.

            http://aarclibrary.org/publib/jfk/hsca/secclass/pdf/Phillips_11-27-76.pdf

            Does anyone know when this story of Phillips walking out first appeared? Has anybody else on the HSCA ever confirmed it? Is it documented anywhere?

            I’ve been burned too many times to believe anything anybody says about anything until I’ve checked it out. “Try before you buy.”

          • Your position on the Oswald tapes wasn’t shared by Phillips with his dramatic reaction to the memo.

            You haven’t been following the discussion, have you?

            Tannenbaum claimed the confrontation happened before an executive session of the HSCA.

            But transcripts of those sessions exist, and show no such thing.

            Tannenbaum was apparently lying.

          • Jean Davison says:

            I doubt this dramatic confrontation took place but it occurred to me that Tanenbaum may not be consciously lying. People’s memories do change and can change dramatically, according to researchers who’ve studied memory.

            Tanenbaum’s book Corruption of Blood is a fictionalized account of his time on the HSCA. The book says that after the Hoover memo turned up the Phillips character was recalled to testify and, “Then occurred the oddest thing that has ever happened to Karp [Tanenbaum] in the course of questioning witnesses. [Phillips] said, ‘I don’t care to answer any more questions.’ Then he rose, turned, and walked out of the room.”

            Searchable in Google Books:

            https://books.google.com/books?id=Lj7a4o98_LYC&printsec=frontcover&dq=tanenbaum+%22corruption+of+blood%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKwueU67PNAhURTFIKHQ2SDt8Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=hoover%20&f=false

            Memory researchers talk about something called “source monitoring,” which is apparently an unconscious process by which we determine where something that pops into our minds originated — is it something we experienced, heard or read about, imagined, or something else? Most people don’t ordinarily have a problem with that, although it can become more likely as we get older.

            Did Tanenbaum maybe simply misremember what actually happened, getting it confused with something he’d written years before? I throw this out as a possibility.

            One reason I think this may have happened is that I can find no record of Tanenbaum ever telling this story prior to about 2011, although I could’ve overlooked something.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-monitoring_error

            There are many “scholarly articles” on this topic online also.

          • Photon says:

            Yes, Tanenbaum is obviously lying about Phillips walking out For days we have requested evidence for this claim ( which should have been witnessed by other individuals, none of whom confirm Tanabaum’s claim). We should have transcripts confirming Tanenbaum’s claim. None exist. We have seen CTers twist themselves into pretzels trying to come up with a scenario , a secret meeting, an unknown episode after Phillips’ initial(?) testimony -anything that could possibly give credence to Tanenbaum. Nothing has.
            The blind faith that some CTers have in his ” walked out” myth reflects not logical thinking, but conclusions made that the CIA was responsible for killing JFK.Anything that supports that conclusion must be right, even if the author of a statement makes something up.
            I go back to something that I have posted several times-if someone makes things up , how can believe anything that they say?
            Tanenbaum writes novels.

          • Photon says:

            Pat, I’m not mentioning the camera outside the Cuban embassy that “everybody knew about”-which despite your assumption not everybody entering the embassy was aware of. I am referring to what was inside the embassy. Read between the lines.

          • “But transcripts of those sessions exist, and show no such thing.”~McAdams

            Do they? All of them? After the committee was defunded, and they couldn’t even make long distant telephone calls? There are many precedents for no stenographers or recordings being made.
            The interrogation of Oswald for close to 12 hours with not a jot or tittle of his verbatim testimony is well to keep in mind.

            For you to assert, that “apparently Tanenbaum was lying” is just more of your bias emerging like swill from a backed-up toilet.
            \\][//

          • “We were trying to investigate like we would any other murder case,” Tannenbaum said, but added it was not possible to do so. He cited examples of evidence that disappeared, a CIA agent providing false testimony, and numerous other examples of improprieties which led him to believe that the “search for truth” in the case was going nowhere.”

            Why would anyone presume that the transcript of the session with Philips would NOT disappear once Tannenbaum had left the committee?
            It is just the type of damning evidence that WOULD disappear under the circumstances described by every member doing investigation for the HCSA.
            \\][//

          • I doubt this dramatic confrontation took place but it occurred to me that Tanenbaum may not be consciously lying.

            You could well be right about this.

            I often tell my students that it’s sometimes difficult to know who is lying, memory being what it is.

            It’s a bit easier to say who is unreliable.

          • J.D. says:

            Photon writes: “I go back to something that I have posted several times-if someone makes things up , how can believe anything that they say? Tanenbaum writes novels.”

            Is Photon trying to argue that nobody who writes any sort of fiction can be trusted to tell the truth at any time?

            If we accepted the validity of this absurdly high standard for truth-telling, we would also have to assume that David Atlee Phillips fails the test, since Phillips himself wrote a number of novels.

          • Tom S. says:

            J.D., get with the messaging; Hoover and FBI, Phillips and CIA were bumbling, stumbling a bit, all in all, sincere forthright patriots. Sprague inserted himself and hired Tanenbaum to afford both an opportunity to make false accusations against Hoover, FBI, Phillips, and CIA for the ensuing forty years, case closed!
            Nothing to see here, folks, return to your couches….go Golden State!

          • Jean Davison says:

            I’m surprised at you, Tom.

            “J.D., get with the messaging; Hoover and FBI, Phillips and CIA were bumbling, stumbling a bit, all in all, sincere forthright patriots.”

            Nobody said that. It has nothing to do with “patriotism.” Every human is fallible — Hoover, Phillips, Tanenbaum, even you and me.

            “Sprague inserted himself and hired Tanenbaum to afford both an opportunity to make false accusations against Hoover, FBI, Phillips, and CIA for the ensuing forty years, case closed!”

            Nobody said that, either.

            Can you explain the contradiction between Tanenbaum’s 1998 interview and this recent video? Have you found any support for his claim that he confronted Phillips with the Hoover memo and Phillips walked out of the room? Seems to me you’re the one who is saying, “Nothing to see here, folks.” And I don’t intend that to sound antagonistic, I’m just responding to what you wrote in your post.

          • Tom S. says:

            Jean, I was sarcastic in tone. Considering the evidence I continue to believe my sarcasm is reasonable.

            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenMinuteGap_Update/FourteenMinuteGap_Update.htm
            ……
            most likely the belt was intentionally erased by the bar magnet included in most models of the magnetic belt machines but a small portion was missed [Cutting Corp. Memo of 1-21-99]. [emphasis added]

            This memo is dated January 21, 1999, more than a year before my first inquiries to the LBJ Library. Still, any truth-telling regarding the Kennedy assassination, however delayed, is a hopeful sign. Perhaps noted presidential historian Michael Beschloss will eventually be compelled to write about this erasure in a future edition of his multi-volume series of LBJ phone call transcripts. Strangely, the conversation in question appeared in the first volume, Taking Charge, without any comment about the fact that the magnetic belt holding this conversation is in fact silent (p. 22). The transcript presented in that book does not exactly match the transcript held in the files of the LBJ Library [see transcript], but the minor differences could be explained by Beschloss’ general editing policy. As disturbing as the lack of comment on the erasure is the proclamation in the second volume, Reaching for Glory, that LBJ Library staff were unaware of “any effort by Johnson or anyone else to tamper with them [the tapes]—with one exception,” a 1966 conversation with Abe Fortas which was destroyed on Johnson’s order (p. 430). Mr. Beschloss did not respond to two written queries on this topic….

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/russholmes/104-10423/104-10423-10195/html/104-10423-10195_0003a.htm

            In 1998, did not Tanenbaum separate his reply? Are you not interpreting what he meant, since his reply is reasonably open to interpretation, considering the way he parsed it?

            JD [DiEugenio]: Did you have this document while you were questioning Phillips?

            BT [Tanenbaum]: No. It was a whole separate sequence of events that occurred. But, I wanted to get him back before the Committee so we could confront him with this evidence, because we were in a position to demonstrate that that whole aspect of the Warren Report, and what he had testified to, was untrue. And of course, the Committee was not interested in doing that. UNQUOTE

            In the last few days, I read Tanenbaum’s response to the question of the details of his association with the investigation. He recalled that if he was remembering accurately, he began work under Sprague in the first week of December, 1976. The only transcripts I have located of Phillips testimony are on Saturday, 27 November, 1976, and in April, 1978. To your way of thinking, Jean, does that indicate Tanenbaum was never face to face with Phillips?

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Ha! Tom being sarcastic. I can almost always appreciate sarcasm myself.
            But as for case closed, what was the name of the Cleveland (Caviler’s, World Champions) mobster with the ranch in Arizona Tosh Plumlee claimed to have left from with the fake ID’s on the way to Dallas?
            There was something about Lee Bowers seeing dirty cars with out of state plates and Goldwater stickers.

          • Bogman says:

            I went straight to the source and emailed Tanenbaum from his website. Let’s see if he cares to comment.

          • Photon says:

            He probably won’t.He has been caught-and unless he has any documented evidence to support his position it would be pointless to respond-those with a logical approach to confirming his claims will never believe him without proof; the zealots who believe his claim don’t need any proof at all.

          • There is the visible government situated around the Mall in Washington, and then there is another, more shadowy, more indefinable government that is not explained in Civics 101 or observable to tourists at the White House or the Capitol. The former is traditional Washington partisan politics: the tip of the iceberg that a public watching C-SPAN sees daily and which is theoretically controllable via elections. The subsurface part of the iceberg I shall call the Deep State, which operates according to its own compass heading regardless of who is formally in power. [1]
            http://billmoyers.com/2014/02/21/anatomy-of-the-deep-state/

            “The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. …We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. …In almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons…who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind.”
            ― Edward L. Bernays, Propaganda (1928)

            \\][//

          • most likely the belt was intentionally erased by the bar magnet included in most models of the magnetic belt machines but a small portion was missed [Cutting Corp. Memo of 1-21-99]. [emphasis added]

            If there was some sinister purpose to erasing the belt, why was the transcript not destroyed too?

            It’s the transcript, remember, with the explosive “Oswald impostor” claim.

            Of course, one possibility is that something very embarrassing, but having nothing to do with the JFK assassination, was on the audio.

            Then this:

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/russholmes/104-10423/104-10423-10195/html/104-10423-10195_0003a.htm

            This just shows that the Agency wanted to keep LIENVOY secret.

            You think that’s sinister?

          • Jean Davison says:

            Tom,

            The first page of a document you quoted
            refers to a specific tape that survived — not Oswald’s but a phone conversation between the Cuban President Dorticos and the Cuban ambassador to Mexico. That one survived because it was recorded after the assassination.

            http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/cia/russholmes/104-10423/104-10423-10195/html/104-10423-10195_0003a.htm

            The WC final report didn’t mention that recording but Slawson and Coleman’s top secret internal report to the Commission did mention it. It also said that the two men read transcripts of Oswald’s phone calls in Mexico City. It didn’t say they heard a tape. (Yes, I know what they reportedly said many years later, but earlier records are usually more reliable.)

            “[Tanenbaum] recalled that if he was remembering accurately, he began work under Sprague in the first week of December, 1976. The only transcripts I have located of Phillips testimony are on Saturday, 27 November, 1976, and in April, 1978. To your way of thinking, Jean, does that indicate Tanenbaum was never face to face with Phillips?”

            The issue isn’t what it indicates to me but whether there’s any evidence to support his claim that he confronted Phillips with Hoover’s memo, whereupon Phillips walked out.

            When Sprague heard Phillips’ testimony on 11/27/1976 there was no such confrontation. So far as I can tell, Tanenbaum wasn’t there and he resigned before the new HSCA questioned Phillips again in 1978. Is this supposed to be a *third* appearance by DP that nobody else mentioned?

            In an executive session of March 9, 1977, the Hoover memo is referred to as a recent discovery (“…has just come to light”). Tanenbaum resigned that summer, I believe.

            In the video Tanenbaum says (c. 29 min.) that he questioned Phillip after he was sworn in before the committee with a stenographer present. So when did this supposedly take place? So far I’ve seen no evidence to support this claim and imo good reason to doubt it.

          • (Yes, I know what they reportedly said many years later, but earlier records are usually more reliable.) – Jean Davison

            QUESTION-
            Doctor, describe the entrance wound. You think from the front in the throat?
            DR. MALCOM PERRY-
            The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct. The exit wound, I don’t know. It could have been the head or there could have been a second wound of the head. There was not time to determine this at the particular instant.

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

          • The wound appeared to be an entrance wound in the front of the throat; yes, that is correct.

            And Perry is correct that it appeared to be an entrance wound.

            When he later said it could have been an entrance, that was true too.

          • Jean Davison says:

            Has anyone found evidence that the confrontation between Phillips and Tanenbaum described in this video actually happened?

            Bogman, I take it you didn’t get a reply to your email?

          • Bogman says:

            I did not, Leslie.

            I had sent a request for an answer that went through his publisher, so hard to say if it reached him.

            Perhaps if McAdams or Morley ask, they might get an answer.

          • Jean Davison says:

            It may not have reached him through his publisher, I agree. If someone does ask him directly and he stands by the story I hope he’ll indicate where to find a record of it.

            “And don’t call me Shirley.”
            –Leslie Nielsen

    • Tannenbaum’s chilling account of David Atlee Phillips’s perjury before the HSCA.

      Phillips was telling the truth about the tape being erased.

      You have been led down the garden path by conspiracy books.

      • Matt says:

        John,

        Whatever you think about the murder of Kennedy, it is a fact that the CIA was playing games with stories surrounding Harvey Oswald’s visit to Mexico City both before and after the assassination. When the FBI encountered the Mexico City stories, it was concerned enough with the wrinkles in these stories that there were conversations between Hoover, the Attorney General, and the President about it. These dilemmas appear to have been used to persuade Earl Warren to head the Warren Commision. I have not yet read an adequate response by Warren Commision supporters to the major document driven developments in the Mexico City aspects of the case.
        What Tannenbaum has to say with regard to Phillips and the Mexico City story is interesting regardless of whether or not he’s being melodramatic or “credible.” These days I find the HSCA inherently interesting warts and all. Tannenbaum’s story about Phillips is not the basis for my beliefs in this area of the case, so you and Jean can stop boring us with attacks on Tannenbaum.

        I’m still waiting for the openly hybrid lone gunman/conspiracy theorist. The Oswald-did-it-alone supporter that truly deals with the CIA/Mexico City affair as it understood with the latest research. Any chance you might be the man for the job?

        • Whatever you think about the murder of Kennedy, it is a fact that the CIA was playing games with stories surrounding Harvey Oswald’s visit to Mexico City both before and after the assassination. When the FBI encountered the Mexico City stories, it was concerned enough with the wrinkles in these stories that there were conversations between Hoover, the Attorney General, and the President about it. These dilemmas appear to have been used to persuade Earl Warren to head the Warren Commission.

          You need to explain what you are talking about.

          Vague claims about “playing games” won’t cut it.

          Explain what you have in mind.

          • There simply is no proof that Oswald owned or shot that Mannlicher Carcano on 11/22/1963.

            The Warren Commission Report is utter bunk.
            Allen Dulles was a skunk.
            Any fan of his is a punk.
            The Warren ship has long past sunk.
            An apt demise for that pile of junk.
            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            And to believe in a “disappearing flechette” you need to be drunk.

      • From ‘The Last Investigation’:

        “The Gold Coast article and subsequently the book, documented the frustrations and planted obstructions blocking staffers’ access to key witnesses and documents. Blocked by whom? To some extent by the Committee’s own Congressional members who, for political expediencies, had voted to form the committee but saw no residual political gain in being involved in a Kennedy assassination investigation. They wanted it ended as quickly as possible. These were the committee members who forced Chief Counsel Sprague out when he dared to confront the CIA’s power. And that’s why the new Chief Counsel, Robert Blakey, a former federal prosecutor, forthrightly told staffers at our first meeting: “We have two priorities: One is to get the report finished on deadline and the second is to do it within our budget.” Taken aback, I asked, “What about finding the truth about the Kennedy assassination?” Blakey’s reply: “Oh, sure, we’ll do that too.”

        We didn’t do that too. Instead the committee’s investigation was sabotaged at almost every important point along the way. And, for whatever assumptions that may come from it, the most disabling roadblocks were set up by the Central Intelligence Agency.”~Gaeton Fonzi

        http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/LastInvestigation.pdf

        \\][//

      • “Phillips was telling the truth about the tape being erased.”
        McAdams

        How is that possible? When we have the Hoover memo of his agents hearing the tape and saying it definitely was NOT Oswald’s voice on the the tape.
        \\][//

        • You just keep ignoring the evidence that’s been posted here multiple times.

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

          Bottom line: Alan Belmont talked to Gordon Shanklin early Saturday morning, and misunderstood what Shanklin said. But Belmont’s misunderstanding was put in memo form, and repeated several times on Saturday before being corrected.

        • One cannot determine the identity of the voice of a speaker by reading transcripts.

          Yes, this was information that got out of the bag, and was put back in by lies and deceit. That is what the Intelligence agencies do McAdams, THEY LIE. It is their professional profile.
          \\][//

        • Anonymous Contributor says:

          There is one way to resolve the question of whether or not FBI agents in Dallas were able to compare Oswald’s voice to that of the person in Mexico City who had claimed to be Oswald. Simply ask the agents whether they had listened to a recording of someone else’s voice. You might also ask the agents whether they had listened to a recording at all on the day after the assassination, and, if so, whether that recording was on a tape in Dallas or was relayed over a phone line from Mexico City.

          It appears that seven FBI agents had spoken to Oswald. The HSCA interviewed four of these agents (to be precise, there were three interviews and one ‘outside contact report’). Curiously, the HSCA Report tells us only that these four agents, “each of whom had conversed with Oswald at one time, informed the committee they had never listened to a recording of Oswald’s voice” (HSCA Report, p.250: https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800#relPageId=280).

          Of course, the question of whether or not the agents had listened to a recording of Oswald’s voice is neither here nor there. What is important is whether, on the day after the assassination, they had listened to a recording of someone pretending to be Oswald. The HSCA Report implies that either the agents had been asked the wrong questions, or that they had given the wrong answers.

          The interviews are listed in note 17 on p.641 (https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=800#relPageId=671):

          – interview of John Fain, June 25, 1978 (JFK Document 009973)
          – outside contact report with James P. Hosty (JFK Document 015035)
          – interview of Arnold J. Brown, December 20, 1978 (JFK Document 013922)
          – interview of B. Tom Carter, December 6, 1978 (JFK Document 013542)

          It would be interesting to examine these documents, to see exactly what questions were asked of the agents, and exactly what replies they gave. I’ve searched for them on the Mary Ferrell site, without success. Does anyone know if these documents are available online?

          • So you are saying that the agents said they had not heard any tapes of Oswald, but you think that leaves open the possibility that they had heard tapes of somebody besides Oswald, but just didn’t bother to mention that?

            The whole point is that they had listened to no “tapes” purporting to be Oswald, or anybody else.

          • Anonymous Contributor says:

            The whole point is that the wording of the HSCA Report does indeed leave open the possibility that one or more of the agents had listened to a recording of someone who was not Oswald.

            It may be that the wording is sloppy, and that all four agents had actually stated unambiguously that they had not listened to any recording from Mexico City on the day after the assassination. But it may be that the wording is deliberately evasive, and that the agents had been asked a very narrow and misleading question, such as “did you listen to a recording of Oswald’s voice?” Without access to the agents’ interviews, we don’t know what questions they were asked, nor what answers they gave.

      • John Rowell says:

        This conversation is all very interesting. However, in the end, it has no bearing on whether the tapes existed or not. In my opinion, that should be the focus. I have no problem believing that the ORIGINAL master tape was erased and recycled, just as Phillips and others have maintained. But it’s absurd to suggest that copies of items of interest were not retained, coupled with the corresponding portions of the transcripts, and distributed to the relevant analysts. To further suggest that the CIA was in the routine habit of destroying raw intelligence without the capability of revisiting said intelligence whenever necessary is equally absurd. At best it’s incompetent. If my logic is wrong, please enlighten me.

        • Photon says:

          What would have been the reason for maintaining tapes or information on Oswald? He was a nobody malcontent weeks before the assassination that nobody cared about; he wasn’t some plum espionage discovery that merited more intensive scrutiny. Why do you think aircraft black box recordings get recycled after certain periods?
          One of the main problems with intelligence work is separating the wheat from the chaff-or even determinating what is chaff. You must remember that this was a period before computerization of data, so what was considered extraneous information would be dumped ( after a decent interval) to make room for analysis of what was considered important. The consequence of this culture becomes apparent when one considers the greatest intelligence failure of the CIA-and possibly of the entire 20th Century-the total lack of awareness about the economic collapse of the Soviet Union and the effective collapse of the Warsaw Pact.
          The Agency ignored the ” little things” to focus on the ” sexy stuff”- armaments, invasions and headlines, not the facts that outside of Moscow and Leningrad the population’s living standards were poor.

          • John Rowell says:

            First, allow me a moment to point out that you didn’t contradict a single word I wrote. Illuminating, all by itself.

            Photon wrote: “What would have been the reason for maintaining tapes or information on Oswald? He was a nobody malcontent weeks before the assassination that nobody cared about; he wasn’t some plum espionage discovery that merited more intense scrutiny.”

            Oh really? The FBI seemed to disagree:

            http://jfkfacts.org/mexico-manhunt-asking-oswald-jfk-shot/#more-20557

            So did the CIA:

            http://jfkfacts.org/oct-10-1963-top-cia-officers-vouch-for-oswalds-maturity/

            I wonder if, in either one of these two investigations, ANYONE bothered to check to see if they were investigating the right person? You know, by comparing a couple of photos? Maybe listening to voice recordings? We know they existed.

            Furthermore, the FBI was going around asking all their contacts if they’d seen Oswald. Upon what basis would an interviewee answer the question? Were they provided a description of Oswald? An artist’s rendition? Or, more likely, … a photograph?

            Maybe it was this FBI investigation that determined that the CIA photos and voice recordings did not match the person we know as Lee Harvey Oswald.

          • I wonder if, in either one of these two investigations, ANYONE bothered to check to see if they were investigating the right person? You know, by comparing a couple of photos? Maybe listening to voice recordings? We know they existed.

            Actually, no we don’t.

            Frankly, the FBI document looks to show that FBI sources checked with all their contacts immediately after the assassination (in spite of “October” on the document).

            As for the CIA, in spite of Morley making a huge deal of it, we don’t know that this level of attention was any more than was routine.

          • John Rowell says:

            TO McAdams: In reference to recordings of Oswald’s voice possibly available to the FBI prior to the assassination I wrote : “We know they existed.” The statement is true, but I should have been more specific. In my mind, I was referring to the New Orleans radio interview.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo3/exhibits/stuck3.htm

            It is also true that I have no proof that the interview was ever part of any FBI file, though I wouldn’t be shocked to my shoes to find out that it was.

            While I am pointing out errors, you might be interested to find one of your own. The FBI document to you referred is below, and it does indeed display the date 11/23/63.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61098&search=peck#relPageId=2&tab=page

            BUT…it’s not the only document in the story, is it? This one is dated 11/4/63.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61081&search=peck#relPageId=2&tab=page

            There are others, but I won’t bore you.

          • BUT…it’s not the only document in the story, is it? This one is dated 11/4/63.

            https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=61081&search=peck#relPageId=2&tab=page

            There are others, but I won’t bore you.

            That’s interesting, but I’m not sure what your point is.

            An American visited the Cuban and Soviet embassies in Mexico City. There had been a history of people doing that who (for example) wanted to give secrets to the communists.

            So the CIA and the FBI want through the usual routine of trying to figure out what Oswald was up to.

            How does this suggest anything conspiratorial?

            And please remember how this got started.

            Somebody was claiming that of course MEXI would not erase the tapes. But I don’t see how that follows.

          • John Rowell says:

            To McAdams: I’m making a very simple point.

            What happened to the original master tape?

            You made the point about the “take” from the telephone surveillance operation being quite large. You are no doubt correct. Photon briefly mentioned the difficulty in separating “the wheat from the chaff.” I’m sure he’s right as well. I’d imagine, though, that an American visiting the Cuban consulate and Russian embassy to inquire about a visa would be closer to “wheat” than to “chaff.” Maybe you’re right that the measures undertaken were nothing more than routine.

            My point centers on these routine measures.

            There is no point in conducting a wiretap if you don’t retain the original recording. You can’t determine everything from a transcript. The routine would be to separate interesting bits and pieces and pair them with the transcripts and send BOTH of them to Washington. While I’m no expert on CIA and FBI procedures, I simply find it hard to believe that the raw intelligence would be destroyed without this having been done.

            With regards to the FBI response, once they had a name for the visitor, someone would have no doubt sent off for a file. This file would most likely have contained a photograph. Someone would have tried to figure out if the person who triggered the response is the same person as in the file. Otherwise, they’re incompetent.

            My point is, that in the course of these routine undertakings, it could have been determined whether or not it was the person we know today as Oswald who triggered the response.

            I do realize there’s a great deal of supposition here, but I don’t believe it’s unreasonable.

        • But it’s absurd to suggest that copies of items of interest were not retained, coupled with the corresponding portions of the transcripts, and distributed to the relevant analysts.

          I’m afraid your supposition is trumped by the actual evidence.

          And remember, the “take” from LIENVOY was quite large. And most of it was useless nonsense. Only much later did it become relevant what Lee Oswald said over the phone.

        • The Mexico City Tapes

          President Lyndon Johnson on the telephone.
          President Lyndon Johnson on the telephone.
          At 10 AM on the morning following the Kennedy assassination, President Lyndon Johnson and FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover discussed the state of the case over the telephone. In response to LBJ’s question about “the visit to the Soviet Embassy in September,” Hoover replied:
          “No, that’s one angle that’s very confusing, for this reason—we have up here the tape and the photograph of the man who was at the Soviet embassy, using Oswald’s name. That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.”
          This message was conveyed later the same day in writing, in a memo from Hoover to the White House and the Secret Service Chief. Did this amazing discovery of an Oswald imposter, caught on tapped phone lines, launch the greatest manhunt in history? No, instead within 48 hours the entire story had been buried. The tape of the Johnson-Hoover call quoted from above has itself been erased; only a contemporaneous transcript remains.

          https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/The_Mexico_City_Tapes.html

          \\][//

          • That picture and the tape do not correspond to this man’s voice, nor to his appearance. In other words, it appears that there is a second person who was at the Soviet embassy down there.

            So you think that Hoover had himself phoned Dallas, and been told this?

            That’s not how it works. Alan Belmont had phoned Dallas, thought Shanklin said that, and reported it up the line.

            All the reports of “tapes in Dallas” came, directly or indirectly, from Belmont.

          • Tom S. says:

            Can the details in the images below be discussed here, instead of in a “Comment of the week” intended to discuss:

            ….is even possible for a facts influenced discussion to develop, a discussion in which side driven sentiment is overwhelmed by what no participant in the discussion particularly relishes,…

            http://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-9/#comment-883082

          • John Rowell says:

            If we accept the explanation provided that the tapes didn’t exist at the relevant time, and the agents had only the transcripts to review, I have a simple question:

            Where the did the basic idea originate that the tapes don’t match Oswald?

            I don’t how one comes to that conclusion based on transcripts. What doesn’t match, Oswalds’s vernacular?

          • Where the did the basic idea originate that the tapes don’t match Oswald?

            I don’t how one comes to that conclusion based on transcripts. What doesn’t match, Oswalds’s vernacular?

            Simple. Belmont talked to Shanklin in Dallas. Shanklin told him that he had transcripts of tapes and photos, and the photos were not of Oswald.

            Belmont misunderstood, and thought he heard “tapes and photos not of Oswald.”

            Remember, the “tapes not of Oswald” began with Belmont.

            Two earlier documents that have been posted here a dozen times:

            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

            Mention transcripts and photos, but not tapes.

            One explicitly says the tapes have been erased.

            And these documents are from well before anybody could have felt the need for a “cover up” of “tapes not of Oswald.”

  2. Alan Dale says:

    “Every intelligence agency is plagued by volunteers; individuals who wish to become spies. Virtually all of them are useless for real intelligence work; unstable, maniacal, lazy or criminal types for the most part, but some of them can be used as pigeons; that is as false members of a spy network who can distract the attention of counterintelligence operatives and can be betrayed to them with misleading or damaging information in their heads. Lists are kept of such potential pigeons at foreign CIA stations, and a marine spouting Marxist propaganda at a top-secret radar base could not have escaped those who keep them.”

    Robert K. Tannenbaum, Corruption of Blood (1996)

    • Matt says:

      Alan, just this morning I sent a friend a link to your interview with Bill Simpich (when, I’m sure you recall, you deployed that Tannenbaum quote). Nice work!

    • The Pond: Running Agents for State, War, and the CIA

      “The Hazards of Private Spy Operations”
      ‘ . . . In accordance with this philosophy, the Pond spent most of its existence not as a government agency, but as a private sector organization, operating within real companies with names such as the Universal Service Corporation.3 This practice contributed substantially to obscurity and security. However, three successive government agencies found that having such an independent intelligence operation—and, worse yet, one run by a pugnacious, conspiratorial ideologue—was more trouble than it was worth, and the notion of having a truly secret intelligence organization never did catch on in the United States. . . .

      The CIA Takes Over
      ‘Though it is not clear whether the Army recommended Grombach to DCI Walter Bedell Smith or not, Grombach was soon propositioning the CIA, and State was soon preparing to hand off the Pond to a new sponsor, one from whom it had until recently been hiding the Pond’s very existence. Smith asked his deputy, Allen Dulles, to consider the Pond’s work and make a recommendation. Dulles turned the task over to Lyman Kirkpatrick, who ultimately recommended hiring the group, a recommendation he would later regret.47 The two sides turned to Adolf Berle, who by then had left the State Department to practice law.48 In late March 1951, Dulles, Kirkpatrick, Grombach, his deputy, and a State Department officer initialed an agreement in Berle’s office.49 . . .’
      — Mark Stout

      https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol48no3/article07.html

  3. Gee, Tannenbaum certainly had a lot of praise for Mark Lane. Of course what we get here from many “sides” is that Mark Lane was some sort of squamous coated serpent.

    This is a great talk by Tannenbaum. Don’t miss it!
    \\][//

  4. EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD KNOW

    The Central Intelligence Agency implicated itself in the 1963 murder of President Kennedy and its ongoing cover-up, according to experts who have spoken out recently.

    Former congressional investigator Robert Tanenbaum, right, said he and his boss quit the last official probe of JFK’s murder in 1978 because Congress was too frightened of the CIA’s power to permit a probe of the agency’s suspicious actions.

    Those actions included, he said, implicating Lee Harvey Oswald in a fictitious Communist plot against JFK. The CIA apparently concocted evidence in October 1963 that an Oswald imposter plotted with Soviet and Cuban embassy personnel in Mexico City to kill the president later in the year.

    Why?

    Tanenbaum — a former top prosecutor in New York City, two-term mayor of Beverly Hills and now a best-selling crime novelist — described why he and his boss, noted Philadelphia trial lawyer Richard Sprague, resigned from the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) in disgust at the cover-up of the nation’s most important murder of modern times.

    Today’s column – the ninth in our “JFK Murder Readers Guide” series – treats topics that should be part of any credible discussion of blame for Kennedy’s murder 50 years ago.

    I am not trying to assert detailed, final conclusions. Evidence of murder complicity by members of an organization does not mean guilt at the top, of course. Similarly, those engaged in cover-up are not necessarily the perpetrators of a crime.

    Those vital details are addressed in many official reports and some 2,000 books on the JFK murder, including more than a hundred in 2013 alone. Much work remains, most importantly regarding the serious implications for the Obama administration and today’s public that I chronicle in my new book, Presidential Puppetry: Obama, Romney and Their Masters.

    Instead of conclusions, I urge here only that readers who want seriously to consider the Warren Commission’s findings get familiar with the eight topics below. The headlines are in bold if you have time to read only the headlines and not the explanatory material.

    Meanwhile, the mainstream media and top government leaders typically duck each of these issues. They are thus able to remain almost entirely unified behind the Warren Commission’s findings, as evident in coverage of the murder’s 50th anniversary this fall.

    http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/599-jfk-s-murder-the-cia-8-things-every-american-should-know

    • This is also in the essay you cite:

      Another attendee was Judyth Vary Baker, who met Oswald when she was age 19 working at the Reily Coffee Company during the summer of 1963 in New Orleans. She was a supervisor’s secretary hired on the same day as Oswald, a maintenance man. She describes in Lee and Me that she became involved in a serious love affair with Oswald, then 23, and that she came to learn that the strange entries she was told to make falsifying his time cards were to hide what became his and her part-time work assisting experiments in an off-the-books secret cancer research lab.

      According to an account generally endorsed by Ventura, among others:

      The lab work, undertaken by her account in an apartment to keep it secret, was to develop a new kind of bio-weapon: a fast-acting cancer that could be used to remove Cuban leader Fidel Castro. Baker says she worked most closely with Dr. Mary Sherman, a respected bone cancer specialist at the Ochsner Clinic, and David Ferrie, a shady operative who ran their underground lab.

  5. Pat Speer says:

    I particularly like the part where that guy asks Tanenbaim about the HSCA pathology panel.

    • “I particularly like the part where that guy asks Tanenbaim about the HSCA pathology panel.”~Pat Speer

      Yes and Tanenbaum was responsible for bringing on Micheal Baden, who gave this revealing testimony to the HSCA:

      Testimony of Michael Baden, Head of the Medical Panel

      Mr. KLEIN: Whose clothing is that and where did it come from?

      Dr. BADEN: This is the clothing worn by President Kennedy at the time of the assassination and does show various perforations in the fabric that were of importance for the medical panel to evaluate. Present on the mannequin is the jacket and shirt and tie. The jacket and the clothing had been torn at Parkland Hospital by the examining physicians in the course of providing emergency care to the President .

      Mr. KLEIN: And with respect to the wounds to the President’s back, what did the panel learn from that clothing?

      Dr. BADEN: In the jacket and the underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that, the panel concluded, was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the President.
      This is correspondingly seen in the shirt beneath.

      [1 HSCA 196: http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/hsca/reportvols/vol1/pdf/HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf%5D

      \\][//

  6. Max says:

    If the story of how Tanenbaum & Sprague were thwarted from investigating the JFK case had ever gained traction in the mainstream press, like it should have, the JFK case would have been blown wide open.

  7. Brian Latell claims that the Warren Commission had no idea that Castro was involved in the assassination of JFK, when in fact the whole reason Warren agreed to taking the position of head of the commission because it could lead back to Castro and the Soviets, and if this were revealed the American people would demand that the US nuke the USSR and millions of Americans would parish in such a an event.

    In other words Latell is redirecting the listeners to the very first deception invented by LBJ and those who backed him; the perpetrators of the coup d’etat.

    Which leads to the perennial question, does one ever really retire from CIA?
    \\][//

    • And so, as we track through these plots, we will understand what is coming at the end: a very dark operation— the assassination of President John Kennedy. Many people in and out of the U.S. government believed then, as many do now, that the false scenario— of a Kennedy plot to overthrow Castro that was turned around by Fidel and used to assassinate President Kennedy— is true.”John Newman

      [Where Angels Tread Lightly]

      \\][//

  8. Where Angels Tread Lightly:

    This volume also contains eight appendices. Appendix One is a list of the CIA cryptonyms related to the Cuban story- many of these identifications are new.

    Appendix Two is a list of pseudonyms used by CIA officers, operatives, and sources- again, many of these are new.

    Appendices Three, Four, Five and Six are detailed proofs for the multiple pseudonyms used by Antony Sforza, Earl Williamson, E. Howard Hunt, and Al Cox, respectively. Appendix Seven contains some preliminary data on the CIA’s Psychological and Paramilitary Operations Staff (PP). Appendix Eight is a discussion about research methodologies that might be useful to researchers currently working on the case.

    Newman, John. Where Angels Tread Lightly: The Assassination of President Kennedy Volume 1 . . Kindle Edition.

    \\][//

  9. Ronnie Wayne says:

    The HSCA was conceived in good faith as a result of several books, the public showing of the Zapruder film, the Church Committee and distrust from in Government from Watergate and Vietnam among other things.
    With Sprague and Tannenbaum it started as a fact finding committee.
    When Hardway and Lopez started digging at the CIA they brought Joannides out of retirement. He stonewalled them and Blakey.
    Phillips lied to them. That’s part of why their files should be released. FREETHEFILES.

    Blakey has stated they were deceived by the CIA.
    Hardway’ recent statement is damning and demands answers.
    Fonzi’s research for the HSCA and book are Historical Documentation as a primary source.
    As well as the contributions of many others the running off of Tannenbaum and Sprague convince me the HSCA was in FACT stonewalled by the CIA.

    Why did Joannidies have a residence in New Orleans in the summer of 63 when he was assigned to Miami?
    Why did the CIA bring him out of retirement for the HSCA, not reveal his prior importance, and since refuse to allow us, the US Public any information about him in spite of the ARRB ans Jeff’s suit?

  10. Ronnie Wayne says:

    I know the information on Spartacus is dated.
    This is interesting though. Note # 3. “he sensed from the start he might be up against the CIA and FBI so he carefully screened his lawyers, researchers and other personnel to prevent intelligence penetration of the staff.” “However, some personnel was “handed to him” by both Gonzalez and Downing.”

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

  11. sgt_doom says:

    I especially liked this string of coments:

    When asked “whodunit,” Tanenbaum answered that there was no evidence linking President Lyndon Johnson, Cuban President Fidel Castro, or organized crime to the president’s murder. However, he said there is evidence to support the theory that “rogue elements in the CIA,” upset by Kennedy’s handling of the Bay of Pigs, had something to do with the events in Dallas in November 1963.

    With declassified files showing that CIA met with Jean Souetre, known attempted assassin of President Charles de Gaulle of France, some months prior to 11/22/63, and then an expulsion order was issued to pickup Jean Souetre in Dallas on 11/22/63 (and according to declassified FBI files, no expulsion order could be found in INS files, leading to the conclusion it derived from the CIA, and an expulsion order was necessary to requisition a military aircraft to fly Souetre and any cohorts out of the area, and back to Europe) the facts point to the CIA — again and again and again.

    • You need to post some sources for these claims.

      • What was a Corsican assassin doing in Dallas on the day JFK was assassinated?
        n response to a 1976 Freedom of Information Act request, the CIA released documents 632–796 confirming for the first time that a professional assassin was apprehended in Dallas on Nov. 23, 1963.

        The CIA memo, Corsi notes, mentions Jean Souetre, a.k.a. Michel Roux, a.k.a. Michel Mertz – a world-renowned Corsican hit man with a long history as an accomplished assassin and with ties to the French Connection drug trade stretching from Southeast Asia to Marseilles, France, to New Orleans. The memo, stamped “SECRET” and dated April 1, 1964, reads as follows:

        Jean SOUETRE aka Michel Roux aka Michel Mertz – On March 5, Dr. Papich advised that the French had hit the Legal Attaché in Paris and also the SDECE man had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination. He was in Fort Worth on the morning of 22 November and in Dallas in the afternoon. The French believe that he was expelled to either Mexico or Canada. In January he received mail from a dentist named Alderman living at 5803 Birmingham, Houston, Texas. Subject is believed to be identical with a Captain who is a deserter from the French Army and an activist in the OAS. The French are concerned because of de Gaulle’s planned visit to Mexico. They would like to know the reason for his expulsion from the U.S. and his destination. Bureau files are negative and they are checking in Texas and with the INS [U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service]. They would like a check of our files with indications of what may be passed on to the French. Mr. Papich was given a copy of CSCI-3/776,742 previously furnished the Bureau and CSDB-3/655,207 together with a photograph of Captain SOUETRE.

        http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/corsican-assassin-in-dallas-on-day-jfk-killed/
        \\][//

        • Jean SOUETRE aka Michel Roux aka Michel Mertz, On March 5, Dr. Papich advised that the French had hit the Legal Attaché in Paris and also the SDECE man had queried the Bureau in New York City concerning subject stating that he had been expelled from the U.S. at Fort Worth or Dallas 48 hours after the assassination.

          So this is merely a claim that Souetre made. You have no evidence that it actually happened.

          Interesting that you failed to link to this document:

          https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=83409#relPageId=4

          It seems that Souetre’s claims could not be confirmed.

        • Photon says:

          I thought that this guy was in Ft. Worth, not Dallas on Nov. 22.
          But it doesn’t matter. Perhaps he became invisible with some of that flechette Magic.
          Consider the source, Willy. Maybe he was actually working on forging Obama’s birth certificate.

  12. An additional appendix to the HSCA Report on the JFK assassination, entitled “Oswald, the CIA, and Mexico City,” actually called the “Lopez Report,” was first partially released in 1996, but with fewer redactions again in 2003. Since 2003, other separate files have been come to light which furnish new information not dealt with by the HSCA staff in its report, according to History Matters:

    The LBJ taped phone conversations for instance, include startling corroboration for the claim that audio intercepts of an Oswald impersonator were listened to by FBI agents in Dallas while Oswald was in custody. Declassified testimony of David Phillips, the Tarasoff couple who translated the tapes for the CIA, and others illuminate some areas and deepen the mystery in others. [The Tarasoffs’ 1976 interview with review date indicated as 11/14/96 appears in the Mary Ferrell website.]
    http://quixoticjoust.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-big-lie-told-by-david-atlee-phillips.html
    \\][//

    • The essay you linked to uses Judyth Baker as a source.

      You need to explain how the “LBJ taped phone conversations” provide corroboration for the whole “tapes” business.

      • “The essay you linked to uses Judyth Baker as a source.”
        ~John McAdams

        So what “professor” you link to articles with the utterly debunked Warren Report as your source.
        \\][//

        • Photon says:

          Credibility destruction Part 2: Willy thinks Judith Baker is genuine.
          Maybe she invented that invisible flechette solution in her private laboratory while Lee whispered verses from Moscow Nights in her ear.
          Does ANYBODY believe Judith Baker? Yet prominent CTers still attend her meetings. Why?

          • Credibility destruction Part 2: Photon thinks the Warren Report is genuine.

            Does ANYBODY believe the Warren Report?

            Yet Dr Photon,McAdams and Davison cite it as gospel. Why?

            Anyone who studies Ferrie knows that he was working on cancer research. Why does it seem to absurd that Judyth Baker was involved with him in some way, or that her romance with Oswald is a figment of her imagination?
            The reason is it doesn’t fit the biases of the Warrenistas.
            THAT is why.

          • Anyone who studies Ferrie knows that he was working on cancer research.

            And of course, all you need to do cancer research is a mail order diploma from an Italian university.

            Why does it seem to absurd that Judyth Baker was involved with him in some way, or that her romance with Oswald is a figment of her imagination?

            The sheer number of absurd elements and constantly changing claims in her account:

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

            She and Lee were going to Cancun. They wer going to stay in a fine hotel.

          • “She and Lee were going to Cancun. They wer going to stay in a fine hotel.”~McAdams

            The Warren Commission was going to do a full and fair investigation, they were going to get to the bottom of the assassination, they were… well except for the revelations of the January 27, 1964 Executive sessions… but you know… they well they, would you believe…

            Oh YEA!

            “They Know Who Killed Cock Robbin!!”
            ~McCloy.

            “I don’t think this should be in the record”
            ~All the Fine and Honorable Commissioners at the Jan 27 session.

            \\][//

          • Photon says:

            Not only Is Willy ignorant that flechettes are made out of metal and are not invisible, he apparently believes that Judith invented a time machine that transported her and Lee to 1970 when the Cancun resort was started. As I stated, for a lot of CTers it doesn’t matter if someone says that the moon is made of Swiss Cheese as long as they claim that Oswald didn’t do it. One would think that the lengths that CTers have to go to swallow these stories would set on a light bulb over their heads as to what is necessary to accept a conspiracy viewpoint.It is easy if you never look at the rest of the story.

          • “As I stated,”

            Hoots Photon thumping his chest.

            We are all too aware of all of the trash Photon has “stated”.

            A “statement” makes not the speaker stately.

            It is the substance, honesty and sincerity of the speaker that puts any grace to a statement.
            \\][//

  13. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Maybe someone close by or with the wherewithal to fly or drive could go to this presentation and ask Mr. Tannenbaum, again, about some of the things discussed here. I’d like to just hear his presentation.

    http://ctka.net/VT11-2016/rsvp.html

    • Photon says:

      This request for comments from Tannenbaum in regards to claims that Phillips walked out on the Committee has been made at least twice on this blog.
      As he refuses to comment it should be obvious that the claim has no merit.
      If he can make such an unsubstantiated claim he can make others.
      What does that say about believing any of his allegations?

    • Greg Arious says:

      Tanenbaum is 72. At this point he might be mentally conflating what he wrote long ago in his novel and what actually happened.

  14. Jean Davison says:

    Thank you for responding, Mr. Hardway. Unfortunately I can’t access that page, even after signing in. Could you possibly post it here (or the main point at least)?

    • The link works for me. This is the money quote:

      Why would a man who professes to possess such high levels of integrity and honesty so inflate this story? I’m afraid I can’t answer that. You would have to ask him and, so far as I know, no one has done so yet.[64] An even more cogent question is why does Tanenbaum work so hard, and so deceptively, to make it look like this imagined confrontation with Phillips was the reason the HSCA imploded five months later causing Sprague, and ultimately himself, to resign? Is there, maybe, some salve there for an old guilt felt from abandoning ship when the ship got into waters over his head? Maybe it’s easier to live with yourself if you can convince yourself you didn’t abandon the task but were rather run off for being just to dad-blamed honest and virtuous.

      • THE PROSECUTOR’S TALE
        (With Apologies to Chaucer)
        By Dan L. Hardway

        This is a dispute between Hardway and Tanenbaum.

        I am of the opinion that Tanenbaum is telling the truth, but his evidence has disappeared into the Memory Hole.

        Hardway is inching toward the same conclusions as far as the culpability of CIA in obstruction of justice in the matter of HSCA – now focusing on George Joannides, who in fact worked with Phillips at JMWAVE.

        I see this as a hairsplitting personal ego dispute, more than anything substantial.
        \\][//

        • Tom S. says:

          This is a dispute between Hardway and Tanenbaum.
          ………..
          I see this as a hairsplitting personal ego dispute, more than anything substantial.
          \\][//

          You indicate a collision of your belief system and the facts. Hardway and I both looked closely comparing the timeline with
          Tanenbaum’s recent take on events related to Phillips. We both identified and prioritized the higlights. Tanenbaum could not
          interact with Phillips before Tanenbaum began to work for the HSCA investigation, nor after he resigned.

          I take offense at you resorting to shooting the messenger, and I am not your direct target. Putting myself in Hardway’s shoes,
          your “take” would probably seem an unreasonable personal attack. At the least, you represent Hardway’s disappointment and frustration
          as ego driven. Unlike each of my related comments and Hardway’s essay, you support your slur with no facts.

          The Hoover memo to Rowley and the transcript of Hoover’s 23 November discussion with LBJ’, along with the erased tape and the “unavailability” of those pieces of evidence during the first decade are not weakened by unsupported claims of Tanenbaum, making your
          unwarranted, unsubstantiated belittling of Hardway’s motivation and well supported essay and analysis even more troubling.

          You owe Dan Hardway an apology if you cannot support your accusation with evidence, you are accusing Hardway of indulging himself because the documented facts he presented, combined with his unique insider perspective, annoyed you. The endnotes Hardway included number 64, yet you attempted to marginalize his presentation by insulting him.

          • If in fact Mr Hardway is insulted by my opinion, then I do apologize.

            Of course I did not single out Mr Hardway for acting on ego. I include Tanenbaum in that assessment as well.

            Who has the strongest case? with Hardway’s 64 citations he does.

            Are you now dismissing the Hoover Memo as a fraud as well?

            Does the fact that Goodpasture did not listen to the tape she brought to Win Scott, eliminate the probability that she knew what was contained in that tape.

            Are we going to make our assumptions based on the idea that the Intelligence Services never lie? Is that not the most gullible proposition available considering such agencies historical MO and routine practices?

            This comment/assertion has to do with how the term “Fact” is used and a specific form of “information” derived from a reasonable organization of datum.

            The epistemologically mature individual grasps that data points are but “beads” to be snapped together into chains in order to bring out the ‘meaning’ of datum.

            It is most obvious that there is a large amount of confirmation bias involved in which “facts”one chooses as viable, and that it is just as much a matter of opinion as any other philosophical-epistemological consideration.
            \\][//

          • It is the utter biased dismissal of human instincts, what is often referred to as “intuition” by lucid thinking beings, that I find sad and discouraging in these days of Technocracy.

            I would offer two, rather difficult – but essential books, by the authors Julian Jaynes and Jacques Ellul to disabuse these arrogant statist technocrats of their jejune attitudes toward their self professed analogs of human deity.

            > The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind – Julian Jaynes (1976)

            http://selfdefinition.org/psychology/Julian-Jaynes-Origin-of-Consciousness-Breakdown-of-Bicameral-Mind.pdf

            > The Technological Society – Jacques Ellul (1964)

            https://ratical.org/ratville/AoS/TheTechnologicalSociety.pdf

            \\][//

          • Dan Hardway says:

            Mr. Whitten recommends two excellent books. I would add Iain McGichrist’s The Master and His Emissary to the list. Oh, and remind you to read more poetry.

          • Thank you Dan, for the lead to ‘The Master and his Emissary’, I am reading this ‘Brief Description’ written by Iain McGilchrist himself:

            http://www.iainmcgilchrist.com/brief_description.asp

            The book sounds fascinating.

            As far as poetry… I am a poet and an artist myself!
            I was a lyricist and song writer for my own rock band for years. I was the lead singer as well. My first published poem was in my sophomore year of HS in the school newspaper.
            That got me invited to a new experimental class for that school by my then English Teacher; HUMANITIES 101, there were only six of us in the first half of the year (my Junior year of HS), then each of us chose and invited a new member of the class for the second half of the year.
            It was one of the defining events of my life taking that class.
            At any rate, I thank you for the lead to the book.

            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2015/01/10/images-from-film-work-willy-whitten/

            https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/special-effects-days/

            ~Willy \\][//

          • “And if it should turn out that one hemisphere understands metaphor, where the other does not, this is not a small matter of a quaint literary function having to find a place somewhere in the brain. Not a bit. It goes to the core of how we understand our world, even our selves, as I hope to be able to demonstrate.”~Iain McGilchrist

            http://www.iainmcgilchrist.com/The_Master_and_his_Emissary_by_McGilchrist.pdf

            “Like is not” – an ancient Taoist kōan.
            \\][//

  15. Larry Schnapf says:

    @Photon, Jean Davidson and Prof McAdams- I spoke with Bob T about the issue about Phillips deposition twice over the past week. I will share our conversation in more detail when I am finished with a current transaction I am working on. Bottom line- he recalls the incident clearly and it was not conflating of a novel.

  16. Bottom line- he recalls the incident clearly and it was not conflating of a novel.

    If he’s conflating, he wouldn’t know it. False memories are sincere.

    Given the historical record in the HSCA files, his account has huge credibility problems.

  17. DB says:

    Bob caught Phillips good on the tape erasing lie

    This was obviously as explosive as evidence as their is and it essentially confirms a conspiracy with 1 evidentiary piece

    Senior CIA members tried to reel this disclosure back in and pretty much did , luckily the FBI memos, Hoover phone call with LBJ about the voice analysis , Jermey Gunn’s disclosure about 2 Investigators having heard the tape and Ann Goodpasture statement of Scott having the tapes survived.

    Obviously this is not enough for some members but we have official memos , highest level phone calls, double confirmation from 2 investigators , acknowledgement by CIA officer and to top it off Phillips reaction and perjury to Bob.

    IMO I don’t see how the evidence can be stronger that the tapes survived and it makes total sense for reel back in the one piece of evidence that confirms a conspiracy hours after the assassination.

    • Obviously this is not enough for some members but we have official memos , highest level phone calls, double confirmation from 2 investigators , acknowledgement by CIA officer and to top it off Phillips reaction and perjury to Bob.

      Zombie factoid alert!

      DB apparently has not been following the discussion here.

      Please, DB, read the Hardway essay.

      • Ronnie Wayne says:

        Really John? It’s not hard to see why your being fired.
        On top of publicly screwing up the life of a Graduate Assistant now this comment.
        The seriousness of the pursuit of the Truth is reduced to Zombie factoid alert?
        You force me to try and alert those unaware, again.

        http://www.prouty.org/mcadams/

      • DB says:

        I have John, trust me

        IMO there are so many data points and individuals establishing LHO was impersonated in Mexico City its a fact.

        Lets be real here as I prefer to be a realist, this was possibly the most explosive information in the entire assassination as it would possibly implicate our biggest enemies at the time. Now whether the plotters meant for this to lead to a policy change vs. Cuba or simply to lead to a coverup (or both) we probably will never know. Regardless this is a matter that had to be cleaned up either for cover up purposes, prevent War or both.

        When it comes down to lone nut vs. conspiracy IMO it comes down whether all the evidence aligns and you are able to dismiss conflicting evidence or whether the conflicting evidence is too troubling and overwhelming to dismiss.

        Obviously for me its too troubling and overwhelming to dismiss (nearly everything is a mess with material contradicting evidence) and this represents probably the most explosive evidence in the assassination as it leads directly to conspirators an enemy conspirators no less.

        Personally the evidence of the FBI memos, Hoover, Gunn, Warren Commission investigators and Goodpasature far outweighs some vague misunderstood excuse that even Belmont had trouble explaining (and yourself to be honest).

        Its clear IMO audio analysis was done and it makes obvious sense because the knowledge that LHO was impersonated at the embassy and speaking to an alleged KBG operative is beyond explosive and with evidence would have led to an immediate war. That Hoover had “misunderstood” evidence on this point but relayed in to the Commander in Chief, and the CIA was unable to provide visual or audio evidence on the most important evidence to determine whether we go to war and likely WWIII no less is just nonsense.

        Hoover is clear, his agents did the analysis, he relayed it to the president, it was very troubling and WWIII type information and the CIA couldn’t provide ANY audio or video evidence (despite the embassies possibly being the most watched and listened to buildings in the western hemisphere). It all factually aligns with numerous individuals confirming such.

        But you are free to dismiss this evidence, I chose not to based on my analysis.

        • It all factually aligns with numerous individuals confirming such.

          What “numerous individuals?”

          You understand that somebody repeating an account they got from somebody else is not “corroboration” of the original account, right?

          • DB says:

            Yes of course

            Hoover and his agents and then Gunn and the 2 Warren Report investigators plus Tantenbaum HSCA investigation

          • Hoover and his agents and then Gunn and the 2 Warren Report investigators plus Tantenbaum HSCA investigation

            All Hoover’s agents said they had not heard the tape. The claim that they had came from Hoover (and initially from Belmont) and not from the agents.

            Tanenbaum had no independent source, just the memo about what Hoover said.

            Gunn is irrelevant. He heard no tape.

            The “two Warren report investigators” had nothing to do with any tape in Dallas.

            In the early 90s they claimed to have heard a tape in Mexico City. But both denied to the HSCA that they had heard a tape, and then in the 2000s they denied to Shenon that they remembered hearing any tape.

            You can’t make a case by piecing together questionable factoids.

          • DB says:

            Well John I guess Hoover was talking to imaginary or make believe agents when he told the President LHO was impersonated . My bad lol

            Gunn received confirmation from a separate source , how is that irrelevant ? And Goodpasture gave her opinion on record those investigators heard the tape from Win Scott

            These are all formal government records , employees and investigators

            How can you arbitrarily determine which government records should be believed and which should not ? How are you qualified to make such a determination on government evidence ? Please state such as I am merely re stating from govt records and investigators

            These statements were made by government employees and investigators on multiple levels – FBI agents , CIA agents , WR investigators , HSCA investigator(s) and AARB investigator(s)

          • Well John I guess Hoover was talking to imaginary or make believe agents when he told the President LHO was impersonated . My bad lol

            Hoover didn’t talk to any agents. Do you even know what the paper trail looks like?

            Alan Belmont talked to Shanklin, and misunderstood what Shanklin told him.

            Belmont created a memo for Tolson, who doubtless shared the misinformation with Hoover.

            Gunn received confirmation from a separate source , how is that irrelevant?

            And Gunn’s source was?

            But you are mixing up “tapes in Dallas” with tapes supposedly heard in Mexico City.

            You can’t use evidence of one to confirm the other.

            And Goodpasture gave her opinion on record those investigators heard the tape from Win Scott

            You have been ignoring the discussion here. And you are also mixing up the “Dallas” tape and the “Mexico City” tape.

            Goodpasture was told that there was a tape in Dallas, and then speculated how that might have happened.

            If somebody tells a witness something that’s not true, and asks them how it might happen, the witness might speculate.

            She had heard no tape of Oswald. She had no personal knowledge of any tape of Oswald.

            Do you folks ever bother to look at evidence that contradicts what buff books say?

            Please, look at this document:

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

          • DB says:

            Yes John I do

            Gunn sources were the 2 WC investigators which he stated on record . This was a separate source from the FBI audio analysis done for Hoover and reported to the President. Hoover statements and the FBI memos are as clear as evidence gets .

            I never said she heard then tape . Please stop speaking for me , she reported her belief that the 2 Warren commission investigators heard the tape from Scott . She is an information source separate from the FBI and separate from Gunn.

            I am not talking about a book , the only JFK book I read was the unspeakable and that was more philosophical

            The above information is directly from the government record and by government employees and investigators . This is not buff stuff whatever that is , this are official government records, investigations and employees from numerous organizational bodies .

            Don’t shoot the messenger , I am merely re stating government evidence and records

          • DB says:

            I’m not trying to be a part of the Dallas vs Mexico City tape discussion

            I’m merely pointing out government records providing contradicting evidence from the WR that LHO was impersonated in Mexico City.

            IMO the impersonation evidence and statements materially outweigh some vague misunderstanding reference ( that nobody is quite certain of ) for the most explosive evidence in the assassination . This is not information an FBI chief tells the Commander of Chief without being certain as it was WWIII type infoband Hoover statements are very clear

          • I never said she heard then tape. Please stop speaking for me, she reported her belief that the 2 Warren commission investigators heard the tape from Scott . She is an information source separate from the FBI and separate from Gunn.

            How many times do I have to repeat this before you folks get it?

            She was told that Coleman and Slawson heard a tape, and speculated on how that might have happened. She had no knowledge at all of a surviving Oswald tape.

            This was a separate source from the FBI audio analysis done for Hoover and reported to the President.

            There was no such audio analysis.

            Hoover statements and the FBI memos are as clear as evidence gets.

            Have you bothered to look at some of the other stuff Hoover was saying about this time?

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless1.gif

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

            That’s all “clear as evidence gets,” isn’t it?

          • DB says:

            I have already said it was her opinon. I do not understand what you are trying to imply outside of repeating this but her testimony was very interesting and revealing regarding here thoughts on the tapes.

            Hoover was very clear of having both a photo and a tape and the tape did not correspond to the main’s voice nor the photo to his appearance . Hoover even stated another person was down there. This was dangerous information delivered to the President and it’s clear Hoover told LBJ what the evidence was and more importantly what the evidence meant .

            Also this was reinforced when Hoover wrote this information in a FBI memo to the White House and Secret Service with Hoover expanding upon his phone statements that FBI agents listened to the tape and were of the opinion that it was not his voice. Hoover would not of disclosed this information in a Presidential phone call and a separate multi agency FBI memo without the corresponding analysis / evidence .

            An additional confirmation clue is of Hoover later written notes about the false story of Oswlad trip in Mexcio City

            Of course I have seen such but again I have no idea what you are implying . I have stated the difference IMO bet LB and CT is CT’s have trouble with all the contradictory evidence around all major parts of the case of LHO white LN just instantly dismiss anything that doesn’t fit the WR.

            Of course there will be cover up info of the most dangerous aspect of the assaination ( ” the little incident in Mexico City “) as it meant possible WWIII.

            Why do you automatically discount any contradictory evidence without any thought ? Why do you only feel evidence is credible when it supports the WR but any evidence ( even government evidence ) that contradicts it is automatically discredited ?

          • Hoover would not of disclosed this information in a Presidential phone call and a separate multi agency FBI memo without the corresponding analysis / evidence.

            Oh, my!

            Will you f’ing read these documents!!

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/clueless1.gif

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

            Then you might consider other things Hoover told LBJ in the same phone call.

            The FBI director told the president that the rifle used to kill Kennedy had been shipped from Chicago to a woman named A. Heidel. Authorities had, Hoover said, a whole bullet that had fallen out of the president when his heart was massaged. Oswald’s mother, according to Hoover, had told authorities that he kept the rifle in a blanket in the garage. Further, Hoover thought the bullets had been fired from the fifth floor of the depository, and Oswald had gone upstairs to the sixth floor to ditch the rifle. Finally, Oswald then went to a theater where he had a gun battle with a policeman.

            It’s all here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=807#relPageId=1

          • DB says:

            As I stated before I have already stated I reviewed such . Please stop pointing me to information I have already reviewed .

            Again It’s the contradicting evidence around major areas that leads me to believe that the WR is not the whole story. Why do you dismiss government evidence that contradicts the WR while supporting other government evidence that supports the WR? And on what basis ?

            Unfortunaely Information that could of lead to an immediate retalatory military attack or assassination vs Cuba or Russia is far different then the below information you cited .

            So Hoover would have not only told the president directly but also have been the author of an FBI memo to the WH and SS that would of been the origin of WWIII over some vague misunderstanding ? That memo would of been one of the most important in history .

            So that is your position that Hoover would have been directly linked to WWIII on official government paper that later turned out to be some vague misunderstanding ?

            I have always answered every question truthfully you have asked so please be respectful and return the favor . Thank you

          • DB says:

            Again for the record Hoover’s written note about the false Oswald in Mexico City statement adds further credence . Again this is on official government paper

  18. From an e-mail correspondent: Tanenbaum’s novel Corruption of Blood.

    Karp almost believed it himself. The guy was good . . . he could not recall a more bland and skillful liar than Mr. David. David was sticking to the same story he had given the Warren people. A man identifying himself as Lee Harvey Oswald had arrived in Mexico City on September 27, 1963. Thereafter, he had gone to the Cuban embassy and asked about a transit visa to Cuba; when told he had to go to the Soviet embassy for clearance, he went there too. The CIA had photo surveillance of both places and telephone taps and wall bugs as well Oswald’s voice, asking about applying for a visa to visit the Soviet Union through Cuba, had supposedly been recorded on tape, and the tape shipped to CIA
    headquarters.

    “And what happened to this tape, Mr. David?” Karp asked.

    “As I’ve said many times before, since we had no idea Oswald would become important later, the tapes were routinely destroyed by recycling, approximately a week after they were made.

    “That would be early October? Assuming, of course, that the call was made on or about October 1, 1963. Yes? Good.

    [discussion of photos, and then . . . ]

    “So, no pictures, but you did have a tape of his voice. That’s how we know he was in Mexico, right?”

    “Yes, that and identification by people working in the Cuban embassy.

    “Yes,” said Karp, “all those identifications. Well, obviously someone went to Mexico City and asked about those visas, and got his voice recorded. Mr. David, are you aware that Shortly after the assassination, and a full month after you have testified that this tape was destroyed, the FBI listened to that tape and concluded that it was not the voice of Lee Harvey Oswald?”

    You had to give him credit. He didn’t blink. “I’m not aware of that,” he said.

    “So the tapes were in fact not destroyed.”

    “They were destroyed.”

    “Not according to J. Edgar Hoover,” said Karp, brandishing a photocopy of the FBI memo. It was entered into evidence and David was given a chance to study it.

    “So,” Karp continued, “if the tapes were routinely destroyed as you claim, Mr. David, how do you explain the FBI listening to them a month afterward?”

    “I can’t explain it,” said David.

    “Does the CIA have a copy of this tape still in its possession?”

    “Not to my knowledge.”

    “Then who, if you know, ordered this evidence destroyed, after Lee Harvey Oswald became a suspect in the murder Of President Kennedy?”

    “I can’t answer that,” said David.

    “What does that mean?” asked Karp sharply. “You haven’t the knowledge or you refuse to share it with the committee?”

    Then occurred the oddest thing that had ever happened to Karp in the course of questioning witnesses. David said, “I don’t care to answer any more questions.”

    Then he rose, turned, and walked out of the room.

  19. Very interesting, is it not? How one’s book and reading choices reflect our biases. Of course what is considered “just normal politics” to Machiavellian “Might is Right” enthusiasts would certainly be categorized as a ‘Systemic Conspiracy”. Is a matter of Systems Science more than simple ‘Political Science” and is a matter of defining the ‘Architecture of Modern Political Power’. Which as it is for the general population a totally unknown paradigm.

    Those stuck in the manufactured daydream of Lollipop History, simply haven’t a clue as to what is really going on. Naturally, bold frank statements such as the one begining this paragraph are inevitably met with derision by the TVZombies, the vast majority of the population.

    Oh yes, my language is too inventive and has no “official place” in the modern lexicon of Newspeak, that of course deplores word coinage but that which is approved by the Ministry of Truth. Just my language is doubleplusbad to Big Brother.

    Who is Big Brother really??

    Emmanuel Goldstein is Big Brother.

    He started The Party. (See: The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism.)

    And this allegory of 1984 I am framing this in… is the perfect Meta4 and doubleplusgood! The tyrant’s ultimate system is described in eloquent detail. Any who grasp the Hegelian Dialectic can see the machinery at work in the Pubic Relations Regime (Airstrip One)

    There are even some here who actually think that George Orwell was writing ‘science fiction’. And I pity the proles, as I pity the Party Apparatchik – who are the deepest indoctrinated and brainwashed of all.

    The System is not a man. Goldstien is a metaphor.

    It is 1984 forever and ever until some apocalypse brings a new ending to begin with.

    Then why know? If it is futile why care? As Orwell reveals, it is simply remaining sane that keeps the system from utterly overwhelming the spirit of man. Those who remain sane have their own understanding as reward. Those who remain sane touch others from time to time. Enough to keep the seed of individuality and spirit of Liberty alive.

    \\][//

  20. Larry Schnapf says:

    I spoke to Bob T three times in the past week about the Phillips matter.
    I told Bob about this thread, that several people had wondered why there was transcript of the deposition and that some wondered if he was either misremembering events or perhaps conflating the incident with his novel. I also discussed Dan Hardway’s blog with him.

    Bob stated unequivocally that this event occurred and it is not a figment of his imagination. He said he received the Hoover memo in the spring of ’77 well after Sprague’s examination of Phillips in November 1976. Indeed, in the transcript of the March executive committee meeting, Bob is quoted as telling the committee he had “recently” received the memo. He said he then called Phillips later that month BEFORE Sprague left and that was when Phillips walked out. He had not been aware that Phillips was later examined by Hardway since that occurred after he had left the HSCA.

    I asked him why there was no record, and he said he did not know but suggested the transcript was either misfiled or purged. As Dan Hardway acknowledged in his blog, there are records of the HSCA are not in the archives.

    I also mentioned that Jean Davidson had pointed out that he had not mentioned this incident in the prior interviews. He said he had forgotten about the incident or had been responding to specific questions.

    After speaking with him at length and based on the secrecy practices of the HSCA, I think the more reasonable explanation for what happened to what would have been a relatively short transcript is that it was misfiled or destroyed.

    • I’m afraid Tanenbaum lacks credibility on this. In an interview with Jim DiEugenio in 1996, he said:

      BT: …. Phillips testimony was that there was no photograph of “Oswald” because the camera equipment had broken down that day and there was no audio tape of “Oswald’s” voice because they recycled their tapes every six or seven days. The problem with his story was, we had obtained a document, it was from the desk of J. Edgar Hoover, it was dated November 23rd, 1963, the very next day after the assassination. This document was a memo to all FBI supervisorial staff stating, in substance, that FBI agents who have questioned Oswald for the past 17 hours approximately, have listened to the tape made on October 1st, by an individual identifying himself as Lee Henry Oswald inside the Russian Embassy, calling on the phone to someone inside the Cuban Embassy and the agents can state unequivocally that the voice on the tape is not the voice of Lee Harvey Oswald, who is in custody.

      JD: Did you have this document while you were questioning Phillips?

      BT: No. It was a whole separate sequence of events that occurred. But, I wanted to get him back before the Committee so we could confront him with this evidence, because we were in a position to demonstrate that that whole aspect of the Warren Report, and what he had testified to, was untrue. And of course, the Committee was not interested in doing that.

      This flatly contradicts his later account.

      However, in Corruption of Blood in 1995, he does recount this incident with the Phillips figure (see above) named “David” walking out.

      If he’s not simply lying, he got his novel mixed up with what actually happened with Phillips.

      • “BT: No. It was a whole separate sequence of events that occurred.”McAdams

        What is it about “a whole separate sequence of events”, that you don’t get?

        \\][//

        • Jean Davison says:

          A fine example of a quote ripped out of context so that the meaning is changed. What was the question Tanenbaum replied “no” to, Willy? What did he say the Committee’s reaction was?

    • Jean Davison says:

      Larry,

      False memories are very common, as discussed in this article (and others like it on the internet):

      QUOTE:
      Funny stuff happens when people think about the past. Sometimes, they replace reality with fiction. This is because we have poor episodic memories – a well-established fact in psychology. Consider the famous study done by Ulric Neisser. The day after the Challenger disaster he asked Emory University undergrads to write a description of how they heard of the disaster – the time of day, what they were doing, how they felt about it, etc. Neisser then asked the same students the same set of questions two and a half years later and compared the two descriptions. He found three things. First, the memories of the students had dramatically changed: “twenty-five percent of the students’ subsequent accounts were strikingly different from their original journal entries. More than half the people had lesser degrees of error, and less than ten percent had all the details correct.” Second, people were usually confident that the accounts they provided two and a half years later were accurate. And third, “when confronted with their original reports, rather than suddenly realizing that they had misremembered, they often persisted in believing their current memory.”

      The study, which is now known as the Challenger study, has been replicated with several notable events such as 9/11 and the Reagan assassination attempt….
      UNQUOTE

      https://whywereason.com/tag/the-challenger-study/

      I believe that Mr. Tanenbaum quite literally “replaced reality with fiction” without realizing it. If it had actually happened I think he or one of the other members of the committee that he recalled being there would’ve talked about this dramatic confrontation long ago.

      • “I believe that Mr. Tanenbaum quite literally “replaced reality with fiction” without realizing it.”~Jean Davison

        I think Ms Davison is basing her belief on a false memory of something she heard before about thinking she read and article that had to do with spacecraft and she naturally, got a little spaced out. This can happen with age. It can happen with spirits. It can happen by happenstance, and surely must be a coincidence. But for Jean’s agenda a fortuitous coincidence.
        \\][//

  21. Larry Schnapf says:

    As a lawyer, i’ve been trained how to ask questions of persons who are suspected of misremembering facts. Of course, this technique does not work too well when a person is mistaken and sincerely believes what they are saying. And, of course, a generalized statement about how people can develop false memories is not applicable to a specific person or situation.

    Bob also said did not remember the details of his 1999 Probe interview but said its possible he misspoke because he had not thought about the incident for years prior to the interview.

    Seems to me it is incumbent on those seeking to refute his account to do their own diligence. Bob confirmed with me that this event occurred at an executive session of the committee. I am sure there are members of the committee still alive and competent who cam confirm or refute this story.

    • Bob confirmed with me that this event occurred at an executive session of the committee.

      We have transcripts of the executive sessions of the Committee.

      One could posit that (say) some “outside contact report” got misplaced, but not any session of the Committee.

  22. Larry Schnapf says:

    John- do you really think that FBI agents would admit there was a tape and undermine the government’s case. It would be career ending move and put their pension into jeopardy–which is what they really care about as government employees. Remember what Dulles told Warren in the first executive session about good CIA agent might lie even to the president to protect sources and methods.

  23. Larry Schnapf says:

    John- you seem to have incredible regard for governmental body efficiency/honesty when it comes to record keeping and testimony but then adopt a contrary view that there couldnt be a government conspiracy because there’s no way our inefficient bureacrats could keep a secret. it’s one of the other.

    Just because the transcript is not preserved does not mean it did not exist. we know lots of records were destroyed (e.g. secret service records, smne of Oswald military record, the mexico city tape, etc). It is equaly as possible the transcript was misfiled in NARA, in one of the boxes that remain secret or destroyed.

    • Paulf says:

      Exactly. The Warren Commission and federal authorities are gospel when it suites the purpose, and yet the investigators were incompetent and bumbling when it suits the purpose.

      Yet we do know that, inconceivably, no record was kept of Oswald’s interviews, we know is that he publicly stated that he was a patsy, and then he was murdered before he could say anything more.

      Gosh darn, isn’t that unfortunate. Better luck with the next investigation, eh?

    • Just because the transcript is not preserved does not mean it did not exist

      Tannenbaum said “executive session,” and we have the transcripts of the executive sessions.

      9 March 1977, Sprague says the Hoover memo has “just come to our attention.”

      http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=266&#relPageId=28

      And has “just come to light:”

      http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=266#relPageId=43

      And Tanenbaum says the HSCA didn’t want to pursue the issue. But they did, as the transcripts cited above show.

      Indeed, they mention the issue in their Report.

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

      Has Tanenbaum ever admitted that the HSCA debunked this?

  24. Larry Schnapf says:

    @john- this is consistent with what Bob said.the memo came to his attention just before the March 1977 executive session.Bob says they then had another executive session later that month before Sprague resigned to examine Phillips. It is that session which we are missing the transcript.

  25. Larry Schnapf says:

    @John- do you ever consider that these employees of the FBI or CIA were lying to protect their jobs or pensions? Your so quick to say Bob T lied but seem to think none of the government witness lied even though we know it has happened lots of time in THE history OF this country.

    • Have you ever considered how many things you have to believe to accept Tanenbaum’s account?

      You have to believe that, in the 1990s, he just forgot to tell DiEugenio this absolutely explosive story. But somehow it got included in his roman à clef book, Corruption of Blood?

      So he “remembered” it for a fictional work, but not for a supposedly factual interview with DiEugenio.

      You have to believe in a “missing” transcript of an executive session. But you have no evidence it’s missing except for the need to bail out Tanenbaum.

      And then you want to say that all the FBI employees who said they heard no tapes in Dallas lied. You have to say that to bail out Tanenbaum (although logically those are different issues).

      You don’t even need to admit Tanenbaum lied if you accept the evidence. It could easily be a false memory.

      And please, read these documents:

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

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

      I don’t know why you would refuse to.

    • Ronnie Wayne says:

      Larry, Sir, your patience with John rivals that of Job. Many here have learned to generally ignore him. Thank you for speaking with Mr. Tannenbaum and posting here. I for one at least find your information both interesting and informative.
      With the many other instances of of files missing in this case it’s not really surprising this affidavit is.
      Why is it missing? Miss filed, possible. If FBI or CIA agents might be lying to protect their jobs and pensions, might not some be so dedicated to the agency they would willingly steal the document because of it’s perceived importance?

    • Jean Davison says:

      Certainly government agents might lie to protect their jobs, but the two agents who supposedly sent and received the tape denied it right away in cables to Washington. On November 23 Dallas SAC Shanklin told Hoover, “It should be noted that the actual tape from which this transcript was made has been erased.” Two days later the FBI Legat in Mexico cabled Hoover, “There seems to be some confusion in that no tapes were taken to Dallas but only typewritten transcripts…”

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

      That’s from the Lopez report, which talks about the “confusion” about whether a tape existed and traces Hoover’s statement to a memo from Belmont(preceding page of the link).

      So what happened there, if a tape was actually sent? The agents lied to their boss? The documents were forged?

  26. Larry Schnapf says:

    @john- Im not saying that everyone who provides inconvenient testimony is a liar. I was referring to your tendency to believe all the government witnesses but are quick to accuse those who provide testimony inconvenient to the official story as liars. I’m just pointing out that you appear to evaluate evidence with a biased lens and consistently view ambiguous evidence or interpret inferences in favor of the government.

    is there ANY evidence developed during the last 50 years that is contrary to the official story that you have accepted as persuasive or credible? If so, I have not seen it and would appreciate enlightening me. I respect your intellect but it seems to be directed towards one viewpoint.

    • I was referring to your tendency to believe all the government witnesses but are quick to accuse those who provide testimony inconvenient to the official story as liars.

      I think you are attributing to me what the buffs actually do.

      Do I believe the FBI agents who say there was no tapes in Dallas? Yes, because the documents show no tapes were taken to Dallas.

      Will you please read these two documents!

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

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

      Why in the world are you refusing to?

      I don’t believe Tanenbaum because the documents don’t support his version.

      Do you really believe he included the incident with Phillips in Corruption of Blood, but just forgot to mention it to DiEugenio?

      Do you really believe that an executive session transcript is missing, with no evidence other than the fact that you have to in order to believe Tanenbaum?

      is there ANY evidence developed during the last 50 years that is contrary to the official story that you have accepted as persuasive or credible?

      Not really. Of course, if you think I should have “accepted” some “persuasive” evidence, you are begging the question.

      If there was no conspiracy, we would not expect any genuinely persuasive evidence to turn up.

      I have, for a while, accepted some stuff that buffs touted that turned out to be bogus (but didn’t really show conspiracy), like the “Minox” nonsense.

      And I first believe Slawson about the “tape” in Mexico City, until I found out how his story has changed over time.

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        John,

        So, “changing stories” bother you? Really? “Changing stories” causes you to have doubts, huh?

        That is odd. You have told everyone on this site—repeatedly—that the CIA did not lie before or after the assassination. I believe it was Helms that said we gave the “commission every goddamn thing they asked for.” For you, that was good as gold. End of story. The CIA said they didn’t lie, and so, you bought that line hook,line and sinker.

        Oops.

        On this very website, a couple of months ago, the CIA announced they indeed had engaged in “a benign cover-up of the assassination.” Look it up, John. It is on this site. Tell me, John, what is a “benign cover-up?” They lied just a little? Or a lot? Benign cover-up?

        So, changing stories causes you concern, eh? Would you PLEASE read this quote again? Actually read it?

        “Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.

        We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.

        Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story.

        I am now in that camp.”

        Tell me, John, what does “not the truth” actually mean?

        And there is this:

        “The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.”

        So, you don’t trust Tanenbaum’s story? However, the rest of the CIA’s story is solid gold, huh? Oh yeah, the Commission really did do a wonderful job of settling the dust.

        Ah, the sweet smell of hypocrisy!

        • On this very website, a couple of months ago, the CIA announced they indeed had engaged in “a benign cover-up of the assassination.” Look it up, John. It is on this site. Tell me, John, what is a “benign cover-up?” They lied just a little? Or a lot? Benign cover-up?

          You need to explain what the “benign cover-up” was that the CIA supposedly confessed to.

          • Tom S. says:

            http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/10/jfk-assassination-john-mccone-warren-commission-cia-213197
            By Philip Shenon
            October 06, 2015
            ……
            Even the CIA is now willing to raise these questions. Half a century after JFK’s death, in a once-secret report written in 2013 by the CIA’s top in-house historian and quietly declassified last fall, the spy agency acknowledges what others were convinced of long ago: that McCone and other senior CIA officials were “complicit” in keeping “incendiary” information from the Warren Commission.

            According to the report by CIA historian David Robarge, McCone, who died in 1991, was at the heart of a “benign cover-up” at the spy agency, intended to keep the commission focused on “what the Agency believed at the time was the ‘best truth’—that Lee Harvey Oswald, for as yet undetermined motives, had acted alone in killing John Kennedy.” The most important information that McCone withheld from the commission in its 1964 investigation, the report found, was the existence, for years, of CIA plots to assassinate Castro, some of which put the CIA in cahoots with the Mafia. Without this information, the commission never even knew to ask the question of whether Oswald had accomplices in Cuba or elsewhere who wanted Kennedy dead in retaliation for the Castro plots…..

            http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDF
            Pg. 12….

          • http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB493/docs/intell_ebb_026.PDF

            So Stirlen is bitching about the CIA not telling the Warren Commission about plots against Castro? This has been known since the 1970s.

            Arguably, they should have done so.

            But had they done so, you buffs would be claiming that was disinformation intended to put the blame on Castro.

            And indeed, people like Peter Dale Scott believe that everything that ties Oswald to Castro was indeed planted by conspirators in provoke an invasion of Cuba.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John,

            Your words:

            “So Stirlen is bitching.”

            My words:

            Nope, I am merely pointing out to you your hypocrisy. And, as usual, you result to your bag of names instead of discussing the liars that “investigated” the murder of JFK. You either use as hominem or buff or huff and puff, or you tell us that we are getting our ass kicked on evidence. How pathetic.

            Your words:

            “This was known in the 70’s.”

            My words:

            Hate to tell you John, but the Warren Omission did its work in 64. Kind of odd isn’t it? You tell us how great Ford and Warren and Dulles and Hoover were, what a “thorough” job they did, and in the very next breath tell us this piece of the assassination investigation was known in the 70’s.

            Tell me, John, did anyone in the CIA serve time in prison for failing to disclose vital information in the investigation of the murder of a president? No? Well, how convenient for you and your “evidence.”

            Big question for you John: Why didn’t the WO KNOW about this in 64? Uhhh, John, perjury anyone? Lying anyone? You said it could be argued that is should have been known. Again, your hypocrisy is shining brightly for all to see.

            You still have not addressed Mr. Blakey’s comments that the “full truth will never be known.” And, hold onto something, Mr. Blakey was a HELL of a lot more in the loop about the investigation than you will ever be.

            So, keep on touting the “HSCA confirmed this and verified this,” but PLEASE tell folks that the HEAD of your beloved HSCA said the CIA were LIARS in 64, 78, and today.

            Want to discuss that? Or do you want to resort to your usual go to’s: buff, bitching, ad hominem, etc?

            The TRUTH of the matter is that the “investigation is FLAWED. IT will always be FLAWED. Get over it, your government failed you.

            Let me help you AGAIN:

            “The institution that had the opportunity to best get to the bottom of this, as much as it was possible, was the Warren Commission, and they didn’t do it,” he says. “Now it’s too late to do what should have been done originally.”

            Ah, the sweet smell of the truth.

          • Want to discuss that? Or do you want to resort to your usual go to’s: buff, bitching, ad hominem, etc?

            Discuss what?

            You don’t seem to want to discuss issues. You just seem to want to huff and puff and call everybody you don’t like a liar.

            How about this:

            Let’s discuss whether Castro might have had a role in the assassination.

            That’s what LBJ concluded when he found about about the “damned Murder Incorporated” in the Caribbean.

            If you think that might be true, the CIA failing to inform the Warren Commission about plots against Castro might have led them down the wrong path. Perhaps they should have tried much harder to connect Castro to the assassination.

          • Steve Stirlen says:

            John,

            First, let us clear up some of your confusion. I don’t hate Ford, Dulles etc. I did not know them. I dislike the fact they were liars, murderers, men of deceit, etc. In the same vein, I don’t dislike you. I don’t know you. I think that your views about the CIA are so far off base as to be laughable, but I don’t “hate” you. I don’t even know you.

            YES, I would love to discuss the evidence, such as it is. Let us start with a line in your last post:

            You said:

            “If you think that might be true, the CIA failing to inform the Warren Commission about plots against Castro might have led them down the wrong path.”

            Would you care to tell me what member of the CIA spent time in jail for failing to inform the WC of the Castro connection? Oh, that’s right. No one. Therefore, there is no reason for the CIA to ever be forthcoming., which is what Mr. Blakey said in his interview.

            Now, as to your question. Surely you know the WC said “there was no evidence of a conspiracy.” So that leaves Castro out of the equation, correct?

            If you are asking me about Castro and JFK’s assassination, there is NO LINK whatsoever. What would Castro gain by killing JFK? Unleash a nuclear holocaust on his country? To what end? Castro may have been nuts, but he was not nuts and insane.

            However, the military industrial complex here in America had a HELL of a lot to gain by killing JFK. Take the Vietnam War. I know you have said the North Vietnamese started the Gulf of Tonkin incident. I believe you are dead wrong.. If they did, did it deserve the response of a war that lasted until 1975? Really?

            You know LBJ was crooked. It is well documented. You know JEH was crooked. That is even more well documented. The CIA? Liars, from its beginning until today. That is also well documented.

            Castro had NOTHING to do with the assassination. The CIA did. That is where we disagree. However, Mr. Morley also disagrees with you, which is why he has a lawsuit against the CIA. If you really wanted to know the full truth, you would join the lawsuit.

          • First, let us clear up some of your confusion. I don’t hate Ford, Dulles etc. I did not know them. I dislike the fact they were liars, murderers, men of deceit, etc.

            OK, you don’t hate them, you just consider them liars, murderers and men of deceit.

            Would you care to tell me what member of the CIA spent time in jail for failing to inform the WC of the Castro connection? Oh, that’s right. No one.

            Should somebody have been sent to jail?

            If you are asking me about Castro and JFK’s assassination, there is NO LINK whatsoever.

            So LBJ was wrong in his inference?

            Do you think a link would have been found, has the CIA informed the WC about plots against Castro, and primed it to the possibility that Castro had retaliated for plots against him?

  27. Larry Schnapf says:

    @john-I appreciate you pointing out the claims that you initially believed. I will review your links later over the weekend. I think I have reviewed them in the past but will do so to refresh my memory. It is possible, of course, that Bob is mistaken. There are some leads that could be pursued by those who do not believe his claims such as contacting former members of the HSCA. And who knows, perhaps a transcript may turn up when records are released in Oct. 2017.

    • Jean Davison says:

      “There are some leads that could be pursued by those who do not believe his claims such as contacting former members of the HSCA.”

      If I knew which committee members he says were present at that executive session and how to contact them, I’d try to do that. Respectfully, couldn’t these leads also be pursued by those who do believe his claims?

  28. Larry Schnapf says:

    @jean- i would assume that Preyer as chair of the JFK investigation was present. Investigator Cliff Fenton was supposed to be there and presumably Donovan Gay who was the chief of research. I dont know if the latter is still alive.

  29. Larry Schnapf says:

    @Jean and John- i assume you are aware that Bob T has used a ghostwriter (a cousin) for his books until recently. So it is possible that his interview with Probe was the first time he had thought about Phillips since 1977–which is what he told me. He said the Probe interview got him thinking and he then remembered the Phillips walking out incident— FWIW

  30. Larry Schnapf says:

    @John-thanks for the links. It should be noted that in the preceding question and answer, Bob said in part ” 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.”

    Jim could have done a better job trying to flesh out the Phillips testimony with more follow-up questions or perhaps he did but chose to edit it out. It looks like Jim was focused on the film.

    It should be noted that the film referenced in both the book and the interview has not surfaced and may be in the materials that remain classified. I specifically asked Bob what happened to the film and did not know what the committee did with it after he left. Perhaps Dan Hardway might know?

    In either event, I discussed this interview with Bob twice in the past week and have shared his responses. Those who are not satisfied with his response may want to contact the individuals I previously mentioned who were supposed to have been present at the disputed executive session.

    • Tom S. says:

      Those who are not satisfied with his response may want to contact the individuals I previously mentioned who were supposed to have been present at the disputed executive session.

      Uhhh…. who made the extraordinary claim? But instead you suggest, “Those who are not satisfied with his response may want to,” chase down the evidence in support of Bob Tanenbaum’s claim? What actual evidence has Tanenbaum presented in support of Phillips’ as of yet undocumented appearance before Tanenbaum, et al? As I have written, I went through the same exercise, as an outsider, as Hardway did as a former insider. I have come to the same preliminary conclusion as Hardway, based on the available evidence.

    • It should be noted that the film referenced in both the book and the interview has not surfaced and may be in the materials that remain classified.

      Are you assuming there is such a film?

    • You still haven’t dealt with the fact that the roman à clef Corruption of Blood in 1995 had the “Phillips walking out” scene.

      Where did that come from? Either Tanenbaum’s memory, or it was invented.

      But supposedly Tanenbaum didn’t remember that in 1996 when he talked to DiEugenio. But then somehow did remember it for Wechtfest in 2013.

      It certainly looks like a scene in his novel became part of his memory.

  31. Bogman says:

    Not to add fuel to the fire, but didn’t Tanenbaum also claim he saw footage of Oswald with Cuban fighters training at Lake Pontchartrain?

  32. Larry Schnapf says:

    @Bogman- that’s the film that john and i have been talking about.

    @john- i dont know if the film exists. that was the first question i asked Bob when i met him in 2013.

  33. Larry Schnapf says:

    @john- u do ask a good question about the book. All i can tell you is what Bob told me after i shared your questions. i can tell everyone that Bob told me he will publicly address this issue when speaks at an october JFK conference in New England.

    • Fair enough.

      Note that I agree with Jean’s assessment that Tanenbaum was the victim of a false memory.

      People are always quick to yell “liar” at people with whom they disagree. Liberals quickly call Bill O’Reilly a liar over the deMohrenschildt affair. There is a thread on this here.

      Republicans are happy to call Hillary a liar over the “sniper fire” in Bosnia.

      I think Slawson and Coleman were victims of false memory with regard to the “tape of Oswald played in Mexico City.”

      The reason I reject this account (aside from their contradictory versions) is that I can’t believe MEXI would tell everybody that the tapes were erased, and then turn around and a mere four months later play the tape for WC counsel. If it was a lie to begin with, why not just keep lying? Slawson and Coleman had no way to get at any tapes Scott didn’t choose to reveal.

      Coleman’s claim to have met with Castro is even worse.

      But the assessment of of “liar” versus “false memory” should not turn on whom we like (I quite like Coleman and Slawson, dislike Tanenbaum and Hillary; O’Reiloy I consider a mildly entertaining buffoon).

      I dislike Judyth Baker, but I think the “liar” assessment is justified there.

    • Jean Davison says:

      If he’s going to discuss it in October, I hope he’ll try to find some solid evidence to corroborate his story.

      If a ghostwriter is responsible for the 1995 book, how could the ghostwriter describe a confrontation that Tanenbaum says he’d forgotten about until after his 1999 Probe interview? Didn’t he even read the book? Very confusing, unless I’m misunderstanding the storyline here.

  34. Larry Schnapf says:

    @Jean- I think you have correctly stated the conundrum we currently face.

  35. Larry Schnapf says:

    Richardson Preyer’s papers are at the UNC-Chapel Hill campus. Unfortunately, virtually all of the materials are not digitally available. If somebody lives near the campus, perhaps they want to review the files. There is a chance he may have placed his HSCA papers with this collection. a

  36. Larry Schnapf says:

    BTW-I did a public records search and unfortunately it appears that Donovan Lamar Gay passed away in 2013 at the ripe age on 68.

    • Jean Davison says:

      Larry,

      Instead of trying to find surviving HSCA members it might be better to look for a written account or interview by any of the HSCA participants (especially Tanenbaum) between 1977 and the publication of his book in 1995. There’s a short excerpt of a book by Sprague online (“The Taking of America…”), but I don’t see a reference to this event there.

      • Jean Davison says:

        An e-mail correspondent has let me know that Richard E. Sprague who wrote “The Taking of America…” wasn’t the same person as Richard A. Sprague, who headed the HSCA. I apologize for the error.

    • Anthony Weston from his ‘Rulebook on Arguments’:
      “Generally, people advocate a position for serious and sincere reasons.”

      Which is certainly true ‘generally’.

      However this is NOT just any general situation, nor an average everyday discussion, nor a mere academic debate. This is an issue that strikes at the heart of the interests of the state. It is a matter of documented history that the state pursues an agenda of interference in any and all media to slur and attempt to debase what is called “conspiracy theory”.

      Most recent in the open literature is Sunstein and Vermeule’s
      essay, simply titled; ‘Conspiracy Theories’. In the short abstract to that essay is this: “the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups. Various policy dilemmas, such as the question whether it is better for government to rebut conspiracy theories or to ignore them, are explored in this light.”
      See: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585

      This “Sunstein Doctrine” is a matter of historical continuity that had it’s proximate beginning with the infamous 50-page CIA memo, known as “CIA Dispatch 1035-960,” which instructed agents to contact their media contacts and disparage those, like Garrison, criticizing the Warren Commission findings that Lee Harvey Oswald killed JFK and acted alone. The 1967 document is here in the original: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=567348&imageOnly=true

      And here in reformatted text of its summary: http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
      . . . . .
      Now, how is it determined which entities on these threads are such disinformation agents as described in these documents? It is in fact a very simple matter, wherein the profile of an entity is established by an assessment of that entity’s MO, and routine practices. The agenda of such entities to disparage ‘conspiracy theories’ is found in their very own commentary and nomenclature.

      Federal rule 406 is of assistance in defining that profile. Federal Rule of Evidence 406 states, “Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of an eyewitness, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice”.

      The reader is invited to read the commentary of various entities here to read for themselves the self-incriminating commentary of these posters.

      \\][//

  37. Larry Schnapf says:

    My public records search indicated that Clifford A. Fenton, Jr. lives in Stone Mountatin, Ga. He is 89 years old.

  38. Larry Schnapf says:

    @jean-i agree documentary evidence is preferable to oral testimony about events that ocurred 40 years ago. unfortunately, i dont think there will be any pre-1995 accounts since the alleged incident would have occurred at a secret session and participants would not have been free to discuss until ARRB declassified transcripts and subject matter discussed therein(i havent verified this restriction but its my gut suspicion). Bob was probably able to evade such restrictions since his book was fictional account.

    no harm in looking but i think the quickest way for those who want to investigate story it to cobtact Fenton. someone on Educational Forum spoke with him in 2013 and said he was very frieny.

    • Dan Hardway says:

      Larry, the first I heard of the story was in 2013. I had access to the executive session testimony of Phillips when I began working on Mexico City — the November 1976. Everyone there on the Kennedy side of the HSCA knew what I was working on. No one, repeat, no one ever said anything to me about anything at all approaching Tanenbaum’s story. Clif Fenton never said a word. No one else did either. Gaeton Fonzi never said anything about it and Gaeton and I talked about pretty much every aspect of the investigation that we knew about. I do not believe that the supposed confrontation could have ever occurred and it not have been something that would have been discussed, either formally or informally, by the staff members. The story was just too good, too dramatic. And then, there is the also the fact that when Phillips does get called back before the Committee in April of 1978, he shows up without a lawyer — hardly what you would expect of a man who has shown such contempt for Congress. And, at that time, no member of the Committee, and no member of the staff, came forward and said anything like, “You know, the last time he was here, he just walked out on an Executive Session….” Sorry, but I don’t think that the confrontation ever happened. I think the burden of showing it did is squarely on Mr. Tanenbaum. But, in my opinion, even more importantly, is how does he explain his claims that this tale is what lay behind the February funding crisis and his and Sprague’s resignation? There is more to his tale than just the confrontation, although the confrontation forms the basis for all that he spins after it. I think he should explain or withdraw the story.

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