A Hard Fact: All Necessary JFK Files HAVE Been Released To Expose Conspiracy

As is standard for the Neoliberal media, much hoopla is being made over the prospective  release of all documents to do with the Kennedy assassination, by October 25, 2017. For example, we are informed, by Josh Sanburn (TIME, 'JFK Assassination Secrets Scheduled for 2017 Release', Dec. 26, ) that "the last remaining documents pertaining to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy are being processed, scanned and readied for release".

Adding:

"For those who believe the clues to who killed JFK are hidden somewhere deep inside the government files, this may be the last chance to find the missing pieces".

Totally missing the point. That is, that  most of the missing pieces have already been found - at least by those willing to dig and not be misdirected by propaganda. Sadly, it is clear most of those who write such articles are guided more by propaganda than the facts of the case. But this may be because like so many others who have arrogantly taken the case on (e.g. Michael Shermer, Tom Hanks, Scott Aaronson, Timothy Naftali et al) they are woefully uninformed and only content to skirt the details - preferring the outside superficialities of the events and aftermath. Which is easy to grasp, because scanning the sundry files takes work, and no one is going to do it for you.

The very emphasis on 'who killed JFK' is ludicrous because the "mechanics" - as we call them, are long since dead and in any case were mere tools for the execution of the plan. In terms of import chasing them down - or trying to - is more a fool's errand, because it is the de facto planners- architects  who bear much more scrutiny and in fact, can more easily be identified. (For example, William Harvey, who authorized the mutation of the original Staff D plan, with JFK the prime target). . But to read pieces like Sanburn's you'd never know that.

The more serious researcher is not distracted by trying to learn'"WHO" fired the kill shot, but rather addressing the key question (leading to a negative conclusion): Who didn't?   And it is clear to anyone who's invested in the physics of the events, including the actual rifle tests, that Lee Oswald didn't fire any lethal head shot.   The actual rifle - if indeed legit at all - was so fragile it couldn't be permitted to come in contact with serious handling, or likely even testing the bolt action. If it couldn't then it also meant it couldn't be used to perform any replicative tests.  To learn more, go to:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-fhe-jfk.html

Beyond the fact the actual rifle was useless, one encounters the fact that the Warrenites had to alter the shot trajectory from the rear in order to make their fiction work. Most of this alteration was thanks to WC member Gerald Ford (the guy who also couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time). We have the actual 'smoking gun' for Ford's alterations in files released less than 20 years ago, e.g.

The report of the change also appeared in the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/03/us/ford-made-key-change-in-kennedy-death-report.html

To understand exactly why Ford had to go to this trouble, study this original WC diagram for the wound placements and subsequent alteration:


As noted before, moving the wound to the back of the neck as opposed to it being parallel to the third thoracic vertebra e.g. of the back, the WC believed it could get  people - many otherwise intelligent - to buy into the single bullet baloney  and dismiss the original improbable track.

The upper inclined blue arrow shows the trajectory of the bullet that the Warren Commission first believed would be needed in order to account for BOTH the JFK back wound AND the neck wound - then entering Connally to make his wounds.

The problem was that with the upward angle trajectory the shooter would've had to have been firing literally  from street level,   which would have eliminated a TSBD shooter (alleged to be Oswald). At this juncture, Gerald Ford realized for the SBT to work the Commission's drawing had to reset the placement higher - changing it to the light yellow trajectory through the base of the neck, and a downward angle..

The initial draft of the report(conforming to the blue upward trajectory)  had  stated:


"A bullet had entered his back at a point slightly above the shoulder to the right of the spine." 

Ford altered it to read:

"A bullet had entered the back of his neck slightly to the right of the spine."
 
Clearly, Ford wanted the document to conform with the single bullet myth  (requiring now the yellow shot arrow) and would stoop to altering a document on record to attain the goal.  The problem for Ford and the Warrenites is one of basic anatomy. The original autopsy sheet, including the placement and description of the back wound, was signed and verified by Admiral George Gregory Burkley, personal physician to the president who directed the autopsy at Bethesda. He verified the back wound placement on November 24th .

That death certificate revealed the back wound to be, in the Admiral's own words, at the president's "third thoracic vertebra.”  The neck has seven CERVICAL vertebrae, and this observed and verified wound was described as three THORACIC vertebrae lower than the neck itself.

The final report then read: "A bullet had entered the base of the back of his neck slightly to the right of his spine." Ford insisted this was “a small change, …intended to clarify meaning, not alter history”. But alter history is exactly what it did! For by altering the original autopsy report, Ford and his cohorts succeeded in conferring a measure of validity on Specter’s single bullet theory. This is despite the fact that analysis of the resulting trajectory doesn’t even conform to basic laws of Newtonian dynamics!

All of this was "out there" with the existing files that anyone with even a basic math or science education could have learned (even the Aussie WC groupie Timmy Brennan), so one could say the "facts were hiding in plain sight". And most have been for the past 25 years.

To get a further handle on this and the physics that eliminates Oswald as the assassin, note the diagram below:

The noticeable backward motion of JFK's head in the Zapruder film is attributed to the reaction of a forward spray outwards - in what has been called the 'jet effect". (Similar to the well known rocket effect, where fuel leaves the exhaust under pressure and the rocket moves in the opposite direction).

The problem, of course, is that this doesn't comport with Jackie's motion backwards over the limo trunk, i.e. in the rear direction- as shown in the lower left graphic.

Her motion attests to the fact (from Newtonian mechanics, transfer of linear momentum) that the kill shot was fired from the front, in order to hurl a piece of skull (occipital bone fragment later recovered) to the rear. Jackie's own secret testimony affirmed she was attempting to retrieve a piece of Jack's skull.  Further substantiating this is Bethesda Naval Hospital lab tech Paul O'Connor's sketch of JFK's head at the autopsy, e.g.


The massive rear cavitation end path shows just how much of the skull had to be reconstructed using mortician's plaster to give the illusion of an intact back of head.  Floyd Riebe, the medical photographic technician who took photographs of the body at Bethesda, also noted the President had a "big gaping hole in the back of the head" .

He further indicated it displayed more damage than could possibly be done by a military jacketed bullet. The bullet was more likely the explosive or frangible type.  Parkland surgeon Charles Crenshaw also validated the rear of the head being blown out and readers interested can obtain his excellent book, 'JFK - Conspiracy of Silence' .  This link to a .pdf version of Dr. Crenshaw's superb book can be found below:

http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Conspiracy_Of_Silence.pdf

Dr. Crenshaw later was shown (and related this in his book, page 10) one of the Warren autopsy photos and asked by Gary Shaw of the Sixth Floor Museum whether it matched what he observed when attending to JFK.  Dr. Crenshaw was incredulous, immediately spotting the fake and ascertaining  that the head had been "manipulated", clearly showing a conspiracy at work.  Below is shown the fake at left, and actual autopsy photo at right. Again, note the rear massive damage discloses the kill shot came from the front, not the rear and the Texas Book Depository where Oswald was claimed to be.

Any actual rear head wound would have been obliterated by the frontal shot's cavitation path backward. In effect, anyone subscribing to such a rear head shot is more than likely misdirected  by the bogus mortician's plaster reconstruction which was used to sell the TSBD shooter location.

Again, ALL of this could have been learned by anyone with the skill and will to do so, without succumbing to media distractions,  Warrenite  groupie naysaying or the rants of known disinformationists, like John McAdams.

The whole point is that taken together these salient physical facts show Oswald could not have been the killer, hence the negative conclusion: Lee Harvey Oswald was not the assassin.

This leads us back to Sanburn's article in which he notes the time for final release of remaining files is October 26, 2017 when we will finally behold "3,000 never before seen documents and 34,000 previously redacted files".  Do I expect to find some "smoking gun"? Nope, because we already have the indirect "gun" in hand, from the material presented above (based on already released files, photos, letters etc.), that Oswald didn't do it!

Despite this, Sanburn plays the role of media dupe, writing:

"Many of the files trace back to the House Select Committee on Assassinations from the 1970s and promise to be less about second shooters and grassy knolls and more about what the government - particularly the CIA - might have known about assassin Lee Harvey Oswald"

Again, repeating the "Oswald dunnit" canard despite all the evidence presented showing that Sanburn is either too lazy (i.e.to dig it up himself)  or too dumb and uneducated to process. As for the HSCA investigation, I already described in detail how it was literally compromised from the start, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_19.html

 After Richard Sprague was replaced (he had intended to go full bore) and  after CIA "Information and Privacy Coordinator"  Jim Lawderman wrote ( on July 27, 1977)  the terms of the CIA’s control of Blakey’s investigation. (Mellen, J., ‘Farewell to Justice’, p. 345).  One of the terms cited was (ibid.):

“ Certain areas relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should be entirely disregarded based upon our contention they are without merit or corroboration”

.
Of course, those "areas" included additional shooters and shots from the grassy knoll. As I noted in the previous link:

"The HSCA’s own acoustic tests showed it (kill shot) originated on the grassy knoll (also corroborated by the Parkland surgeon’s own testimony and the actual autopsy photos.)  Thus, the weird attempt of the HSCA to "square the circle" - finding for conspiracy while retaining the original Warren Commission location for the head shot's origin"

I believe then, as I do now, the HSCA contorted itself in order to try to satisfy Lawderman's  demands. And yet, incredibly, despite all that - the final HSCA conclusion was for a conspiracy (96 % probability)   As to what the CIA knew about Oswald or how they used him, we already have ample evidence of their framing thanks to the diligent work of Peter Dale Scott. We thereby learned the extent to which Mexico City station chief David Atlee Phillips employed  fake cables to paint Oswald as the guy in the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City. See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html

This despite the fact he was nowhere around and besides,  the image (right) taken by the CIA was not of Oswald at all, e.g.

Thus, Sanburn's claim that the CIA station in Mexico City is where "Oswald showed up weeks before Kennedy's death" is pure hogwash. A myth.  Oswald never went to Mexico City, period, and this is one of the litmus tests to distinguish a serious JFK researcher from a pretender.  The photo at right above, taken by actual cameras mounted outside the Mexico City station (and appearing originally in John Newman's 'Oswald and the CIA') show incontrovertibly that the person who showed up was an impostor. A heavy set guy bearing no resemblance to Lee.

But what I would like to finally see are all the CIA files associated with  key spook George Joannides. He was a second  key link to the framing of Lee Oswald in conjunction with Atlee Phillips. (But as I already noted,  the absence of  the Joannides' files doesn't mean the CIA didn't frame Oswald. It merely means we don't have the full picture of Joannides' additional role in doing so via the Cuban Student Directorate, or DRE..)

In mid-1963, one of the main responsibilities of Joannides was the handling of the DRE (Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil ) whose members were all at forefront of the fight to eliminate Fidel Castro. A once-secret memo with portion noting the use of the DRE originally came under control and oversight of Gen. Edward Lansdale and described how the DRE operatives were to be deployed in Miami and New Orleans. (Not long after, Oswald was filmed on Canal Street in New Orleans in an altercation with Bringuier.)

Here’s what we do know: According to declassified CIA records corroborated by interviews, Joannides served as chief of the CIA's anti-Castro psychological warfare operation in Miami in 1963. The operation was run out of the largest CIA station outside of Langley, called JM/WAVE. More than 300 CIA agents directed over 3,000 Cuban agents and subagents, out of a front corporation called 'Zenith Technical Enterprises, Inc.' near (the then)  Crandon Park.  (My family used to often visit Crandon Park, especially its popular zoo.)   More than 50 other dummy fronts and organizations were also used for the employment of the anti-Castro (exile) Cubans, such as Carlos Bringuier.

Bringuier himself was also likely a member of the DRE, given it was one of the biggest and most active CIA-backed groups in Miami. In mid-1963, one of the main responsibilities of Joannides was the handling of the DRE whose members were all at forefront of the fight to eliminate Fidel Castro, first via Operation Mongoose, later through the CIA’s own covert assassination program, ZR Rifle.  But their use in mid -1963 was to assist in painting Oswald as a fellow-traveler and communist sympathizer. In fact, the evidence from Oswald's CIA files suggests he was trying to infiltrate the group.

According to a CIA memo found at the JFK Library, Joannides was giving $25,000 a month (about $147,000 in today's dollars) to the DRE at the time when the group's New Orleans delegation decided to collect intelligence on and publish propaganda about Oswald.

The bottom line is that most of the salient information and key files have already been released and have been sitting under people's noses for two decades or more. The fact is additional files, with the exception of the Joannides CIA ones, will add very little to our insights.  This is something to keep in mind as more and more media mouthpieces start exaggerating the importance of remaining files as we near the release date.

What amazed me the most in Sanburn's piece is a quote he attributed to long time researcher Jefferson Morley:

"Sometimes I think we are going to win. Sometimes I think it's a fool's errand. But we're going to find out."

In fact, we've already won, but most - like Morley  - fail to see it, for one reason or other. Maybe they are looking for an actual signed letter (accompanied by group photo) of all the assassins.  As I showed in this post, the available material ALREADY exculpates Lee Oswald as the assassin of JFK. "Winning" then, means refusing to be a player in the endless disinfo games set up by the WC hacks and their associates - whether in the corporate media, Google groups, or other venues.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2015/12/skeptics-society-still-tilting-at-jfk.html

Did Rafael Cruz Help Lee Oswald Kill JFK? Another Pile Of Bollocks

In St. Gallen, Switzerland in Sept., 2014, with former Swiss Spezialdienst Rolf, discussing JFK assassination.

It is not without good reason that Barbadian psychologist Pat Bannister carefully distinguished conspiracy culture from the conspiracy research community, and also conspiracy analysts from conspiracy "theorists". The former exercised full rationality and sobriety in the service of an objective investigative pursuit. The latter simply bloviated opinions without any basis in data, statistics or history. In this sense, those who have spawned and peddled the latest crap about Ted Cruz' dad Rafael being in league with Lee Oswald in the Kennedy assassination are engaged in utter codswallop. Worse, these type of juvenile conspiracy conjectures are what give serious conspiracy investigations a bad rap. Especially as the JFK assassination doesn't need any more wacky, half-baked inputs from delirious amateurs.

When I ran the latest tripe past my Swiss friend Rolf, who I referenced in my September 20, 2014 post (noting his insights into the Kennedy assassins in Switzerland) he almost passed out from laughing convulsions over Skype.  "Preposterous! Utterly preposterous!", he roared.

First, the image passed around was clearly during Lee's sojourn in New Orleans as a pseudo-member  for the "Fair Play for Cuba Committee" in the summer of 1963, on Canal St. This was to pry open the workings of Guy Banister's operation in a building that had two entrances, one on 544 Camp Street the other from 531 Lafayette. Banister was conducting "Operation Mongoose" operations and maintained his office in conjunction with the CRC or "Cuban Revolutionary Council".  Rolf's best guess is that the character portrayed as Rafael Cruz was actually an innominate CRC member.

Second, there is absolutely no evidence, zero, that Oswald was involved in the assassination in any case and Rolf totally concurred with previous posts I'd made in 2013 that he was framed by David Atlee Phillips and his cohort out of the CIA's Mexico City station, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee.html

And:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/10/the-pre-assassination-framing-of-lee_1807.html

As Rolf put it, "The guy was a patsy just as he claimed".  He also backed up the James Douglass' account ('JFK and the Unspeakable') of an Oswald "double" - observed by  U.S. Air Force Sgt. Robert Vinson while trying to return  to Colorado Springs on Nov. 22, 1963.    This "double" would have explained all the disparate occasions for aberrant behavior reported before the assassination, including the pro-commie rant at a Dallas car dealer's and his actions on a firing range.  Sgt. Vinson reported encountering the Oswald look-alike during a C-54 flight to  Lowry AFB near Denver, but which stopped first at Dallas' Trinity River area. There, Vinson described two men boarding just after 3:30 p.m. central time:  one a "Latino", 6' or 6'1" weighing 180-190 lbs. and wearing a mustache, the other 5'7" to 5'9" and Caucasian, 150-160 lbs.  Only later, i.e. when press photos materialized did Vinson realize the latter guy was the spitting image of Lee Harvey Oswald.  

None of this astonished Rolf who also knew the SD (and its affiliate Projekt 26)  readily exploited what they called “doppelgangers” for assorted tasks. He theorized other clandestine services also did this and a “doppelganger” might have played a role in the April, 18, 1990 assassination of Herbert Alboth.

But that Rafael Cruz (or the real Lee Oswald) was in any way involved in the JFK assassination is total nonsense.

Rolf's theory is that disinformationists tossed this out to be spread by unscrupulous U.S. sources in a heated election cycle. "It happens all the time" he said.

As Rolf noted two years ago, Oswald’s rifle could never have made the shots attributed to him on Nov. 22, 1963.   He agreed that my FAQ post on the rifle tests is the "absolutely correct" one, e.g.
http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-fhe-jfk.html

And anything else being circulated is "disinformation", likely "from Warren Commission apologists".

As noted in the link even the WC's own test trials failed.  Hence, Rolf's take that the Warren Commission Report was little more than a “PR joke” mainly done to “cover Johnson’s ass”. Like me, he is convinced LBJ had a hand in orchestrating the hit, clearly to protect himself as he faced certain prosecution in the Bobby Baker scandal. He also offered that it was “sad” that no U.S. investigation had come near to the truth but “How could they if an agency of the government itself was involved?”  
As he put in during the Skype chat: "Americans have a lot more to worry about than  JFK conspiracy fables made up by poseurs. They shouldn't get distracted by carnival fluff but keep their minds on the issues."

I couldn't agree more!

A TV Series ('11-22-63') As Dumb As The Book It's Based Upon

King's book (11-22-63) is based on a total fictional take.  So the TV series like the book is based on the "Oswald dunnit" myth.

Teacher Jack Epping studies Dealy Plaza layout

More evidence the elites and their propaganda lackeys are doing their best to get Americans to accept the canned nonsense and BS that Lee Oswald killed JFK: a new TV series (to run as a streaming vehicle on Hulu) based on Stephen King's daffy pseudo-sci fi novel '11-22-63'.

As I noted at the time King's  '11/22/63' came out, he admitted creating his lead character,  school teacher "Jack Epping", to attempt to travel back in time to stop the "nasty, snarling" (in one perp walk photo King referenced in an MSNBC interview in 2011) Lee Harvey Oswald "from carrying out his foul deed". So King, having been suckered into the Oswald dunnit myth,  decided to write an 849 page "gorilla of a book" to further the crass disinformation disgorged in the Warren Report.

The problem is that King's thesis is bollocks. It is based on the false historical presumption that Lee Harvey Oswald was the perpetrator and sole assassin. (Thanks to the Warren Commission, which was really a creature of Lyndon Johnson, as opposed to an official government investigation such as the 1978-79 House Subcommittee on Assassinations which found a "96% probability of conspiracy")

That King,  the media and the powers behind it could even believe they can sell this pile of ripe merde is beyond belief.  Not only that, but that they could make an eight part adaptation of the book, and enlist 500 extras to participate in this sham - as well as actors like Chris Cooper and James Franco. (Not to mention shutting down the center of Dallas for 2 days to "recreate the scene" - according to a recent TV Guide account)

In his original 'Morning Joe' interview on Nov. 16, 2011 King declared:

"I am prepared to get my ass kicked by conspiracy theorists on my book tour!"

And indeed he did, as researcher after researcher held this horror hack's feet to the fire for getting abundant facts wrong and revising history wholesale in his gargantuan novel - that almost rivals Vince Bugliosi's bunkum ('Reclaiming History')  in its fictional license and liberties.

When Scarborough pressed him for the basis, say avoiding a conspiracy plot, King was blunt.

"You know, Ockham's Razor and all".

Okay, hold it right there!  Invoking Ockham only works properly when applied  to a hypothesis concerning a natural event, or phenomenon! The reason is simple: we expect all natural events or phenomena to conform to a limited number of defined natural laws, including: the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy law), Newton's laws of motion, and the conservation of mass -energy. In addition, the primary attribute of most natural laws is the simplicity of their hypotheses, i.e. economy of assumptions.

The problem inherent in applying it to the Kennedy assassination is that this event is a fundamentally HUMAN driven act not a natural act or based on a natural phenomenon. It is imbued with human motivations, plans and agendas. Indeed, it is  the plausible presence of human subjective contamination that automatically places the event in the realm of the  unnatural  so that Ockham's Razor cannot be logically applied.

In effect, we are making a deliberate separation between the causes and effects which govern the natural world, say like solar eclipses, coronal mass ejections, asteroid flybys etc. and those which govern human affairs. The latter are enmeshed in complexes of emotions and ideological agendas that can't be quantified like Newton's laws of motion, or simplistically reduced to one cause-one effect relationships. In addition, humans - unlike natural laws- are capable of deceit and misdirection. So, from many points of view, it would be foolhardy to reduce the realm of human behavior - including putative conspiracy - to the model applicable to simple natural laws. It would require something basically approaching a general denial that humans would or could ever act with duplicity. Which is total nonsense.

From this point of view, King ought to be ashamed for even suggesting such a thing - or that Ockham's Razor could legitimately be generalized and used as a litmus test as if the Kennedy assassination were like a solar eclipse or the planetary occultation of a star.

King did refer in his 2011 interview to assorted "conspiracy theories" (which he claimed to have investigated), but they were all of the weakest variety: the Mafia -Sam Giancana Mob theory - i.e. the Mob whacked him because he set his brother Bobby - as Attorney General - loose on the mob with his hearings, when Giancana & Co. allegedly allowed JFK to win Chicago and hence Illinois electoral votes in 1960; or "the Cubans did it" conspiracy, i.e. a cabal of disaffected Cubans nailed him for not providing air cover during the Bay of Pigs and so allowing them to be captured by Castro's revolutionaries and imprisoned. And lastly, the 'Fidel did it" theory - that Castro engineered the assassination to get back at Kennedy (for allowing the assorted CIA attempts on his life)

Nowhere,  at no point, either in his book or in his interview (or the Hulu adaptation),  is the key evidence cited that character Epping would need: the CIA's  201-289248 CI/SIG file on Oswald (released after the JFK Records Act) bearing the letter ‘D’ on the cover sheet,  indicating  a CIA Staff D, or SIGINT (signals intelligence) operation run in concert with the National Security  Agency or NSA. As pointed out by Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics Quarterly, Jan. 1994): “In 1961, when William Harvey headed Staff D, he was assigned the task of developing the CIA Assassinations Project, ZR/Rifle”

Most researchers who are serious understand that ZR/Rifle at the behest of Harvey was re-directed against JFK. The tipping point for most of us was when the spooks - like David Atlee Phillips, e.g

became aware of Kennedy's efforts at rapprochement with Castro, via aide William Atwood. (It had been Phillips who ran all the cut outs (fake personae, duplicate Oswalds, fake files etc. ) to implicate Oswald as a commie nut in league with the KGB and Soviets – all the better to paint him as the one lone nut assassin in Dallas.

This has been known for over 20 years by researchers and yet King's character (and King himself) were evidently too dense or clueless to patch it together.

King then ran off the rails, displaying even more lack of attention to historical details, by asserting to Joe Scarborough that:

"Oswald won Hell's Lottery!"

He made this offhand blurtation in connection to Oswald being hired at the Texas School Book Depository on Oct. 16, 1963, or a mere six days before the assassination. But it was no "lottery" that he won, rather being targeted by Ruth Paine to ensure he was there in order to play the patsy role. King made reference to Paine and her testimony that Lee left his keys, and other possessions as he left for work on the fateful day. All of which are lies.

Paine herself was a deceitful, untrustworthy witness who never truthfully acknowledged, either before the Warren Commission or a later New Orleans Grand Jury, that her sister (Sylvia Hyde Hoke) in fact worked for the CIA - while her husband's (Michael's) mother, Ruth Forbes Paine Young, was connected to Allen Dulles (the former CIA Chief) who JFK fired after the Bay of Pigs. (James Douglass, 2008, JFK and the Unspeakable, Orbis Books, p. 169)

Let us also recall that Dulles was appointed by LBJ as one of the Warren Commissioners. Between Dulles and Hoover (LBJ's good pal) all the documents and access for the Warren Commission could easily be managed and cherry -picked to drive the conclusion toward the lone nut nonsense. The latter did, however, serve a purpose in the warped reality of the Warrenites - as it justified the Commission avoiding the Oswald as KGB assassin  ruse.

Ruth Paine, who King seemed to hold up as some kind of unquestioned paragon, also never acknowledged in any of her testimony that she withheld from Lee the news of a better paying job offer made on Oct. 15. This came by way of phone call to the Paine Residence from Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission. According to the documented materials presented by author James Douglass (op. cit., p. 171):

"Adams spoke with someone at the Paines' number about his being prepared to give Oswald referral for permanent employment as a baggage handler at Trans Texas Airways for a salary $100 a month higher than that offered by the Book Depository's temporary job".

Adams then left a message with whoever took his call for Oswald to contact him about the job, but this was never done. Adams tried to phone for Oswald the next day, and was told he "wasn't here". Why? Why wasn't the better paying job information passed on to Oswald? Given Paine's background, and her connections to CIA people like her sister and Allen Dulles, the obvious reason is to put the patsy in place.

Here in a nutshell is the real reason King chose to do the hackneyed "Oswald dunnit" theme for his book, as well as the streaming Hulu adaptation: He was bloody lazy and it was a damned sight easier to regurgitate the official humbug than having to do real research and dig up the actual conspiracy (which we now tie to the CIA and William Harvey in the NSA via the Staff D operations and Oswald's CI/SIG file).  

Even TIME in its recent (Feb. 15, p. 55) write up about this farce essentially calls it out as being too simplistic to demand an 8-part series. ("The premise is so simple that conspiracy theories don't even enter into it.")  The problem then becomes violating a fictional version of Ockham's by expanding the fictional purview far beyond what is actually needed to narrate the pseudo-account.

Thus, a single lone nut-based story ought to wrap up in 4 parts or less. Obviously, a real conspiracy theme - tracking down conspirators like David Atlee Phillips, George Joannides and others-  would take more. Not to mention lead character Epping having to track down all three teams of assassins in Dealey Plaza (triangulation of gunfire) to stop JFK's murder as opposed to just one guy in one building. THAT would have delivered a real impact as well as logically- justified suspense, excitement as opposed to the phony, contrived alternative on offer from Hulu.

But as TIME notes: "Eight parts is too many and the series goes down several blind alleys".

Ignoring the main point that the whole Oswald dunnit angle is a blind alley, the biggest of all. At least King -- in his interviews- could have admitted he lacked the patience or background to put more ballast into his work. But rather than do that he again took the facile path of blasting "conspiracy theorists" like a true Warrenite toadie.

Apart from all these revisionist historical sore points, there is the technical one that it is simply impossible to go back in time 50+ years in a physical form. (Even leaving out the well -known 'grandfather paradox').  Stephen Hawking's own temporal axiom - which he cited in an April 1990 'PLAYBOY' interview(p. 83) -  notes that even if a theoretical time travel technique could be developed one could never traverse to a time or event earlier than the point at which the machine was made. If that was in 1999 then one can't go back any further. (However, in my up and coming scifi novel, 'The Lancer Expedition', a team of historians and physicists is able to project its Goldstone bosons - linked to consciousness - back to the event to at least document what actually transpires.)

Rather than watch this tripe, viewers are better served by watching anything else, say like 'Amazing Race' or even 'Survivor'.  Their time would be much better spent, especially in avoiding being propagandized by this BS.

Newly Released Documents Don't Shed That Much New Light On JFK

• 

As is standard for the Neoliberal media, much hoopla is being made over the newly released documents dating from the Kennedy administration. We are informed - by history researcher Timothy Naftali- that these newly declassified files reveal a "cunning and cagey" President.  But sheesh Louise, why wouldn't he be,  realizing the national security state was tracking his every move - especially his post -1962 efforts at rapprochement with Fidel Castro?

The REAL question for those of us who are serious Kennedy researchers (meaning we have actually written at least one book on the topic of JFK - or his assassination) is: WHERE are the files that really need to be declassified? I am referring to the ones concerning CIA propaganda guy George Joannides. He was a key link to the framing of Lee Oswald in conjunction with David Atlee Phillips and his fake cables painting Oswald as the guy in the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City. This despite the fact he was nowhere around and besides the images taken by the CIA were not of Oswald at all, e.g.

But oh no! We're instead led by the sensationalist media to more jabberwocky, old news and gossip fodder, such as:

- JFK had a "girlfriend system"  (No shit, Sherlock!)

- JFK "had serious doubts about LBJ" (Yawn...we've known this since Evelyn Lincoln, JFK's secretary, wrote her revealing book: Kennedy and Johnson, Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968,  on the Texas bastard's yen for power - even snooping around the Oval Office in the morning before JFK arrived and once asking JFK if he could partake of a "shared presidency".)

- JFK "was planning to drop LBJ from the 1964 ticket" (Again,old news. Anyone not comatose then knew Johnson was up to his rat -fucking eyeballs with the Bobby Baker scandal. JFK would have had to be a certified imbecile to keep him - which is why Johnson was compelled to help plan the assassination. It was either he was going to be new Commander- in -chief, or in the slammer. DOH!)

More scuttlebutt from Tim Naftali - breaker of all this "news"

- From 1961 through the Cuban missile crisis, for instance, Kennedy sent his brother Robert to hold secret talks with Soviet spy Georgi Bolshakov. Recordings also reveal that Kennedy decided to pursue negotiations against the advice of his cabinet, and with his brother’s help. (Again, most of us who are deep politics researchers already knew something along these lines was going on. After all, JFK knew several in his cabinet were really 'gunning' for him, and those included Curtis LeMay of the JCS. This side strategy served him well during the Cuban missile crisis when LeMay actually demanded Kennedy bomb and invade Cuba. When he refused, LeMay compared him to Neville Chamberlain.)

- Naftali said that Kennedy did not want to order the disastrous 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, but felt “boxed in” by politics (Again, old news. People only need to get off their asses and read 'The Bay of Pigs Declassified'. They will also see JFK was "boxed in" by none other than his predecessor, Ike, who'd laid the original plans for the invasion in "Operation Zapata", in his last term and expected JFK to carry them out)

- Kennedy “was making re-election decisions”, Naftali said. “He thought Americans didn’t have the political courage” for diplomacy with communist countries.  (Again, not really that much a revelation.)

-A year after he called on Americans to land on the moon, for example, Kennedy asked the Soviets, in private and in public, to join with the US and conquer space together (Ho -hum. Old news! Already have this stated in several NASA documentaries I have on tape)

- That he spoke candidly only with his family, recorded hundreds of hours of conversations with unwitting people, and quickly resorted to intrigue – as with a CIA-backed coup in South Vietnam – “compounded the secrecy in the way he dealt with the world”, Naftali said.

This is the clearest evidence yet that Naftali is a dumbo and lacks clue one about Kennedy, as when he blabbers "resorting to intrigue". It wasn't Kennedy, but the CIA resorting to intrigue, as when JFK managed to get USAID (linked to the CIA) honcho David Bell in a meeting and Bell disclosed the USAID Commodity Import Aid Program  to S. Vietnam had been cut off, essentially telling JFK: "Yeah, we've instigated a coup, now what're you gonna do about it?"  Less than 24 hours later the Diems were dead and the CIA had telegraphed who was "really in charge" of JFK's administration.

The incident was confirmed by New York Times journalist Arthur Krock  in his piece  ‘The Inter-Administration War in Vietnam’, The New York Times, Oct. 3, 1963). wherein he wrote:

"If the United States ever experiences an attempt at a coup to overthrow the government, it will come from the CIA”
 
This followed his observation  that:  "the CIA had flatly refused to carry out instructions from Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge.”

The Diems were killed on Nov. 2, 1963 and the CIA had planned for Kennedy to be taken out the same day in Chicago, except that trip was cancelled. The lone assassin set up for that hit was Thomas Arthur Vallee- as noted by author James Douglass in his JFK and the Unspeakable.

This monumental gaffe would also explain Naftali's dense statement when asked about the assassination:

"I’ve gone through each of the conspiracies one by one, trying to line them up, and could just never make that jump.“I believe it was Lee Harvey Oswald [who killed Kennedy].”

Of course, no 'jump' was needed had he really done his job. More than likely this loser went through all the easily dispatched conspiracies as opposed to the one most glaringly obvious (but demanding the most scut work, file dredging); that the CIA and national security state did Kennedy in.

But see, this probably would have required Naftali either getting hold of the Joannides' files or doing much more in -depth work, such as rigorously vetting Oswald's CIA files (the OS-351-164 (office of security), and the 201-289248 CI/SIG) as well as going through the cables sent from David Atlee Phillips' Mexico City station in October, 1963. As noted by Peter Dale Scott (‘Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics’, 2013, p. 25) : “at least three show signs of CIA doctoring and the first, which does not, was nevertheless so misleading as to be possibly dishonest.” This was the cable from the Mexico City Station on Oct. 8 that claimed Oswald had appeared at the Soviet Embassy on Oct. 1

Alas, the Jonnnides' CIA files were not among the ones declassified for Naftali's benefit. However, I still maintain the diligent researcher could have come to the same conclusion of a CIA -sponsored hit without them, it just meant more laborious work - which Mr. Naftali was not prepared to do. This "lazy man's path"  is similar to that used by other pretenders, including Scott Aronson, see e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/10/why-some-quantum-physicists-need-to.html

---------------
Addendum: MSNBC ought to be ashamed - or at least substitute host Alex Wagner (on Chris Hayes' All In') - for failing to correct her House Dem guest  3 nights ago. This House Dem Rep actually compared the Reeps' House Select Benghazi Committee to the Warren Commission. In fact, the appropriate comparison was to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (1978-79). The Warren Commission was a whole cloth creation of Lyndon Baines Johnson, and had nothing to do with a real congressional investigation.

Bill O'Reilly's Lies In "Killing Kennedy" Show His Assassination Book Is A Sham

It doesn't take a genius to perceive that Bill O'Reilly is a consummate liar who's been exposed in so many venues and ways it boggles the mind how he could still have a job. I mean, if Brian Williams could get six months suspension over his "misrepresentation" - on how he'd been in a chopper that was fired on by RPGs while on assignment in Iraq, how is it O'Reilly hasn't gotten suspended for a year or even fired?  Apart from media lies he's also lied about his work background, claiming to once having been a "history teacher at a Florida high school."  Well, that high school was Monsignor Edward Pace High in Miami where I graduated from, and he never taught history - he taught English.   This is important because this blowhard is trying to claim experience and background inapplicable to his "Killing" books - which are made up bollocks.

The latest lie exposed (at salon.com) concerns O'Reilly's claim (in his book, 'Killing Kennedy')  of tracking George de Mohrenschildt (then Oswald handler for the CIA), who befriended the Oswalds after they'd returned from Minsk, USSR.  In his daffy book, O'Reilly writes - regarding the death of  de Mohrenschildt - which most serious researchers take to be homicide of yet another would-be witness:

"As the reporter knocked on the door of de Mohrenschildt’s daughter’s home, he heard the shotgun blast that marked the suicide of the Russian, assuring that his relationship with Lee Harvey Oswald would never be fully understood.

By the way, that reporter’s name is Bill O’Reilly."

Now let's note first that the mistake of de Mohrenschildt   before being called for preliminary testimony for the HSCA Investigation, is that he'd already maintained Oswald had been a "scapegoat" and he'd been charged with "babysitting" him to ensure he hit the right marks at the right time for the frame up. Alas, three hours after he'd revealed the CIA had sanctioned his contacts with Oswald he was found shot to death in his daughter's home in Manalapan, FL.

Now, where was O'Reilly really? Well, 1200 miles away talking to one of the lead HSCA investigators, Gaeton Fonzi (author of the book, 'The Last Investigation' which I recommend to all interested readers). This is verified from a tape posted at one of the JFK assassination clearing houses JFKFacts.org,  .

To paraphrase Jefferson Morley: "No way could O'Reilly have heard a gunshot from 1200 miles away."  Besides which, IF O'Reilly was there it is a good bet he wouldn't be around now. Any CIA hit men taking out de Mohrenschildt    surely wouldn't have allowed any witnesses - no matter how proximate, optical or audible,  to live.

How vicious and vindictive were these CIA contract killers that took out de Mohrenschildt ? Clue one emerges after mobster Johnny Roselli had blabbed to journalist Jack Anderson how "Ruby was one of our boys and had been hired to kill Oswald". (Twyman, 'Bloody Treason', p. 386).  Of course any testimony on this score would have blown the cover story that Ruby shot Lee out of the goodness of his heart ("to spare Jackie a trial appearance") to kingdom come. It would also have fixated public consciousness on the conspiracy,  which of course could not be permitted. That would've exposed LBJ's Warren Commission for the fraud it was.

Thus it was that prospective HSCA witness Johnny Roselli had to also meet his cruel end, as described below by Gaeton Fonzi in 'The Last Investigation', p. 375:

"In July, 1976, Roselli had disappeared and in August, the month before the Committee (HSCA) was established, Roselli surfaced in the shallows off the Intracoastal Waterway in North Miami. He had been smothered to death and shot, then cut open from chest to navel. His legs had been hacked off and stuffed with his torso into a 55-gallon steel drum which was wrapped with heavy chain and moored to a weight in the water. The mooring broke when the gases from Roselli's decomposing body forced the drum to float to the surface."

Well,  the killers wanted to make damned sure there were no flapping gums. Like David Ferrie nine  years earlier, and George de Mohrenschildt  a year later, they wanted to ensure Roselli never talked. Murdering witnesses does wonders to keep a conspiracy under wraps - while moron media blabbermouths and their useful idiot lackeys keep babbling about "tin foil hats".

What does Gaeton Fonzi have to say about de Mohrenschildt? In the photo section on the 6th page (of  16 pages) we see this stock image of him:

And on the left side we read  the following:

"The Assassinations Committee discovered  that George de Mohrenschildt, a prominent Dallas social figure who mysteriously befriended a working class ex-Russian defector, had been asked by the CIA's resident Domestic Contact Agent to debrief Oswald. When Committee investigator Fonzi tracked down De Mohrenschildt in South Florida, the longtime CIA asset was found dead before he could be questioned. However, in the skewered world of Washington politics, De Mohrenschildt's sudden death was a factor in keeping the Assassination Committee alive"

How so? The answer emerges in a post-script addendum by Fonzi, referencing the date (March 29, 1977)  of de Mohrenschildt's killing and what else transpired, after he was notified by Fonzi that he was being sought to testify in the HSCA hearings:

"That evening in Washington,  with the Committee on the verge of losing a House vote for its reconstitution and funding Chief Counsel Sprague resigns. The next morning the news of de Mohrenschildt's death and Sprague's resignation produce a victory for the Committee's continuation."

Be assured this was no coincidence. While de Mohrenschildt was a key witness (who would have disclosed how Oswald was being manipulated or "sheep dipped" in Agency parlance) Richard Sprague - the original HSCA head - vowed to "dig deeply into the methods of the FBI and CIA" and also hold them to account. But as per its usual wont, the CIA began a smear campaign in the media against him  - and also rounded up useful collaborating 'whores' in the House (like Henry Gonzalez- who told the spooks to "ignore all Sprague's subpoenas") to ensure Sprague had to depart. That it occurred simultaneously (the same night) as de Mohrenschildt's death probably led Sprague to see what would also happen to him if he didn't leave. The CIA takes no prisoners, as we've beheld with their torture routines- and how their henchmen solved the Roselli problem.

You can read more of the details here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_19.html

Take particular note in the above link of the fact that in the wake of Sprague's departure, none other than CIA "Information and Privacy Coordinator"  Jim Lawderman took control and on July 27 wrote out the terms of the CIA’s control of Blakey’s  HSCA investigation. (Mellen, J., ‘Farewell to Justice’, p. 345).  One of the terms cited was (ibid.):

“ Certain areas relating to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy should be entirely disregarded based upon our contention they are without merit or corroboration” (ibid.)

 

 

Thus, the CIA's overseers were effectively judging the threshold for acceptable evidence even before there was any.

NONE of this appeared in O'Reilly's book 'Killing Kennedy'. But we know what did appear were his false claims of where he was when de  Mohrenschildt met his Maker.

The CIA control meant the HSCA like the Warren Commission before it, was basically a sham, a posturing bit of showmanship to try to please and placate the hoi polloi. There was never any real intent to get at the truth - exposed when they actually managed the incredible Jedi mind trick of finding for conspiracy (95%) but also still claiming the shots came from the Texas School Book Depository. Square the circle anyone?

Fonzi himself minces no words on p. 402 of his penultimate chapter, 'Looking Beyond Conspiracy':

"This was the last investigation and it did not do the job the American people had asked it to do....there is not one investigator, not one, who served on the Kennedy task force who honestly felt he took part in an adequate investigation, let alone one 'full and complete'"

But again, the presence of CIA control had to hold a shadow over it, and fear played a role as Fonzi observed in his "Last Note", p. 410:

"If there was one point in the House Assassinations Committee investigation which showed without a doubt that the Committee did not want to open doors that would force it to face facts it did not want to face it was this: David Atlee Phillips perjury before the Committee".

So the HSCA Committee would rather let this rat perjure himself,


Than confront the CIA that put him up to it. Recall it was Phillips who was Mexico City station chief and who crafted the cables that helped to frame Oswald. As noted by Peter Dale Scott (‘Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics’, 2013, p. 25) : “at least three show signs of CIA doctoring and the first, which does not, was nevertheless so misleading as to be possibly dishonest.” This was the cable from the Mexico City Station on Oct. 8 that claimed Oswald had appeared at the Soviet Embassy on Oct. 1, claiming  he had spoken with Valeriy Kostikov three days earlier.

Thus, our democratic reps were in fear and trepidation at the prospect of confronting the national security state - which they also had to know played the major role in Kennedy's killing (at Johnson's behest as would come out years later.)

Meanwhile, in Fonzi's mind there was never any issue or doubt on conspiracy (p. 408):

"Long before the Assassinations Committee received confirmation from the acoustic tests in Dealey Plaza, the evidence for a conspiracy was overwhelming.  And in the narrow perspective of my personal quest for substantiation, I've come to conclude that, for me, two pieces of evidence provide irrefutable evidence of conspiracy:  One demolishes the single bullet theory - the locations of the bullet holes in the back of Kennedy's jacket and shirt - hard, tangible, measurable evidence - that obliterate the possibility of a bullet emerging from Kennedy's throat and striking Governor Connolly. The other was.... the deliberate act of connecting Oswald to the assassination before the assassination."

It seems to me that if "Billo"  O'Reilly wanted to truly write a serious book on the assassination, he not only would have spoken to Fonzi in 1977 (as he did - from the tapes released), but also have gotten hold of his book 'The Last Investigation', published in 1993 and taken his conspiracy position seriously.  After all, Fonzi was instrumental in helping O'Reilly move ahead while at Miami Magazine, and even moving on to TV spots.  But then, the objective was never about telling the truth and "informing the folks" but interjecting himself into a historical aftermath that amounted to bare faced lies, and sticking with the usual official bollocks that "Oswald dunnit".


 See : This interview with Gaeton Fonzi:

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

And also my original take on O'Reilly's book:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/be-still-my-heart-oreilly-does-jfk.html

Frequently Asked Questions on the JFK Assassination (Pt. 9): Earlier Plots, Designated Assassins, Oswald Double

1. I understand there were earlier plans afoot to kill JFK? Where and anyone identified in them?

There were at least two earlier plots for assassinating JFK – one in Chicago, timed for November 2, to coincide with the assassination of the Diem brothers in Vietnam, and one on Nov. 18^th in Miami.   The latter fell apart after an FBI informant, William Somerset, used a wire to record the words of one Joseph Milteer who calmly forecast that Kennedy would be shot and killed from a tall building using a rifle with telescope sight. Kennedy was in Miami at the time to give a speech, and his motorcade was cancelled.

The Chicago threat was the more serious of the two, as a warning had been phoned in (by an FBI informant named “Lee”)   that a team of snipers planned to shoot Kennedy in a motorcade while on the then Northwest (now Kennedy) Expressway, en route to Soldier Field for a football game (JFK ended up cancelling these plans). Author James Douglass has noted the eerie resemblance of the motorcade route to that in Dallas, starting with the site of the original building at 625 West Jackson,  “an old eight story building that had been remodeled for apartment dwellers”. As he notes[1]:

 

“From its roof I could look down and over to where JFK’s presidential limousine had been scheduled to make a slow turn up from the Northwest Expressway exit ramp onto west Jackson on November 2, 1963. It was analogous to the slow curve the limousine would make in Dallas in front of the Texas School Book Depository three weeks later.”

2. Was Oswald one of the assassins then, or was it some one else?

In fact, Lee Oswald is believed (certainly by James Douglass, and myself) to have been the FBI informant “Lee” who warned of the hit, or more exactly the real threat in a phone call to the Chicago FBI office[2].  The latter issued from a team of four Cubans who were the actual direct threat to Kennedy while a chosen patsy (Thomas Arthur Vallee) was designated to be arrested as the lone assassin in the IPP-Litho Plate building on West Jackson. (Similar to Lee Oswald at the Texas Book Depository)

 

A separate tip (warning) on Vallee came from Chicago Police Lt. Berkeley Moyland, who observed Vallee in a cafeteria and sized him up as “damaged unbalanced personality”. Evidently, it was remarks of Vallee concerning Kennedy that caused Moyland to phone in a tip to the Treasury Department (under which the Secret Service operates). Moyland received a call back from a Treasury official who committed him to absolute silence and was told: “Don’t write anything else about it. Don’t tell anybody about it. Just forget about it”.[3]

 

Thanks to Moyland’s alertness and “Lee’s” willingness to give a timely heads up, JFK got an extension of nearly two more weeks to live. The latter’s tip busted the main threat, with rifles recovered from a Chicago boarding house. The perpetrators, or planners, escaped. Thomas Arthur Vallee was arrested on a pretext just 2 ½ hours before JFK’s plane was to touch down at O’Hare. The main blessing, is that Vallee was spared the stigma of being identified as JFK’s assassin.

 

3.     What was the skinny on Vallee? Was his background similar to Oswald’s?

It was, and we can thank author James Douglass for his diligent work here, including interviewing Vallee’s sister.  Like Oswald, Vallee enlisted in the Marines, and for a 2^nd term starting in February, 1955. Also, like Oswald, he’d been assigned to a U-2 base, this one in Camp Otsu, Japan.  An extensive psychiatric evaluation by the Marines for his re-enlistment led to a diagnosis as exhibiting “schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type #3003”.[4]

 

While at Camp Otsu, Japan,  Vallee came under the control and manipulation of the CIA just as Oswald had while in the capacity of a radar operator at Atsugi, Japan. Also like Oswald, Vallee had trained with Cuban exiles,  in his case at Levittown, Long Island, while Oswald trained near Lake Pontchartrain, La.  In August, ’63, as Lee Oswald was preparing to move from New Orleans to Dallas, Vallee was preparing to move from New York to Chicago.[5]

 

Another salient fact: the New York license plate on Vallee’s 1962 Ford Falcon: 31-10RF, was later found to be restricted to U.S. intelligence agencies. This was learned after a relative of a Chicago NBC employee attempted to trace it and was told it was “frozen” and “only the FBI could obtain this information”.[6]

The single fact here is that, had  the informant “Lee” not called in a warning, we’d likely never have heard the name “Lee Harvey Oswald” – it would only have been Thomas Arthur Vallee. Reams and reams of words would be written about this “lone assassin” and the (earlier) Warren Commission set up would have found him the only assassin, despite the fact that he never had a chance to talk. (Likely eliminated just like Oswald). In which case the followup historical impetus wouldn’t be about the vindication of Lee Oswald, but of Thomas Vallee.

4.    With all the parallels in place it sounds suspiciously like the CIA had a program in place to churn out patsy lone assassins. True or not?

Your insights are spot –on. Former CIA Agent Victor Marchetti actually informed author Anthony Summers about this program[7]:

 

“At the time, in 1959, the United States was having real difficulty in acquiring information out of the Soviet Union. The technical systems had, of course, not developed to the point they are at today, and we were resorting to all sorts of activities. One of these activities was an ONI (Office of Naval Intelligence) program which involved three dozen, maybe forty, young men who were made to appear disenchanted, poor American youths who had become turned off and wanted to see what communism was all about. Some of these people lasted only a few weeks. They were sent into the Soviet Union or into eastern Europe with the specific intention the Soviets would pick them up and ‘double’ them if they suspected them of being U.S. agents, or recruit them as KGB agents. They were trained at various naval installations both here and abroad , but the operation was being run out of Nag’s Head North Carolina.”

 

Marchetti’s insights here help to explain a lot to do with the apparent quixotic behavior of Oswald. In this light, we see that Oswald’s entire defection to Russia was merely an intelligence ploy cooked up by the CIA or ONI. The overindulgence of Oswald while based at Atsugi is also now more understandable. Why else give him only six weeks or so in the brig for striking an enlisted officer, when normally it would be a court martial? Well, because they’d invested too much in him to have him meet that untimely and useless end!

5.     Would an Oswald “double” also factor into this? Help explain some of the strange behavior – like bragging about Russian cars to a Dallas auto dealer?

This is absolutely the case. The fact is there were just too many different sightings of Oswald, in too many different places to be attributed to one persona, or individual. The most critical and key sighting was made by Sgt. Robert Vinson who observed the Oswald double while on a flight back to Colorado Springs (to Ent AFB, while on the staff of NORAD), from Washington, D.C.[8]  Vinson “served as administrative supervisor of the electronics division and held a crypto-security clearance”, so he definitely was no derelict, loony, goofball or nut. Those nattering media nabobs today who blithely dismiss the whole notion of an Oswald double need to look carefully at Vinson's testimony instead of emulating ostriches.

 

 On November 22, Vinson took a bus to Andrews AFB to try to hitch a ride home on the first flight back to Colorado Springs (ibid.). He managed to secure space on a C-54 cargo plane, which bore no military markings or insignia.  On boarding, Vinson found the inside of the plane empty and then observed two men enter the plane via the cockpit door.

Most suspicious to Sgt. Vinson it that he wasn’t asked to sign a manifest (log), which was standard operating procedure whenever he hitched a ride with the Air Force.  En route, Vinson heard an unemotional voice simply report that “the president was shot at 12.29 p.m.”  By 3.30 p.m. Vinson saw the skyline he recognized as that of Dallas, and the plane turned and came in via a southeast direction, landing abruptly on a sandy flat near the Trinity River.  Two males, one Latino or Cuban and 6’ – 6’1” in height, the other Caucasian and 5’7” or so in height, boarded.

It was only after the fact, on landing and then accessing newspapers and TV coverage, that Vinson recognized the shorter male as the spitting image of Lee Oswald.  If not for Sgt. Vinson, the idea of an Oswald “double” might have remained forever in the realm of speculation or media claimed craziness, but as I showed earlier, others also made the observation at different times. It is also my contention that the real Lee Oswald never set foot in Mexico City. It was a totally different, heavyset male  mistaken for Oswald.

 

Meanwhile, the actual double was dispatched to conduct a host of outrageous behaviors to make the name ‘Oswald’ unforgettable: from going to a rifle range and firing at other users’ targets, to arriving at a Dallas gun shop and ordering a telescopic rifle sight while adding “I may be needing it in a few days” to firing rifle shots at General Walker and making a getaway (with a Latin or Cuban character) in a ’57 Chevrolet whose license plate was later rubbed out in a Warren Exhibit. (Bear in mind here, the real Lee Oswald didn’t drive, had no license.) To going to a Dallas car dealership and announcing that "if anyone wanted to give America an enema all he'd have to do is stick the nozzle right here in Dallas!"

 

The best optical-photographic evidence was prepared by specialist Jack White who spliced together two claimed "identical" photos of Oswald together at the chin interface.

It doesn't take any technical specialist ability to see how well all the features match except for the height differential.

 

 

Sec. B  E. Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession to Saint John Hunt

Note: E. Howard Hunt was one of the Watergate burglars with CIA affiliations, and also was in Dallas the day of the assassination. This section deals with his role in Dallas, confessed to his son, Saint John Hunt. 

 

 

1. Do you place any stock in the deathbed revelations of E. Howard Hunt regarding the assassination of JFK?

 

Actually, I do. Hunt in the context of both his NPR, and later literal (deathbed) revelations to his son (Saint John Hunt), noted that the closest book to describe the mechanics involved in the assassination was Weberman and Canfield’s Coup d’Etat in America. Having read it and studied the photos and documents therein, I am 99%  confident the photos shown (including one that is almost certainly Hunt in 1963) are legitimate and reveal at least some of the background mechanics.

 

Were these people capable of committing an assassination? Well, Frank Sturgis, as the authors document, had already murdered 61 pro-Batista supporters in cold blood, in Cuba in 1959. Castro ordered the killings as a pretext for Sturgis to openly demonstrate his loyalty to the revolution – since Castro plausibly figured he might be playing both sides of the table. Without hesitation, Sturgis aimed his weapon at the assembled supporters and mowed them down. If he had no compunction about slaughtering 61 people to prove a point,  he’d have none in eliminating one U.S. president, or at least playing a major role in it.

Interestingly, the sequence of photos of the “tramps” shown in the book, shows Sturgis, Hunt and one person identified to be a near-look alike of Lee Oswald’s. The trio were moving in the direction away from the Book depository and toward the railroad tracks. I’ve studied the photos with magnifiers and compared them to later photos of Hunt and Sturgis and both appear to be the same men, in their earlier years.

 

2. How would you confirm the two identities with an even higher probability?

This would require obtaining photos of the 1963 tramps, including the close-ups of their faces, and comparing them with later images – for example when both Sturgis and Hunt were apprehended in the Watergate break-in. Then, subjecting regions of the suspected same faces to a segmentation, pixel grid analysis of the described here:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/analysis-of-pixel-diffusion-in-oswald.html

 

One would then obtain the coefficient of variation  to show the faces were not statistically different.

 

3. Did Hunt in his deathbed revelations indicate anything astounding or not otherwise known?
 

Well, perhaps not otherwise widely suspected. He indicated that LBJ was involved (which many already believed) and also CIA agent Cord Meyer – whose wife had had an affair with JFK.  Virtually none of this, zero, came out at the time or in the wake, but we have to remember that Cord Meyer was Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee’s brother –in-law and that’s one likely reason The Washington Post has been amongst the least willing sources to accept the conspiracy thesis or even publish any disclosures that might point to such.

 

In the course of his deathbed disclosures, Hunt also connected Cord Meyer’s name to two other CIA Agents, David Morales (a vicious black op specialist)  and Bill Harvey. Recall that Harvey "headed Staff D, assigned the task of developing the CIA Assassinations Project, ZR/Rifle”. ( Peter Dale Scott (Deep Politics Quarterly, Jan. 1994).  CIA Staff D, a SIGINT or signals intelligence operation run in concert with the National Security  Agency or NSA.   In addition, as noted by Peter Dale Scott (op. cit.) Oswald’s 201 file – indicated the letter 'D' on the cover page - showing that Oswald was involved in this operation.

 

Most researchers who've delved into this in much more depth than superficial 'buffs' (unlike some, I distinguish 'buffs' - who approach the subject like dilettantes from serious researchers) come away with the conviction Oswald was set up as part of ZR/Rifle. However,  with the plot now turned against Kennedy. Oswald was likely used as the dupe or decoy so the actual perps (likely Cuban exiles, and trained assassins - from the Army's Ft. Benning Assassin school) could escape . Scott and others believe he was told he'd help to expose the plot but he needed to be at the Texas School Book Depository to do so. No surprise that Ruth Paine, another CIA asset, steered him into the job at the Book Depository.

 

 

A CIA accountant with top secret clearance named James Wilcott, testified  the original plan was to "kill Kennedy, link Oswald to Castro, and use this as a pretext to invade Cuba". (Mellen, Farewell to Justice, p. 178) Wilcott had passed three successive lie detector tests to this in preliminary questioning by HSCA investigators. (ibid.)   Wilcott further noted the phony link to Castro could not be established firmly enough to hold and hence the need to brand Oswald as the lone assassin. (ibid.).

 

Amazingly, however, historically befuddled idiots like John Kerry continue to regurgitate it - as Kerry did based on a UK Guardian report a week ago.

 

Lastly, Hunt also indicated a connection between Morales and a “French gunman on the grassy knoll” which most of the recent assassination researchers have taken to be Lucien Sarte, though some (e.g. Walt Brown) believe was Jean Soutre,  hired out of the Corsican Mafia. (As disclosed in the BBC series, ‘The Men Who Killed Kennedy’ via interview in France with Christian David). It therefore seems that Morales made connections with the Corsicans to hire Soutre, and this was probably at Cord Meyer’s behest.

 

4. Any connections with David Atlee Phillips?

Hunt indicated in a later, more exhaustive exchange that Meyer discussed the plot with Phillips, and also William Harvey and Antonio Veciana.  Veciana apparently then met with Frank Sturgis to hatch an initial plan to eliminate JFK in Miami (when he went on Nov. 18 ) and also recruited Morales for the purpose.  LBJ then altered the itinerary to Dallas.

 

Likely the last occurred (I am conjecturing here- since this wasn’t part of Hunt’s disclosures) after J. Edgar Hoover (Johnson’s dear friend as revealed in numerous “Dear Edgar” letters) learned from an FBI informant (William Sommerset) in Miami that a plan was afoot to shoot Kennedy with a high powered rifle from a tall building. So, the stage was changed to Dallas, which was actually much more advantageous since given Johnson’s connections he’d be able to enlist the support of the Dallas Police, as well as ensure evidence could be “managed” wherever it appeared.

 

 

5. Isn’t that going a bit far? That Johnson would even think he could manage or manipulate whole chains of evidence?

 
 

Not really. Bear in mind this is the same character that went to extraordinary lengths to either remove or destroy all negative references and images of him appearing in college yearbooks, college newspaper articles available at Southwestern State Teacher College in San Marcos, Texas.   Evidently, while still an undergrad, Johnson arranged through the president of the college to have excised from all copies of the college yearbook any material that would give clues to his years there. Presumably in case they might prove detrimental to fully attaining any future ambitions.  This, in fact, is the template for how he managed evidence (not to mention the pseudo- investigation) in the wake of the Kennedy hit. As Author Robert A. Caro has put it ( The Path to Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, Vol. I, pp. xviii-xix  )

 

“Lyndon Johnson not only attempted to create and leave for history his own legend, but to ensure that it could never be disproven.”

6. Was anything about Hunt’s confession reported anywhere in the media?

 

 

Not by the corporate mainstream, but in Rolling Stone, Apr. 5, 2007, ‘The Last Confessions of E. Howard Hunt’, in an article by Erik Hedegard. As the author specifically noted:

“The "deathbed confession" audio tape in which former CIA agent and Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt admits he was approached to be part of a CIA assassination team to kill JFK was aired this weekend - an astounding development that has gone completely ignored by the establishment media.

 

Saint John Hunt, son of E. Howard Hunt, appeared on the nationally syndicated Coast to Coast Live radio show on Saturday night to discuss the revelations contained in the tape.

 

Hunt said that his father had mailed cassette the tape to him alone in January 2004 and asked that it be released after his death. The tape was originally 20 minutes long but was edited down to four and a half minutes for the Coast to Coast broadcast. Hunt promises that the whole tape will be uploaded soon at his website.”
 

He goes on, especially key aspects:

 

“E. Howard Hunt names numerous individuals with both direct and indirect CIA connections as having played a role in the assassination of Kennedy, while describing himself as a "bench warmer" in the plot. Saint John Hunt agreed that the use of this term indicates that Hunt was willing to play a larger role in the murder conspiracy had he been required.

Hunt alleges on the tape that then Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson was involved in the planning of the assassination and in the cover-up, stating that LBJ, "Had an almost maniacal urge to become president, he regarded JFK as an obstacle to achieving that."

In the end, like most critical pieces of evidence (including anecdotal) in the assassination, there will be those who have a basis to accept it and others to reject it. The tragedy is, in E. Howard Hunt’s case and given he had nothing to lose, we are basically seeing the first genuine honesty going forward in this horrific event – and gaining an insight into some of the actual players. Unfortunately, most Americans will likely ignore it, because they’ve been propagandized and conditioned to do so by the corporate press, which, despite its almost universal disdain for getting at the truth of the JFK assassination, yet has the time, money and energy to squander on “Balloon Boy” hoaxes.

 

 

 

---

[1] J. Douglass, op. cit. p. 206.

[2] Op. cit., p. 207.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Op. cit. p. 205.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Op. cit. p. 203.

[7] Op. cit. p. 40.

[8] Douglass, op. cit. pp. 299-300. All the details to do with Vinson’s encounter are from Douglass’ book.