Patricia Lambert's "False Witness" - Another Crank Attack On Jim Garrison And Oliver Stone- Amazon Reviewers' Delusions To The Contrary

When people find out that I resided in New Orleans  at the time of the Garrison trial (of Clay Shaw) in connection to the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the question most often asked is: What was the most memorable event or person? 

The most memorable moment?  When the Judge in the case,  Edward Haggerty,  disallowed entry of Clay Shaw’s alias (‘Clay Bertrand’)  as evidence, which effectively torpedoed Jim Garrison's case (A key scene shown in the Oliver Stone movie, 'JFK').  Interestingly, years later under the JFK Records Act, we’d learn (on extracting relevant released documents) :

“A memorandum marked for files says that J. Monroe Sullivan, #280201, was granted a covert security  approval as of 10 December 1962 so he could be used in Project QKCHANT [Clay L. Shaw has #402897]” 

In other words, Shaw was indeed a CIA contract agent as Garrison claimed.    From the available files – disclosed long after Garrison’s efforts ended – it was  evident Shaw used his QKENCHANT clearance  to “plan or coordinate  CIA activities” as well as “initiate relationships with non-agency institutions or person.”  In this guise, and as I show in my book The JFK Assassination- The Final Analysis,  e.g.

Shaw was effectively part of the CIA’s clandestine services with Covert Security Approval, working under cover.

Incredibly,  a book by Patricia Lambert (who I'd wager anything is related to Warren Commission toady James K. Lambert) is making the rounds again and attempting to smear both Garrison and film maker Oliver Stone in one fell swoop.  Evidently, too many daft, ignorant and gullible Amazon reviewers aren't aware of the real history of the case, else they'd not be gushing about how Lambert's effort "tells the whole truth".    I warrant most of these enthusiasts  aren't aware  of subsequent file releases - or if they are- haven't truly delved into them, say to ferret out Oswald's CIA files.  These include: the OS- 351-164 (‘Office of Security) file,  the 201- 289248 and 64-500 files.  All of which are fully documented in Military Science professor John Newman's monograph: Oswald and the CIA.

  But going that further step, before swallowing  Lambert's  anti-Garrison screeds hook, line and sinker, would  necessitate a serious research inclination most of the gushers lack. 

Indeed, this holds especially given there is little or no mention of other key aspects, including how Shaw's funding of the Guy Banister operations in New Orleans, on 544 Camp Street,  also linked to the CIA covert strategy of George Joannides, e.g.


 Especially his handling of the DRE (Directorio Revolucionario Estudantil ) whose members were all at the 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  Carlos Bringuier.)

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.  Indeed, Joannides' use  of the DRE  by mid -1963 was  primarily 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. 

Absence of this background information, especially in any would –be critic’s quiver, definitely discloses  slipshod work – probably designed more as an ad hominem in the guise of a screed-imbued book.

Don't take my word for it.  Avail yourself of the vastly more authoritative review by another long time JFK researcher- Joan Mellen – in The Baltimore Sun-   soon after the original incarnation of Lambert's book appeared (co-authored then with an "M. Evans"). As Ms. Mellen wrote (1999 review, ‘As JFK Lore Witness Rings False’, also appearing in The South Florida Sun Sentinel, i.e. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/fl-xpm-1999-05-02-9904300760-story.html

“‘False Witness’, alas, is little more than an unpleasant one-sided diatribe, a belated, curious valentine to the elusive Shaw. Lambert's named sources (most are unidentified) are primarily Shaw's own lawyers. Her tone is venomous, the word "fraud" a verbal tic. "Reportedly" is a constant adverb.”

All of which supports the take of Lambert’s book being a 352 page ad hominem attack, and on a dead man who can’t defend himself to boot.  

Ms. Mellen goes on to point out:

"Department of Justice spokesmen soon confirmed that "Clay Bertrand" and Clay Shaw were the same person. The officer booking Shaw reported that Shaw admitted to the alias "Clay Bertrand," an admission not admissible in court, but no less true for that. And a mailman testified under oath at the Shaw trial that he delivered mail to a "Bertrand" at the home of one of Clay Shaw's closest friends.

No matter. Bent on asserting that Clay Bertrand did not exist, a point necessary to exonerate Shaw -- the goal of this book -- Lambert without foundation suggests that these witnesses were either bribed or mentally deficient. The general reader would not know from Lambert that New Orleans FBI agent Regis Kennedy was looking for Clay Bertrand before Kennedy even interviewed Dean Andrews.”

As for Lambert's author bona fides, we learn from Ms. Mellen they are  flimsy at best, i.e.:

“The author description on the book jacket and press release describes Lambert, cryptically, as a "writer/editor." Yet no book that she ever wrote is mentioned.  Not a single magazine or newspaper article is cited. Her book twists the facts, suppresses an enormous amount of material, and offers so distorted a picture as to render it of scant historical merit.”

One of the few  direct takedowns of Lambert's schlock on Amazon  is a review written by C.E. Krah:

"This book, after all is said and done, is the Warren Commission and countless other naysayers words coming out of a suspiciously naive drone of a woman's mouth. She is not the first nor the last person to attack Jim Garrison and call him egotistical(among other things). The claims made mostly rely on Clay Shaw and cohorts telling the truth, and it's blindingly irritating how she takes each at his word. Sure, to the newcomer, her work may seem honest and investigative but to the more informed person, she is either incredibly near-sighted, or one of the many people who are paid in one way or another to add to the official cover story."

The last underscored point is incredibly germane and shows that the gap between WC defenders and the professional research community is generally determined by the willingness to access (and properly plumb)  the vast constellation of documents- especially released since the 1992 JFK Records Act.

The main takeaway here is an actual conspiracy was found for the JFK assassination, irrespective of all the efforts of Warren Commission hacks, toadies and puppets to claim otherwise.  The evidence is there, including the physics, the ballistics.  Let us also note the last actual investigation (not the mockery under LBJ’s control) was the House Subcommittee on Assassinations  (HSCA) which concluded a “96% probability of conspiracy” . 

The secondary takeaway is that despite all Jim Garrison's rumored and actual faults-   and especially because he can no longer defend himself against  the many slurs and slanders of  disgruntled WC apparatchiks-   'False Witness' will remain a false narrative.  This is especially given what we've since learned of Shaw.

For those interested, my own book provides both detailed qualitative and quantitative analyses –including of the backyard ‘LIFE’ magazine photos, as well as the shot sequence (impulse profiles)  in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963 - matched up with a test firing simulation using echo correlation in 1978.

See also:

Why I Trust Oliver Stone over Bob Woodward


A Hard Fact: All Necessary JFK Files HAVE Been Rel...

James K. Lambert- Another WC Toady and Tool - Trie...


NOVA 'JFK Cold Case' Special - Another Hit Job - ...

Books to read for the serious person interested in the Kennedy Assassination:

1) Crenshaw, Dr. Charles A., 1993: JFK- Conspiracy of Silence, Signet Books.

(The  link to a .pdf version of Dr. Crenshaw's book can be found below:
http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Conspiracy_Of_Silence.pdf

 2)Douglass, James: 2007,JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, Orbis Books.

3) Fonzi, Gaeton: 1993, The Last Investigation. Thunder’s Mouth Press.

)  4)Prouty, L. Fletcher: 1992, JFK, The CIA, Vietnam and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy, Carroll Publishing. 

Writers (Like Derek Arnold) Continue to Conflate Princess Diana Conspiracy 'Theories' With JFK Assassination Conspiracy

There is no comparison at all between the death of JFK - an assassination via conspiracy - and the death of Princess Diana .

Derek Arnold displays a "bee in his bonnet" in his recent salon.com piece about the persistence of Princess Diana "conspiracy theories ".    I  am only superficially familiar with these, basically only having read that somehow the Queen and MI5 have been blamed for engineering a deliberate crash in Paris to kill Dodi and Diana.   To me, from what I have read, it appears in the realm of ideation - not even "theory".  Anyway, once Arnold drags in the Kennedy assassination he made himself a target for Kennedy researchers. Once more - like others (e.g. Tina Brown in 2013)  - he overgeneralizes, paints with too wide a brush..  .  He writes:

I've taught classes and researched the nature of conspiracy theories for over a decade, and I’m especially interested in the role of logic in these conspiracies — how it’s used to warp and concoct stories that explain extraordinary events. In the end, our reasons for entertaining conspiracy theories about luminaries, whether it’s the princess of Wales or John F. Kennedy, often have more to do with our lives than theirs.'

Uh no, maestro.  Don't drag JFK into your mix. The error committed here is one first highlighted by author Michael Parenti ('The Dirty Truth') in conflating the personal political value of the presumed target with the value of the assassination.  As entrancing and charming a personage as Diana was, she had no political value via any putative  assassination.  She commanded no armies or powerful allies. (For nor issued major policy decisions that would affect entrenched interests. Apart from initiating some land mine awareness programs and a few charities, Diana’s death had no where near the political impact that JFK’s  assassination had. (For example, JFK's plan to pull out of Vietnam by calendar year 1965, via his National Security Action Memorandum 263).  That Arnold is unable to make such a critical distinction reveals him as an amateur and conspiracy investigator lightweight.

But such casual conflation is a common error for conspiracy- investigating amateurs (under which umbrella I regard a 10-yr. researcher like Arnold) to a): to conflate all conspiracies or potential conspiracies using the same simplistic criteria, and b) to make generalizations which are unwarranted by such conflation. And here, again, my focus is on the Kennedy assassination conspiracy and perhaps Iran-Contra, no others.

It is useful at the outset to separate  "conspiracy theorists" from conspiracy analysts. The distinction is important, because as Dr. Pat Bannister has  shown, it marks the difference between a mature, rational, tempered approach to a case, and a scattershot, irrational, immature set of wild conjectures.  In this sense those who've dabbled in Diana conspiracies have generally been amongst the former. JFK researchers-  95 % of them from my experience (such as Mark Lane, Peter Dale Scott, Anthony Marsh, James DiEugenio, Walt Brown, James Douglass, David Lifton) -  are assuredly conspiracy analysts. Hence, their products are conspiracy analyses not "theories".

One of the conspiracy amateurs' more insulting claims is that people "embrace conspiracies in order to rise beyond the randomness or meaninglessness of celebrity deaths."  Thus, Arnold's claim that "conspiracy theories" have "more to do with our lives than theirs".  Which is emphatic nonsense in the case of JFK's assassination, given once he was taken out LBJ could then rescind his NSAM 263 and re-issue his own (NSAM 273) which paved the way for the Vietnam War in which 58,000 Americans lost their lives.

In the case of the JFK assassination who can forget long time CBS anchor Walter Cronkite's words soon after?  To wit:

"What would be more comfortable? Accepting a lone assassin, or believing a second assassin suddenly materialized out of thin air, fired a shot and disappeared again without leaving a trace of his rifle, his bullet or any other sign of existence?"

But barely ten years after "Uncle Walter" uttered those words, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) did find for a "96 percent probability" of a second gunman (and hence conspiracy)  based on acoustic tests done by MIT researchers. While a special gov't appointed team attempted to refute it, they failed, and moreover none of them were bona fide  acoustic specialists like the MIT group.  Let us also note that the HSCA was the only genuine government investigation while the much ballyhooed Warren Commission was actually a creature of Lyndon Johnson - confected for his political cover. (Just prior to the assassination Johnson was facing investigation and possible prison time for his role in the Bobby Baker influence peddling scandal) NO  - not all conspiracies are created equal, and one wonders if Arnold even got as far as reading the HSCA findings.

Arnold blabs on:

"Indeed, many are drawn to what science writer Michael Shermer has termed “agenticity” — the tendency to infuse patterns with meaning and agency. It’s the idea that someone, somewhere — from God down to human conspirators — plays a role in what happens to us."

But I've already dealt with Shermer's straw man in past posts, so will do so again. For example, in my Nov. 22, 2014 post on the Skeptic Society's efforts to treat the JFK and other real conspiracies as looney ideations, I wrote:

"By the clever use of a pseudo-scientific,  dime store psychology template virtually any real conspiracy could be dismissed as nothing more then a combo of :  P (patternicity)+ A  (agenticity) + H (hindsight) + C (confirmation bias) nonsense!   

In the case of the Iran-Contra conspiracy,  the shipping manifests revealing the assorted Hawk and TOW missiles  destined for Iran would be likened to "seeing a pattern".  This would then be "infused with agenticity"(sic)  because the missiles ended up with the Iranians - so someone had to be a bad guy in doing it- since the Iranians were bad guys holding American hostages.  The next step would be to accuse  Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh of "looking for confirmatory evidence of what he already believed", i..e. the guilt of Oliver North, John Poindexter et al. because they "used their Government positions to create a hidden slush fund under the exclusive control of the conspirators”.  And finally, the coup de grace, Walsh would be accused of "hindsight bias" - advancing explanations after the fact for what he already knew happened. (Of course he knew, he uncovered the evidence in the course of his investigation!)

So, in other words, their bandying about of this pseudo-process is useless because it errs by proposing an excessively subjective and open-ended standard for parsing objective evidence. Hence, tying proof of conspiracy to sophisticated second guessing."

And then we see the usual citation of babble by some expert in the general area of "conspiracy theories":

"As political scientist Michael Barkun details in his book “A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic Visions in Contemporary America,” conspiracy theories usually hinge on three core beliefs:

• Nothing happens by accident. For this reason, the horrible machinations of “evil” conspirators become more believable than a fluke or an accident.
• Nothing is as it seems. Successful conspirators hide their identities and actions; we must, therefore, always be wary, even when there’s little reason for suspicion.
• Dots can always be connected. Though conspirators attempt to hide their actions, patterns exist everywhere

But let's parse these three beliefs in terms of the JFK assassination. Did it happen by "accident"? No,  JFK was quite deliberately shot and killed in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. The issue at hand is whether one lone nut did it, or whether it was a planned conspiracy.  The best evidence we have of a malignant,  pre-planned influence pertains to the altered autopsy photos showing JFK's head:

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 book can be found below:
http://www.krusch.com/books/kennedy/Conspiracy_Of_Silence.pdf

Most interesting (page 10) is when Dr. Crenshaw was shown one of the Warren autopsy photos (same one produced in the PBS Nova exercise) and asked by Gary Shaw of the Sixth Floor Museum whether it matches what he observed when attending to JFK.  Dr. Crenshaw was incredulous. He immediately spotted the fake and ascertained  that the head had been "manipulated".  It was immediately evident to him that a conspiracy was at work, else why alter the massive frontal head wound to a rear one?  I would leave that question for Derek Arnold to address if he can. And while he's at it, why did Warren Commissioner Gerald Ford find it necessary to alter the official (autopsy)  account of the back wound to a neck wound, e.g.

.
Moving the wound to the back of the neck as opposed to being parallel to the third thoracic vertebra e.g. of the back., as JFK's physician identified it originally  could then permit people - many otherwise intelligent - to buy into the single bullet baloney  and dismiss the original improbable track, e.g.

All the preceding is relevant to the second point, i.e. of the capability of conspirators to hide their actions - and often identities. In the Kennedy assassination many of the participants used "cut outs" so that effectively concealed their identities.  The deliberate series of actions, meanwhile, including altering the JFK rear head wound and the bullet trajectory by Ford - was made possible because not all files, photos were released until much later The actual autopsy photo showing the rear of the head blown out didn't appear until the HSCA in 1978 or nearly 15 years after the assassination. Ford's notes and alteration of the upper back wound to the neck wound didn't emerge until 1993. This was after the JFK Records Act was passed.

My point is that the relevant "hiding" was not a matter of personal "belief"  but rather of straight up evidence only being made available much later. In each case the motive for alteration leads directly to the logical conclusion of a cover up. That in turn leads to the question of WHO would want to do such a cover up.  

The last aspect: "dots can always be connected" is useless gibberish.  Again, it conflates meaningful "dots" with meaningless ones. Thus, if said "dots" have intrinsic meaning, one can say their analysis and the conclusion arising therefrom  is rational.  For example, the "dot" of Kennedy's head being altered at the time of autopsy and photographs taken, leading to the "dot" of the Warren Commission publishing the altered (intact) head but not the other (blown out rear).  Plus the "dot " of Gerald Ford's  revision of the wound placement which makes it (sort of) conform to the single bullet theory. Why? Well, because if the latter  is accepted it obviates the nees for a 2nd gunman (or a 3rd).

Then there's the inescapable "dot" of Jackie moving back across the limo trunk to try to retrieve a dislodged occipital bone from JFK's head  e.g.

This an example of  linear transfer of momentum  comporting with the "dot" of the massive rear head wound. Hence, we are not selecting dots out of thin air but based on actual physical evidence and laws.

Like other pretenders before him, Arnold then drags in "Occam's Razor" which is totally irrelevant. He writes:

"Yet many conspiracy theories routinely contradict Occam’s razor, a philosophical principle based on the idea that the more assumptions needed to explain something — whether it’s a scientific law or a conspiracy theory — the less reliable the explanation. 

In short, the simpler your explanation, the better. "

But as I've pointed out before, scientific hypotheses are distinct from conspiracies, and hence from conspiracy hypotheses.   The "Razor" -  as we call it -  basically stipulates that given two or more hypotheses to account for the same phenomenon, the one which makes the fewest assumptions is most likely the correct one.

However, the one proviso in invoking it, is that one is applying it to a hypothesis concerning a natural event, or natural 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.
.
The problem inherent in applying it to the Kennedy assassination is that this event is not an exclusive natural act or phenomenon. Indeed, the plausible presence of human emotions, motivations and agendas automatically places it in the realm of an unnatural event so that Occam's Razor cannot apply.

In effect, we are making a deliberate separation between the causes and effects which govern the natural world, say like solar eclipses, and asteroid flybys, and those which govern human affairs.

Unlike asteroid collisions or  total solar eclipses, humans 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

A final header in Arnold's  piece is:

Conspiracy trumps logic

Where he writes:

"Conspiracy theories make for interesting stories; they often involve breathtaking action, complicated plots and shadowy villains. They give us access to lives we normally never get to see."

But alas, this is useless in reference to actual documented conspiracies, such as Iran-Contra, BCCI and the JFK assassination. (By 'documented', I mean that an official government investigation has already found for it.)


Arnold's claim that "conspiracy theories" entail "complicated plots" and "shadowy villains" begs the following questions: 1) WHO is to make this determination? 2)  WHO is to reckon what is "complicated" in relation to what is a "large event" in the context of the conspiracy?  HOW does one distinguish a "shadowy villain" from a conspirator?

In respect of (1) we are entitled to inquire regarding the qualifications of the one making the assertions, say of "complicated plots".  Did these people, say like Arnold or others actually study the given background or did they merely lump it together with superficial examples of fringe conjectures, e.g. Apollo Moon hoax, Princess Diana, etc.?

In fact, a genuine conspiracy only demands enough complexity or elements to make it work – if even partially. And if it works, as the JFK conspiracy clearly did, who’s to say the elements were excessive or "complicated"? Also, let's bear in mind as long time JFK researcher Peter Dale Scott has pointed out, in the Kennedy case we are actually looking at THREE separate conspiracies but which are often conflated by the media or careless critics. These were: 1) The pre-assassination framing of Lee Harvey Oswald, 2) the actual killing of JFK on Nov. 22, 1963 and 3) the extended cover-up of the facts starting with the Warren Report itself and extending to "Operation Mockingbird" assets preventing subsequent revelations, insights in the media. Oh, and let's not forget the latter day disinformationists like Gerald Posner and Vince Bugliosi - serving the mandate of CIA doc. 1035-960.

Who is also to say that over 100 components –say  to make the BCCI banking conspiracy work, was too much or “too complex”? This is a totally subjective take that need not be vindicated objectively.  In the case of the BCCI banking conspiracy, since it entailed moving money to thousands of "dummy accounts" all over the world, the complexity was implicit. In fact, reams of evidence were culled from that criminal bank's operations in 73 countries and exposed. But whether anyone could comprehend all aspects of its workings - which were deliberately rendered complex- is another matter

What about separating an actual conspirator from a "shadowy villain"/  Arnold provides no insights or clues.  Iran -Contra investigator and special counsel Lawrence Walsh named a number of conspirators, e.g. Albert Hakim, Oliver North, John Poindexter, who not only made "slush fund" withdrawals -  used to fund the purchase of Israeli Hawk and TOW missiles to ship to Iran - but also doctored manifests. Were these shadowy villains or just real good guys who somehow were misunderstood?

What about CIA master spook, David Atlee Phillips, e.g.

Was he just a misunderstood spook, or as Peter Dale Scott has written (Oswald, Mexico and Deep Politics’, 2013, p. 25) : the primary person responsible for manipulating the Mexico City CIA cables to frame Lee Harvey Oswald in advance of the assassination?

These assorted cables sent from the CIA station in Mexico City might have seemed like 'small potatoes'. But only in retrospect, as Scott observes, did it become apparent those cables were part of what was used to frame Oswald leading  to phase one of the conspiracy leading to the installation of a national security  and endless war state.

In a very real sense articles like Arnold's do no service to either genuine assassination conspiracies like John F. Kennedy's, or to tragic deaths like those of Princess Diana - which feature some residue of unanswered questions. In future, a more forthright approach by authors who tackle conspiracies and "conspiracy theories" is needed, with greater effort to separate wheat from chaff.  In particular, to make more subtle distinctions between conspiracy theories directed at celebrities and political conspiracies such as Watergate, Iran-Contra and the JFK assassination. 

There is especially the need to be wary of the use of language by many of these authors, such as the  substitution of "scandal" for  "conspiracy". Thus, we are now supposed to accept "the Watergate scandal" as opposed to Watergate conspiracy, and the "Iran-Contra scandal" as opposed to Iran-Contra conspiracy. The effort here clearly to expunge the concept of political conspiracy from public consciousness.

By his cavalier conflation of the JFK conspiracy with a conjectured one for Princess Diana, (with nowhere near the equivalent degree of evidence), Derek Arnold drives one more nail into public consciousness of actual conspiracy. 

The Myth of the "Lone Gunman" Resurfaces in Dallas Shootings - But Don't Compare to November, 1963

Echoes from the triangulated sniper assassination of JFK on November 22, 1963, rebounded in many viewers' minds last night as Dallas sniper killings unfolded.

For a while, maybe 18 hours, the tragic scenes unfolding last night in downtown Dallas (not far from Dealey Plaza)   had the corporate media's heads exploding. As the violence played out, 5 Dallas police officers lost their lives and 7 more were wounded amidst staccato bursts of rifle fire from different locations - to judge by police, and onlookers' reactions recorded on assorted popular media. On one Facebook-posted  video I viewed on the nola.com website, bullet tracers could be seen fired from a high rise.  Dallas cops pointed up to it, several others ducked or sought cover near their vehicle. This morning another shooter could be seen firing from ground level. I suspect this ground level guy was Micah Johnson (soon to emerge as the media's lone gunman.) The typical ambush strategy: fire from multiple heights and locations to keep the targets confused.

 As the carnage played out, causing many of us to gasp, others were reminded of the similar carnage from November 22, 1963 - even as names of similar landmarks (e.g. Parkland Hospital) were referred to.

The mainstream media's heads were (temporarily) confounded because right before their eyes as the hours dragged on and more lives were lost, it was evident a terrible conspiracy to kill police had manifested. For the media that has so long denied that conspiracies were even possible - more in the realm of nut whacks and tin foils -  there was one happening in real time.  By the end of the terrible hours, three suspects were claimed to be in custody - one (Johnson)  killed after an "hours long" standoff with Dallas police. I repeat that again, FOUR suspects, not one,  i.e. no lone gunman to pin the evil act on. However, that was last night. By mid-morning one could see the narrative begin to change as more and more media credence was placed on Johnson's claim he acted alone.

So as is their wont, and acknowledging they'd have to embrace the  dreaded c-word at last,  the media began to use Johnson's own words to alter the narrative. This despite multiple sight lines from different altitudes made by trained law enforcement officers - and we're now to believe only one perp  acted all by his lonesome. So now the media expects us to buy that this one guy - on HIS say so -  simultaneously fired from different triangulated positions and shot 12 officers.

If you actually buy that garbage ...well... I have a choice plot of land on Barbados' east coast to sell you - for a buck - which may be all it's worth after the sea gobbles it up.

To reinforce the media's idiotic take,  the new line appearing on CNN  (at 12:50 p.m. local time) was 'Sources: Dallas Gunman was the lone shooter'  Well, maybe - if from the FB videos I watched last night the guy was operating 4 AR-15s at the same time from different positions. Hey, maybe it was possible for him to move at the speed of light - from a high rise to ground level etc. But see, that's at least as lame as the Warrenites (and 1963 media)  insisting Lee Oswald used an unworkable, ancient Italian carbine to make three world class shots in 5.6 secs and take out JFK.

 Of course, just as Lee Oswald in 1963,  this new "lone gunman" (military- trained Army reservist  Micah Johnson)  was killed, taken out by a bomb-laden robot. So alas,  he can never come to trial and like Lee Oswald - we can never learn the full story or whether Johnson had co-conspirators in at least the planning,  choice of sniper spots. (As the Dallas Mayor still appears to suspect.)  Look for accidents or other "clarifications" to emerge, i.e. 'Well we made a mistake there.....", to account for there now being only one suspect.

But long time CBS journalist Bob Schieffer, himself dismissive of conspiracy in the Kennedy case, was compelled to admit this morning in an appearance on CBS Early Show:

"This was not a random act by some deranged person. This was a carefully planned, military -style operation. This was a classic ambush where the ambushers put their shooters on the high ground, surrounded a certain area..."

Interestingly, Schieffer was suddenly cut off midway through his last sentence and the usual CBS Early show presentation was replaced by a live feed out of CBS New York.  A planned 'hit' by the network who feared Bob's words may elicit memories of that other ambush? Who knows?

Enough of Schieffer's interview made it out  (and I still have it on my DVR list) that even a dolt would grasp that he meant a planned and strategically coordinated act:  a conspiracy. Schieffer's words, indeed, might also have been used to describe the event that unfolded near the same area in Dallas over 52 years ago, and which former British Intelligence officer Col. John Hughes-Wilson also described as a classic, military-style  ambush. ('JFK - An American Coup  D'Etat')

Hughes-Wilson, whose exposition of how the JFK kill was done also has received the acknowledgement of Rolf, a former Swiss Spezialdienst. Rolf affirmed "Hughes -Wilson nailed it" in a recent email.   Hughes-Wilson - like Rolf- enumerated a total of TEN shots on Nov. 22, 1963 (pp. 188-89):

Shot 1: Struck sparks behind JFK's limo, observed by Royce Skelton and Austin Miller

Shot 2: Struck curb on the north side of Elm and a fragment struck bystander James Tague

Shot 3: Struck across a manhole cover and embedded in the grass, later DPD officers photographed removing it. It never was assayed in official documents and supports Carl Oglesby's argument the Dallas police were conscripted to remove evidence.

Shot 4: Frontal shot struck JFK in the throat, and he's visible clutching his throat. See e.g. below


Shot 5: Struck Kennedy in the upper back (in line with fifth thoracic vertebra) and came from a "relatively flat trajectory"  (see image in photo- right)

Shot 6: Misfire but struck limo - causing indentation in limo's windscreen  (see image below as well as image of where Tague shot struck)

(N.B. These images from other sources, not Col. Hughes-Wilson's book)

Shot 7: Bullet punched hole through Stemmons Freeway sign.("The bullet had punched through from the direction of the grassy knoll and blown the rim backwards")

Shots 8, 9: Two bullets struck Gov. John Connally: - Shot from the back that smashed into his chest and shot that shattered his wrist.

Shot 10: The fatal head shot from direction of grassy knoll.

Col. John Hughes-Wilson, a trained intel operative like Rolf, never bought the "legend" that one magic bullet created all the 7 wounds in JFK and Connally and emerged pristine.  Both, again, could easily spot the hands of the propaganda teams.

Thus, we beheld a planned, military -style ambush that occurred in each case, EXCEPT that in the JFK events all the conspirators got away, in the Dallas sniper shootings last night they didn't. Those who seek to make comparisons to the events of 1963 have to take that into account, and some commentators  - talking call in heads on MSNBC last night did not. One guy interviewed by Brian Williams even went so far as to praise the actions of the 1963 Dallas PD, but such praise is misplaced - as Col. Hughes-Wilson has noted (pp. 324-25), as well as former Justice Dept. prosecutor Walt Brown ('Treachery in Dallas', 'Blue Death', e.g. p. 124:

"Dealey Plaza was the kill zone all along, and elements of the Dallas police, hardly friendly to Kennedy, had the weapons, skill and ability to blend into the scenery and come and go casually....this section of the book will show how the Dallas police controlled the motorcade route, the manpower allotments, the interrogation of the one serious suspect, and the safety of the prisoner..."

Meanwhile, Brown recites a litany of either ineptitude - or possible planned indifference -  to the whole Nov. 22, 1963 crime scene (in contrast to the Dallas sniper shootings where a five block area was made an "active crime scene".  As Brown notes (p. 125):

"No crime scene involved in the assassination was ever truly sealed. They (Dallas police) rushed to the grassy knoll, stayed only long enough to take a cursory look and sniff gunpowder, to which they attached no significance. ...There was a pervasive pattern of not taking names and addresses as if they did not want to know. Certain witnesses were totally ignored. No impedimenta were placed in the way of potential fleeing assassins."

The last is key to grasping the difference of why the conspirators in the Dallas sniper shootings were apprehended but not the snipers-mechanics in the JFK assassination. In a nutshell, the latter snipers were allowed to go undoubtedly as Col. Hughes -Wilson notes, as part of a national security pact with the elements of the CIA, NSA that orchestrated the strategy for Kennedy. As Hughes-Wilson notes the background details from a source (p. 142): "In the first week of November, three Corsican gunmen slipped across the Mexican border using Italian passports. They were ensconced in a CIA house by Dallas policeman Roscoe White, acting for the CIA".

The point is, if elements of the then Dallas PD were charged with hiding the mechanics, they wouldn't also set up blockades after the events to apprehend them. This distrust of the then Dallas cops was also a theme that ran through Carl Oglesby's book, ('JFK - The Facts and the Theories', p. 94) Oglesby points out that there was NO chain of credible evidence connecting Oswald to the casings or the rifle found  at the Book Depository. Neither proves Oswald fired from there- or fired at all, a point with which Col. Hughes-Wilson concurs. . Further, Oglesby himself suspects they were planted compliments of the Dallas PD. - a point that conforms with Walt Brown's take in his section 'Blue Death'.

Col. Hughes-Wilson also concurs with Brown and author James Douglass ('JFK and the Unspeakable') that the original plan was to knock off Oswald at the Texas Theater so there was no chance of his ever getting his say at a public trial  Douglass (p. 292) makes it known that the Dallas cops approached Oswald (in his seat) "almost as if they were provoking the suspected police killer to break away from his seat ..which would have given Tippet's enraged fellow officers an excuse to kill him".

But Oswald did no such thing. Nor did he attempt to fire any shots.  Lee clearly and obviously knew by now he'd been set up as the patsy and the last thing he wanted to do was make these Dallas cops his judge, jury and executioners. No, he wanted to have his trial and his say, and how and why he'd been set up. So, rather than mindlessly react he expressly said:  "I am not resisting arrest! Police brutality!"  He never said  "It's all over now" - those words were put into his mouth by the WC's cavalcade of faux witness puppets and liars.

Col. Hughes-Wilson cites his own source (p. 176) who overheard two Dallas cops talking about how Oswald was to have been killed before he ever arrived at the station. One,  in a snarling voice,  said to the other (ibid.) "You were supposed to kill Lee....you stupid son of a bitch, then you go and kill a cop". Referring to the shooting of officer J.D. Tippet.

So there were snafus along the way, even the best planned conspiracies can go awry, but in the JFK case the architects ensured there was always a back up plan. In this case, to recruit former Chicago mobster Jack Rubinstein, aka Ruby, to snuff Oswald. Mark North, using actual,  released FBI files, documents many of Ruby’s Mob connections in his book, Act of Treason- including his reported “gangster connections in Dallas”, especially to Joseph Civello, the Mafia boss in Dallas. The same files disclose that Ruby, on October 26, 1963, “placed a 12 minute person to person call to Irwin S. Weiner at Weiner’s Chicago home”.

It is further noted that Weiner was:

 “a prominent Chicago Mafia associate” and “instrumental in coordinating the flow of cash between the Teamsters and Las Vegas casinos." (North, op. cit., pp. 333-34).  

All of this Col. Hughes-Wilson agrees with. North (like Hughes-Wilson)  conjectures that  the phone call concerned Ruby 's outstanding  debt to Uncle Sam - owing more than $40,000 in back excise taxes to the federal government, plus $20,000 in other back taxes. A phone call could then have assured Ruby his tax problems would “disappear” if he performed one more job: offing Oswald. He did, but as Hughes-Wilson has observed, the Warrenite puppets and propagandizers are still trying after 52 years to "rubbish" it.

Let us agree then that while last night's horrific events and the slaying of five Dallas policemen might have triggered echoes from the past, there is not a one to one correspondence to Nov. 22, 1963.  Many of the Dallas cops at that time, in particular, were not working overtime to nab the shooters- but actually enabling their escape in conformance to orders from higher ups and especially the national security state.  Their sole objective was concerned with ensuring Kennedy never left Big D alive.

By contrast, the Dallas cops last night had sworn to protect the lives of the protestors downtown and they were. The sniveling cowards who opened fire on them waited until the main crowd of protestors had dispersed. Two traumatic events taking place in Dallas, but worlds apart in outcomes and dynamics.

For this reason, talking heads in the 24/7 media especially need to take care when they try to formulate comparisons to past events, namely the Kennedy assassination in the same city.

In the meantime, in classic MSM -style,  look for the story to continue to mutate away from the "military -style ambush" of multiple shooters described by Bob Schieffer, and one Dallas law officer, to the "acts of a crazed lone gunman, angry at white police officers".  Our useless corporate media accepts at face value the words of Micah Johnson - doing all that rapid shooting himself from obviously different locations-  but 52 years ago refused to believe Lee Oswald when he insisted "I am just a patsy!". Go figure!

We've been played a similar tune before, but by now I hope we've wised up. So far the "lone gunman" narrative is only on CNN but look for it to migrate. (Ooops! I see it already made it to the headlines on USA Today!)

-----
End Note:

Might I eventually accept Johnson as the lone gunman? Sure, once  I see a map of the "active crime scene"  showing all the presumed locations with line of sight distances indicated and the targets hit from those positions. If it all adds up satisfactorily, then yeah, I'll bite. Maybe!