Parsing Key Aspects Of The JFK Assassination Documents Release

JFK and Jackie in limo moments before he was killed by a head shot coming from the Grassy Knoll area.

Lee Oswald killed by Jack Ruby on orders from mob-CIA Staff D conspirators.

With the release of the first batch of JFK assassination files late Thursday, it is important to try to get a grasp of what they mean- including future ones.  In this post, I parse the basics. While many may find their head spinning- I have made every effort to break down the most critical elements of what you will hear and see from the media - and why various aspects are important - or not.

1. The one important thing we learned thus far:

As Chip Reid reported on CBS Early Show, the FBI  had called the Dallas police the night before Oswald's murder and cited a memo from J. Edgar Hoover in which one reads:

"We received a call in our Dallas office from a man talking in a calm voice he was a member of a committee organized to kill Oswald. We at once notified the Chief Of Police and he assured us Oswald would be given sufficient protection.  

This morning we called the Chief of Police again warning of some effort against Oswald and he assured us adequate protection would be given. However, this was not done."

Why wasn't it done?    Why did Chief Jesse Curry give assurances to the FBI that weren't followed through?  The trope that the Dallas cops let their "friend" Jack Ruby into the basement because they knew him (Jack gave them free drinks at his Carousel Club) is pure bull pockey.  Former British Intelligence officer John Hughes-Wilson concurs with former Justice Dept. agent Walt Brown ('Treachery in Dallas', Chapter 'Blue Death) ',and author James Douglass ('JFK and the Unspeakable') that the Dallas cops were part of it.   They needed a backup plan - likely in concert with the Dallas mob - to stop Oswald so he wouldn't talk.  The "committee" in Hoover's memo then was likely made of an alliance between the mob and the Dallas cops. 

Before proceeding, let's appreciate that Hoover had no soft spots for Lee Harvey Oswald. The call to Curry to ensure his safety was entirely about keeping Lee alive to extract a confession from him as the sole assassin. Of course, J. Edgar was totally delusional as there was no way in hell Lee would do that - short of ripping out his nails and water boarding - and I doubt he'd do it then. No, he wanted his public say to clear things up at a public trial and no Hoover, LBJ or others were going to take that away. But that was precisely what cost him his life and the "committee" knew it.

To the point, the Dallas cops' original orders (likely from Dallas Mob boss Joe Civello) were to kill Oswald at the Texas Theater so there'd be no chance of his ever getting his say at a public trial.   Douglass (p. 292) makes it known that the Dallas cops who entered the theater 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. He knew their game and he wasn't that stupid.  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 let it be known 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 witnesses, puppets and liars.

Hughes-Wilson cites his own source (p. 176, 'JFK - An American Coup  d 'Etat') 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 mob lawyer:

This dovetails with what most serious researchers already know, that Jack Ruby didn't just kill Oswald out of the goodness of his little heart to spare Jackie from having to testify.

The document trail unearthed by Mark North ('Act of Treason') is revelatory here, namely the FOIA -released files retrieved in the 1990s that showed Ruby had an 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 (also documented)  then would have assured Ruby his tax problems would “disappear” if he performed one more job: offing Oswald. Given the mob link to ZR/Rifle, such a scenario would be totally logical. Few people today, unless they've  mined the document trail, are remotely aware of the extent to which the CIA and Mob worked hand in glove, especially on the ZR/Rifle Castro assassination operations.

We also know mobster Johnny Roselli was offed before he could provide any testimony to the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) about Ruby's role.  Again, this was the only legitimate government investigation to ever come about - the Warren Commission being merely an artifact created by Lyndon Johnson - mainly to cover up his own tracks.

Thus it was that prospective HSCA witness 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."

The killers wanted to make damned sure there were no flapping gums.. They wanted to ensure Roselli never talked about Ruby's role - or his connections - to do with  eliminating Oswald.. 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."

2. The Oswald- Russia "Association":

Anyone who pays any attention in the coming days and weeks will hear a lot about the Oswald -Russian connection, or rather alleged connection. The problem as usual is that while the mainstream media pushes this stuff out it never takes the time for any critical analysis or history. No surprise then the public only gets a half-assed version and is left to deal with the releases piecemeal and in an uninformed context via unrelated formats. So here is what you need to know in advance concerning the soon to be hyped Oswald-Russia link:

The CIA originally confected the false narrative that Oswald was a "KGB -linked assassin"  hired to kill Kennedy. It was based on a supposed "Oswald" phone call to the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City with a KGB agent, Valeriy Kostikov. From this, and the visit of a fake Oswald to the Soviet Embassy (see the asset "masquerading" as Oswald in Mexico City in the photo below - right)


  A series of falsified cables was generated under the fake name "Lee Henry Oswald"* . These became part of a CI/SIG (Counter Intelligence Special Investigation Group) file on Oswald dating back to 1960, and as researcher Peter Dale Scott notes, has their handiwork all over the false trail.  The purpose, as noted by Scott, was clear:

"to incriminate him falsely as an apparent KGB assassin"

While the "Oswald as KGB assassin"  ruse was never used  or published in The Warren Commission Report, "it almost certainly contributed to the Warren Commission's determination to close the case as the work of a lone assassin" (Scott, Deep Politics, 113)   This is actually validated and was foreseen when one examined a key paragraph in the Katzenbach memo which readers can see in full here: http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId=756877 Note in particular paragraph (2):

"Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off, and we should have some basis of rebutting thought that this was a Communist conspiracy".

This was also the primary directive for J. Edgar Hoover, and why he insisted the Dallas Police keep Lee Oswald alive after a death threat was called in to the Dallas FBI office.. Hence, Hoover's warning memo (see (1)) must be interpreted in the context, i.e. convicting Oswald as the one and only assassin, So there could be no loose ends pointing to conspiracy. LBJ wanted this too, as author Noel Twyman makes clear in his book, 'Bloody Treason'.  This is why he. ordered that the entire investigation be conducted by the FBI under the supervision of J. Edgar Hoover (his dear pal) and he ordered all other investigations, i.e. under federal government or local government be stopped. As Twyman puts it:

"This placed Johnson in virtual control of the investigation through J. Edgar Hoover."

This is why serious researchers, as opposed to lone nut buffs, regard the Warren Commission as an artifact or creature of Johnson, designed for no other purpose than to cover up his own role.  As one wit once put it: "To commit the perfect crime all that is necessary is to be in charge of the investigation that follows."  Johnson totally succeeded in doing that via his "Warren Commission", even getting Hoover to threaten disclosure of an Earl Warren incident if Warren refused to bestow his name cachet.

It is clear the Commission was driven to the lone assassin bunkum as the only safe alternative to the KGB assassin hypothesis. (For which Johnson had warned of the threat of nuclear war if pursued.)

This was reinforced after the Commission was informed  by CIA head Richard Helms** of the Kostikov -Department Thirteen connection ("Department Thirteen" was that KGB Section assigned to assassinations) . Earl Warren evidently became so spooked that he felt the only alternative to a possible nuclear  confrontation  was to find for the lone assassin theory. From then, all evidence, documents and tests became devoted to framing Oswald as the lone perp. It was either that or find him a KGB- hired contract killer, which many (including LBJ) felt would have led to war.

The point was that the CIA had compiled such a compelling false narrative and guilt trail using phony cables, photos  phone calls etc. that the Commission bit into it hook, line and sinker and never remotely considered (or seriously considered) the alternative: that a right wing based- military- intelligence operation had targeted Kennedy. One that included powerful forces enraged at his backing down (from invasion) during the Cuban Missile Crisis, his removal of Gen. Edwin Walker from command, his intent to pull out of Vietnam and his efforts at rapprochement with Fidel Castro..


-------------------------------
Footnotes (2):

* Scott conjectures that the false name of  'Lee Henry Oswald'  may have been used to deceive investigators into Kennedy's killing. It may also have been what agent James Jesus Angleton called a 'marked card' operation in which falsified information 'like a  bent card' is passed through an intelligence channel to see where it ends up.

**  Memo of 1/13/ 64 from Richard Helms to the Warren Commission Counsel J. Lee Rankin, CIA Document 509-803.


3, The "Oswald as Commie " myth:

The typical twaddle the corporate media and government lackeys have been trotting out for 50 years now, but which any reasonably intelligent person can disprove with just a modicum of effort and  investigation. "Oswald as communist" was actually the cover story for him to be used as a false defector to gain access into Russia. People first became aware of the CIA-ONI false defector program after the publication of 'The Cult of Intelligence' by Former CIA Agent Victor Marchetti- who  actually informed researcher Anthony Summers about this program as well, noting:

“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.”

Oswald's bona fides as an intelligence asset - as opposed to a "run muck, loner psycho"-  were established by Military Science professor John Newman in his book, Oswald and the CIA. Therein he provided the documents showing three key CIA files for Oswald:  the OS-351-164 (office of security), the 201-289248 CI/SIG, and the 74-500. 

As Michael Parenti notes (The JFK Assassination  - Defending the Gangster State.):

“Lee Harvey Oswald spent most of his adult life not as a lone drifter but directly linked to the U.S. intelligence community. All of his IQ tests show that he was above average in intelligence and a quick learner. At the age of eighteen in the U.S. Marines he had secret security clearance and was working at Marine Air Control in Atsugi Air Force Base in Japan, a top secret location from which the CIA launched U2 flights and performed other kinds of covert operations in China. The next year he was assigned to El Toro Air Station in California with security clearance to work radar. “

Lee Oswald then was no "commie" dupe but an intel operative. Most researchers who've delved into this in much more depth than superficial 'buffs' come away with the conviction Oswald was set up as part of ZR/Rifle. A classic decoy.  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 .

The proof in the pudding was the letter ‘D’ – on the cover sheet of Oswald’s 201 file – indicating a  CIA Staff D  SIGINT or 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.”

Footnotes (3)

Newman, op. cit., p. 169.

------------------------------------

4.  The "Oswald In Mexico City" Canard:

This trope gained most recent currency with the book: A Cruel and Shocking Act: The Secret History of the Kennedy Assassination by Philip Shenon, which I posted on previously (Oct. 28, 2013).Shenon   points to a statement Oswald purportedly made when at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City and related by J. Edgar Hoover in declassified FBI files:

"He (Oswald) stormed into the Embassy, demanded the visa, and when it was refused him, headed out saying: 'I'm going to kill Kennedy for this.!"

So, basically, Shenon places his faith in one of the most ardent Kennedy haters of the era, J. Edgar Hoover. The same Hoover who possessed information about a proposed assassination plot on Kennedy from New Orleans' gangster Carlos Marcello in 1962 and who failed to disclose it. (See the documents presented in Mark North's book Act of Treason). 

Meanwhile, Shenon lets himself be played and led into a blind alley by a CIA determined to frame Oswald using the 'Oswald in Mexico City' fiction.

Shenon goes on to say that the "document then disappears" intimating that had it been circulated to the Dallas' authorities in timely fashion,  the assassination would have been prevented, Why? Because  "people in Mexico City knew Oswald was talking openly about killing President Kennedy.".

In a pig's eye.

Besides, what moron for an assassin "talks openly" about killing an American President at a foreign embassy?  One thing we do know: A moron Oswald wasn't.  An impostor seeking to frame a patsy-  to be set up to take the fall- would do so, however.

But perhaps the most cogent evidence there was no Oswald in Mexico City  - apart from the fact no photos exist (other than of an impostor) -is the following:  The primary witness was consulate officer Silvia Duran who denied even under torture by Mexican police that the man she saw was Lee Oswald. As Peter Dale Scott reports as well as HSCA investigator Gaeton Fonzi [4]  she was forced to undergo brutal torture for eight hours at the hands of Mexican police in an effort to try to get her to recant her original testimony.  I.e. that the Oswald she encountered at the Cuban Consulate in Mexico City was not the Oswald she'd seen arrested in Dallas. She'd insisted instead the man she saw was "blonde and short" (The Lopez Report, p. 190).

Ed Lopez, who sought to interview Duran again in the wake of her torture, found she was unable and broke down, weeping merely at the thought. She also feared reprisals  as a citizen of Mexico.

So be it. Now, ask yourselves this: If Oswald was indeed guilty and performing all the guilty acts Philip Shenon claims, why did the CIA find it necessary to go to such inordinate lengths to distort, hide and even concoct fake cables to paint Oswald as the bad guy?   Not to mention recruiting Mexican police to torture a woman for eight hours merely because she refused to lie about the person she observed. The Oswald in Mexico City fable, like so much else, must be regarded as specious and a concoction of the CIA and its Mexico City station chief (David Atlee Phillips). Or to use the words of John Newman in reference to a cable that surfaced within that episode "a whole cloth fabrication."

 Footnotes (4):

[4] Fonzi. op. cit., p. 409.

[5] Newman, op. cit. p. 408.

Finally, let's not get over-excited as only 2,800 files of more than 30,000 have been released by the due date.  The spooks, as I predicted earlier, were going to invoke the specious excuse of "national security concerns" which is total codswallop given these files are over fifty years old.  It is evident to me that they are concealing connections that were operative in Kennedy's assassination that they do not wish to have uncovered, like between the Dallas cops, the Mob and CIA, NSA (in Staff D operation).  They are aware of the blowback that would explode even now 50 years in the future and that was one reason why LBJ originally wanted to keep all files under wraps until 2049 - by which time all who knew or cared about the assassination would likely have died. 

What you can be sure of in the days and weeks to come is that the mainstream media still has not gotten its act together on the one true conspiracy to come along, and which they remain committed to trying to skewer - even as they mock the 60 percent of the public who accepts a conspiracy in the case. Let's just remind ourselves here that the only valid gov't investigation (the HSCA) DID find for a conspiracy in its conclusion.

Something that is too often overlooked!

See also:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/article181380611.html

Lee Oswald Innocence Campaign - Long Overdue, But Welcome!

Lee Oswald assassinated by Jack Ruby, never received the right to a trial by jury. Assuming we still believe in our system of jurisprudence, he remains innocent - having never been proven otherwise.

        “I believe that irrefutable evidence shows conspirators, none of them Oswald, killed JFK. A mentally ill Jack Ruby, alone and unaided, shot Oswald. The federal inquiry knowingly collapsed and theorized a political solution. Its corruption spawned theorists who tout solutions rather than define the facts that are locked in the massively muddied evidentiary base, and released only by hard work.”

Prof.. David R. Wrone, in The Journal of Southern History(6), February, 1995, p. 188.

Bravo to the Lee Oswald Innocence campaign, e.g.

http://www.oswald-innocent.com/

For over fifty years now the family of  Lee Harvey Oswald- as well as the memory of the man himself - have been slandered in the corporate media (partly with the assistance of Operation Mockingbird assets - google the term) with no redress. Using first a fraudulent whitewash organ in the "Warren Commission", then the steady drumbeat of the media to repel all attempts to shed light on the actual facts of the case, the Oswald family has been left disconsolate as its name has been dragged through the mud by a determined security state.


That state has resolved that no other line of facts will emerge from the 53 year old case to expose what really happened and that Lee Harvey Oswald is totally innocent of anything to do with Kennedy death.  Author James Douglass ('JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died And Why It Matters') is owed a debt of gratitude by the JFK research community for being among the first to show the CIA had planned a hit on Kennedy almost 3 weeks before Dallas.

Douglass showed that Thomas Arthur Vallee, had been earmarked as the Chicago assassin for Kennedy’s proposed visit on Nov. 2, 1963. Vallee, like Oswald,   was sheep-dipped, and likely selected for patsy-hood using a false defector program that the ONI originally set up in 1959. Had JFK traveled to Chicago, we’d likely only have heard of  Vallee and never known a Lee Harvey Oswald. Thus, Vallee, another designated "lone nut" ( Thomas Beckham)  and Lee Oswald,  were simply interchangeable pieces on the CIA’s chess board for executive action.  Why didn't the plan go off? Douglass makes use of the telephone record disclosing a man named "Lee" had phoned in advance to alert the Chicago FBI  and blow up the scheduled hit (Op. cit., p. 206).

Thus, Oswald's disruption of the Chicago plot to kill Kennedy mutated to a Dallas plot to use Oswald instead as the go-to patsy. All that needed to be done were: 1) Paint him as a lone psycho commie and violent (setting up the Walker shooting to pin on Lee), and 2) Manipulate him into a job at the Texas School Book Depository (pegged to be the "official" location of the kill shot by the actual conspirators).

The first was accomplished by a process of framing Lee, 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

The second was implemented thanks to the chicanery of Ruth Paine. Paine, who Warrenites seem to hold up as some kind of unquestioned paragon or model citizen, never acknowledged in any of her testimony that she withheld from Lee the news of a better paying job offer made on Oct. 15, 1963. 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 whomever took his call for Lee to contact him about the job, but this was never done. Adams tried to phone 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 (Sylvia Hyde Hoke)  and Allen Dulles, the obvious reason was to put the patsy in place.

These are important insights, make no mistake, because they bear on the will to use whatever subterfuge and ruse to kill Kennedy and deflect attention from the actual perpetrators and architects to a decoy.  That decoy was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Former Swiss Spezialdienst Rolf, a friend for over 38 years, makes no bones about the fact the Dallas hit on Kennedy was a "classic use of decoy to execute a head of state".  He ought to know, he's been more than familiar with similar hits on the continent (as part of Projekt 26 files.)  Those include the use of "doppelgangers" or doubles (like the multiply reported Oswald double) to misdirect the public and enable the security state's media assets to assist in portraying the patsy as unstable, as well as the only perp possible.

As I reported in my Nov. 20, 2014 post:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/09/switzerland-destination-for-kennedy.html

Rolf reported that the Oswald double, who he called "Leon",  hid in plain sight in St. Gallen 'for many years'  albeit using a false identity. The Swiss left him alone to preserve neutral relations with the U.S. (they knew of the CIA Staff D assassinations project and the pair's involvement under William Harvey and the NSA). Also they had no idea whether “Leon” was one of the actual killers or only played the role of a double to divert attention and implicate Oswald.  The SD leaned to the latter.


As for the illustrious Warren Commission, Rolf's take - as noted earlier- was it had been "little more than a PR job mainly done to cover Johnson’s ass "  LBJ put together a "commission"  all right, but it wasn't federal (that would've been the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA)   formed in 1978- which, incidentally, found for a conspiracy. Nor did Johnson politely "call on" then Chief Justice Earl Warren. He freaking threatened him with exposure of a past humiliating incident if he refused to cooperate.   Johnson needed the credibility of Warren so the media would accept the commission as a bona fide government entity as opposed to a creature of Johnson's whim and machinations. (Johnson’s first kneejerk reaction was to form a “Texas Commission” to look into the assassination, with staff entirely composed of Texans.).

 Anyway, Johnson's taped words to an aide were - after speaking to Warren (cf. Michael R. Beschloss, Taking Charge:The Johnson White House Tapes 1963-64, 1997, p. 72, as cited by Russ Baker, in 'Family of Secrets', p. 46):

"Warren told me he wouldn't do it under any circumstances...He came down here and told me 'No'...twice. And I just pulled out what[FBI Director} Hoover told me about a little incident in Mexico City....And he started crying and said: 'I won't turn you down...I'll just do whatever you say.'

Texas hogswill? Hardly. Not when seen in the context of other LBJ actions, e.g. going behind Kennedy's back to get back channel reports (from the CIA)  on the Vietnam situation. In fact, a character so warped that despite all the recent efforts at hagiography, there is little doubt LBJ helped plan the hit knowing the alternative was to be dumped from the 1964 ticket as a result of the Bobby Baker scandal (set to hit the presses Nov. 26 in a LIFE expose), then be prosecuted. Lest anyone believe this too far-fetched let's reference that Jackie Kennedy herself - in an interview with historian Arthur Schlesinger  in 1964 - expressed her belief that LBJ had her husband killed as part of a plot with Texas oilmen.

All of this in tandem points the finger of guilt clearly away from Lee Oswald, as well as the fact one is innocent until proven guilty and that had never been done. In other words, Lee Oswald was himself assassinated before his own trial (the only real venue for proving his guilt) and this was then replaced by a Potemkin trial in the name of the Warren Commission and its ensuing "report" (also a farrago of lies, distortions and omitted testimony from key witnesses). See e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_14.html

Some innominate Wordpress bloggers are, of course, unhappy about the Oswald Innocence Campaign.  They are foursquare convinced he was the one and only assassin- and despite all the contrary indicators (as given above), and the failed WC  rifle tests (with 3 master marksmen unable to exactly replicate Oswald's alleged feat with the same rifle and conditions)remain convinced that Lee is guilty. In a sense this is cognitively dissonant and preposterous given in this country a man is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. Does the same not apply to Lee? Evidently not in the minds of the rush to judgement pro-Warrenites - convinced that fraudulent whitewash Commission did the job. It did not.


The innocence campaign objectors  also - in at least one case- have zoomed in on one piece of evidence offered, i.e., that Lee was outside the TSBD when the hit occurred and hence not on the 6th floor firing as the WC claims.

But this misses the boat. Clearly, Oswald's innocence doesn't pivot on one photograph (or many) of whether or not he was outside at the time of the shooting. Rather, it is  already predicated on the unimpeachable fact that he never received a jury trial and hence in its absence must be presumed innocent,  if we are faithful to our legal system.  Potemkin show trials and kangaroo courts held with Lee 6 ft. under do not count. Sorry!

Further, the entire constellation of indicators (of which I've given a subset in this post) clearly points away from him as the lone assassin, or as any co-assassin! Hence, Lee's innocence doesn't fall on one single prop and one would hope most researchers are intelligent enough to see that. Granted it would be a very unambiguous prop, but it's not the sole one, and as I said that "innocent until proven guilty" (by jury) presumption hangs hugely over any and all discussions.

The objective researcher who examines the files, transcripts,  images, and testimony (including that not given in the "official" perverted venue) must be at least clear that: a) Lee was not the one who killed JFK, and b) we have enabled (as James Douglass informs us) the actual conspirators to have completely escaped prosecution or any accountability.

In Douglass’ words:.

“Our collective denial of the obvious, in the setting up of Oswald and his transparent silencing by Ruby, made possible the Dallas cover-up. The success of the cover-up was the indispensable foundation for the murders of Malcolm X, Martin Luther King and Robert Kennedy by the same forces at work in our government – and ourselves:

Hope for change in the world was targeted and killed four times over. The cover-up of all four murders, each leading into the next, was based – first of all –on denial. Not the government’s but our own- and the unspeakable was not far away.” .

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.

On Space Aliens, Scientology, Yeti - the JFK Assassination – And ‘Teaching Pigs to Whistle’

Should the Kennedy assassination and UFOs even be discussed in the same critical piece?

In an intriguing article (‘Black and White and Gray’) in the October/November issue of ‘Port of Call’ (Region VII Newsletter for Intertel) Dr. Steve Mason proposes the question:

“How do you determine if an individual has a reasonable grasp on reality?”

But, of course, many would opine it’s a loaded question and automatically respond: Well WHO is doing the testing? Does the person – in the matter of the question at hand – have his own grasp of reality  (especially knowledge) on the subject, or is he just fooling himself?  Is he merely a therp or psychologist, lacking knowledge or expertise on the specific matter? Then his assessment can’t be worth much. (Mason himself observes that “between Relativity and Quantum Physics there is a lot of gray”. Indeed! Particles behaving as waves, one electron passing through two diffraction holes at the same time, etc.)

In many matters, such as the belief in things like the Loch Ness monster, UFOs (as actual alien craft monitoring us 24/7), Scientology’s clearing of “engrams” and Abominable Snowmen (Yeti), it isn’t a matter so much of grasp of reality as distorted reality. Somehow the people invested in these beliefs (which mean, btw, accepting something as factual without evidence) have allowed their overall grasp of integrated reality to be distorted by an emphasis on a “one trick pony” (e.g. UFOs as alien craft) which robs their ability to profoundly grasp the rest of what’s going on in our world.  But I assign the same sort of distortion to those who never read books and only get their ‘news’ from comedy shows, or who have their nose stuck in smart phones tweeting nonsense all day long.

 The issue of who assigns “reality” is also key. And also, just what constitutes it?  Is it based on one type of perception, or multiple ones as well as reasoning in terms of those. Well, I have what I call an ‘integrated reality’ test which I will post next so people can see how they do. It isn’t predicated on asking nonsense questions for way out beliefs (whether in Yeti or 4” high fairies that speak Gaelic) but rather real world attention and response to real world issues – whether in economics, politics or basic science.

 In his article Dr. Steve notes that “for many years” it was his job to “judge the sanity of others”. He wrote that “if they said I was the one who was crazy then I knew for sure they were nutters” – which is a fair response. But then again, it depends on the issues being discussed. And rather than calling someone “crazy” a better question is: How well informed is the person regarding the issue under debate?

 Is what is referenced as a “nutball” issue really that, or is it purely a product of inattentive orthodoxy which – as author Curtis White noted in his book, The Middle Mind- is all about preserving a politically vanilla landscape which doesn’t tolerate challenges to the order paradigm. White's contention, well supported in his book, is that an entire government -corporate PR - academic specialist structure “exists to manage the public mind.” This is to ensure its collective thoughts don't veer too far off the orthodox path, or into realms that seriously question or challenge the powers-that -be. As he puts it (p.12):

"We have the lovely pretense of serious inquiry: no one gets hurt and no one has to worry that something undesirable might come of it. Like a demand for real thought. We are free to say anything we like so long as what we say does not suggest...that the ruling order has no right to rule"

     IF one then asserted JFK was murdered as part of a coup d'etat, to enable  a national security state elite takeover of the government, then this comes close to saying the same thing. 

 

Psychologists, as author Chris Hedges has warned ('Empire of Illusion', p. 129), bear particular scrutiny. As Hedges observes:

 

"Psychologists, in and out of government, have learned how to manipulate social behavior. "

 

He goes on to note that such manipulation has as its primary objective an adherence to conformity, especially of thought. (The cult of "positive psychology" is particularly involved in this, but psychologists are also part of the CIA's ongoing psych agenda, as first demonstrated in "Operation Mockingbird")

 

The dispassionate observer and especially those of us trained in deep politics also need to be wary of the conflation bogey which even Dr. Mason manifested in his Port of Call piece.. For example, while trotting out the clearly whacky beliefs such as Raelism,  Scientology and Yeti, he also drags in the JFK assassination while observing:

“There are those who believe the JFK assassination was a conspiracy involving LBJ, the CIA, the FBI and maybe even Lee Harvey Oswald – but the jury is out on the last one,.”

But it is exactly here where he crosses the line from a logical assessment of extreme fringe beliefs to a real world political case and for which an actual conspiracy has more than ample evidence to support it (based on files released since 1993). This also leads one to ask if he is really qualified to say anything about the event even peripherally or via invoking sarcasm. For example, I don’t take seriously anyone’s opinion if s/he can’t first pass a basic test to do with the actual constellation of accepted facts in the case, e.g.

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/05/basic-test-on-kennedy-assassination-can.html

 The aim of the test is to expose the lack of actual knowledge concerning a real historical event, say as opposed to mere anecdotes or rumors concerning a mythical entity like the Yeti, Loch Ness monster or “Big foot”.  If then a person can’t even get at least 18 correct then he isn’t qualified to discuss the assassination – or even offer quips. And if he isn’t qualified to discuss the event then he’s not qualified to discuss a conspiracy pertaining to it.

 For example, Dr. Mason - as is usually the wont of JFK conspiracy skeptics or phobics (like Marilyn Elias of the SPLC)  indiscriminately bundles possible components together without any explanation or clarification.  Thus, when the untutored reader reads the passage highlighted above – with seemingly unrelated components (FBI, LBJ, CIA) muddied together, it appears that the whole conception of conspiracy is absurd. But that has been the intent of the 'Mockingbird' media for as long as I can recall.  (Google: “Operation Mockingbird”). Is Dr. Steve part of the Operation Mockingbird axis? Hardly. He’s just a specialist – like many others – probably unaware of it, because he hasn’t done enough investigation and research on his own. But this is precisely why HE is the one responsible here for distorting others’ perceptions regarding the JFK case.

If one intelligently grasps that the ones who actually carried out  the deed are separate from the architects, then he also sees it's egregious to conflate actors as if they are all distinct possible conspirators to the same degree and with the same objectives.  But had Steve Mason really done his  preliminary work (after deciding he’d interject a few lines on the JFK conspiracy) using texts such as Donald Gibson's 'Battling Wall Street - The Kennedy Presidency',   he'd have seen how the CIA, Oil, Banking, and the Military-Industrial Complex have been in bed together for decades.  He’d also have seen how close LBJ and Hoover (not the WHOLE FBI) were, and both had much to lose if JFK was re-elected. LBJ for his role in the Bobby Baker scandal and Hoover for his role in covering up the earlier (1962) assassination threats directed at JFK from Carlos Marcello (see Mark North’s excellent book, ‘Act of Treason’)

 As for LBJ,  no one - including me-  has said he was an active participant. But no one other than a dunderhead (like Vince Bugliosi) would deny he stood to gain immensely if JFK was knocked off - since Kennedy planned to dump him from the 1964 ticket on account of the political damage from the Bobby Baker scandal.  Knowing this, and there's little doubt he did, all LBJ had to do is nominally assent to an existing plan, probably made aware of it by Allen Dulles or Hoover. NO documents need have been signed, or actual vocal indications given.  What is the evidence? Look no further then all the material evidence (the limo with bullet-marked windshield, actually taken apart re-assembled, the suit coat, and a curb stone near where James Tague was struck)  “lost” or destroyed in the immediate aftermath – following Johnson’s swearing in and being in control of the Secret Service, the autopsy team at Bethesda (where JFK's brain oddly "disappeared")  etc.

 Mason next tries to skirt all these issues – after he’s basically knocked all  past and recent JFK researchers – by appealing to an old and tired meme: that all of us humans are “pre-disposed as hard-wired pattern seekers”. So the evolutionary instincts that served us long ago, i.e. seeing patterns in the bush betraying evidence for the presence of tigers or snakes, are now re-directed to searching for patterns of conspiracy or some form of outer control.

Of course this is bollocks. First, just because pattern perception was valuable once doesn’t mean it has ceased to be in certain cases (e.g. disturbed articles in rooms of one's home betraying an intruder's presence). And second, the assessing of a real conspiracy entails far more than perceiving a pattern. It also entails examination of hard evidence – such as the Warren fraud generated – and analyzing it using physics and human anatomy, see e.g. the approach used herein:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/frequently-asked-questions-on-jfk_15.html

 As I carefully showed in the above link, the uncovering of the fraudulent nature of the Warren Commission Report is step one in uncovering one branch  (the cover up) of the three-pronged conspiracy.. This was perhaps most crucial because it meant bending the minds – or trying to – of millions of Americans to the false conclusions of the Warren Commission, and that was ultimately Johnson’s creation. The two other prongs – as noted by deep politics researcher Peter Dale Scott were: 1) the framing of Lee Oswald, see e.g. the clear role of the CIA in laying the groundwork for Oswald to be the patsy:

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

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

And the actual assassination itself – carried out by at least three teams in a triangulation of cross fire. (As evidenced by the bullet numbers, trajectories and directions) That Oswald himself couldn’t have been involved has been demonstrated by the fact that his alleged rifle couldn’t even be operated  – couldn’t be tested properly in the aftermath, e.g.

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

 Again, the above  rifle test trials aren’t based on simple “patterns” or perceptions of such, but actual physical tests of the purported rifle used, and carried out by a team of experts. No one who has thoroughly understood the consequences of the tests would remotely believe Lee Oswald was involved in the assassination, other than as a patsy. As for Peter Dale Scott, he's repeatedly warned of the media's role in conflating all three conspiracy legs when discussing the assassination, But this could likely be part of the Mockingbird disinformation plan.

 Mason ends his piece by somewhat lamenting the hyper-speculative, 'belief in anything' state of affairs, in terms of those who propose “fringe” entities and  conspiracies, but also likely those who've researched the JFK conspiracy, i.e. with LBJ, the CIA and Hoover involved at some level (clearly Steve has not):

“So what do you say to someone who tries to fill you in….Absolutely nothing. It’s like trying to teach a pig to whistle. It wastes your time and it annoys the hell out of the pig.”

Teaching pigs to whistle? (Bad analogy, Steve!) What Mason is getting at is that it’s futile to attempt to stop people from searching for patterns and applying them to real life, but often coming up with “unseen” jabberwocky like Alien anti-grav craft monitoring humans 24/7, or discharging engrams through Scientology or tracking Yeti in the Himalayas. 

 But what it doesn’t address is the uncovering (often by diligent work-research) of hard evidence in actual historical events such as the JFK assassination. What about confirmation bias? As a scientist I’m trained to always examine assumptions and facts brought to bear to ensure I am not merely confirming what I already suspect, or selectively extracting only evidence that comports with a hypothesis. I’ve faithfully practiced that not only in my past research into solar flares and sunspot morphology, but also in the JFK case. By such assiduous practice, as I noted in my recent book ‘The JFK Assassination – The Final Analysis’ ,  I have been able to eliminate the hypothesis that “Oswald dunnit” otherwise known as the “lone nut” hypothesis. It fails on so many counts that it doesn't even make the serious threshold and only a naïve or untutored person would accept it.

 Would that others (e.g. Marilyn Elias, Glen Garvin, Steve Mason etc)  could summon the same energy before commenting on a case they know little or nothing about – and especially conflating it with truly marginal or fringe beliefs, examples.  This  tactic confers little benefit in helping people distinguish ideas-beliefs- theories  of merit from those without, while also calling into question their own credibility.

See also:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2011/09/conspiracies-and-belief-separating.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2012/11/cam-americans-distinguish-conspiracy.html

and:

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2013/11/even-liberals-can-be-victims-of.html

http://brane-space.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-southern-poverty-law-center-still.html