28 thoughts on “Rare BBC documentary on JFK”

  1. I believe we will never know the full truth of the killing of JFK because there would be an uprising in the U.S. because JFK was trying for world peace and our government was not interested in peace for the reason you can’t have over a billion dollar budget for military funding if there is no more threat of war anymore.

  2. Fan of Mark Lane

    I’ve watched many videos, I don’t recall seeing this one, it was great, thank you for posting. I don’t recall ever hearing Sylvia Odio, that was great information she provided. Very scary that they were passing around a poison that took 3 days to kick in, and was untraceable. I assume that the one that Richard Helms was going back and forth with Chris Dodd on. Thanks.

  3. The Mexico City Mystery Man has been identified as most probably a KGB officer named Yuri Mosklev who posed as scientist and had no direct connection to the Oswald events of Sept/Oct ’63.

    “…Russell Holmes, who was the archivist for the CIA said he was ‘very likely’ the guy. And the disguise division of CIA also came to the same conclusion: they thought it was likely that the Mystery Man was Mosklev.” – Bill Simpich

    Read Bill’s invaluable eBook ‘State Secret
    Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald’ at Mary Ferrell Foundation website: https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Preface

    My interview with Bill is available here:

    1. Thank you Alan.

      From my Education Forum last link in a post by James Richards:


      As far as the ‘Mexico Oswald’ is concerned, Gerry Hemming claims it is a guy named Saul Sage. I have a document from Raymond A. Warren suggesting it may be someone named Yuriy Ivanovich Moskalev.

      The forum’s attachment feature isn’t operational at the moment but when it is, I will post the relevant document.



  4. I never knew about Senator Schweiker until late last year.

    I’ll have to watch this later in its entirety but what I initially saw in the first 18 minutes is still timeless and relevant.

    As one interviewee noted, Oswald was cool, calm and collect; as if he anticipated the questioning or knew what to expect.

  5. Thanks for posting this Jeff. The man photographed by the CIA at the embassy in Mexico City-has he ever been identified?

    1. Sandy K. I have asked the same question in the past. It defies logic that so many characters in the Mexico City/New Orleans/Dallas drama have been identified, and yet no one has tracked this man down. Perhaps we’ve overlooked the information on other sites. Surely Win Scott and his team were curious as to who this man might have been given that according to Jeff Morley’s “Our Man in Mexico,” Scott mistakenly identified Mystery Man as Lee Harvey Oswald.

      1. One of the Pittsburgh 2013 conference presenters, Brian Litman (a Hollywood literary agent) claims that one of his ex-KGB clients, Col. Kostikov (posted at the Mexico City Soviet embassy but also the KGB’s 13th Dept. “liquid affairs” assassination expert) told him this individual was “a former US Army serviceman with mental problems who wanted a visa to the USSR, and was refused one”. That’s verbatim from my written notes during Litman’s lecture.

        Litman’s a believer that LHO actually was in Mexico City because his various ex-KGB clients told him so.

        1. We discussed this on another thread on this site where I noted I thought there was a resemblance between the “Oswald” Mexico City picture and Dealy Plaza “radioman” Jim Hicks. It’s been a while since I’ve read about him (E.G. Shaw trial testimony but if I remember right he ended up in a Mental Institution (maybe the same one as Richard Case Nagel Springfield Mo.?). In the other thread I mentioned Larry Hancock answered to the effect that Hicks had been discredited/debunked/so nutty he used to call the Police/FBI drunk from bars at night. I’d like to link the DP/Mexico City pictures side by side but couldn’t find them in a quick search.

        2. “Specialist Brian Litman was invited to the Soviet Union to assist major Soviet media firms in their “perestroika” towards commercial self-support in November 1990. Litman’s cross-media pedigree included CBS, Hearst/ABC/NBC Networks, Time, Inc. and Disney. By 1991, Litman had “penetrated” the power elite of Soviet media – Pravda, Soviet Central TV and Moskovski Novosti. In 1992, Litman made a bold overture to the KGB that he develop books, television and lecture series based on the archives and principals of the Cold War – to benefit the Veterans. ”

          Can we safely assume Litman’s connections are only on the Soviet side of the Cold War divide? Oleg Nechiporenko told Peter Dale Scott that his book had been altered from his original text before it reached publication (see Deep Politics II).

          Given that fact and his MSM pedigree, I don’t think Litman is entitled to any of our unearned trust.

      2. Leslie, thanks for your shared insight and to Gerry and GM for their replies too.

        Considering the U.S. intelligence-gathering focus on the Cuban and Russian embassies in late 1963 it would not be unreasonable to suspect Hoover and/or Helms knew well the identity of this mystery man. So, when did they know the identity and why has it never been publicly disclosed?

        1. I believe that this so called ‘Saul’ was seen at Dealey Plaza, and if I’m not mistaken, in a photo from behind with what looks like a radio in his back pocket (IIRC).

          ‘Saul’ may have been a nobody (mentally-ill person as previously stated but unwittingly used in a imperfect attempt to frame Oswald) OR an intelligence agent (especially, if he’s seen in DP later but I think the pic of him with a walkie-talkie might be another one outside the embassy in Mexico, which would make him suspicious in any event).

          1. I think I’m confusing the walkie-talkie ‘Saul’ in DP as the complected gent in Dealey Plaza who sat next to the Umbrella Man.

            In this article, there are photos of him using a walkie talkie (you see the antenna too), and having it tucked in his back pocket when he stands with his back towards a camera. This isn’t the guy from Mexico City, although it’s still very suspicious that this guy who didn’t flinch after the shooting and lingered around has and uses a walkie talkie.

            I will keep on looking for that Saul with walkie talkie pic though.

        2. Sandy K. What was Win Scott’s role in disseminating the identity of “Lee Harvey Oswald” in the early hours/days after the assassination as having been in Mexico City? According to the photo notes in Jeff Morley’s “Our Man In Mexico. Win Scott and the Hidden History of the CIA,” Scott identified the Mystery Man as Oswald.

          Why would Helms and Hoover place faith in their CIA Station Chief’s identification given that they had photos of THE Oswald on file that clearly did not match those that Win Scott was referencing as being the man outside the embassy? The naked eye revealed that these were not one and the same man; however, the general public bought the story for a number of years.

          Was Scott set up as a fall guy?

          It’s highly possibly that I have overlooked details relating to this misidentification.

          Might Jeff weigh in on this question?

  6. How come the American people couldn’t get coverage like this? Most Americans NEVER HEARD what Senator Schweiker said about intelligence agency obstruction (or Pentagon obstruction). It’s like America had it’s own Soviet-style propaganda, screening through mass media compliance, any critical thinking or skepticism about the assassination of Kennedy. I think this is deliberate, and political. I think it is conservatives, those who hate liberal policies, and/or those who are quick to rally behind the military and police state apparatus, who don’t like to dig into the JFK assassination. They prefer that Americans just shut up and stop asking questions. Case closed. Move on, don’t look, don’t ask. Go shopping. This kind of denial reminds me of other forms of denial in which asking questions isn’t encouraged: about climate change, about the persistence of poverty in our country, about the unhealthy growth of the intelligence complex in the past decade, to name a few current examples.

    America is supposed to be the land of freedom. Yet when people try to ask “free” and honest questions, they are discouraged, even blocked from doing so by entrenched power trusts and agencies. Maybe this is the price we citizens of the republic pay for living in an empire? To have a global reach like the USA does means breaking the rules, waterboarding, setting up coups and ITT Chile-style business consortiums, etc. You can’t stay democratic under those compromises. Maybe that’s the problem with the USA? Maybe some of the same corrupt “end justifies the means” agency tactics were used domestically, once we had them in place by the mid-twentieth century? I don’t think this is out of the realm of possibility, nor is it unrealistic to game theory, as they say at Carlisle.

    1. Falling mainly on the liberal end of the spectrum I’m disappointed to say that liberals don’t want to deal with this issue either. They have trouble with ideas like LBJ being involved and they seem to have a vested interest in the political status quo; the idea of a coup in America is unthinkable to most people regardless of political persuasion.

      1. Well, if you look at who voted in the seventies in support of the House Subcommittee, and who voted against them, it was a pretty even divide: GOP mostly saying “Give it a rest” and Democrats/liberals saying “Let’s look into this some more.” Today, you do have some LBJ supporters who can’t stomach the idea that Lyndon was probably involved, if not in the coup, then in the cover up (people like Bill Moyers). But they refuse to see that Lyndon wasn’t any more of a “liberal” than Nixon was, even though both voted for and supported a few liberal causes in their day. Schweiker, a Republican, was a moderate, someone who would probably be a Democrat today. The other exception that I noted was those who vote “liberal” on some social issues, but who are tied to the intelligence-industrial-military complex, so they don’t want to rock the boat where that is concerned. I’m thinking of people like Noam Chomsky. Many in the “liberal media” fit into this block.

        Most of the people who still support the Warren Commission and who say that the case is closed are conservatives like John McAdams and Bill O’Reilly.

        1. Limbaugh too. Funny how the most
          celebrated boat rockers in the media never have demonstrated interest about the twisted road to Dallas. Correct me if I am wrong but even Mike Wallace and the old gang at 60 Minutes never peeked under the first rock.

          1. Bill Paley (at CBS) DID suspect a conspiracy, but the network didn’t rock the boat as you say.

            Perhaps the answer lies in the incestuous relationship that the American media has with American intelligence assets, probably even more today with the ballooned, bloated “Homeland Security” state that we have now, thanks to the ubiquity of DIY terrorism, coupled with a ruling class only too willing to overreact to that by building an Orwellian 1984 watchdog system.

            I’m for common sense here: we need security. But do we have to have CIA inside our media, NSA inside our computers and cell phones, and Big Brother Corporate writing all of our legislation in what used to be called “The People’s Body”—Congress? That’s not the kind of democracy that is sustainable. The conservatives don’t seem to get this, and digging up old JFK news must seem to them like we are pissing in the USA patriotic punch bowl.

Leave a Comment

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

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

Scroll to Top