JFK hoaxer vouches for Trump’s JFK hoax

Why did Donald Trump, the mentally challenged Republican presidential nominee, revive his discredited hoax that Ted Cruz’s father associated with accused presidential assassin Lee Oswald?

Maybe because Judyth Baker, an unfortunate woman who pretends she was Oswald’s girlfriend in 1963, told him the story was true. Baker is peddling her hoax on Facebook to support Trump’s hoax.

He is as delusional as she is, and he might become the powerful man in the world. It would be sad if it wasn’t sickening.

———

Jefferson Morley’s new ebook, CIA and JFK: The Secret Assassination Files, available on Amazon, provides the fullest account yet of the JFK records that the CIA is still concealing in 2016 and why they should be made public in October 2017.

CIA & JFK

 

 

 

149 comments

  1. Ramon F Herrera says:

    [Morley wrote:]
    “Trump’s JFK delusions echo those of a madwoman. It’s not sad. It’s sickening.”
    ================

    Jeff:

    In the excellent movie “The American President” they explain that phenomenon. When there is a vacuum of leadership (in the JFK case of true facts), people will eat anything at all.

    • Starving persons will eat rats

    • People trying to escape from Cuba drink sea water which destroys their kidneys.

    The rampant paranoia:

    – “Obama will declare martial law to continue as president”
    – “Obama engineered Hurricane Sandy with a secret military radio-wave system”
    – A long etcetera, not necessary to enumerate.

    can be attributed, traced back, at least partially to the biggest lie ever perpetrated to the American people (and the world at large).

    This is the most express logical route to ascertain the root of the murder case:

    (a) The government is hiding something (as you have written, this is not a theory, it is a documented fact).

    (b) It has to be something so big and damaging, to risk the loss of trust between the “governors” (Madison term) and the governed.

    (c) What else can it possibly be?

    Q.E.D.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [RFH:] “A long etcetera, not necessary to enumerate.”
      ===============

      Actually, let’s allow a sane member of The Party of Trump do the enumeration:

      “There was a time in modern history when the GOP was a party of ideas—agree with them or not, its leaders were dominated by smart people who assembled ideologically consistent policies based on facts, statistics and history. But, as Bruce Bartlett, a former senior policy analyst for Ronald Reagan, recently said,

      “Now it’s the party of crazy people, ignorant Tea Party people—people who know nothing and are proud of it.”

      “Look at the lunacies from the last few years: President Barack Obama is a Muslim; Obama was taught to hate America by his Christian minister (don’t try to reconcile those first two); Obama engineered Hurricane Sandy with a secret military radio-wave system; Obama ordered $1 billion worth of coffins for federal detention camps; Obama faked the assassination of Osama bin Laden; the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School was a “false flag” operation so Obama could take Americans’ guns; Obama told Nigeria that the United States wouldn’t help it fight terrorists until its government recognized gay marriage; Obama is arranging a deal with Iran and ISIS for them to launch a nuclear attack on America so he can obtain a third term… The list of the irrational and illogical just grows and grows.

      “But the real danger is not that swaths of Republican voters babble nonsense that would make an eighth-grader roll his eyes. Instead, it is that policy discussions frequently jump the track when GOP leaders treat the tinfoil hatters’ latest obsession as worth anything other than derision. Whether these officials are demagogues seeking votes from the unhinged or—the more frightening possibility—believers of this toxic flapdoodle, the result is the same: Cradling the crazy has made many GOP politicians midwives to madness.”

      • Tom S. says:

        “There was a time in modern history when the GOP was a party of ideas—agree with them or not, its leaders were dominated by smart people who assembled ideologically consistent policies based on facts, statistics and history…..”

        At some point after the administrations of TR and his successor, William Howard Taft? I am sorry, I cannot
        identify a more recent presidential administration where that was an accurate (a remarkable) description, can you? (Harding, “Silent Cal,” Hoover, Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush…)

        • SaxD says:

          I think what happens these days, in the regression from GOP to neocon to Tea Party into chaos, is that former Repugnican administrations look better *by comparison.* I was no Reagan fan. But he looks like Lincoln compared to Little Bush. Older Bush was uninspiring but he’s a hell of a lot better than the recent crop. Even Little Bush, one of the most disastrous presidents ever, looks accomplished and dependable next to Trump. Or Cruz. The party has exploited its base and lived off Fox propoganda so long, it’s finally reaping what it has sowed.

          Four years ago, they said Job One was to bring in Hispanic voters; this week, the Donald insulted immigrants every way there is do so, and when all is said and done, regardless of what kind of campaign Hillary has run, the angry mobilization of Hispanic voters will be the determining factor in saving our nation from Trump.

        • Bill Clarke says:

          Tom S.
          July 23, 2016 at 1:28 pm

          “At some point after the administrations of TR and his successor, William Howard Taft? I am sorry, I cannot identify a more recent presidential administration where that was an accurate (a remarkable) description, can you? (Harding, “Silent Cal,” Hoover, Ike, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, GHW Bush, GW Bush…)”.

          I agree here Tom but I can’t say the Dems have much room to crow either. Korea and Vietnam come to mind. The internment of Japanese Americans during WWII comes to mind and we could go on. My opinion is that neither party has a lot of bragging rights.

          In east Texas when I was young you had to be a Dem to be elected to office, especially the locale offices. Today you have to be a Repub. My question is; what the hell happened? All the people didn’t all of a sudden go crazy and run to the Tea Party (which I consider a danger to free America) just for the fun of it.

          • John Rowell says:

            Mr. Clarke, the answer is simple. From The Civil War until Civil Rights, the White Male Business Class aligned itself with the Democratic Party. After Civil Rights, the very same people aligned themselves with the Republicans. It took about 20 years, but by the early ’90’s the process was complete.

          • John Rowell says:

            I guess I should have pointed that I was referring only to Texas. Sorry if I confused anyone. BTW, I’m a native Texan.

          • Bill Clarke says:

            John Rowell
            July 24, 2016 at 10:59 pm

            Mr. Clarke, the answer is simple. From The Civil War until Civil Rights, the White Male Business Class aligned itself with the Democratic Party. After Civil Rights, the very same people aligned themselves with the Republicans. It took about 20 years, but by the early ’90’s the process was complete.

            Thanks for the reply, I’m a native Texas too. So it all goes back to the theory that LBJ “lost” the south when he signed the Civil Rights Bill? LBJ even said this himself. No doubt this was the main reason but I wonder if something else exist to help explain this. Why didn’t they go to the conservative side of the Dem party instead of leaving all together?

        • Fearfaxer says:

          Hoover was a genuinely principled conservative who might have made a great president had be been elected in 1920. Alas, the world economy collapsed only 6 months into his term, and neither he nor anyone else at the time were able to grasp just how much more awful this would be than previous economic depressions. As for the rest, earlier to today I took issue with someone on FB talking about how conservatives like Goldwater and Buckley used to have real principles and well-thought out ideas they wrote about in intelligent books. I replied that both of them started the process that has sunk the GOP to this level, that Goldwater’s book “Conscience Of A Conservative” had in fact been written by Buckley’s brother-in-law L. Brent Bozell, who adored Franco and spent the last decades of his life in a serious of psychiatric clinics. I also added that Buckley’s own books were all slapdash affairs that offer only a facile cleverness. Each also actively courted racist votes by opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Buckley’s 1965 NYC mayoral candidacy included appeals to white voters who wanted the police to control through intimidation the city’s black and Latino residents — not a few of my relatives voted for him for that reason. And Goldwater also reached out to right wing religious figures, thus beginning the move of that element into the GOP.

          The American conservative movement’s last honorable personage, IMHO, was Senator Robert Taft, who died a very long time ago. All right, maybe Jack Kemp can be said to have been a similar type of figure, i.e., a basically decent sort who had principles and tried to abide by them, but then he never really had that much of a following, when you come right down to it. I would say the reason for that is that he never tried to stoke the feelings of hate and rage that just about every other prominent right-wing politician or writer has since the end of WWII. When you channel that much negative energy, you can’t have anything other than a profoundly negative effect on society, and the post-war conservative movement most certainly has had a profoundly negative impact on this country.

          • Don Gul says:

            Hoover was a robber baron of the classic type.

          • Fearfaxer says:

            @Don Gul,

            Hoover was most assuredly NOT comparable to the likes of J.D. Rockefeller, and in fact deserves to be remembered as a great man for the work he did feeding war refugees both during and after the First World War. It’s no exaggeration to say that millions of people would have starved to death if not for his extraordinary work.

          • Tom S. says:

            There is a strong argument that much of the “aid” did not reach the population of German occupied Belgium, and
            was not actually intended to. There is the troubling matter of Hoover’s British citizenship and the likelihood that
            this log of ONI officer Capt. Glenn Howell is authentic. Andrew “liquidate” Mellon was a disaster of a Treasury Secretary, (1921 – Feb., 1932), at least from late 1929 until 1932.

            https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=vjkdAAAAIBAJ&sjid=3aUEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6666,4632105&hl=en
            Herbert Hoover had his Watergate, also – 24 Feb. 1983
            ….and
            http://thehistoryinsider.blogspot.com/2012/09/president-hoover-authorizing-break-in.html
            …..
            …. Hoover turned to a former aide, Lewis Lichtenstein Strauss, to find out more. Strauss approached U.S. Navy intelligence officer Glenn Howell, who wrote in his log, according to Andrew’s book: “Strauss told me that the President is anxious to know what the contents of the mysterious documents are, and Strauss is authorized by the President to use the services of any one of our various government secret services.”

            When Howell and another man broke into the office in which the damaging information was said to be held, they found it vacant. So then they identified and followed the former tenant, a Democratic operative named James J. O’Brien.

            My point is the history of Hoover is more difficult to pin down than your positive, unambiguous portrayal may lead some readers to believe.

    • Tom says:

      I don’t know you or Jeff Morley personally. What little I do know is based on your
      comments in this blog. It seems to me that you both are so ensconced in your approach to commenting on the theorists who participate here that you have completely missed what Trump is really trying to do.

      Don’t get me wrong. Trump is a spiteful narcissist. But he doesn’t believe the tripe about Rafael Cruz for a second. All he is doing getting in the last digs like a kid saying over and over again “you are too”, “am not”, “are too”!

  2. These are truly interesting times.

  3. Bogman says:

    You have to wonder what the American people’s reaction would be if they knew that the Cubans around Oswald in that photo were part of a group created, funded and guided by CIA.

    • Jean Davison says:

      “…the Cubans around Oswald in that photo were part of a group created, funded and guided by CIA.”

      You’re thinking of a different demonstration, Bogman, with different people and location. None of the “Cubans” in the Enquirer photo have ever been identified, so far as I know.

      The Bringuier/Oswald scuffle was a few days earlier in front of shops on Canal Street.

      https://www.pinterest.com/pin/461056080575543357/

      • Bogman says:

        It’s amazing to me that “none” of the people in that photo with Oswald were ever identified… some investigation by the FBI.

        My gut tells me they were part of DRE New Orleans as well.

      • Bob Prudhomme says:

        So, in effect, you’re saying there actually was a group with Oswald at a different time and location that was created, funded and guided by the CIA?

        • Bogman says:

          Bob —

          I’m saying that after the fracas with Bringuier and the gang, the DRE in NO were well aware of Oswald. They in fact sent one of their own to pose as a Castro supporter and visit Oswald at his house.

          Makes sense to me that wherever he showed up after the initial incident, DRE would not be far behind to call him out.

          But what about the fact that those folks were NOT identified by FBI? Not one guy?

          • Jean Davison says:

            The DRE became aware of Oswald when he went to Bringuier’s store and attempted to infiltrate his organization (Oswald’s description). Two young customers witnessed this.

            One of the people handing out leaflets was ID-ed as Charles Steele, who testified that Oswald was a stranger who paid him to do it. He’s pictured here:

            http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=10490&relPageId=237

            Oswald made himself a blip on the CIA’s radar when he defected, but I don’t see evidence that they were monitoring his activities in this country.

          • Bogman says:

            Jean —

            You said the men in the photo that’s going around the Internet with Trump’s accusation were never identified. I’m saying that’s an outrage not one man was identified during the “exhaustive” WC investigation.

            I’m speaking of the photo in Jeff’s latest post:
            https://jfkfacts.org/meaning-jfk-trump-era/#more-22855

            Mike

          • Bogman says:

            “Oswald made himself a blip on the CIA’s radar when he defected, but I don’t see evidence that they were monitoring his activities in this country.”

            The circumstantial evidence is comparable to Oswald doing the deed by himself, IMO.

          • David Regan says:

            Jean, are you not familiar with J. Walton Moore? http://www.reopenkennedycase.net/bill-kelly.html

          • Jean Davison says:

            David,

            Yes, I’m familiar with J. Walton Moore. Your link quotes Bill O’Reilly claiming Moore and Oswald attended a party with the de Mohrenschildts. I don’t believe that’s true.

        • Bogman says:

          Sorry, Bob, think I confused your message to Jean to being directed at my post.

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Joannides maintained a reseidnce in New Orleans, or safe house, in the summer of 63, while based out of JMWAVE in Miami. He also oversaw the distribution from the CIA to the DRE of $25,000 a month, a huge sum at the time time. The DRE was created by the CIA to consolidate different anti Castro factions in the US.
            It’s hard for me to imagine Joannides was not aware of Oswald and what was going on with him. It is more likely he was directly involved, even if not most likely personally.

    • Jean Davison says:

      “You said the men in the photo that’s going around the Internet with Trump’s accusation were never identified.”

      You mentioned “Cubans around Oswald” and I said the “Cubans” hadn’t been ID-ed so far as I know. Only one of them was handing out leaflets, evidently. Steele came forward after the film showing him was rebroadcast after the assassination. He reportedly got the impression that the other guy was hired, as he was:

      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=62265&search=%22Charles_steele%22#relPageId=68&tab=page

  4. ed connor says:

    Has Jeff Morley been abducted by Debbie Wasserman Schultz?
    Is this JFK facts or the DNC on line?

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Hi Ed:

      Here’s a crucial explanation. Of course, it is not perfect, and I welcome improvements. All I did was to add one extra dimension (*). I had to publish it in this unusual way, because in the past it was banned by the McAdams (**) Usenet Newsgroup and by JFK Facts:

      http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-georgetown-set-112125
      [Scroll all the way down and click on “Show Comments”]

      (*) In the same way that I have dedicated a lot of effort to add the 3rd. dimension to the JFK case:

      https://goo.gl/cZ7Axr
      https://goo.gl/jTy69B
      https://goo.gl/da4mcQ
      https://goo.gl/6woICd

      We are moving from 1 to 2 dimensions in the ideological space and from 2 to 3, in the scene of the crime and autopsy.

      (**) Interestingly enough, Prof. McAdams gave me his opinion about my model recently. He is clearly, err, evolving. 🙂

      • because in the past it was banned by the McAdams (**) Usenet Newsgroup and by JFK Facts:

        Nothing was banned on alt.assassination.jfk.

        The only thing I can think of is that you have have tried to post a binary years ago when we did not allow binaries. But that has been years.

        Instead of continuing to say something that’s not true, why don’t you post what you want to post on alt.assassination.jfk?

        Are you afraid that when it appears, you will have lost a grievance?

        But if you post a binary, let me warn you it can’t be over 1 MB. Much better to post a link to one of the many sites that host binaries.

        • Ramon F Herrera says:

          [McAdams:]
          “Instead of continuing to say something that’s not true, why don’t you post what you want to post on alt.assassination.jfk?”
          ==============================

          Cool! I have something important to post.

          “Are you afraid that when it appears, you will have lost a grievance?”

          Nope. I don’t hold grudges, Prof. That was an excellent advice by my shrink/girlfriend (ex). I don’t allow anything to fester. No hard feelings on my side. I think your role is extremely useful. Unlike the Posners, Bugliosis, Myers, Sturdivans and Haags, you dare to show your face, and are always available.

          As a wise person once said:

          “It is not personal, it is business”.

  5. J.D. says:

    I think “delusional” may be too charitable a word for Judyth Baker. At this point, the stories she’s telling are clearly deliberate, knowing lies. A Google Books search inside her two published books reveals no mention of anybody by the name “Cruz.” This “memory” of hers apparently just happened to come back to her when Donald Trump, of all people, reminded her of it.

    As far as I know, she has never made a provable claim about any of the people she claims to have known so well that couldn’t have been borrowed from an existing book. Are there any serious researchers who consider her at all credible?

    • Cassandra Jones says:

      What are her “provable lies?” I have read her books and watched her on tape, and tended to believe her. I have a degree in American History and do not consider myself gullible. I have been studying the JFK assassination for only about four years but have read about 50 books and watched numerous documentaries. I am really interested in why the researchers on this site dismiss Baker.

      • Ramon F Herrera says:

        Cassandra: “I am really interested in why the researchers on this site dismiss Baker.”
        ======================

        Easy. Have you noticed how Zapruder appears in images produced by other photographers? And vice versa? Seen how people like David Atlee Phillips are all over the place? If you search a name like, for instance, Orlando Bosch, in the National Archives, you will find records of him which are “POSTPONED IN FULL”.

        Funny how your heroine managed to escape, undetected by the eagle eyes of CIA, FBI, ONI, etc. Not to mention the HSCA or the ARRB.

        She appears in only one book, authored by guess who.

        She has that in common with Donald Trump.

        There are 40 million businesses in the US:

        • Number of businesses that reject and despise Trump’s economic plans: 39,999,950.

        • Number of businesses that support Trump’s economic plans: 50

        Note: The fifty latter are all owned by Mr. Trump

        And the guy has the nerve to call himself “business leader”

        LMAO – You can’t make up this stuff.

        • Cassandra Jones says:

          Thank you for your reply. Baker is not my heroine and I am certainly not a fan of Trump. However, she seems to have some verifiable information on David Ferrie and on the existence of a cancer shot to give cancer, which may have killed Jack Ruby. Also, Garrison mentions in his book that there was an unknown woman in a car with Oswald and that he wished he could have found her. It does not seem unreasonable to me that the elder Cruz might have been involved with the anti-Castro movement in New Orleans at that time. However, I would not believe the word of Trump on this until I see other substantiation. Absence of evidence does not prove that Baker is lying. I am asking for documented facts that prove she is lying in her book. She may be, but I would question why she would make up a story that has been so harmful to her life.

        • Cassandra Jones says:

          Addendum: According to Jim DiEugenio on CTKA, there is no truth to Trump’s allegation that the elder Cruz had any ties to Oswald.

      • J.D. says:

        Cassandra: To my knowledge, Baker has never presented any original information about any of the people she claims to have known that can be independently confirmed. Everything she has written about Oswald, Ruby, et al, could have been taken from existing books, except the stuff about her “relationship” with Oswald, much of which seems at odds with what we know of the real Oswald, who did not seem comfortable confiding in anyone, even his wife. If she can’t produce a single piece of real evidence to support her story — a photograph of her with any of the people she mentions, a letter, an article of clothing, a single other witness who will say something like “Oh yeah, Judyth Baker, I remember seeing her with Oswald” — it is very difficult to take her seriously.

        Len Osanic and Jim DiEugenio talked about Baker’s claims on a recent episode of “Black Op Radio.” If I recall, Len said that he had considered doing an episode debunking her claims, but felt that it would do more harm than good by bringing more attention to her.

        • Cassandra Jones says:

          Thank you all for your civil and informative replies. I especially trust the research done by Jim DiEugenio and Len Osanic. I do not trust comments by Warren Commission defenders as they reject any and all evidence that illustrates how wrong the Warren Report was. We are all here to discover the truth about the death of our duly elected President and should remain united in that effort. I have been following this site and other forums about this injustice for years and find that many of the comments are abusive and forget our common goals. My view is that of a historian who wants to uncover the truth of our American History, not defend some political agenda. As a history teacher, I believe that we are entitled to know our heritage and therefore support all efforts to release the CIA files that cannot possibly impact our security at this late date. The only reason to keep those files secret is to protect the guilty, some of whom may still be alive and very powerful today. This secrecy is the enemy of the democratic process and must be stopped.

  6. Lane says:

    Why is it so hard to believe an anti Castro Cuban who was in New Orleans in 1963 met Oswald. In fact given all we know now is it not harder to believe he didn’t? And if he did it doesn’t mean he is connected to the assassination. So why deny it? O wait, I forgot, he didn’t deny it.

    • Fearfaxer says:

      This “Cruz’s father knew Oswald!” claim is based on a photo that shows LHO standing next to someone who is alleged to bear a facial resemblance to the elder Cruz. However, as Jim DiEugenio has pointed out, Oswald was 5’9″, the man in the photo appears to be an inch or so shorter than Oswald, and Cruz’s father is over 6 feet tall. Cruz’s father was in New Orleans at the time Oswald was, but there’s no reason whatsoever to believe there is any connection between the two at all.

      • Jordan says:

        Papa Cruz is not over 6 ft tall, he’s shorter than his son. How tall is Ted…? 5’8″….that’s how tall Ted is…

        • Fearfaxer says:

          I was quoting from memory and made a mistake w/r/t “over.” However, here is the relevant passage from Jim DiEugenio’s very good piece debunking this rumor:

          “As this site has complained many times before, with very few exceptions, photographic comparisons are not reliable. We went through this a few years ago with Shane O’Sullivan getting on the BBC and saying there were three CIA operatives at the Ambassador Hotel the night Robert Kennedy was killed. This turned out to be wrong. And it appears to be wrong again here. Gus Russo has surfaced a clear photo of Rafael in his younger days, and it does not look like the man in Madsen’s story. He also found an identification card for Rafael, which states he was six feet tall in 1967. The man in the photo appears to be shorter than Oswald, who was 5 feet 9 inches.”

          The piece can be read in its entirety here:

          http://ctka.net/2016/jfk-assassination-and-2016-presidential-election.html

          BTW, I noticed Trump is getting even more inventive with his description of the photo in question. Over the weekend, I saw him say that this photo shows Oswald and the man alleged to be Rafael Cruz having breakfast. Clearly, the picture shows no such thing.

  7. If the story is true, I hope a sex tape wasn’t made of it. If someone releases it & I see it, I already know I won’t be able to handle it. Some things in life should never be shown or seen.

  8. Larry Schnapf says:

    I think it is important to keep in mind that the Cruz family has yet to explain where the father was and what he was doing at the time that Oswald was handing out those Free Play for Cuba leaflets….

    • Fearfaxer says:

      Why should they have to? As far as I know, there’s nothing to prove he was even particularly active in the anti-Castro Cuban exile community. The vast majority of Cuban refugees weren’t. They’d go to meeting and demonstrations, contribute money, but that was about the extent of it.

      There’s plenty in the public record of both Cruz senior and junior that can be used to show them in a negative light. Don’t waste time trying to smear them with an accusation that is certainly a ridiculous lie.

  9. Ronnie Wayne says:

    Ms. Bakers comments on facebook would be laughable were they not as Jeff say’s sickening. Would she advise trump to FREEETHEFILES?

  10. I have two questions – who is the guy suspected of being Rafael Cruz?

    And what became of Minguel Cruz, the 17 year old Cuban who was arrested with Oswald and whose name is Cruz, who I don’t believe is related, but could answer question #1 if he could be located and questioned.

    BK

  11. Avinash says:

    Is not Rafael Cruz still alive? Why doesn’t he just issue a statement?

  12. Charles says:

    Could Mr. Morley please explain to me the benefit of engaging in partisan politics on his site? I would understand if it was only to fact-check mudslinging but to editorialize of the fitness of candidates and parties to me goes farther than desirable.

    On a subject like JFK that is already notorious for internecine warfare, what prospect is there for improving historical consensus when willfully alienating approximately 50% of the voting public? Shouldn’t the JFK community be about building bridges and not walls? (wink)

    I would remind my American friends that there is nothing to fear except fear itself. The Constitution’s checks and balances are a work of genius. Your local sheriff matters. Your mayor, state governor, congress, senate, cabinet and courts all matter.

    I understand that the Executive has abused this architecture since at least 1980 but it is incumbent on the American people to make it work and push back when necessary. There is nothing to be gained by propagating the myth that a President has the power of a dictator.

    Besides, can anyone seriously claim that Trump is more “mentally challenged, delusional and sickening” than LBJ, Nixon or Reagan? I can’t. To me, this election looks a lot like 1980. Similar extreme rhetoric too.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [Charles:] “To me, this election looks a lot like 1980.”
      =====================

      Really, Charles? I do not recall RR being a racist, divider of people, admirer of communist dictators.

      Additionally, it was the opposite: Reagan was not micromanager, or very educated. He surrounded himself with people who compensated for his lack of educations and LISTENED TO THEM. Reagan had class, something that the man bragging about the dimensions of his genitalia sorely lacks.

      Trump surrounds himself with Ben Carson and Sarah Palin.

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

      Michael Reagan: Trump’s no Ronald Reagan

      Ronald Reagan’s son says of all the 2016 Republican presidential candidates, Donald Trump is the least similar to his father.

      http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/14/politics/michael-reagan-donald-trump-ronald-reagan/?iid=ob_article_racetoWH_pool&iref=obnetwork

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

      Ronald Reagan Jr.:

      “My dad would have been ‘appalled’ by Donald Trump”

      http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/reagan-son-my-dad-would-have-been-appalled-by-donald-trump/

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

      • Tom S. says:

        ….Really, Charles? I do not recall RR being a racist, divider of people, admirer of communist dictators.

        Additionally, it was the opposite: Reagan was not micromanager, or very educated. He surrounded himself with people who compensated for his lack of educations and LISTENED TO THEM. Reagan had class, something that the man bragging about the dimensions of his genitalia sorely lacks.

        Spot on, Charles! Same fish, same bait…..

        http://www.nytimes.com/1976/02/15/archives/welfare-queen-becomes-issue-in-reagan-campaign-hitting-a-nerve-now.html
        ‘Welfare Queen’ Becomes Issue in Reagan Campaign
        SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMESFEB. 15, 1976
        …..
        Former Gov. Ronald Reagan of California has referred to her at nearly every stop, using her as part of his “citizens’ press conference” format.

        “There’s a woman in Chicago,” the Republican candidate said recently to an audience in Gilford, N.H., during his freeswinging attack on welfare abuses. “She has 80 names, 30 addresses, 12 Social Security cards and is collecting veterans’ benefits on four nonexisting deceased husbands.” He added:

        “And she’s collecting Social Security on her cards. She’s got Medicaid, getting food stamps and she is collecting welfare under each of her names. Her tax‐free cash income alone is over $150,000.”

        Mr. Reagan never mentions the woman by name. But the effect is the same wherver he goes. During his second campaign swing through the state last month, for example, he startled people in Dublin and Jaffrey and Peterborough and Salem and in all the other little towns where he appeared. They were angry at “welfare chislers.” Mr. Reagan had hit a nerve…..

        http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/44535
        11-11-07
        Did David Brooks Tell the Full Story About Reagan’s Neshoba County Fair Visit?
        by Joseph Crespino…..
        …In his November 9, 2007, column in the New York Times, ( http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/44484 ) David Brooks discussed Ronald Reagan’s appearance at the Neshoba County Fair in 1980 and his use of the term “states’ rights.” Brooks absolved Reagan of racism, but he ignored the broader significance of Reagan’s Neshoba County appearance.

        A full account of the incident has to consider how the national GOP was trying to strengthen its southern state parties and win support from southern white Democrats. Consider a letter that Michael Retzer, the Mississippi national committeeman, wrote in December 1979 to the Republican national committee. Well before the Republicans had nominated Reagan, the national committee was polling state leaders to line up venues where the Republican nominee might speak. Retzer pointed to the Neshoba County Fair as ideal for winning what he called the “George Wallace inclined voters.”

        This Republican leader knew that the segregationist Alabama governor was the symbol of southern white resentment against the civil rights struggle. Richard Nixon had angled to win these voters in 1968 and 1972. Mississippi Republicans knew that a successful Republican candidate in 1980 would have to continue the effort.

        On July 31st, just days before Reagan went to Neshoba County, the New York Times reported that the Ku Klux Klan had endorsed Reagan. In its newspaper, the Klan said that the Republican platform “reads as if it were written by a Klansman.” Reagan rejected the endorsement, but only after a Carter cabinet official brought it up in a campaign speech. The dubious connection did not stop Reagan from using segregationist language in Neshoba County.
        ……

        continued…

        • Tom S. says:

          Part II

          http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/remember-jan-june04-historians_06-07/
          ………Domestic policy

          GWEN IFILL: Roger, let’s talk about his domestic policy. Pick up where Michael left off and say how did this Reaganism translate into domestic policy in a way that still reverberates today.

          ROGER WILKINS: Well, Reagan was an incredible combination of a person who was very optimistic, upbeat, but underneath there were some really ugly parts of his politics.

          He was, I said once before on this program, he capitalized on anti-black populism by going to Philadelphia and Mississippi , for example, in the beginning of his campaign in 1980.

          Nobody had ever heard of Philadelphia and Mississippi outside of Mississippi , except as the place where three civil rights workers had been lynched – in 1964 – he said I believe in states rights.

          Everybody knew what that meant. He went to Stone Mountain , Georgia , where the Ku Klux Klan used to burn its crosses, and he said Jefferson Davis is a hero of mine.

          He was rebuked by the Atlanta newspapers – they said we don’t need that any more here. He went to Charlotte, North Carolina one of the most successful busing for integration programs in the country and he said I’m against busing and again the Charlotte papers rebuked him. And the impact of that plus his attacks on welfare women, welfare queens in Cadillacs, for example. And his call for cutting the government. He didn’t cut the government; the military bloomed in his time. But programs for poor people day diminished entirely and America became a less civilized and less decent place. …..

          http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1962220

          …………Goldwater said he supported the white Southern position on civil rights, which was that each and every state had a sovereign right to control its laws. The Arizona Republican argued that each American has the right to decide whom to hire, whom to do business with and whom to welcome in his or her restaurant. The senator was right at home with Southern politicians who called the Civil Rights Act an attack on “the Southern way of life.”

          To overcome the forces arrayed against the bill, Johnson needed every bit of his political skill and every bit of emotional aftermath from the previous November’s assassination of President John F. Kennedy. But once the bill had passed, Johnson told confidants that Democrats might have lost the South to Republicans for years to come. He was exactly right….

          http://www.nytimes.com/1982/02/02/us/reagan-tax-exemption-bill-assailed.html
          REAGAN TAX EXEMPTION BILL ASSAILED
          STUART TAYLOR Jr., Special to the New York Times. Feb 2, 1982. pg. A.18
          ….The Administration decided Jan. 8 to grant the exemptions to private schools that practiced racial discrimination, revoking an 11-year-old policy initiated by the Nixon Administration. The move was immediately criticized by civil rights leaders and members of both parties in Congress, and four days later Mr. Reagan said he would rescind the change and submit a bill to bar such tax exemptions….

          continued….

          • You are a jerk Scully. You cannot handle dissent from those who once supported you. If you are going to simply dismiss me, have the guts to say it here publicly.

            \\][//

    • Brian Joseph says:

      Politics in the U.S. for the most part has devolved into sports team rivalry. Party loyalty is almost a religion to many. Hypocrisy is rampant. People can justify an action by their team while fully condemning something similar by the other team. It’s at the level of parody. In the upcoming election the majority of people won’t be voting for someone they will be voting against someone. It is somewhat comical to hear otherwise inteligent people guzzling the party kool aids, not realizing how similar both sides sound to those of us who aren’t wearing the special party goggles. It’s at a level where if you criticize a politician there is the automatic assumption that you support the “opposite” political party and the labels come out and one is branded a conservative or a liberal.

    • A lot of people here see the assassination through a lens that is entirely the product of their political biases.

      They are generally what I call the “scruffy left.” They hate conservatives, and they see a racist behind every bush and under every bed.

      Thus they blame the assassination on people they hate for political reasons.

      They don’t start with the evidence, and try to infer what happened. They start with whom they hate, and work up a theory to blame those people for the assassination.

      You are seeing it right here, and on this thread.

      Mention Donald Trump on even Ronald Reagan, and they just let their biases hang out all over the place, without even the excuse that it has anything to do with the assassination.

  13. Larry Schnapf says:

    @jordon,ramon,fearfaxer- obviously it would be better to say where he was rather than simply denying he was in New Orleans that day. while i recognize its hard to be specific as to the day, hard for me to believe one cant generally remember where they in any partucular year….then again i have been blessed (and sometimes cursed) with a very good memory.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      [Larry:] “it would be better to say where he was rather than simply denying he was in New Orleans that day.”
      ================

      That is surprising news to me. Have they denied that? My impression is that Ted Cruz (the ONLY PERSON authorized to talk to the media) simply stated a blanket denial about the whole thing. It was something along the the lines of:

      “That is ridiculous. Donald Trump is a liar”. Period.

      Can you provide a cite where any of the Cruzes say:

      “He was not in New Orleans that day”?

      ———————

      “Donald Trump alleges that my dad was involved in assassinating JFK,” Cruz said incredulously before a long pause. “Let’s be clear. This is nuts!”

      Cruz continued with the verbal assault, calling the billionaire businessman “amoral” and a “pathological liar.”

      “This is not a reasonable position, this is just kooky. And while I’m at it I guess I should just go ahead [and say], ‘yeah my dad killed JFK. He is secretly Elvis and [missing labor leader] Jimmy Hoffa is buried in his back yard,'” he added, visibly upset, with running mate Carly Fiorina and wife Heidi at his side.

      https://www.google.com/#q=Ted+Cruz+upset+Donald+Trump+liar+Lee+Harvey+Oswald+New+Orleans

  14. MDG says:

    Is there anything wrong with someone suggesting the MSM should get to the bottom of the Raphael Cruz story.

    Did he know LHO in N. Orleans or elsewhere in 63 which is above and beyond the question of whether he was handing out leaflets at the
    I. Trade Mart.

    The real question is whether R. Cruz had CIA connections and knew LHO through the CIA. And apparently R Cruz did have CIA connections.

    Thats what DOD asked (B. Maher likes to call him that).

    He seems to have had connections with the cast of characters in N. Orleans prior to the Assassination above and beyond the I. Trade Mart Photo through the Schlumberger Oil Company of France.

    Thats what DOD (B. Maher likes to call him that) asked.

    http://milfuegos.blogspot.ca/2016/05/solid-links-found-between-rafael-cruzs.html

    http://www.hangthebankers.com/ted-cruzs-dad-lee-harvey-oswald-found-dead/

    “What Novel revealed to the press was that the CIA unit in New Orleans transferred munitions from the oil services company’s bunker, leased by Schlumberger Well Services Company of Houston, to three destinations in New Orleans: Novel’s Evergreen Advertising Agency building, the home of CIA contract pilot David Ferrie, and the office of Guy Banister in the Newman Building on Lafayette Street. In early 1961, an associate of Banister revealed that he saw as many as 100 boxes of munitions in Banister’s storeroom. They were all marked “Schlumberger,” the same firm with which Rafael Cruz had a contractual relationship”.

  15. Dan Clark says:

    All do respect to Jean, but I think a former marine who worked in a radar installation where u2 planes were based makes you more than a blip on the radar for the Company. Also why they go through the trouble of sheepdipping Lho (read: implying he’d contacted and/or visited Mexico City in the fall of 63 further cementing his commie credentials) if he’s a blip?

    I think the facts as we know them now show LHO was working with or being manipulated by company people

    • Bill Clarke says:

      Dan Clark
      July 25, 2016 at 5:58 pm

      “All do respect to Jean, but I think a former marine who worked in a radar installation where u2 planes were based makes you more than a blip on the radar for the Company.”

      I think that a very low level Marine doing entry level work covered by the lowest security classification (Confidential) would not even make a blip for the CIA. Not even a blip.

      • Tom S. says:

        Bill Clarke, sorry too many coincidences are presented to preclude being as dismissive as you are being.
        William P Burke was chief of CIA in southeast region from the agency’s inception until 1962.

        Tom Purvis explains.: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=8715&p=83719
        Posted 04 December 2006 – 03:34 PM
        Purvis presents on Byrd, his wife, on John W. Sims, and on Spencer…..

        Webb Roberts was an usher in DH Byrd’s 1935 wedding….
        https://books.google.com/books?id=d-6iCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT174&dq=webb+roberts+%22shared+an+apartment*%22+byrd&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwict6jZ54_OAhUG3SYKHQizBn0Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=webb%20roberts%20%22shared%20an%20apartment*%22%20byrd&f=false
        …One was D. Harold Byrd, with whom he shared an apartment at the Dallas Athletic Club.


        Expanded obit, dated 2 Sept., 1954: (Burke is described as a pallbearer)

        http://www.nola.com/society/index.ssf/2015/02/gold_and_silver_linings_the_me.html
        updated February 20, 2015
        …The Comus captain then gave Rex’s page a personalized, scroll invitation for Rex, his queen, and their court to join the Comus Ball. The invitation was accepted and the Rex court left for the Marriott Hotel, where the “Meeting of the Courts” at the Comus bal masque would take place.

        Onstage were Comus (whose identity never revealed) and the Queen,….

        https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-9/#comment-887008
        Tom S. – 2016/07/16 at 5:21 pm
        Earlier today, I was about to point out that William Burke, Lloyd Ray, and Hunter Leake all made a choice of best man in their wedding ceremonies of batchelor gentlemen, and that Clay Shaw happened to be one, as well. Ray and Leake chose the same person, Hagerty, Burke chose
        Spencer. But then I looked a bit further and found even more intriguing “coincidence”.:
        ………

        https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22phil+strong+is+off+on+a+two-year*%22+
        Princeton Alumni Weekly – Volume 37 – Page 607
        1936 – (April 16, 1937) ‎
        Phil Strong is off on a two-year walking trip through Germany and Russia. If he doesn’t write a book about Russia, it will certainly be news….

        …….
        …. –109–

        It was in this job that Major Strong caught the eye of William J. Donovan…..

        https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0000621349.pdf
        Approved for release 09/23/2009

        ………..
        https://books.google.com/books?id=sRFbAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA3-PA27&dq=hill+school+brainard+roomed+phil+strong&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiB6LiE4PjNAhUIcj4KHTgkBawQ6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=hill%20school%20brainard%20roomed%20phil%20strong&f=true

      • Bill Clarke says:

        Tom S.
        July 25, 2016 at 8:15 pm

        “Bill Clarke, sorry too many coincidences are presented to preclude being as dismissive as you are being.”

        I wasn’t commenting on your “coincidences” Tom and I see nowhere that they apply to my statement or the statement that I did reply to.

        The man said Oswald was a blip on the CIA screen because he was a Marine and worked in radar on a base where the U2 was present. I say this is incorrect and gave my reasons for thinking so. Until I see something else my statement stands. Your coincidences are another story, one I don’t care to get into. You might be right but I must say I don’t have a lot of faith in all this who married who and so forth.

        • Tom S. says:

          …You might be right but I must say I don’t have a lot of faith in all this who married who and so forth.

          Bill, I find your deflection (distortion) insulting, reflecting on you, although you intended it on me.
          I say this because the only actual description of “who married who,” in the details I presented was a
          description of the late Tom Purvis of who D. Harold Byrd married.

          On the other hand, I presented compelling evidence that the “father” of the U-2 spy plane program, Phil Strong, was a Hill School and Princeton classmate and Princeton roommate of the best friend (WB Spencer, Jr.) of CIA NOLA chief, William P. Burke, Jr., and that WB Spencer appears directly tied to D. Harold Byrd.

          Your disinterested reaction and attempt to marginalize my research approach and specific presentation is
          duly noted. Since I do not regard you as stupid, I read your reaction to the details in my presentation as
          far more troubling than if it could simply be chalked up to attention deficit or a lack of reasoning capacity.

          And Bill, just how do you suggest one identify the subtleties that yield proven connections of persons of
          interest, simply listen to and repeat what DiEugenio asserts to Len Osanic?

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Tom S.
            July 25, 2016 at 11:48 pm

            “On the other hand, I presented compelling evidence that the “father” of the U-2 spy plane program, Phil Strong, was a Hill School and Princeton classmate and Princeton roommate of the best friend (WB Spencer, Jr.) of CIA NOLA chief, William P. Burke, Jr., and that WB Spencer appears directly tied to D. Harold Byrd.”

            You missed my point Tom. While what you say here is fine it doesn’t address the original subject that Oswald was this “blip” because he was; a. A marine, b. worked in radar, c. worked where the U2 was present. I fail to see how your comments and my comments come together.

            “And Bill, just how do you suggest one identify the subtleties that yield proven connections of persons of interest, simply listen to and repeat what DiEugenio asserts to Len Osanic?”

            You know very well that I have no respect or trust in DiEugenio after his NSAM 263 BS on this group.

      • Dan Clark says:

        If he was as a blip who was impersonating him and why? If he was a lone but why does Harry Truman make a statement on Dec 9, 63 to the effect that operational capability should be removed from the cia.

        All of it sounds like, looks like, the cia was handling LHO, put him together and used him as the patsy and they most certainly got away with it because there is no-one in the msm with the guts to fight this fight for the truth.

        And evidently there is not one patriot amongst the cia former or current employees who could give a damn about the truth and become whistleblower with regard to this case AND RFK.

        Anyway, back to my point, LHO was not a blip on their radar, you don’t get a meeting with the cia after returning from the ussr, enter a group of cia funded Cubans and offer them help then turn and start handing out fair play leaflets with bannister’ address stamped on the back while surrounded by cia paid Dre members AND get impersonated all over the place in the lead-up to 11-22 and be a “blip” on the radar. I don’t buy that at all

  16. Cassandra Jones says:

    I am mystified by the claims on this site that LHO was a “mere blip” on the radar of the CIA. Are we forgetting the evidence that he was probably sent as a low-level dangle to the USSR and that the government paid for his reentry to the US? Are we forgetting all the sightings of Oswald being seen in more than one place at the same time, indicating that someone was manipulating his identity for some reason. Most importantly, are we forgetting the brave testimony of Tony Veciana at last year’s Dallas Convention that he saw Oswald talking to “Maurice Bishop,” now know as David Atlee Phillips, a high-level CIA agent. No. Oswald was not a “mere blip” on the CIA radar! He was one of them!

    • Most importantly, are we forgetting the brave testimony of Tony Veciana at last year’s Dallas Convention that he saw Oswald talking to “Maurice Bishop,” now know as David Atlee Phillips, a high-level CIA agent.

      Nobody is forgetting it. It’s just that it lacks credibility.

      Veciana has changed his story a few times. See:

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

      The fact that Veciana was convicted of drug dealing does not help his credibility.

      http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/belligerence/veciana-pomares.pdf

      Also, the supposed meeting was in late August or early September, but Oswald was in New Orleans at that time.

      • Cassandra Jones says:

        https://youtu.be/ns5z1BHfEvc

        John McAdams: I am very familiar with the claims you make on your website, but with all due respect, I believe Bill O’Reilly in this clip.

        • Jean Davison says:

          “I believe Bill O’Reilly in this clip.”

          Why do you believe him? Have you researched it?

        • You need to understand that O’Reilly was manipulated by Gaeton Fonzi, who was the source of the stuff in the video.

          For example, the video implies that the HSCA didn’t investigate the “Maurice Bishop” business, when it fact it did. I gave you the link:

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

          The nonsense at the end about the CIA “planting nine agents in the Garrison investigation” came from Fonzi.

          We know how the CIA reacted to Garrison, and they had no inside information.

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

          • Cassandra Jones says:

            I have read THE LAST INVESTIGATION and listened to several interviews with Fonzi and his widow. As an historian I admire his documentation. Even Blakey admitted in 2003 that the CIA had manipulated that investigation. The journalists you mention on your website are all defenders of the completely discredited Warren Report and its phony single-bullet “theory.” I did not believe the Warren Commission in 1964 and I do not believe it now. (BREACH OF TRUST by McKnight). I believe that Operation Mockingbird is still in effect and that the remnants of the Allen Dulles gang are still influential today. (THE DEVIL’S CHESSBOARED by Talbot) I believe the evidence given in JFK AND THE UNSPEAKEABLE by Douglass and DESTINY BETRAYED by DiEugenio. I believe Garrison when he claimed that he knew that during his investigation that he was “dancing with the CIA.” I believe that the agency, including Richard Helms, worked actively to scuttle his case; that, my friend, was obstruction of justice and should have earned him jail time. “The Constitution is just a scrap of paper to me,” said Helms; that statement was treason!

          • Tom S. says:

            I believe the evidence given in JFK AND THE UNSPEAKEABLE by Douglass and DESTINY BETRAYED by DiEugenio. I believe Garrison when he claimed that he knew that during his investigation that he was “dancing with the CIA.”

            Cassandra, I cannot accept that a historian would write what you wrote, considering the following evidence which you may not yet beware of.:

            https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-9/#comment-883261
            June 22, 2016 at 5:20 pm …….

            and

            https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-9/#comment-883211
            Tom S. – June 22, 2016 at 12:44 pm
            ……..
            Is your curiousity at all heightened considering Joan Mellen met Garrison in 1970, claimed she interviewed 1200 people in the course of writing her book on Garrison, yet she told Rex Bradford in the 2006 interview I linked to, that;

            https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Unredacted_-_Episode_1_-_Transcript.html
            Unredacted Episode 1: Transcript of Interview with Joan Mellen
            …when (Atty. Edward) Baldwin was present, he was a CIA asset, his brother worked for the International Trade Mart and Clay Shaw, David Baldwin, and these, these are CIA people.……

            From what they’ve said and written, it appears that Garrison kept this from two people, Ms. Mellen and Jeremy Sklar, who have given all appearance of having been taken into Garrison’s confidence.:
            https://jfkfacts.org/comment-week-21-9/#comment-883261

            ……..

            ….and

            https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?11626-Clay-Shaw&p=108359#post108359

            ….Readers will also have to decide if there is any debate as to whether Garrsion was pursuing “the right suspects.” The background and the results raise the suspicion that Garrison was not actually pursuing anybody. His silence in response to all that I’ve presented above, and Shaw’s as well, should be deeply disturbing to everyone, including the man behind the $41 million production, “JFK, the movie,” as well as supporters of Columbia Graduate School of Journalism’s Dean Emeritus, Nicholas B Lemann…

            Cassandra, my name and reputation is not invested in a book supported by incomplete information. Can you discern the difference between my consideration of new evidence, vs. the reaction of those who feel obliged to stand by what they’ve published which was only as well supported as Jim Garrison was determined to reveal or not disclose?

            A true account should not depend on Garrison’s transparency or lack of it, but here we are.

          • J.D. says:

            McAdams has no evidence that Gaeton Fonzi was trying to “manipulate” Bill O’Reilly. (The notion that anyone could “manipulate” O’Reilly — who, whatever else one might say about him, is a rather headstrong and opinionated individual — into saying things he did not truly believe on camera is amusing.)

            His statement is simply a casual smear of a great journalist and researcher who, unfortunately, is no longer here to defend himself.

          • McAdams has no evidence that Gaeton Fonzi was trying to “manipulate” Bill O’Reilly.

            What do you mean “trying to?”

            Fonzi doubless believed all the stuff he fed to O’Reilly, but Fonzi accepted a lot of silly things.

            He fell for the “Hendrix reported a coup before it happened” nonsense.

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

            Do this search and you’ll see that Fonzi was in regular contact with O’Reilly.

            https://www.google.com/search?q=Gaeton+Fonzi+Bill+O%27Reilly

          • J.D. says:

            Being in contact with someone is proof that you are “manipulating” them?

            McAdams believes that his “discovery” of a single questionable statement in a 500-page book invalidates the entire book. And what is questionable about the statement, anyway — that one of McAdams’s students found the original article and didn’t think it read like a “colorful description of the coup”? Fonzi’s point was that Hendrix obviously had access to strong inside sources for this story, which is clearly the case.

            If that’s literally the most questionable thing you can find in the book, I’d say it stacks up better than the outdated and biased sources you tend to use on your own website.

          • that one of McAdams’s students found the original article and didn’t think it read like a “colorful description of the coup”?

            It wasn’t a “colorful description of the coup.” It was a good journalistic explanation of why things seemed to be coming apart. It described no coup at all.

            Fonzi’s point was that Hendrix obviously had access to strong inside sources for this story, which is clearly the case.

            That’s not what he said. He said “Hendrix wrote a colorful and detailed description of the coup.”

            As for “good sources:” that’s what journalists are supposed to have. The article was a good one, and Fonzi should not have told an untruth about what it said.

          • I believe . . .

            Have you actually looked at any reviews critical of any of those books?

            If the authors are misrepresenting the facts to you, how would you know it?

            Why don’t you look at this?

            http://www.washingtondecoded.com/site/2009/12/unspeakably-awful.html

          • Bill Clarke says:

            Cassandra Jones
            July 26, 2016 at 6:13 pm

            “I believe that Operation Mockingbird is still in effect and that the remnants of the Allen Dulles gang are still influential today. (THE DEVIL’S CHESSBOARED by Talbot) I believe the evidence given in JFK AND THE UNSPEAKEABLE by Douglass and DESTINY BETRAYED by DiEugenio.”

            Oh dear me. I think I have found your problem here.

    • Jean Davison says:

      “…the evidence that he was probably sent as a low-level dangle to the USSR”

      What evidence? Do you mean “speculation”?

      The State Department gave Oswald a loan for a ticket out of Russia, as it did for other defectors who wanted to return, as I recall. The loan got Oswald only as far as New York, where the money ran out. Most sources don’t tell you that Oswald then tried to talk the NYC welfare department into giving him a separate loan to get to Texas. They instead called his brother Robert, who sent him the airplane fare.

      http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=96368&search=%22new_york+city%22+#relPageId=5&tab=page

      Also seldom mentioned are Oswald’s questions about whether he might be prosecuted when he returned to the U.S. He asked Embassy officials and wrote Robert asking him to look into it. If he was a “dangle,” why worry?

      Oswald was “seen” in places he couldn’t have possibly been and where no apparent purpose was served by an impostor (like on a Norwegian cruise ship or a bar in California). Oswald was an average-looking guy, easily mistaken for someone else.

  17. MDG says:

    The CIA is an unreliable source.

    Novel was CIA and part of the N Orleans cast of characters in 63.

    Did Novel know LHO through the CIA.

    I am quoting the 1968 Garrison interview.

    http://www.jfklancer.com/Garrison4.html

    This at this point is all about the facts & documents.

    We need a Kennedy Commission to lay out everything in the Kennedy Mystery in 26 volumes.

    It is a Crime that needs to be solved.

    This doesnt mean Novel or Cruz were involved in the Assassination but they were part of the New Orleans 63 part of the story.

    Tannenbaum was part of the HSCA part of the story. Let’s not be afraid of it.

    A Kennedy Commission would bring all the evidence together in one large set of books with 26+ Volumes.

  18. Larry Schnapf says:

    @John- you say O’Reilly manipulated. Will you acknowledge that there is another equally reasonable interpretation (even if you do not agree with it) is that O’reilly was a cub reporter trying to make a name for himself (remember what it was like when we were young) and he (as well as Geraldo) changed views when they joined Fox News.

    • The business in the video about the HSCA not dealing with Oswald’s supposed “CIA connection” (via “Maurice Bishop”) is just flat wrong.

      And the business about the CIA having nine agents in the Garrison investigation is flat wrong too. I posted the link. We have the documents. We know how the CIA reacted to Garrison (spinning its wheels).

      As for the Fox business, you have admitted that, both in 2013 and 2003, Fox’s treatment of the assassination was more conspiracy friendly than the mainstream outlets.

      Just because a bunch of lefties here don’t like Fox and believe in a conspiracy doesn’t mean Fox cares much about conspiracy one way or another.

      If Fox doesn’t have it’s people on board in opposition to Trump (who Ailes has to know is a disastrous candidate) it’s hard to see why they would have any orthodoxy about the assassination.

      • Cassandra Jones says:

        Yes, I have read negative reviews of the books I quoted and I stand behind them as accurate sources because I understand the motivations behind those who write them. Why do you continue to harp on me to read your website when I have stated that I have read it and found your arguments less than credible? Why do you send me reviews that you have written when I have stated unequivocally that I do not believe the Warren Report; that I never believed it and did not know anyone at the time who did, even my professors? I think that agents of the CIA have corrupted our democratic process and I believe those who are trying to uncover the truth about our murdered President are brave American heroes. Why don’t you read alternative theories with a more open mind? You deny anything out-of-hand that criticizes the Warren Report which I think was a phony coverup on the face of it. “Single-bullet theory” indeed. Use your common sense. Therefore, I do not agree with you, nor do thousands of excellent researchers who back up their writings with historical documentation. We are entitled to our convictions as long as this country remains free, no thanks to the silencing by the rogue CIA agents who perpetrated the crime against a duly elected President. You should use you energy and intellect to support the democratic process rather than derail it.

        • Tom S. says:

          Yes, I have read negative reviews of the books I quoted and I stand behind them as accurate sources because I understand the motivations behind those who write them.

          My expectation of a historian is of an informed, openminded scholar moved exclusively by the facts, someone
          intensely interested in subtleties and contradictions. You have not a single question to ask me and instead you
          criticized and lectured and attempted to change the discussion to front shot investigation despite you raising the subject of Garrison and the CIA in the first place.

          I disagree with nearly everything Dr. McAdams writes but I find it difficult to discuss anything with him, vs. impossible, so far, to discuss anything with you.

          • Cassandra Jones says:

            I am confused. I thought we were all on the same side here, working to reveal the truth of the Kennedy assassination. I began serious research a few years ago but never believed the Warren Report as it was widely questioned where I lived at the time it was released. I believe I have read deeply with a fairly open mind and researched all sides before I reached my conclusions. I mentioned a few of what I considered to be the best books that convinced me of CIA involvement. One of those books was by Garrison, I read several books about him and watched several interviews that he gave; I especially admired his tenacity in one that he gave shortly before he died stating that we still did not have the truth yet about the assassination. Whether he was right or wrong in his prosecution I can’t judge, but I do believe he was onto the big picture. If you have other information to convince me otherwise, then I would welcome it, and if you don’t think the CIA was involved in our President’s death, then I will have to reconsider my assumptions and question every source I have ever read that convinced me otherwise. However, I think I have been fair in reading all sides and have even considered Bugliosi and Posner, before I arrived at my conclusions. I have read this site and other forums, including education forum, for years to find the truth, and have read over 50 books on the tragedy, so to judge me “unscholarly” because I questioned your take on Garrison is quite unfair. He has been one of my heroes for years for standing up to the powers that be; he showed bravery for standing up for his convictions against great ridicule. If I have been wrong all these years, then I stand corrected. Very sad indeed.

          • Tom S. says:

            Cassandra, I apologize for criticizing your professionalism. I reacted out of frustration and that is not sufficient justification because we all are rather limited in these exchanges in attempting to make first impressions and risk premature and inaccurate assumptions.

            I was a junior h.s. student attending a music class while receiving the news that JFK was shot in Dallas.
            I was suspicious of the official inquiry reported results since the murder of Oswald less than 48 hours later. Coming less than five weeks after the sudden sorrow of the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr., the assassination of RFK and events in Chicago and results of the election that fall left me overwhelmed, numb. I protested the war, entered college, became desensitized to politics as events played out, McGovern’s loss, Watergate, unelected Ford succeeding Nixon and appointing unelected Rockefeller. Carter took office and unexpectedly announced a blanket pardon I was eligible to benefit from. I took a renewed interest in politics until
            it was shut down by Reagan’s election victory and then the attempt to assassinate him only weeks after John Lennon was lone nutted to death. I became involved in family, parenting, and career pursuits and until 2008 never focused on the finer details of the assassination of JFK. The advent of the internet and the influence of a distant cousin who was an accomplished genealogist resulted in my increasing ability to find “stuff”.

            I made up for my earlier lack of immersion in JFK Assassination research after admission as a member of the Education Forum, JFK Debate on 1 Jan., 2009. This is a link to a post I submitted on that forum on my third day as
            a member there.: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=6550&p=160764 .
            In that post, I mentioned that I had posted this, the day before.: http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=582&p=160755

            I became an active researcher and contributor at that forum, serving several years as a moderator, until,
            I emphasized details the owner and founder of that forum did not appreciate having to read and consider.:
            http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=20259&p=275587

            The information I shared with you about Garrison was developed from an interest I took in the background of
            INCA’s Edward Butler. I found that NOLA Trade Mart PR director Jesse Core III was a bridge between Butler and
            Jesse Core III’s Trade Mart predecessor and friend, former CIA covert agent David Baldwin.

            continued…..

          • Tom S. says:

            Part II
            Through my routine practice of genealogical research into family of people I research, I discovered that Baldwin was related to both Garrison’s wife and to one of Garrison’s most vocal critics, a nephew of a WDSU counsel Garrison had accused of CIA affiliation without naming the man.:

            https://jfkfacts.org/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-855528
            Tom S. – 2016/02/01 at 8:30 pm
            …..

            I found that Garrison’s book, “On the trail….” did not tell the full story and neither had Joan Mellen or
            Jim DiEugenio.

            https://jfkfacts.org/eyewash-how-the-cia-deceives-its-own-workforce-about-operations/#comment-856698
            Tom S. – 2016/02/06 at 5:58 pm
            ……
            If you recall, and I know your ability to do so is quite selective, one of the most interesting and
            troubling issues related to Mr. Core and his friend David Baldwin, is that GQ magazine writer Nicholas
            B. Lemann wrote his Garrison “hit piece” without disclaimer, and gave the court adjudicating the Perry Russo
            defamation lawsuit triggered by Lemann’s GQ article, to put it charitably, a “misleading answer” as to
            his motive and slant. Again, if you recall, Mr. Baldwin was the son-in-law of Nicholas’s grandfather,
            Monte Lemann, and Mr. Baldwin’s brother, Edward, was quite active in interfering with Garrison’s witnesses and in defending members of the “news” media engaged in parallel endeavors against Garrison.

            Do you recall the documentation posted describing what was in the last page of Garrison’s June 18, 1967
            letter of complaint to the chairman of the FCC?
            (see – https://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-851707 )
            Do you understand that “the station” Garrison complained
            about, and “the station” Jesse Core called, was the one mentioned below, and that Thomas is Nicholas
            Lemann’s father, and Stephen was Nicholas’s uncle…

            So, what do I think? I think Garrison was an ambitious politician who was beholden to sponsors wielding much greater political influence in NOLA than Garrison did, and that he did as they directed him to do. In return for
            following orders, Garrison’s political career continued. Except for the loss in his last NODA reelection bid, Garrison continued to advance to higher elected office. The evidence I have found influences me to suspect Garrison’s investigation and his prosecution of Clay Shaw was an elaborate contrivance intended to head off a feared in 1966, early 1967, new federal investigation, and that it was a successful deception resulting in no new investigation of any concern until the Pike and Church committees seven years later.

            Considering the actual evidence and Garrison’s lack of disclosure to his book editor Zachary Sklar and to Joan Mellen, along with the boldness of Nicholas Lemann writing so critically about Garrison from 1974 at the Harvard Crimson until late 1991 in GQ magazine article resulting in Perry Russo’s defamation suit.

            Yes, I very strongly suspect the CIA cooperated heavily or orchestrated and directed Garrison’s performance.
            If you have an analysis explaining the behavior of Garrison and for example, the cluelessness of Joan Mellen
            and the persistent criticism of Garrison by Nicholas Lemann that went unanswered except by Russo, Sklar, and by
            Oliver Stone, I would very much like to read it.

          • I mentioned a few of what I considered to be the best books that convinced me of CIA involvement. One of those books was by Garrison,

            You might believe him if you can’t do independent fact checking, and are mostly reading other books that buy what Garrison says (or have similar biases).

            But some people have had the resources to fact check the book:

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

          • “You might believe him if you can’t do independent fact checking, and are mostly reading other books that buy what Garrison says (or have similar biases).
            But some people have had the resources to fact check the book:”~John McAdams

            I find it most interesting that ‘professor’ McAdams and Tom Scully are in lockstep agreement on the assertion of Jim Garrison’s “dishonesty”.
            \\][//

    • Cassandra Jones says:

      I think we all know who “manipulates” O’Reilly since he changed his tune on the JFK assassination when he went to work for Fox News. Also, I am seriously wondering what the purpose of jfkfacts is when they are more concerned with tearing into the Garrison investigation and anyone who may have believed that he was at least on the right track when he accused the CIA of being involved in that tragedy, than they are about uncovering the truth about “the shot from the front.” I have read a great deal of the testimony of the Warren Report and how Allen Dulles cut off witnesses before they could testify against his “lone nut ” decree. Talk about manipulation! Dulles decided the outcome of the commission on the very first day to protect “his” CIA. Mockingbird is alive and well, both then and now on this site. Very dissappointing to those of us who really wanted to hear the government finally admit their complicity in the death of “our” President so as to restore the trust of the electorate in our democratic process. Or indeed is it too late for that? JFKfacts, that is your responsibility, or so I thought. Live up to it!

      • Dan Clark says:

        You said it!

        And to whomever said there was no evidence LHO was impersonated you must have missed J Edgar Hoover telling LBJ on 11-23 at 10am in a recorded phone call that the voice on the alleged LHO Mexico City calls was not in fact LHO’s voice nor were the pictures presented as LHO actually photo’s of him.

        How much evidence does one really need here to satisfy you that there were in fact Oswald impersonator’s in the fall of 63?

        And I have to agree it’s quite obvious Garrison was onto something big. If the judge and jury would have known Shaw was CIA, had the photo’s of him with Ferrie etc, or had the taped Hoover call I think we’d have seen Jim Garrison lionized as a hero and we’d know exactly how this plot was hatched, who set it up, who paid for it and exactly who fired from where.

        And then there’s the rogue’s gallery of people who’d be imprisonef for their roles in the cover-up

        • Jean Davison says:

          “And to whomever said there was no evidence LHO was impersonated you must have missed J Edgar Hoover telling LBJ on 11-23 at 10am in a recorded phone call that the voice on the alleged LHO Mexico City calls was not in fact LHO’s voice nor were the pictures presented as LHO actually photo’s of him.”

          Hoover also told LBJ on 11-23 that the rifle was shipped to “a woman by the name of A. Hidell,” that the Parkland bullet was found on JFK’s stretcher, and that Oswald was living with his mother. All of which is WRONG.

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

          WC critics seem to be the only people here who take Hoover’s statements as gospel.

          • Dan Clark says:

            Wow, he was incorrect on a couple of points and therefore that invalidates the truth he spoke which was Oswald Wasn’t on the tapes nor in the photo’s??? The implications of his observations are obvious.

            Don’t deny the truth through obfuscation and/or deliberate parsing of words seeking any and all mistakes large or small so you may use them as a lance to pillory Hoover or whomever we may quote or reference because the standard you set for whom is trustworthy then becomes unattainable by anyone living (and can and will be used to refute your polemics even where it’s sophmoric to do so) you and I both know there isn’t anyone anywhere who is perfect or infallible.

            Back to the point, Hoover said it wasn’t Oswald in Mexico City. Dulles pushed that point anyway to the WC. What do you think that says about the CIA’s complicity?

            And let’s just say LHO did it himself to take your argument or mcadams. Don’t the tapes and pictures then prove the CIA knew LHO and was grossly negligent in not informing the fbi and ss of his potential? Who got fired over this? No-one in any of those agencies as far as I know.

          • Jean Davison says:

            “Wow, he was incorrect on a couple of points and therefore that invalidates the truth he spoke which was Oswald Wasn’t on the tapes nor in the photo’s???”

            And how do you know he right about Oswald not being on a tape? Please explain.

            “… you and I both know there isn’t anyone anywhere who is perfect or infallible.”

            Exactly my point. Hoover wasn’t infallible, so why do people keep quoting him as though “Hoover said…” proves anything?

            “Back to the point, Hoover said it wasn’t Oswald in Mexico City. Dulles pushed that point anyway to the WC.”

            Are you sure Dulles pushed the point that it wasn’t Oswald in Mexico City? Could you give me a link to that?

          • Don’t the tapes and pictures then prove the CIA knew LHO and was grossly negligent in not informing the fbi and ss of his potential?

            The CIA did tell the FBI about Oswald’s Mexico City trip. And the FBI put Hosty on the case.

            Do you think the FBI should have put a 24 hour tail on Oswald?

            Neither the CIA nor the FBI had any reason to suspect Oswald could be violent. He just seemed like a left-wing kook.

            Who got fired over this? No-one in any of those agencies as far as I know.

            Who got fired over the Orlando shooting or the Boston Marathon bombing? Security agencies do not operate with 20/20 hindsight. It’s rather hard to predict the future.

          • Don’t deny the truth through obfuscation and/or deliberate parsing of words seeking any and all mistakes large or small so you may use them as a lance to pillory Hoover or whomever we may quote or reference because the standard you set for whom is trustworthy then becomes unattainable by anyone living

            Translation: Hoover is infallible when I want to believe one of his statements, in spite of the fact that he was often a font of misinformation.

            Why don’t you try looking at some evidence?

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

            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

          • Ronnie Wayne says:

            Trollin, trollin, trollin, keep those posters postin’. She caught herself another one Eh? Bury a few more posts.
            A tactic of the mockingbird?

        • If the judge and jury would have known Shaw was CIA,

          But Shaw wasn’t CIA.

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

          had the photo’s [sic] of him with Ferrie etc,

          There were no such photos. The fellow mistakenly thought to be Ferrie was another person.

          or had the taped Hoover call I think we’d have seen

          This has long since been debunked:

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

          A large part of the stuff you read in conspiracy books isn’t true.

          • Dan Clark says:

            Dick helms admitted shaw was CIA to the hsca.
            If that weirdo with the fake eyebrows wasn’t Ferrie who was it? A stunt double?
            As for the phone call, pretty sure the author of this very site has posted the links to that evidence.

            Also, why are you constantly posting links to your own website?
            I mean if posner came on here and refuted my points by stating see p. X in my book, I’d never take him seriously

          • Dick helms admitted shaw was CIA to the hsca.

            No, he did not. Unless you mean that Shaw talked to the Domestic Contact Service between 1948 and 1956.

            If that weirdo with the fake eyebrows wasn’t Ferrie who was it? A stunt double?

            Robert Brannon

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/shaw4.htm

            As for the phone call, pretty sure the author of this very site has posted the links to that evidence.

            It has been debunked here repeatedly.

            I’m not aware that Jeff buys that claim.

            Also, why are you constantly posting links to your own website?

            Would you like me to cut and paste the material?

            There is a new fancy Internet thing called a “hyperlink.” You click on it, and it takes you somewhere else.

            Click on my links, and you can see the evidence in detail.

      • Mockingbird is alive and well, both then and now on this site.

        OK, so anybody who tells you something you don’t want to hear is a CIA stooge.

        But what if you are wrong on some things? How will you ever find out?

        • lysias says:

          The CIA should have thought about The Boy Who Cried Wolf story before they even started Operation Mockingbird.

          • The people “crying wolf” are the conspiracists.

            But are you going to invoke “Mockingbird” in order to dismiss any evidence that you find inconvenient?

          • theNewDanger says:

            John McAdams

            July 27, 2016 at 2:55 pm

            The people “crying wolf” are the conspiracists.

            “Crying wolf” doesn’t mean what you want it to mean here. You are reaching.

  19. Cassandra Jones says:

    Thank you, Tom S, for the new information you have provided on Garrison. It appears I have more research to do.

  20. Dan Clark says:

    Jean, what I meant was Hoover stated the voice on the tapes and face in the pictures were not those of Oswald. Dulles didn’t care, he ran with the “Oswald visited/called” those consulates anyway.

    But let’s get down to the brass tacks because there’s one quick way to end the discussions on all sides of the polemic: exhume JFK and RFK. See what forensics will tell us today about what happened, how many injuries and potential trajectories. that’s one scientific way to end all of the debate.

    • Jean Davison says:

      The photo that was sent to Dallas wasn’t of Oswald. We know that because the photo exists — we can see it.

      The only evidence you’ve presented that a tape was sent to Dallas is “Hoover said so.”

      • “The only evidence you’ve presented that a tape was sent to Dallas is “Hoover said so.”~Jean Davison

        In the same memo that he spoke of the photo that was sent to Dallas that wasn’t of Oswald.

        I would therefore propose that the existence of the photo is a strong indication that the tape exists or did exist at one time.
        \\][//

      • dan clark says:

        Was Hoover lying? I just want to be clear about what you are saying here. Because he WAS/IS on tape saying it wasn’t LHO. You can’t have it both ways, either Hoover was lying or Allen Dulles was lying. Which is it?

        Also, one can argue the case against LHO has fallen apart completely (to riff on your polemic here) yet no-one has offered to re-open this case to determine exactly what DID happen.

        And again, we can dispense with any arguments altogether if JFK and RFK are exhumed and forensics teams tell us the numbers of shots, from where, etc/

        • ed connor says:

          Dan, your proposal for exhumation of JFK and RFK has no legs.

          In the case of RFK, we know what killed him. He, unlike his brother, underwent a proper autopsy by a board certified forensic pathologist, Dr. Thomas Nogucci. The fatal gunshot entered the brain from the right occiput, just behind the ear. It left stippling, or gunshot residue, around the point of entry, indicating that the shot was fired within 1 to 3 inches of the victim. Witnesses said that Sirhan was in front of RFK, and could not have fired such a shot.
          Exhumation would not contribute to the investigation.
          JFK, according to all Parkland medical staff and Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who came to his aid, had a blow out wound, also in the right occiput. A number of the Bethesda witnesses also saw this wound. No exhumation is necessary, as the morticians from Joseph Gawler’s Funeral Home testified to the HSCA that the occipital wound existed, and was patched with plaster of Paris and a rubber dome.
          Further, any proposed exhumation would have to be authorized by JFK’s next of kin, Caroline Kennedy Schlossburg. She is 58 and in excellent health. I have met her. There is no way she would approve an exhumation. She won’t even allow her mother’s pink suit to be displayed until 2103. She is an intensely private person, and never discusses her father’s death.

          • Exhumation would not contribute to the investigation.

            JFK, according to all Parkland medical staff and Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who came to his aid, had a blow out wound, also in the right occiput.

            Hill never said that. When he got specific, hes said it was “above the ear.”

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

            A number of the Bethesda witnesses also saw this wound. No exhumation is necessary, as the morticians from Joseph Gawler’s Funeral Home testified to the HSCA that the occipital wound existed, and was patched with plaster of Paris and a rubber dome.

            To see the testimony that way, one has to be massively selective in what one reports, and put a lot of spin on what witnesses said.

            http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm#aguilar

            The autopsy photos and x-rays show no occipital blow out.

          • dan clark says:

            I agree that it’s most likely Caroline would not want to see an exhumation happen and I understand why in terms of her being a private person and wanting to live a quiet life, and really, they killed her Dad and Uncle, I’m sure there’s also a level of fear to wade into these subjects.

            In my opinion exhumation of JFK and RFK would be the one thing that would silence immediately all lone-nut conspiracy buffs and it would cast such a pall over washington, langley, quantico that it could be cut with a butter knife. What really would the agencies in question do if tomorrow Caroline says “let’s put these theories to bed I need to know what happened?” The reactions from the agencies would be priceless

            I understand your points on JFK’s body and RFK and I happen to agree with you as to what happened (or from what I can deduce from your statement), but I’d like to see some culpability taken, some transparency, and some final answers. I feel like exhumation would be the one scientific method we have left that would tell us what happened was not what we’ve been told for 53 and 48 years.

            And to respond to Jean and John simultaneously re: the Mexico City tapes –
            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenMinuteGap_Update/FourteenMinuteGap_Update.htm

          • And to respond to Jean and John simultaneously re: the Mexico City tapes –
            http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/FourteenMinuteGap_Update/FourteenMinuteGap_Update.htm

            If the tape was erased by the Evil Minions of The Conspiracy, why did they leave the explosive “tapes not of Oswald” in the transcript?

            What would have been the point of erasing the tape if the transcript survived?

        • Jean Davison says:

          Dan,

          Hoover wasn’t lying, he was WRONG. Hoover was in Washington and had zero firsthand knowledge of what went on in Dallas or Mexico City. Since he had to rely on second- or third-hand information, he got a lot of things wrong.

          The FBI agent who sent the CIA material from Mexico and the agent who received it told Hoover right away that he was WRONG, no tape had been sent or received, only a transcript. These were people with firsthand knowledge, unlike JEH.

          • The “lying” question underlines something common in the buff subculture.

            Nobody is ever merely mistaken.

            If witness or official says something that can be spun to imply a conspiracy, they are a fearless truth teller.

            If somebody says something that implicates Oswald, or runs against conspiracy theories, they are lying scum.

            But they can never, never be just mistaken.

            I’m reminded of Peter Dale Scott coming up with an arcane and convoluted theory of why a CIA document referred to “Lee Henry Oswald.”

            I forget what the theory was. But he somehow couldn’t believe that a bureaucrat would simply mess up a name.

  21. Larry Schnapf says:

    I agree with Ed that exhumation is non-starter during our lifetime. The most if could possibly reveal is the nature of the neck wound but given the passage of time, I doubt the soft tissues would be in any condition to provide new information.

  22. Larry Schnapf says:

    i have to agree with john. sometimes a kiss is just a kiss and sometimes a misstatement is just a mistake.

    however, a mistake does not meant that everything else that person says is wrong, even in the same statement or testimony. often times, john and jean seem to discredit a statement because that person previously made a misstatement.

    • The fact that Hoover made mistakes does not mean everything he said was mistaken. Neither Jean nor I said or implied any such.

      But there is a ton of evidence that he was mistaken.

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

      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

      So it’s: between believing that Hoover was mistaken, or ignoring the documents in the last two links above, and believing that Shanklin was lying, and Rudd was lying, and all the CIA people in Mexico City were lying, and all the FBI agents in Dallas were lying, which way would you go?

      • Steve Stirlen says:

        John and Jean,

        To answer your assertions about “being wrong” and “lying,” let us start here:

        “I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

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

        This is not some “buff” or “loon” talking. This is the head of the HSCA, which you tout as being the “official bible” for the JFK assassination. (Funny, one would think if the WC had done its job thoroughly, there would be no need for the HSCA.)

        You can say all you want about the tapes and transcripts and anything else that happened in MC, but the truth of the matter is we will never known. As Mr. Blakey states above, the “full truth will never be known.” You can rest easy in the knowledge that the CIA was not, nor will ever be, put under oath in a court of law.

        Take the “picture” of Oswald taken in MC. The CIA tells us the cameras were not working that say. Huh? MC was a the center of espionage in the 60’s, and they expect us to believe the cameras were not working? Really? Can you tell me if the CIA was ever ASKED by the WC WHY the camera was not working that day? How many other days did the camera stop working? Did ANYONE on the WC bring anyone in from MC and ask them directly?

        So, the CIA gives us a picture of a Russian gentleman, which is supposed to prove to us that they had no idea what LHO even looked like. Yes, that is perfectly believable. Certainly, a group known for lying (again, re-read the quote above for help) would surely not give us a photo to try and convince us that they had NO idea about LHO.

        The whole saga in MC is a disgrace. A simple disgrace. And, the CIA KNEW it would never have its feet held to any fire, so they can send out or not send out, knowing full well that nothing will ever happen.

        Let me end with this:

        “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.”

        Yes, John and Jean, the CIA was, and will continue to lie about JFK’s murder. It is that simple.

      • “I now no longer believe anything the Agency told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation. The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known.

        Yes, if the CIA had told the WC about plots against Castro, the WC might have more vigorously pursued the idea that Castro was behind the assassination.

        That would have been great, right?

        But what does this have to do with the “tapes in Dallas?”

  23. Ramon F Herrera says:

    [John McAdams wrote:]

    “A lot of people here see the assassination through a lens that is entirely the product of their political biases.”

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

    Not true. That was my initial model but it is too simplistic. Jean Davison brought this to my attention years ago in your Newsgroup when she mentioned herself and Edward Jay Epstein as exceptions to the naive 2-category rule. A rare Republican hero, boss of Gaeton Fonzi, Senator Richard Schweiker also constitutes an exception and breaks the preliminary model.

    Therefore, we need an orthogonal model which allows for at least 4 groups:

    http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/the-georgetown-set-112125

    [Scroll all the way down – Click on “Show Comments”]

    My -admittedly incomplete, a work in progress- model is based on 3 of the most fundamental emotions:

    • Love
    • Hate
    • Fear

    I am the first to concede that the current instance of the model does not allow for Conservatives/Republicans based on genuine, valid motivations. This point was raised by my e-friend Bill Clarke, who is good, Republican, CT. He is attacked by your side, esteemed professor, as a RINO.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      In the post above, the nature of a real but imperfect correlation has been clarified. This are the 2 trends:

      “CTs are Liberals/Democrats – LNs are Conservatives/Republicans”

      The first time I noticed it was years ago, observing the interaction between:

      • John McAdams from the Confederate States of America, admirer of the death penalty.

      • Anthony Marsh – Yankee, from Boston.

      After that, I have found dozens, even hundreds of corroborating data points.

      Allow me to address the 2nd. indictment by professor McAdams. It is related to Liberals and hate.

      [McAdams:] “They are generally what I call the “scruffy left.” They hate conservatives, and they see a racist behind every bush and under every bed. Thus they blame the assassination on people they hate for political reasons.”

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

      Since our esteemed professor has raised the issue of hate, I ran it through my automated program to debate Social Conservatives. I obtained about 30 different replies to his post. I do not want to provoke a disk full in the JFK Facts servers, and therefore my 30+ replies are stored here:

      http://www.politico.com/story/2014/12/jeff-flake-obama-cuba-113717

      [Scroll all the way down, and click on “Show Comments”, Select “Sort by Newest”]

      Professor: I expect about 30 replies from you.

  24. Larry Schnapf says:

    this thread is really going far afield. We need to move away from individual political peccadillos and back to examination of FACTS. Political theories should be reserved for political science class or websites.Until we get back t FACTs, I will not participate on this particular thread.

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      “Until we get back to FACTs, I will not participate on this particular thread.”
      ==========

      Isn’t that implicit? Isn’t that the case in all threads, in all sites, across the whole Internet?

      Larry, like Daphne in “Frasier” (“I am a bit of a psychic”) I am somewhat of an amateur shrink. I think that placing a mirror in Internet conversations (which can be uncomfortable but also productive) is very important. I have stood in applause in the past when the freedom we enjoy today in JFK Facts was rare, and we were given an occasional oasis. The O’Reilly case, plus the declarations of Hillary were points of entry into the political milieu.

      Trust me: by knowing more about the background, motivations, style, beliefs, etc. of the other participants (and ourselves!) we can achieve A LOT of progress. Much waste is avoided.

      That said: You are an only child, aren’t you?

    • Ramon F Herrera says:

      Larry:

      Thanks for your interest in this crucial topic. As requested, I have more FACTS for you.

      If anybody has doubts about the:

      (a) Bipartisan nature of the murder. (It was the Far Right).

      (b) The fact that it persists until today (See Trump, O’Reilly, McAdams, Cruz, Koch vs. Kennedys, Kerry)

      Here’s some corroborating evidence.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STHWk7QV8OQ

      From what party is the gentleman in the video, trying to get information from the CIA, DoJ, etc. like attempting to pull teeth?

      What party was holding the executive power in 1991?

  25. Larry Schnapf says:

    I have no problem accepting that Hoover was mistaken and that his statement should not be used as proof that Oswald tape existed. The reason why he was mistaken is more important-IMHO

  26. Larry Schnapf says:

    @ramon- why do you ask if I’m an only child? i am not. But as you said and just demonstrated, you are am amateur at assessing people’s motivations and thinking. you need to go back to school.

  27. RobH says:

    You have an impossible task when it comes to upholding the Warren Commission as it was fundamentally dishonest.

    1. It lied when stating there was no credible testimony indicating shots other than from behind.

    2. It lied regarding its claim that Helen Markham made a positive identification of Oswald at the Tippet murder scene.

    3.. It lied in upholding the single bullet theory when the Army ballistics experts made clear their opinion that CE 399 could NOT have caused Kennedy’s wrist wound.

    4. Earl Warren lied to Ruby when telling Ruby that bringing him back to Washington couldnt be done. The Commission had subpoena power.

    5. By keeping Jack Ruby in Dallas, a place Ruby stated he could not give the full story, the Commission engaged in brazen suppression of evidence. Ruby had begun to open up and describe a conspiracy.

    These lies and suppressions totally destroy the Commission’s credibility. Such conduct proves the Commission had an agenda not to honestly investigate. That proves there was at the very least, a conspiracy to hide the facts behind Kennedy’s death.

    Check and mate, John.

  28. RobH says:

    Correction. The commission lied in upholding the single bullet theory when the Army ballistics experts made clear that CE 399 could not have caused CONNALLY’S wrist wound. I mistakenly said Kennedy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

In seeking to expand the range of informed debate about the events of 1963 and its aftermath, JFKFacts.org welcomes comments that are factual, engaging, and civil. more

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