Former Texas Gov and LBJ's lapdog John Connally was buried in 1993 with MORE bullet fragments that were from what was actually missing from the "magic bullet". The family REFUSED to have them removed. They are visible in his x-rays. More fragments means more bullets which means more guns and hence... a conspiracy. Look it up yourself.
Yes, you are absolutely correct about Conally.
shareYes, you are right. As I remember, Cyril Wecht pointed out that all it would take to remove them before burial was a very small incision that wouldn't disfigure Connally's corpse, but Nellie Connally wouldn't approve it (or if she had it done, it was kept secret). The "Warren Commission was right" crowd never talks about things like this, usually because they don't even know.
shareCyril Wecht is a moron who has been making a living exploiting the gullibility (and $$$) of 'conspirationists for years. He lost ALL credibility when he 'analyzed' that phoney ''alien autopsy'' footage and actually said that he thought it was TRUE !!!! (it was revealed later that it was a fake)
How can ANYONE believe that guy after this ??
No, Cyril Wecht is not "a moron". Dr Michael Baden, always wrong, is a moron.
--
Non-sequiturs are delicious.
No, Cyril Wecht is not "a moron"
Baden is indeed a moron. And always wrong. So, see? We don't agree about anything.
--
Non-sequiturs are delicious.
The fragments in Connally's wrist were never weighed so you are just speculating. They had to have come from the single bullet since that was the only bullet recovered. Bugliosi addresses this issue (and all the other tired old conspiracy factoids) in "Reclaiming History". There is no credible evidence of a conspiracy.
share[deleted]
The fact that the magic bullet was pristine (tex-29 lies and says it wasn't) is the damning issue.
--
Except it wasn't pristine.
This is the view everyone knows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CE399side.jpg
but no one ever mentions this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CE399butt.jpg
--
All your base are belong to us.
http://athinkersblog.com/
Closer photo of CE399
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ce399.gif
Thank you for posting this. It just goes further to show it was not a "pristine".
--
All your base are belong to us.
http://athinkersblog.com/
Slightly squooshed. And otherwise pristine.
--
Not every bullet reacts the same. The pictures posted above prove that the bullet was NOT pristine as you previously claimed.
--
All your base are belong to us.
http://athinkersblog.com/
Definition of pristine: in perfect condition
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pristine
Which it is not. It does not prove Oswald acted alone, nor does it prove a conspiracy.
--
All your base are belong to us.
http://athinkersblog.com/
With lead squeezed out of the base.
And the poster who pointed out that the supposed weight of the fragments is just speculation was dead on. The lead in Connally's wrist could add up to no more than essentially a pencil mark on the bone and it would still show up on an x-ray because lead is highly opaque in x-rays.
All you can conclude is that there is SOME lead in his body (which is consistent with the fact that lead is extruding from the base of the bullet and that weighing the bullet reveals that it is lighter than it would be if truly pristine).
No one knows where that so called CE 399 bullet presented at warren Commission came from ! No one knows the origins of that bullet.
and yet it became clear that this bullet alone could not have caused all of Connally’s injuries:
Despite the great destruction it had apparently caused, the bullet had suffered very little damage. Its base was slightly squashed, and its copper sheath possessed several fine scratches, but the bullet was otherwise intact. It was supposed to have destroyed four inches of one of Connally’s ribs and shattered the radius bone in his wrist, one of the densest bones in the human body. To determine whether the condition of the bullet was consistent with these injuries, two sets of tests were conducted:
The US Army fired ten similar bullets into the wrists of human cadavers. In all ten cases, the bullets were severely damaged.2
The US Army report on its test, Wound Ballistics of 6.5–mm Mannlicher–Carcano Ammunition, was classified, and only became known to the public ten years after the assassination. A photograph of the least damaged of the ten bullets was published by the Warren Commission: Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 17, p.850 (Commission Exhibit 856). The Army report contains a photograph of four bullets, all severely damaged, on page 35. For photographs of CE 399, see Warren Commission Hearings, vol. 17, p.49 (Commission Exhibit 399) and the Mary Ferrell Foundation website.
http://22november1963.org.uk/was-lee-oswald-framed-for-the-jfk-assassi nation#fn06_002
The FBI fired two bullets into tubes of cotton. Both of these bullets displayed a minimal amount of damage, just like CE 399.3
Warren Commission Hearings, vol.3, p.437. Photograph of the intact bullets: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.17, p.258 (Commission Exhibit 572). Although the FBI examiner did not describe his method, it is standard procedure to fire bullets into tubes of cotton in order to create a rifling pattern on the outside of a bullet without destroying the bullet. The inside of a rifle barrel contains ridges and grooves in a spiral pattern which cause a bullet to spin in the air, increasing the accuracy of its flight. By examining the rifling pattern on a test bullet, it is possible to determine that a bullet of the same type has been fired from a specific rifle.
http://22november1963.org.uk/was-lee-oswald-framed-for-the-jfk-assassi nation#fn06_003
More metal had been deposited in Governor Connally’s wounds than was missing from the bullet. The surgeons who operated on Connally noted several tiny fragments of bullet lead in his wrist, as well as a larger fragment in his thigh. Other fragments may well have been washed out when the wounds to the torso and wrist were cleaned prior to surgery. The only part of the CE 399 bullet which was not sheathed in copper, and from which the lead fragments could have come, was the base, but the only piece missing from the base was a very small sample taken by the FBI for testing. Even without that sample and another taken from the nose, the weight of the bullet was within the normal tolerance of intact bullets. 4
The metallic fragments in the wrist: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, pp.120ff, and ibid., p.113; see also ARRB MD 184, pp.2f. The fragment in the thigh: Warren Commission Hearings, vol.4, p.125. The weight of the bullet: ibid., p.68.
http://22november1963.org.uk/was-lee-oswald-framed-for-the-jfk-assassi nation#fn06_004
So, BugraC - do you suggest that the bullet was planted by conspirators to bolster a single bullet scenario?
shareNope. Pls re-read my comments.
A bullet was found on a stretcher in Parkland by staff Darrel Tomlinson... and another Parkland employee O.P. Wright saw that bullet too. This 1st bullet was in "pristine" condition.
Then the Warren Commission came up with another bullet, exhibit CE 399, not so pristine. We don't know where this CE 399 bullet came from. Also Warren Commission did not show that bullet to Tomlinson during his testimony. They did not even bother calling Wright to testify either. But later when the picture of CE 399 bullet was shown to Wright, he claimed that the bullet he had seen on the stretcher was of an entirely different type.
So there are 2 different bullets here.
Do you know where Warren Commission's "Magic" bullet came from ?
Exactly, the same results were achieved by shooting a bullet into a tank of water.
shareThe 1st bullet that was discovered on a stretcher at Parkland was "pristine".
Then another bullet was presented at the Warren Commission which is CE 399. No one knows where this bullet came from !
Do you have evidence? Or are you just speculating? The bullet I showed LOOKS pristine from an angle, but upon closer inspection (i.e., looking at a different angle), you will notice it is not pristine.
--
All your base are belong to us.
http://athinkersblog.com/
There are 2 different bullets. There is a bullet found on a stretcher at Parkland by the hospital's staff Darrell Tomlinson, and there is the Warren Commission's CE 399 bullet (with its slightly squashed base, and its copper sheath possessed several fine scratches, but otherwise an intact bullet).
The commission put pressure on Darrel Tomlinson in order make him say that he found the bullet on Kennedy's stretcher. But since Kennedy's stretcher was in an entirely different place in the hospital, they couldn't make him say that.
Pls see Warren Commission Hearings, vol.6, pp.130ff @ www.maryferrell.org
http://tinyurl.com/kuyrl5s
And even though Tomlinson did insist that he found the bullet on a stretcher other than Connally's, the commission concluded that the bullet came from Connally's stretcher.
Warren Commission Report, Current Section: Expert Examination of Rifle, Cartridge Cases, and Bullet Fragments @ www.maryferrell.org
http://tinyurl.com/la4wfku
The story is complicated by the bullet’s inadequately documented chain of custody, and by an FBI memo to the Warren Commission which claimed falsely that both Tomlinson and Wright had confirmed that the official bullet, CE 399, was the one they had seen on the stretcher.
http://tinyurl.com/mu8t6lg
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I do not have time to read all of this at the moment, but I will read it later and get back to you with my thoughts.
--
All your base are belong to us.
http://athinkersblog.com/
You're always welcome
shareUnfortunately, none of the links work so I have nothing to read beyond what you wrote.
--
All your base are belong to us.
http://athinkersblog.com/
JoshuaHutchins: Unfortunately, none of the links work so I have nothing to read beyond what you wrote.
Now the Warren Commission's CE 399 bullet was not shown to Tomlinson during his testimony. Another hospital employee, O.P. Wright, who also saw the bullet on the stretcher, was not called to testify. But when a reporter showed a picture of CE 399 and asked him about it, Wright claimed that the bullet he had seen on the stretcher was of an entirely different type.
There is no credible evidence that Oswald acted alone and fired the fatal shot from the 6th floor of the School Depository Building. They say the bigger the lie, the easier it is to get people to believe it. Well, looking at the Zupruder film, there is just no way in hell that shot came from behind, and an abundance of visual proof that it came from the front-right, which perfectly explains JFK's body motion back and to the left.
shareFreddiebones. Your use of the word 'credible' gives the game away: your conspiracy theory is non-falsifiable, in other words it's a theory that simply dismisses any and all evidence to the contrary as being part of the conspiracy. There is an abundance of evidence pointing to a fatal shot from the direction of the Depository, but you clearly think you get to decide what is and isn't 'credible'. How convenient!
But yes, let's look at the Zapruder film, at the 'visual proof'. So you accept the film as genuine and believe it offers proof? You agree that Zapruder is 'credible'? Good, I agree with you.
Your first error: you believe that bullets from high-powered rifles impart significant physical momentum to human heads when they hit. Wrong. Every ballistics expert will tell you you're wrong. Maybe you've watched too many Hollywood movies? There may be an inch or so imparted, depending on the kind of tissue encountered, but no more than that. Bullets do such terrible damage precisely because they don't convey great momentum: it's called penetration. Blunt fists and clubs will send a head sprawling, bullets don't. (Watch the Mythbusters episode on this for clear evidence, and also consider - did anyone see either Kennedy or Connelly flying around like ragdolls when the previous bullet caused them numerous injuries? No, not at all. Bullets don't do that.)
You want to see proof of this minimal projection of momentum? Download as I have the complete individual frames of Zapruder. Flick back and forth between frames 312 and 313 and study the precise moment the fatal bullet hits: Kennedy's head clearly moves forward and down, perhaps an inch, as the bullet impacts. Only after the explosion of bone and brain matter does he jerk 'back and to the left' - therefore, whatever Kevin Costner would have you believe, the movement backwards is not momentum derived from a bullet's impact: that's physics: momentum does not and cannot wait for nearly a half second to start working. The only movement simultaneous with the bullet's impact occurs between Zapruder 312 and 313, when Kennedy's head moves an inch forward and down.
Further 'visual proof': study frames 313-315 and tell us where the brain and blood go. They exit - EXIT - to the right-front. A cloud of pink spray erupts to the front, bone or bullet fragments fly upwards and forwards, a flap of skull or scalp bursts open - forwards, towards the right-front. The Zapruder evidence is absolutely clear: there was a massive exit wound that erupted forwards at the right of his head, after a bullet entered from behind. Obviously, it is IMPOSSIBLE for a bullet from the right-front to have caused that exit wound. But then, as you are so sure there's 'no way in hell' he was shot from the rear, perhaps you have a serious explanation as to how, for the first time in history, a bullet that supposedly entered from the right-front caused a massive exit wound at... the right-front. An explosive exit wound at the right-front captured clearly and unequivocally on film footage that even you seem to accept as 'credible'.
The only straw you have left to clutch at is the subsequent jerking of Kennedy's whole body back and to the left. But that's not caused by the bullet. As is clear when you watch frame by frame, the movement is too late, and bullets don't do that anyway. I would guess that the subsequent movement is a spasm of the nervous system caused by a massive brain injury. Others may choose to believe it was caused by a Grassy Knoll bullet that was (a) the first ever bullet (outside Hollywood) to send a whole head and torso flying in space, and that (b) it ripped clean through his head and exited before eventually deciding half a second later to impart its momentum, and (c) cause an explosive exit wound that defied ballistic science by travelling back directly towards the source of the shot...
As you would say, no way in hell.
Thank you for taking the time and effort to send a intelligent, well researched, and detailed response. I will take the suggested frames under advisement,and research your ballistic conclusions. I have no problem whatsoever being proved wrong, if that is the case. I am more interested in getting it right. .....B4 concluding my response, may I pose a couple brief questions ? ....How is it that you come by this information ? ....Curiosity, professional expertise ? ...Also, are you satisfied that Oswald was the lone gunman, and lone player in the assassination ? Lastly, it's been suggested that Jackie Kennedy climbed out onto the trunk to retrieve tissue and bone fragments, ...meaning that at least some of the tissue from the head wound did indeed fly backward to the left side of JFK. This is new to me, as I always assumed she was understandably panicked that she was in grave danger herself. What are your feelings on this, especially how the tissue could have gone in that direction.
BTW, if you haven't done so yet, watch the movie "Parkland" ......For someone such as myself who lived through those events, it was a stark, emotional look at the events as they unfolded at ground zero, so to speak. The Movie didn't really concern itself regarding the whole conspiracy question, but focused on how things played out that day, while putting forth some info that may be considered new as to the actions of the Secret Service and FBI. .....
Freddie
Hi Freddiebones, thank you too :) I too am happy to be proved wrong if the truth turns out to be not where I think it is. It's not a religion for me, I used to believe there was a conspiracy, but the more I read the more I came to believe that the evidence simply didn't support the idea.
Your question is a reasonable one, and without footage more detailed than Zapruder's I can't say exactly why fragments ended up on the trunk of the car. However, when we see on Zapruder an unmistakable explosive exit wound to the front-right of Kennedy's head, that for me physically excludes the possibility of a shot from the Knoll. So what do we know for sure? - we know for certain that a shot exited explosively to the front right, AND that the exit of material from the head was so violent that someone several feet to the rear and left (officer Bobby Hargis) was then covered in it, so for me there's no especial mystery about matter being found on the trunk. It's only a mystery if you suggest that all material exploding from an exit wound must move only in one direction. The fact is that we can see with our own eyes material shooting out in an expanding cloud, expanding in several directions. We even see a significant fragment (probably bone) shooting almost vertically upwards - yet no sane person would suggest that therefore the shot came from below! It just demonstrates that in an explosively violent event such as the head shot, material flies out in not entirely predictable ways. It's even possible perhaps that the matter retrieved by Jackie was thrown or deposited onto the trunk by the spasm of Kennedy back and to the left in the second after the shot. I simply don't know. And moreover, I don't feel I need to know. The notion that we must either account for every single movement of every single fragment or else accept a conspiracy - that's a false choice.
For me the irrefutable facts are: film footage of an exit wound to the front right, and bevelling of the bone irrefutably proving a bullet travelling from the rear to the front of the head. Whatever other anomalies or puzzles we uncover are simply part of the complex and ambiguous nature of the evidence we find in almost every major crime. Life is like that! What I cannot quite understand is how we can be fortunate enough to have well-filmed video proof of an explosive exit to the front, and yet so many people still contrive to insist on the shot having come from the front. So much controversy over something that - almost uniquely - has been captured clearly on film...
Anyway, as you can see I've spent too long on this! Cheers Freddie, I'd genuinely appreciate a solid counter-argument. And I should watch Parkland, too! I almost forgot what this was all about!
and where did this single bullet come from ? How was it recovered? and who recovered it?
A bullet was found on a stretcher outside the operating theatre in Parkland Hospital, Dallas, at around the time when Governor Connally was undergoing emergency surgery. It was not discovered on the stretcher Connally was brought in either. Someone left this bullet on a stretcher next to Connally's ... Darrell Tomlinson, the hospital employee who discovered the bullet, was insistent that he had found it on the other stretcher. No bullet was found on Connally's stretcher!
See: Warren Commission Hearings, Volume VI
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?absPageId= 13940
This 1st bullet that was discovered was in pristine condition !
Then the magical CE 399 bullet presented at the Warren Commission. This was a different bullet than the one found on a stretcher! and no one knows where it came from !
Its base was slightly squashed, and its copper sheath possessed several fine scratches, but the bullet was otherwise intact. It was supposed to have destroyed four inches of one of Connally’s ribs and shattered the radius bone in his wrist, one of the densest bones in the human body.
To determine whether the condition of the bullet was consistent with these injuries, two sets of tests were conducted:
The US Army fired ten similar bullets into the wrists of human cadavers. In all ten cases, the bullets were severely damaged.
The FBI fired two bullets into tubes of cotton. Both of these bullets displayed a minimal amount of damage, just like CE 399.3
More metal had been deposited in Governor Connally’s wounds than was missing from the bullet.
Not only had no bullet been found on Connally’s stretcher, but the bullet produced in evidence was not in fact the one discovered at the hospital. The Warren Commission’s bullet, Commission Exhibit 399, was not shown to Tomlinson during his testimony. Another hospital employee, O.P. Wright, who also saw the bullet on the stretcher, was not called to testify. Three years later, a researcher showed a photograph of the CE 399 bullet to Wright, who claimed that the bullet he had seen on the stretcher was of an entirely different type.
http://22november1963.org.uk/was-lee-oswald-framed-for-the-jfk-assassi nation#fn06_006
Bugliosi addresses a lot of things but misses the mark on just about everything. He is the king of speculation as evidenced in his 53 points. His strategy is to iterate the "official story" and then to scoff and ridicule those who would actually fathom the possibility of conspiracy. It is a dishonest approach and makes him a LIAR!
shareBugliosi addresses a lot of things
Bugliosi addresses a lot of things but misses the mark on just about everything. He is the king of speculation as evidenced in his 53 points. His strategy is to iterate the "official story" and then to scoff and ridicule those who would actually fathom the possibility of conspiracy. It is a dishonest approach and makes him a LIAR!
I'm one of the acceptors of the Warren Commission Report (not a 'believer' ... its not religion fo me).
Simply because I've never seen even a tidbit of evidence that contadicts it.
- Greg
No evidence to contradict the Warren report, yet the people actually there that day rushed towards the grassy knoll. Kennedy's head went back and to the left consistent with a bullet fired from the grassy knoll. The reason Jackie climbs onto the back of the car is because a piece of her husbands brain had landed there and in her head she said to herself "he needs that" - again consistent to a bullet being fired from the grassy Knoll. The Police motorbike rider who was behind the left shoulder of the president was sprayed with the president's blood, again this is consistent with a bullet hitting him from the front left which would've had to come from ..... Guess where?
Everyone on the planet knows there was a shooter on the grassy knoll only some are too scared to admit it - Imagine the consequences of a....... Actually it's too much for you to handle!
Caslingary, Officer Bobby Hargis has repeatedly explained that blood and brain matter exploded into the air and that a second later his motorcycle passed through that cloud of matter. Watch Zapruder. He has been deliberately misquoted by conspiracy authors to bolster their theory.
You can't believe in a shot from the front-right of the President unless you also believe Zapruder is faked somehow. Zapruder's film clearly shows an exit wound at the front and right of the President's head, throwing forwards into the air an expanding pink cloud of matter, through which Hargis then rides.
An exit wound exploding to the front of his head. Either Zapruder's film is wrong or you are. Forgive me if I trust the film. Nothing personal!
I posted a link a day or so back (either here or on the JFK board) that shows Kennedy's head going forward before snapping back. Few people want to accept that.
--
All your base are belong to us.
http://athinkersblog.com/
All you have to offer are more lies. http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/jfk-conspiracy-theorists-lie/x/50034 44
"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on." - Mark Twain
I can hear the cuckoos singing in the cuckooberry tree . . .
For Gawd's sake, read Gerald Posner or even the insufferably pompous Bugliosi. The real conspirators here are the ones who have made a cottage industry out of selective editing, ignoring the obvious, and sinister mutterings.
No one has been able to articulate even a slightly credible conspiracy theory in view of the actual weight of the evidence.
[deleted]
I can hear the cuckoos singing in the cuckooberry tree . . .
For Gawd's sake, read Gerald Posner or even the insufferably pompous Bugliosi. The real conspirators here are the ones who have made a cottage industry out of selective editing, ignoring the obvious, and sinister mutterings.
No one has been able to articulate even a slightly credible conspiracy theory in view of the actual weight of the evidence.
That's all the conspiracists have.
http://igg.me/at/jfk
"A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on." - Mark Twain
The sad part for me is that as those who were living in that time will slowly be dying off and manipulation of information can take place.
There is no credible evidence that Oswald acted alone and fired the fatal shot from the 6th floor of the School Depository Building.
When other agencies of our government are involved, we can understand why there would be a cover-up. It is even worse today as the majority of the people do not trust the federal government. Can we blame them?
Here we go again... And NASA never landed on the moon. 9/11 was masterminded by the CIA. Probably with a little help from the aliens living in Area 51, bunking with Elvis...
shareAh, the Lonenutters' old Elvis/aliens reference. It just never gets tired.
--
This is a typical Lone Nutter ploy. Scoff, Ridicule, Exaggerate. Do whatever it takes to make the conspiracy theorist look like a complete kook. It is a dishonest approach that stems from having no true evidence to support their theory. It is their way of grasping at straws because that is ALL they have!
shareOnce the remaining documents are released, maybe we'll understand better who was involved in the assassination of JFK?
shareHighly unlikely. The remaining files will probably just contain more fibs to blame the communists for the assassination -- which some really wanted to do at the time.
--
I agree Prometheus. Any documents proving guilt by others aside from LHO have probably been destroyed. Is it possible that if the POTUS is a Republican, those documents won't be seen? Who is in charge of opening the files?
shareI don't know the answers to any of your questions, but remember, the Bush family is involved, and they wield a lot of influence. I'm sure they will do whatever it takes to keep the information hidden.
shareI'm still hoping the Warren Commision Report will eventually be challenged. Earlier this year the Kennedys spoke out about the shoddy standards of the official investigation and RFK, Jr. told reporters that his father told him he was sure the assassination was mafia related. The Kennedys are still quite influential.
Article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/12/assassination-of-jfk_n_246318 4.html
All this researching is new to me, so please be patient. Are the 50,000 documents located in Washington, DC? Are they being preserved in a special environment? I may not be around in 2038-39, so I am trying to picture who will be there when the documents are released? Are we to believe documents containing proof of a government conspiracy will be destroyed?
ccpeck, it would be so helpful to have the Warren Commision Report challenged as it would open up a new investigation.
(I have asked some of these questions before. I appreciate anyone who makes this more clear for me.)
In all likelihood the unreleased documents are stored at National Archives facilities located in either Maryland or Virginia under proper climate-controlled conditions much like the original copies of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, etc. With any luck (I’ll be about 74 then myself) the documents will be scanned and made available online through the Assassination Archives & Research Center at http://www.aarclibrary.org/ . There’s a bunch of materials already there.
shareKarian1964 check out Mary Ferrell Foundation archives: http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page
You can find all 26 volumes of the Warren Commission hearings and the report, plus almost any released or newly discovered documents related to the JFK Assassination.
For example you can find the extensive documentation produced over the last 50 years indicating Oswald was an agent of the federal government with an extensive CIA intelligence file that stretched back to 1957.
The documents on the JFK assassination released by the federal government in the past few years show the CIA had an intelligence file on Oswald.
Oswald's “201″ CIA file, a personality file, was numbered No. 39-61981, with the “39” denoting an intelligence file.
The Mary Ferrell Foundation has made public 50,000 pages of documents from Oswald’s CIA file, including a small selection of the pre-assassination file, followed by a huge collection of post-assassination documents pertaining to the Warren Commission and other subsequent investigations of the JFK assassination.
http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Featured_CIA_Oswald_201_File _Online
As pointed out by Jerome Corsi in his book "Who Really Killed Kennedy?: "As remarkable as it seems, the evidence suggests Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination was on the payroll of the FBI,” says Corsi.
J. Lee Rankin, the general counsel of the Warren Commission, wrote a memo to the file in January 1964 documenting that a reliable source informed him of journalists in Texas who commonly knew Oswald was receiving a monthly check of $200 from the FBI.
In that letter, as reproduced in the archives preserved by the Mary Ferrell Foundation online( http://tinyurl.com/kguqwrd ) or , Rankin documents that on Jan. 22, 1964, he received a telephone call from Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas, communicating on a confidential basis an allegation that Oswald had been an undercover agent for the FBI since September 1962 and had been paid $200 a month from an account designated as No. 179.
Rankin’s letter further documents that on Jan. 23, 1964, Secret Service Report No. 766 summarized an interview conducted by FBI agent Bertram with Houston Post reporter Alonso H. Hudkins III that read in part:
On December 19, Mr. Hudkins advised that he had just returned from a weekend in Dallas, during which time he talked to Allen Sweatt, Chief Criminal Division, Sheriff’s Office, Dallas. Chief Sweatt mentioned that it was his opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald was being paid $200 a month by the FBI as an informant in connection with their subversive investigation. He furnished the alleged informant number assigned to Oswald by the FBI as “S172.”
"As remarkable as it seems, the evidence suggests Lee Harvey Oswald prior to the assassination was on the payroll of the FBI,” says Corsi.
At that meeting, Rankin made clear his intention to cover up the information when he told the commission, “We do have a dirty rumor that is very bad for the commission, and it is very damaging to the agencies that are involved in it, and it must be wiped out so insofar as it is possible to do so by this commission.”Where does that make it clear "his intention to cover up the information"? They identified a rumor and were discussing how they should best proceed to disprove the rumor or verify it if that were the case. Again, long on innuendo, absent on proof of intent.
At the Warren Commission’s executive session on Jan. 27, 1964, commissioner Allen Dulles commented in concluding the discussion of the information Oswald was a paid FBI agent: “I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?”Link please? Maybe my pdf searching skills aren't so good but I could not find that statement by Dulles at that session.
Apparently LBJ did not put Allen Dulles (the ex-director of the CIA fired by JFK) together with other members such Gerald Ford (who intentionally moved JFK's back wound and later admitted that he lied about it) on the Warren Commission without a reason.
So the Warren Commission suppressed evidence of Oswald’s relationship with the FBI, precisely because the information undermined the commission’s central conclusion that Oswald was the lone assassin.
It's plausible that Lee Oswald was on the payroll of some government agency but it's unlikely that any agency would want to admit a relationship with Oswald, assuming he shot JFK. That would be reason enough for the coverups and destruction of evidence.
With evidence destroyed and most of the folks in charge in 1963 dead today, it's unlikely that this question will be answered.
My theory is that he may have wittingly or unwittingly been working for someone with links to the intelligence community at some point in 1963(maybe not at the time of the assassination). The Fair Play For Cuba stuff seems pretty much staged and it happened at a time when there were efforts within the government to use infiltrators and informants to discredit the FPFCC. Both the FBI and CIA were involved in those efforts and had been monitoring Oswald very closely after he returned to the US from the USSR.
it's unlikely that any agency would want to admit a relationship with Oswald, assuming he shot JFK. That would be reason enough for the coverups and destruction of evidence.
However, it is a possibility.
Thank you folks, for the links.!
But now we're left with idle speculation, aren't we? I understand that top secret agencies are pretty good at keeping things secret, however, time and time again we see credible whistle blowers down the line+. The number of agencies and individuals who would have had to have been complicit with this particular coverup are frankly mind-blowing.
But I doubt that you or anyone else would accept their words or confessions alone.
It's not difficult at all especially if only a handful of people have knowledge of or access to the info.
But here's where that starts to break down and your argument doesn't work. Pretty much every CT I've ever run across implicates multiple individuals and agencies in the doing of the act and at least that many if not more in the coverup which has spanned decades.
You've been forthcoming in expressing your open mind to possibilities ranging from a lone gunman to broad conspiracies. I understand that there are many things in this case which leave doubt but have you ever tried to map out a conspiracy from beginning to end and try to recognize how many people had to willingly participate and shut up to make that work, regardless of the fact that they would all be accessories to murder? Secret Service, FBI, DPD, Postal Service, independent experts, Warren Commission, Church Committee, HSCA, . . .
Okay, I'll bite. Give me your CT that explains this all from beginning to today.
A conspiracy doesn't necessarily require involvement from government agencies or rogue government agents.
They could've simply been covering up their incompetence in the sense that Oswald killed the President while under government surveillance.
It's a fact that these two groups were connected to both Oswald and Ruby in 1963 and had the motive and logistical resources to pull it off.
Members of both groups(the Mob and anti-Castro groups) had expressed foreknowledge of the fact that 'something' would happen to Kennedy or that he wouldn't reach a second term.
Doc what is wrong with you? I provided the links already! Aren't you capable of simply clicking next to read the next document or you always need to be spoon-fed? Or maybe you are not capable of doing a simple Google search?
HSCA - RUMORS THAT OSWALD WAS AN UNDERCOVER AGENT
http://tinyurl.com/HSCA-LHO-FBIPayroll
J. Lee Rankin, the general counsel of the Warren Commission, wrote a memo to the file in January 1964 documenting that a reliable source informed him of journalists in Texas who commonly knew Oswald was receiving a monthly check of $200 from the FBI.
In that letter, as reproduced in the archives preserved by the Mary Ferrell Foundation online( http://tinyurl.com/kguqwrd ) Rankin documents that on Jan. 22, 1964, he received a telephone call from Waggoner Carr, attorney general of Texas, communicating on a confidential basis an allegation that Oswald had been an undercover agent for the FBI since September 1962 and had been paid $200 a month from an account designated as No. 179.
Rankin’s letter further documents that on Jan. 23, 1964, Secret Service Report No. 766 summarized an interview conducted by FBI agent Bertram with Houston Post reporter Alonso H. Hudkins III that read in part:
On December 19, Mr. Hudkins advised that he had just returned from a weekend in Dallas, during which time he talked to Allen Sweatt, Chief Criminal Division, Sheriff’s Office, Dallas. Chief Sweatt mentioned that it was his opinion that Lee Harvey Oswald was being paid $200 a month by the FBI as an informant in connection with their subversive investigation. He furnished the alleged informant number assigned to Oswald by the FBI as “S172.”
http://tinyurl.com/LHO-FBIPay-S172
At that meeting, Rankin made clear his intention to cover up the information when he told the commission, “We do have a dirty rumor that is very bad for the commission, and it is very damaging to the agencies that are involved in it, and it must be wiped out so insofar as it is possible to do so by this commission.”
http://tinyurl.com/k5ua3u2
At the Warren Commission’s executive session on Jan. 27, 1964, commissioner Allen Dulles commented in concluding the discussion of the information Oswald was a paid FBI agent: “I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?”
If Oswald being paid by FBI was totally irrelevant and just a rumor than why they needed to destroy the record ?
Please give me the page and line from that session and I'll be happy to review it. Proof that it was more than a rumor? Oh yeah, you don't have that.
(127) The problem of trying to investigate areas that wee "tender spots" with the agencies was brought dramatically to the Commission's attention on January 22, 1964. On that day, Chief Justice Warren had called a special meeting to advise the Commission that Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr had information that Lee Harvey Oswald may have been an informant for the FBI. No more tenderer spot would ever come to the Commission's attention.
(128) General Counsel Rankin first explained the allegation to the Commission. They then speculated about what mission the FBI could have been using Oswald for. (142) The discussion then turned to the implications of the allegation. The discussion then turned to the implications of the allegation. The pressure that the Commission was under to come out in support of the FBI's conclusions, coupled with the implications of this allegation, stunned the Commission:
Mr. RANKIN. I thought first you should know about it. Second, there is this defector to that is somewhat an issue in this case, and I suppose you are all aware of it. That is that the FBI is very explicit that Oswald is the assassin or was the the assassin, and they are very explicit that there was no conspiracy, and they are also saying in the same place that they are continuing their investigation. Now in my experience of almost 9 years, in the first place it is hard to get them to say when you think you have got a case tight enough to convict somebody, that that is the person that committed the crime. In my experience with the FBI they don't do that. They claim that they don't do that. Second, they have not run out of all kinds of leads in Mexico or in Russia and so forth which they could probably *** they haven't run out all the leads on the information and they could probably say--that isn't our business. *** But they are concluding there can't be a conspiracy without those being run out. Now that is not (normal) from my experience with the FBI***. Why are they so eager to make both of those conclusions *** the original report and their experimental report, which is such a departure. Now that is just circumstantial evidence, and it doesn't prove anything about this, but it raises questions. We have to try to find out what they haven't said that would give any support to the story, and report it to you***.
When the Chief Justice and I wee just briefly reflecting on this we said if that was true and it ever came out and could be established, then you would have people think that there was a conspiracy to accomplish this assassination that nothing the Commission did or anybody could dissipate.
Representative BOGGS. You are so right.
Mr. DULLES. Oh, terrible.
Representative BOGGS. Its implications of this are fantastic, don't you think so?
CHAIRMAN. Terrific.
Mr. RANKIN. To have anybody admit to it, even if it was the fact, I am sure that there wouldn't at this point be anything to prove it.
Mr. DULLES. Lee, if this were true, why would it be particularly in their interest--I could see it would be in their interest to get rid of this man but why would it be in their interest to say he is clearly the only guilty one? I mean I don't see that argument that you raise particularly shows an interest***.
Mr. RANKIN. They would like to have us fold up and quit.
Reprensentative BOGGS. This closes the case, you see. Don't you see?
Mr. DULLES. Yes, I see that.
Mr. RANKIN. They found the man. There is nothing more to do. The Commission supports their conclusions, and we can go on home and that is the end of it.
Mr. DULLES. But that puts the burden right on them. If he was not the killer, and they employed him, they are already it, you see. So your argument is correct if they are sure that this is going to close the case, but if it don't close the case, they are worse off than ever by doing this.
Representative BOGGS. Yes, I would think so. And of course, we are all even gaining in the realm of speculation I don't even like to see this being taken down.
Mr. DULLES. Yes. I think this record ought to be destroyed. Do you think we need a record of this?(143)
US House Select Committee on Assassination records, Appendix Volume XI
http://tinyurl.com/HSCA-WC-AD-DestroyRec
(129) On January 24, 1964, Texas Attorney General Waggoner Carr, Dallas County District Attorney Wade and Assistant District Attorney William Alexander flew to Washington, D.C., to meet with General Counsel Rankin and Chief Justice Warren.(144) At this meeting, the Texans set out the basis of the informant allegations.
(130) On January 27, 1964, the Commission met to decide how to deal with the rumor that Oswald had been an FBI informant. The first method discussed was asking the Attorney General to check into the rumor. Rankin reported that the officials at the Justice Department were reluctant to take that approach:
*** it is the feeling of the department, not the Attorney General because he is not there, but Mr. Katzenbach, and Mr. Miller, the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the criminal division, that such a request might be embarrasing, and at least would be difficult for the Attorney General, and might, if urged while we would get the information we desired, make very much more difficult for him to carry on the work of the Department for the balance of his term.(145)
(131) Rankin next suggested that he talk to J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. He would explain that the Commission desired to put the rumor to rest. (146) He would inform the Director that a statement from him would not be sufficient and that the Commission desired "whatever records and materials they have that it just couldn't be true."(147) Rankin would also seek Hoover's permission to do an independent investigation should that prove necessary in putting the rumor to rest. (148) Rankin said:
We do have a dirty rumor that is very bad for the Commission, the problem and it is very damaging to the agencies that are involved in it and it is very damaging to the agencies that are involved in it and it must be wiped out insofar as it is possible to do so***.(149)
(132) Chief Justice Warren was not completely happy with this approach.(150) He saw that they had a choice between investigating the rumor and then approaching the Bureau, or just letting the
37
Bureau handle it. He reported that he and Rankin had argued about the approach and that Rankin had thought it "the better part of cooperation" to ask the FBI first.(151) Warren said that he rather dislikes the idea of going to them without investigating the rumor first.(152) Senator Russell was worried that if a statement was elicited from the FBI before an investigation, then a subsequent investigation would appear to be an attempt to impeach the FBI.(153) Representative Boggs echoed Russell's concern when he said:
If you get a statement from responsible officials in that agency and then you say, "Well we are not going to take this statement on face value, we are going to go behind it," this could become a matter of grave embarrassment to everybody. (154)
(133) The discussion then turned to the problem of proving or disproving the rumor, as well as how to approach the problem:
Senator RUSSELL. If Oswald never had assassinated the President or at least been charged with assassinating the President and had been in the employ of the FBI and somebody had gone to the FBI they would have denied he was an agent.
Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes.
Senator RUSSELL. They would be the first to deny it. Your agents would have done the same thing.
Mr. DULLES. Exactly***.
Senator COOPER. If you have these people up (from Texas) and examine them the FBI will know that.
Mr. RANKIN. They already know about this apparently *** I just don't think that they (Texas officials) are going to come out and say they fabricated this, if it is a fabrication. It is too serious for that.
Representative BOGGS. Of course, we get ourselves into a real box. You have got to do everything on Earth to establish the facts one way or the other. And without doing that, why everything concerned, including everyone of us is doing a very grave disservice***.
Senator COOPER. *** before you asked Mr. Hoover you present us with all the proof to the contrary, because as you say, if he presents all this proof to the contrary, then the situation changes a little bit. It would appear to him that you are trying to impeach his testimony***.
Mr. McCLOY. Do we have a statement from Mr. Hoover that this man was not an agent? Was that communicated in the record?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes***.
Mr. McCLOY. I would like to examine again this relationship between the Department of Justice and the FBI. Just who would it be embarrassing for the Attorney General of the United States to inquire of one of his agencies whether or not this man who was alleged to have killed the President of the United States, was an agent. Does the embarrassment supersede the importance of getting the best evidence in a situation as this?
38
Mr. RANKIN. Well, I think it is a question of whether we have to put him into that position in order to get the job done, because there is in my opinion, not any question but what there will be more friction, more difficulty with his carrying out his responsibilities, and I think we have a very real problem in this Commission in that if we have meetings all the time and they know what it is about *** and we are meeting rather rapidly here in the last few days, and they can guess probably what it is about, certainly after the meeting with the Texas people***.
Senator COOPER. *** In view of all the rumors and statements that have been made not only here but abroad, I think to ask the President's brother, the dead President, to do this, it wouldn't have any backing in it. It would have no substance in his purpose but some crazy people would translate it from his official postion to a personal position. It may sound farfetched but he would be implying as a person that something was wrong. You can't overlook any implications.
Mr. McCLOY. I think that would perhaps be an element in the thing, but it still wouldn't divert me from asking this man who happens to be the Attorney General whose sworn duty is to enforce justice, to ask him just what is within his knowledge in regard to such a serious thing as this. It is [an] awkward affair. But as you said the other day, truth is our only client *** I think we may have to make this first step, that the Senator speaks about, but I don't think that we could recognize that any door is closed to us, unless the President closes it to us, and in the search for truth***.
Mr. RANKIN. I don't see how the country is ever going to be willing to accept it if we don't satisfy them on this particular issue, not only with them but the CIA and every other agency***.
Mr. DULLES. Since this has been so much out in the public, what harm would be in talking to Hoover without waiving any right to make any investigation in the *beep* There is a terribly hard thing to disprove, you know. How do you disprove a fellow who was not your agent? How do you disprove it?
Representative BOGGS. You could disprove it, couldn't you?
Mr. DULLES. No.
Representative BOGGS. I know, ask questions about something--
Mr. DULLES. I never knew how to disprove it.
Representative BOGGS. Did you have agents above whom you had no record whatsoever?
Mr. DULLES. The record might not be on paper. But on paper we would know and you could say this meant the agent and somebody else could say it meant another agent.
Representative BOGGS. Let's take a specific case; that fellow Powers was one of your men.
39
Mr. DULLES. Oh, yes, he was not an agent. He was an employee.
Representative BOGGS. There was no problem in proving he was employed by the CIA.
Mr. DULLES. No. We had a signed contract.
Representative BOGGS. Let's say Powers did not have a signed contract but was recruited by someone in CIA. The man who recruited him would know, wouldn't he?
CHAIRMAN. Wouldn't tell it under oath?
Mr. DULLES. I wouldn't think he would tell it under oath, no. *** He ought not tell it under oath. Maybe no tell it to his own Government but wouldn't tell it any other way.
Mr. McCLOY. Wouldn't he tell it to his own chief?
Mr. DULLES. He might or might not. If he was a bad one then he wouldn't.
Representative BOGGS. What you do is you make out a problem if this be true, make our problem utterly impossible because you say this rumor can't be dissipated under any circumstances.
Mr. DULLES. I don't think it can unless you believe Mr. Hoover, and so forth and so on, which probably most of the people will.
Mr. McCLOY. Allen, suppose somebody when you were head of the CIA came to you, another Government agency and said specifically, "If you will tell us," suppose the President of the United States comes to you and says, "Will you tell me, Mr. Dulles?"
Mr. DULLES. I would tell the President of the United States anything, yes; I am under his control. He is my boss. I wouldn't necessarily tell anybody else, unless the President authorized me to do it. We had that come up at times***.
Mr. RANKIN. If that is all that is necessary, I think we could get the President to direct anybody working for the Government to answer this question....
Mr. DULLES. What I was getting at, I think Mr. Hoover would say certainly he didn't have anything to do with this fellow.(155)
(134) Warren said he thought the problem had to be approached from both sides, it would have to be checked out with Hoover and independently (156)
(135) Dulles said that he could not imagine Hoover hiring anyone as stupid as Oswald. The following exchange then occurred:
Mr. McCLOY. I wouldn't put much confidence in the intelligence of all the agents I have run into. I have run into some awfully stupid agents.
Mr. DULLES. Not this irresponsible.
Mr. McCLOY. Well, I can't say that I have run into a fellow comparable to Oswald but I have run into some very limited mentalities both in the CIA and the FBI. [Laughter.]
40
CHAIRMAN. Under agents, the regular agents, I think that would be right, but they and all other agencies do employ undercover men who are of terrible character.
Mr. DULLES. Terribly bad characters.
Senator RUSSELL. Limited intelligence; even the city police departments do it.
CHAIRMAN. It takes almost that kind of a man to do a lot of this undercover work.(157)
(136) As well as worrying about putting the Oswald informant allegation to rest, the Commission worried about angering J. Edgar Hoover:
Mr. RANKIN. Would it be acceptable to go to Mr. Hoover and tell him about the situation and that we would like to go ahead and find out what we could***. Then if he reacts and says, "I want to show you that it couldn't be," or something like that, beforehand, what about that kind of approach?
CHAIRMAN. I don't believe we should apologize or make it look that we are in any way reticent about making any investigation that comes to the Commission. But on the other hand, I don't want to be unfriendly or unfair to him***.
Mr. RANKIN. What I was fearful of was the mere process will cause him to think that we are really investigating him.
CHAIRMAN. If you tell him we are going down there to do it, we are investigating him aren't we?
Mr. RANKIN. I think it is inherent.
CHAIRMAN. If we are investigating him, we are investigating the rumor against him, we are investigating him, that is true.(158).
(137) The reason the Commission had to worry about antagonizing Hoover was that the Commission was almost totally dependent on the FBI for a large part of its investigation. This became apparent later in the meeting when several members expressed their concern over that dependence. It came up in the context of the discussion of a problem related to the informant allegation and the way to deal with the FBI. The problem was the strange circumstances that seemed to surround FBI special agent James P. Hosty:
Mr. McCLOY. What have they done? *** I would think the time is almost overdue for us being as dependent as we are on FBI investigations, the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have***We are so dependent upon them for our facts that it might be a useful thing to have [Allen Belmont, one of Hoover's assistants] before us, or maybe just you talk to him, for example, to follow up on Hosty.
Mr. RANKIN. Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that it is Oswald who committed the assassination, they have decided that no one else is involved, they have decided that no one else is involved, they have decided***.
Senator RUSSELL. They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.
41
Representative BOGGS. You have put your finger on it.(159)
(138) It was clear to the Commission at this point that they had two alternatives in light of the FBI's preconceptions and the Commission's dependence on the FBI. They could either, in Russell's words, "just accept the FBI's findings and go and write the report *** or else we can go and try to run down some of these collateral rumors***."(160) There was general agreement within the Commission that they had to go beyond the FBI's word on the informant allegation. They finally voted to let Rankin approach Hoover in the manner he thought best.(161)
(139) On the same days as the above described meeting, January 27, 1964, the Warren Commission received a letter from Hoover. It said, in part:
Lee Harvey Oswald was never used by this Bureau in an informant capacity. He was never paid any money for furnishing information and he most certainly never was an informant of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In the event you have any further questions concerning the activities of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in this case, we would appreciate being contacted directly.(162)
(140) Rankin discussed the rumor with Hoover the next day, January 28, 1964. Hoover assured him that all informants were known to FBI headquarters and that "Oswald had never been an informant of the FBI."(163)
(141) On February 6, 1964, Hoover submitted an affidavit to the Commission that stated that a search of FBI records showed that Oswald had never been an informant.(164) On February 13, 1964, Hoover sent over 10 additional affidavits from each FBI agent who had had contact with Oswald.(165) On February 27, 1964, special agent Robert Gemberling submitted an affidavit that explained the omission of special agent Hosty's name from the transcript of Oswald's notebook.(166) Assistant Director Alan Belmont testified before the Commission on May 6, 1964. J. Edgar Hoover on May 14, 1964.(167)
(142) Even though the Commission had decided that the informant allegation had to be approached from both ends, there is little indication that they pressed the investigation into the source of the allegations much beyond talking to the newspaperman who first reported them.(168) According to testimony before this committee, the Commission had the Internal Revenue Service do an audit of Oswald's income on the assumption that had he been an informant, the IRS would discover unaccounted income. (169) The Commission did not investigate Hoover or the FBI, and managed to avoid the appearance of doing so. It ended up doing what the members had agreed they could not do: Rely mainly on the FBI's denial of the allegations.
(143) The question of whether Hoover and John McCone should testify before the Commission was considered at a Commission meeting on April 30, 1964.(170) Senator Cooper insisted that it was proper to call the heads of the agencies to testify on the informant allegation. (171) It was decided to call them to testify although some Commission members were still reluctant to get involved in a confrontation with Hoover.(172) At this meeting, Rankin also expressed his satisfaction
42
with the CIA's and FBI's handling of the Mexico City investigation: "I think that the CIA and FBI did a remarkably good job down there for us."(173)
http://tinyurl.com/HSCA-WC-VolXI
OK here you go
Kariann1964, I also highly recommend the BBC's The Killing of President Kennedy (a very rare 1978 BBC documentary):
http://youtu.be/rxUl4SL5U8A
This documentary shows how the members of the Mafia was used in CIA's anti-Cuba operations, and how they're linked to the JFK assassination.
Also please check out another documentary on the assassination "The Dark Legacy", revealing many details on the Bush family:
http://youtu.be/hbT8C2IAzvE
The Dark Legacy is also available on Netflix
Sorry for not responding sooner. I'm not always near a computer. To add to the others who have responded, I thought you might be interested in a recent (Nov. 3) Washington Post article about these documents. Here's an exerpt:
The Warren Commission, which concluded in 1964 that Oswald acted alone and was not part of a conspiracy, was never told about the CIA’s possibly relevant anti-Castro activities, despite the fact that former CIA director Allen Dulles was a Warren Commission member.
Warren Commission staff counsel Burt Griffin, now a retired judge, calls it “an act of bad faith” by the CIA.
“I think they had an obligation to tell the chief justice (Earl Warren, commission chairman) about that, and then that decision would have been his and the commission’s to make,” Griffin said.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/5-decades-later-some-jfk-assass ination-files-still-sealed-researchers-demand-transparency/2013/11/03/ 768eb13e-4496-11e3-95a9-3f15b5618ba8_story.html
The article presents the case that after 50 years there simply cannot be a plausible national security reason to keep these records from the public. In fact they would surely put any conspiracy theories to rest.
John Kerry has even gone on record as believing Oswald did not act alone . .
http://nvcdn.nbcnews.com/_util/jfk50/#video-jfk50_kerry_211
"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it" . . Adolph Hitler
“I think they had an obligation to tell the chief justice (Earl Warren, commission chairman) about that, and then that decision would have been his and the commission’s to make,” Griffin said.
The article presents the case that after 50 years there simply cannot be a plausible national security reason to keep these records from the public.
In fact they would surely put any conspiracy theories to rest.
John Kerry has even gone on record as believing Oswald did not act alone . .
Thanks for the links Ccpeck
My pleasure. . . There's another item that points to Oswald's connections to the gov't. Jerry Kroth, a semi retired professor at UC, points out in his presentation "The JFK Assassination: What Really Happened" that the only calls Oswald made from prison were two unsuccessful calls to a fellow in North Carolina named John Hurt (Kroth shows the records of the calls in his lecture) who works in military intelligence. Does anyone ever interview this person to find out why Oswald had his number? Or has he disappeared into the ether?
Kroth's lecture:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65N3eP2yvbQ