Germans: Tom Hanks Wasting His Time With His HBO Kennedy Assassination Propaganda Series

One of thousands of 'Wanted for Treason' posters retrieved from Dallas streets on the day of John F. Kennedy's assassination.

Another topic of conversation at the Gipfel Restaurant on the Zugspitze was the Kennedy Assassination- given this November 22 is the 50th anniversary of the event. All the Germans, when I introduced the topic, summarily rejected the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald had anything to do with it. As Heinrich and Maria put it (almost in unison): "Er war eine Marionette!"  Since there is no explicit term for 'patsy' in German they used the term 'Marionette' for a puppet on a string or manipulated by (unseen) strings.

In fact, they were spot on, since as Military Science Professor John Newman observed in his book, 'Oswald and the CIA', Oswald had been "sheepdipped" - which is the code word for being manipulated. He also provides other documents to show how the CIA used this ploy on others, including Eldon Henson. According to Newman (pp. 362-63):

"What the CIA Station in Mexico City did to Eldon Hensen in July, 1963 was to 'step into' his reality and direct it in a way designed to achieve the Agency's objectives- in this instance to see what he was up to. This CIA capability, to surreptitiously enter into someone's life to control or manipulate it, was made possible in this case by the use of  telephone taps."

Henson isn’t the only example, and author James Douglass ('JFK and the Unspeakable')  also shows that Thomas Arthur Vallee, who was to have been the Chicago assassin for Kennedy’s proposed visit on Nov. 2, 1963,  was also sheep-dipped, and likely selected for patsy-hood using a false defector program that the ONI  (Office of Naval Intelligence) set up in 1959.  Had JFK traveled to Chicago, we’d likely only have heard of  Vallee and never known a Lee Harvey Oswald. Vallee and Oswald were simply interchangeable pawns on the CIA’s chess board for executive action, yet a self-proclaimed expert like Vince Bugliosi professes to not have a single clue about it in his  'Reclaiming History'!


Reinhart chimed in that most Germans didn't buy the Warren Commission Report and were astounded that so many Americans still accepted it. When I mentioned that actor Tom Hanks planned to do a 13-part series based on the massive pro-Warrenite book ('Reclaiming History')  by Vince Bugliosi, he laughed then rolled his eyes. Translated from the German his response was roughly:

'Shade! (Shame!) So this fool will waste people's time and money putting out even more lies? That is an indictment of the American media if that happens!"

All the Germans, when asked about the plausibility of Hanks' HBO extravaganza coming out with the real truth of the assassination, responded:

“Unmöglich !”

"Impossible!"

What flabbergasted me was how much knowledge they already had of the particulars, vastly more than the average American. (Which is insightful, given some recent polls now show 59% of Americans reject the Warren Commission's fiction, compared to 73% barely 10 years ago. It appears the revisionists may actually be succeeding, along with the National Archives' refusal to release all salient documents this year - see e.g. http://www.brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/06/national-archives-to-jfk-file-seekers.html

But, incredibly, Reinhart, Heinrich, Maria and Elli all knew about the bullet-marked limo whisked away to be taken apart, as well as the destruction of JFK's suit coat (with bullet holes in it) and the disappearance of the brain. They also had seen the actual autopsy photos and Reinhart repeatedly said "Shade!" on recalling their horror. 

Heinrich put it clearly: "How could a man like Oswald have removed the brain? How could he himself have taken the suit coat and had it destroyed? How could he have ordered the limousine taken apart? None of that makes any sense which is why no German believes he did it!"

When I noted that Tom Hanks' mission was to prevent the American people from being "snookered" they all laughed. "Was bedeutet das 'snookered'?" they asked  (What does snookered mean?) And I had to use terms like  “täuschen”   for deceive. At this Heinrich howled with laughter. "Ach, but he ...Hanks ...is the one who deceives! So how can they show this?"

I then had to explain how Hanks had formidable connections in the media and especially with HBO, having done previous series such as 'The Pacific' and 'Band of Brothers'  so he gained a certain prestige. Also, from having won multiple Academy Awards. At which point Elli interjected: "Ah, Ja! Forrest Gump!"

And we all laughed. But on the serious side they wondered how such deception could be displayed as truth and I then went into the fact Hanks planned to use Bugliosi's monstrosity original  (2,646 page) book  -  now interestingly pared down to 634 pages and renamed: 'Four Days In November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy".  Bugliosi evidently doesn't grasp that 5 pounds of bullshit distilled to 1 pound still equals bullshit!

Reinhart - following this revelation- fairly yelled: "But if this is also based on deceptions it is still all deception! Schlimm!"

Near the end the Germans all agreed that they hoped Americans wouldn't fall for Hanks' propaganda or any films that sought to portray Oswald as the JFK killer.

At the end, Heinrich perhaps put it best:

"We may never find the actual killers, but sensible people can agree it wasn't Oswald."

As to whether any would view Hanks' effort, all heads indicated a strong 'No'. It wasn't worth any investment of time, mental energy or credulity.

To which I heartily agreed.

Vince Bugliosi's Magnificent Obsession - and Delusion (3)

We now continue to skewer Vince Bugliosi's "6 myths" of the JFK assassination, at the heart of his massive propaganda piece, Reclaiming History.

Myth 4: A second gunman shot Kennedy from the grassy knoll

Bugliosi claims there “is no substantive evidence that any shot was fired from the grassy knoll” but he is totally wrong. In fact, as we saw with 'Myth 3' (previous blog) if we take Jackie's actions and account for them as genuine (as seen in frame 313 of the Zapruder film) there is no wiggle room other than there had to be a second gunman. No other explanation accounts for a piece of JFK's skull being sent hurtling backwards over the limo trunk with Jackie in pursuit. Such a dynamic effect would never have come from a rear (to the limo) shot.

Indeed, the ONLY full governmental investigation (remember the Warren Commission was organized at the behest of LBJ, not congress!) by the House Select Committee on Assassination, concluded there was a 95% probability of two gunmen, one of which fired exactly from the grassy knoll based on the careful analysis of echograms from impulses retrieved off a dictabelt recording by Dr. James E. Barger and Mark Weiss. This original work was also later fully reinforced by the paper 'Echo Correlation Analysis and The Acoustic Evidence in the JFK Assassination Revisited' by D.B. Thomas, published in 'Science and Justice' , 2001, (Vol. 41, pp. 21-32)

Though the FBI, and a percussionist (Steve Barber, using a recording from a Gallery magazine) and the NSA under a team by Dr. Norman Ramsey, all attempted to refute the acoustic findings their efforts were basically for naught. A key impediment to the analysis of the latter was that: a) the team was not compromised of acoustic experts, and b) their conclusions could not be confirmed, nor did they offer any basis by which the results might be replicated - a necessary condition of good science.
On the other hand, the paper by D.B. Thomas went over all the acoustic data with much more refined analysis and arrived at the conclusion that the Barger-Weiss team was correct, and there were at least 4 shots as indicated by the telltale impulses, two of which were spaced 1.66 seconds apart .

Lastly, analysis of the Nix film as well as a print taken at the instant of the head shot by Mary Moorman, shows the face and figure outline of the grassy knoll shooter, now nicknamed “badge man” because a police uniform and badge stand out after the image is computer enhanced. Most of the work on this was due to photo-optic and film specialists Jack White and Gary Shaw. Their astounding results are visibly evident in the excellent Nigel Turner BBC documentary, The Men Who Killed Kennedy, Part 6. When witness Tom Arnold was presented with a photographic blowup of the enhanced image, he studied it, quickly perceived his own outline in the photo and also that of the shooter. At that point, he broke down and had to stop the interview. He added that if he had known in advance what he would be shown, he’d not have consented to the interview.

Bugliosi’s other claim in connection with this myth, that “the knoll would have been within view of all the people coming down Elm Street” is just factually wrong. Mark Lane’s video documentary- Rush to Judgment- wherein he actually walks from Elm Street to behind the picket fence on the knoll with S.M. Holland, clearly contradicts Bugliosi. The fence (at that time) is easily taller than either of the two men, and one could certainly crouch down and not be seen. If the prospective shooter wore a police uniform (or even a suit), he’d have the perfect camouflage and no one would ask questions. If they did, a response like “Security!” would trigger an instant backoff

We also know several Secret Service Commission books (equivalent to IDs) were stolen the night before and anyone operating behind the picket fence could have thenproduced one or more as cover, even if observed by a curious person. Hence, even if someone had observed anyone near or behind the fence, the encounter would be easily neutralized.

Myth 5: Oswald was timid and easily manipulated by the CIA or the Mob

Here, Bugliosi seems to be oblivious to the well-known CIA process of “sheep dipping”. 'Sheep-dipping' is a code word employed by the CIA to refer to the manipulation of a 'sponsor'(decoy) to be used in one or more covert operations. The goal of the manipulation is generally to associate with the sponsor some image, to enable the more ready belief later, that the decoy is solely responsible for a given course of action, including one leading to executive action (assassination of a head of state).  In Oswald’s case, the sheep-dipping would have been initiated years in advance from the time of his fake defection (in the CIA’s Fake Defector Program). Thereafter, bogus communications and even body doubles would have been employed to advance and consolidate the ruse.

Military Science Professor John Newman gives the best documented instance in the case of an Athens, TX cattleman, Eldon Hensen, while attempting to make contact with the Cuban Embassy in July, 1963 (Newman,: 1995, Oswald and the CIA, Carroll & Graf Publishers, pp. 362-63.)   According to Newman (ibid.):

"What the CIA Station in Mexico City did to Eldon Hensen in July, 1963 was to 'step into' his reality and direct it in a way designed to achieve the Agency's objectives- in this instance to see what he was up to.

This CIA capability, to surreptitiously enter into someone's life to control or manipulate it, was made possible in this case by the telephone taps."

Henson isn’t the only example, and author James Douglass (JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, 2007, Orbis, p. 266.)  also shows that Thomas Arthur Vallee, who was to have been the Chicago assassin for Kennedy’s proposed visit on Nov. 2, 1963, was also sheep-dipped, and likely selected for patsy-hood using a false defector program that the ONI set up in 1959.  Had JFK traveled to Chicago, we’d likely only have heard of Vallee and never known a Lee Harvey Oswald. Vallee and Oswald were simply interchangeable pieces on the CIA’s chess board for executive action, yet Bugliosi professes not to have a single clue about it. Incredible then, how in 1,518 main pages, and over a thousand endnote-footnote others, he couldn't muster evidence that Douglass could in a book less than one third the size of Bugliosi's!

Frankly, if I needed a research assistant, and with this monumental display of inefficiency, Vince Bugliosi would be the last one I'd ask for!

Myth 6: Jack Ruby was working for the Mob when he killed Oswald

Here Bugliosi evinces just plain, unfathomable ignorance. An ignorance that might have been even mildly remedied had he simply been energized enough to try to locate the relevant, documented FBI files on Ruby’s past connections. But clearly it was too much trouble,  or he realized finding such threatened to subvert his propaganda piece, so he elected to just write them off.

Mark North, using actual 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).  

Of course, it is more than possible that Bugliosi’s Myth 6 is conveniently founded on “what the meaning of ‘is’ is”. That is, in restricting the definition of “working for” to a fully vested worker, as opposed to a contractor- temporary operative. This pseudo-difference also emerged in connection with Clay Shaw in New Orleans, and whether he worked for the CIA or not. Years after the (Jim) Garrison trial, with release of files, it would become evident that Shaw was indeed a CIA Contract Agent.


As CIA Doc. (JFK 1993: 6.28.16.07.26.560280) notes:

"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]"


Was Shaw therefore “working for the CIA”? Well, if one is a word purist or pedant he’d likely say ‘No’, disavowing all contract agents (which likely would also negate Lee Oswald as a contract agent for the FBI or ONI despite his having operative numbers). However, I find these distinctions purely artificial, and to all intents, counterproductive. If one is a contract agent- then he or she is assuredly working for the agency that hired him or her as a contractor. Splitting hairs over these semantic nuances is a sterile game in the end, and a fool’s errand.

In the same way, whether Ruby worked for the Mob in the 50s, and was (by 1963) merely possessed of “Mob connections” – is neither here nor there. As a former Mob operative (for Santos Trafficante) in the 50s, gun-running into Cuba, all that was required for his operational re-emergence in late 1963 was an outstanding liability, with which he could be assisted.

Such a liability might well have been his outstanding owing of 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. (Particularly critical since Carlos Marcello – New Orleans Mob boss- was involved in at least one contract offer that Hoover knew about since September, 1962 – hence North’s insistence Hoover was guilty of treason. Eliminating Oswald would make even the more remote Marcello connections go away.)

Is Bugliosi’s book believable? Credible? Sure, if one has consciously ignored the multifold aspects of the assassination, and not ascertained the connections between all the players.  Or, if one is a Hollywood-ish dilettante and looking for a new "gig" for the 50th anniversary of the assassination, and fancies that a monstrous tome of 2,646 pages is all that's needed to convince people (and himself)  that history is "reclaimed". But those of us who have actually done the work, our own investigations, such as those I disclose in the Appendices of my book, will not be swayed.

The sad truth is that any major HBO series produced by Hanks and his Playtone buddy Goetzman, will merely add to the ambiguity and distortion matrix that’s prevented us from arriving at the truth for more than four decades. In the final analysis, all Bugliosi has succeeded in achieving is adding another layer of  protective cover for those behind the “Unspeakable”. Sadly, Hanks and Goetzman will have been his accomplices if their specious series is televised. And no, Mr. Hanks, it will not "upset conspiracy types" so much as disappoint those of us who had taken you for a sincere truth-seeker, as opposed to a poseur and CIA media asset - like Max Holland.

Next: Bugliosi's Other Errors of History, Fact and Science.