"No Single Man" Research Project Open to both sides
James K. Olmstead
assassination of JFK.
As always I like to extend the offer to work with published or non published
researchers (LN's and CT's)
who hold opinions on the case other then my own on this specific project.
I support Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact involved in the events, however the
fingerprint evidence and
how it is still being handled by the FBI, remains in my opinion, exculpatory
evidence in favor of Oswald not pulling
the trigger killing JFK or Officer Tippit.
The "Weisberg Project"
"No Single Man - The Crisis of Credibility" is the project title, based on a
quote from
Harold Weisberg's book "Oswald in New Orleans" (p27).....aka the "Weisberg
Project" or "WP"
On my part my work is based on the detailed consideration of my fingerprint
work and several
validated suspects, who I believe were associated with the actions of Lee
Harvey Oswald and
his involvement in the events that ended in the assassination of JFK.
First Stage:
Next week I will be spending several days in Columbus, Ohio obtaining the
police records
of one of my key suspects. (Ohio Historical Society holds the 1962 records).
This man, fought
in the Cuban Revolution along with Castro and Che. He is mentioned in
several of my past threads
and is mentioned in Martino's book "I was Castro's Prisoner".
I did one FOIA project on him and consider him a direct link to actions
associated with Ruby, Ferrie, Che, and RFK.
I still have a Cuban Exhile contact, who was associated with him in
Cuba/Cleveland/New Orleans,
although he is not in great health I will be interviewing him in August in
Fla, where he lives. He was
active in New Orleans during Lee's street demonstration, working for a CIA
sponsored radio
program.
Second Stage:
I will be spending the month of July between Hood College and the Archives
in College Park,
comparing my suspect list with Weisbergs records, held at Hood College, in
Fredrick, Md..
Third Stage:
During the month of August, I will be tracking several Cuban Exhiles and
groups, who were
very active during the 1962-1963 period. This will be a short stage, since
there is only a
slim chance of making contact with too many exhiles, willing to talk. I will
be working out
of the Orlando, Fla. area.
Fourth Stage:
In September, I will be spending time in New Orleans/Dallas, not sure how
long, but it will be at least
a month. Dallas will only be a week for sure....there is alot of ground to
cover in New Orleans.
I mention these stages so that anyone interested in making contact with me
can work out the details of meeting. Anyone
can contact me on this via email (please include "WP" in subject line). I
will present project progress, make observations,
but not argue with anyone on this newsgroup, concerning this research
project.
Anyone, wishing to assist or be a part of this project, who supports the
consideration of a "suspect" in this case, must be able to support the
consideration with "offical documentation".
The same goes for those who consider Oswald acted alone, they must be able
to "clear" suspects considered, beyond a resonable doubt.
There is no "cast of thousands" and I actually support some of the efforts
to control some of the records and evidence for reasons of National
Security,
as indicated by Chief Justice Warren. I also consider at least 5 of those,
who were involved, are dead.
jko
bigdog
> I'm finally getting off my ass to get back into detailed research into the
> assassination of JFK.
>
> As always I like to extend the offer to work with published or non published
> researchers (LN's and CT's)
> who hold opinions on the case other then my own on this specific project.
>
> I support Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact involved in the events, however the
> fingerprint evidence and
> how it is still being handled by the FBI, remains in my opinion, exculpatory
> evidence in favor of Oswald not pulling
> the trigger killing JFK or Officer Tippit.
>
is my style. The evidence for Oswald's guilt in the murders of both
JFK and JDT is absolutely overwhelming and conclusive. I cannot
imagine a set of circumstances that would generate so much evidence
that points to Oswald in these crimes if somebody else had commited
them. The body of evidence can be pieced together in only one logical
way. Oswald did it. I cannot find the exact quote, but Vincent
Bugliosi said something to the effect that either Lee Harvey Oswald
murdered JFK or thousands of people were working in concert to make it
appear that he had. The latter possibility is just too far fetched to
contemplate.
For me, the question of Oswald's guilt was settled a long time ago. He
pulled the trigger in both of these murders. I see no compelling
evidence that anybody except Oswald fired a shot at JFK that day. The
only question that is even worth asking is whether he had any
accomplices. Even a single accomplice would make this a conspiracy. If
Oswald did have one or a few accomplices, but carried out that actual
assassination by himself, ala John Wilkes Booth, the physical evidence
would look exactly like it does. Therefore, it is theoretically
possible that Oswald was part of such a small scale conspiracy and
that his accomplice(s) simply disappeared after the act. I have seen
no evidence that any such evidence exists. The passage of time and the
lack of any such evidence emerging leads me to believe that LHO was
acting on no one's behald except his own.
> The "Weisberg Project"
>
> "No Single Man - The Crisis of Credibility" is the project title, based on a
> quote from
> Harold Weisberg's book "Oswald in New Orleans" (p27).....aka the "Weisberg
> Project" or "WP"
>
As is the fate for every CT, Weisberg went to his grave having failed
to produce the evidence to support what he believed.
> On my part my work is based on the detailed consideration of my fingerprint
> work and several
> validated suspects, who I believe were associated with the actions of Lee
> Harvey Oswald and
> his involvement in the events that ended in the assassination of JFK.
>
> First Stage:
> Next week I will be spending several days in Columbus, Ohio obtaining the
> police records
> of one of my key suspects. (Ohio Historical Society holds the 1962 records).
> This man, fought
> in the Cuban Revolution along with Castro and Che. He is mentioned in
> several of my past threads
> and is mentioned in Martino's book "I was Castro's Prisoner".
>
> I did one FOIA project on him and consider him a direct link to actions
> associated with Ruby, Ferrie, Che, and RFK.
>
I hate to rain on your parade, but I cannot imagine there has been an
avenue for such links that has not been explored and each time it has
come up empty.
You've got it backwards. No one needs to be cleared beyond a
reasonable doubt. The burden is on the one making accusations to prove
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
> There is no "cast of thousands" and I actually support some of the efforts
> to control some of the records and evidence for reasons of National
> Security,
> as indicated by Chief Justice Warren. I also consider at least 5 of those,
> who were involved, are dead.
>
> jko
I would wish you luck, but you will need much more than that. You will
need a miracle.
John Canal
>
>I'm finally getting off my ass to get back into detailed research into the
>assassination of JFK.
Good grief, Jim....hasn't this bloody subject been researched to death already?
Talk about diminishing returns. It's time we convince a major newspaper to
investigate the controversial issues. And convincing them to do that is a
monumental task--trust me! For instance, no exageration, I've faxed literally
hundreds of newspapers around the globe compelling arguments that JFK's wounds
were lied about or grossly misreported (I even mention that one FPP member has
admitted this was done).......with only a handfull expressing any interest
whatsoever and none willing to investigate much less report the story.
I'm all but through researching....but I'll continue to try to get the
historical record corrected.
Have fun researching.
John Canal
P.S. It's sad, IMHO, when discussions about issues like the bag LHO was carrying
have been recycled since nineteen-forgotten and fascinating nuggets/questions
like "Why did Humes ask Perry if they (Parkland docs) created a puncture in
JFK's back", "Why did Perry first tell Specter that Humes phoned him Friday
afternoon", or "Why did Greer have JFK's clothes stuffed in his WH locker
instead of giving them to Humes" aren't even mentioned, much less discussed or
explained.
:-(
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Ray
"nineteen-forgotten and fascinating nuggets/questions
like "Why did Humes ask Perry if they (Parkland docs) created a
puncture in
JFK's back",
Mr. Canal:
If convenient, could you please post sources for Humes's question to
Perry re the back wound, plus sources for this other question raised
in your post:
"Why did Greer have JFK's clothes stuffed in his WH locker
instead of giving them to Humes"
Thank you.
James K. Olmstead
"bigdog" <jecorb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3714cca6-5f26-403c...@b21g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 3, 10:19 am, "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
> I'm finally getting off my ass to get back into detailed research into the
> assassination of JFK.
>
> As always I like to extend the offer to work with published or non
> published
> researchers (LN's and CT's)
> who hold opinions on the case other then my own on this specific project.
>
> I support Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact involved in the events, however
> the
> fingerprint evidence and
> how it is still being handled by the FBI, remains in my opinion,
> exculpatory
> evidence in favor of Oswald not pulling
> the trigger killing JFK or Officer Tippit.
>
Well since you asked for LN opinions, I will give you mine bluntly, as
is my style.
I have no problem with any blunt opinion, in your case you have always shown
(as indicated below) that there is at least some element of concern towards
conspiracy, but it has never been demonstrated as a matter of fact, compared
to the volumes of data that indicates and to some extent supports Oswald
acted alone.
I've never completely removed the consideration that Oswald did in fact act
alone, I accept
that it could be...but none of the LN work has convinced me as of yet, that
this is so.
The evidence for Oswald's guilt in the murders of both
JFK and JDT is absolutely overwhelming and conclusive.
Only if you ignore certain aspects of the case and how it was investigated.
I cannot
imagine a set of circumstances that would generate so much evidence
that points to Oswald in these crimes if somebody else had commited
them.
If you read Weisberg book on page 27 where I take the "No Single Man" quote
from
ok, if not here is the direct quote:
"The Commission's best evidence, entirely misrepresented, is that under
conditions of this assassination
and with the alleged assassination weapon, no single man in the world could
have committed it."
In the minds of many there is a "Crisis of Credibility" concerning how the
WC investigation was conducted
and how key aspects of the case were witheld from the public and remain
witheld to this day.
The body of evidence can be pieced together in only one logical
way.
Not really, it can be if you ignore any aspect of Oswald's "Defense".
Oswald did it. I cannot find the exact quote, but Vincent
Bugliosi said something to the effect that either Lee Harvey Oswald
murdered JFK or thousands of people were working in concert to make it
appear that he had. The latter possibility is just too far fetched to
contemplate.
Weisberg and Bugliosi clearly show the basic view of the prosecution and the
defense positions, which and
criminal defense lawyer would have to examine. One looking at the other
just as deeply as the stand they defend.
I base all my research on this "Trial Book" principle....looking at both
positions equally.
For me, the question of Oswald's guilt was settled a long time ago. He
pulled the trigger in both of these murders. I see no compelling
evidence that anybody except Oswald fired a shot at JFK that day.
As to evidence, the major items of evidence that indicate Oswald used these
items to accomplish the goal of
assassination also show that another other then Oswald handled the exact
same items. This person or persons
unknown are part of the established fingerprint evidence. Evidence the FBI
still refuses to deal with under my
FOIA actions. Rembember the FBI was still trying to identify those prints
after the WCR was published. Why
bother if they had no bearing on the case.
The
only question that is even worth asking is whether he had any
accomplices. Even a single accomplice would make this a conspiracy.
This is a fine line disagreeable point. As a cold war warrior all my adult
life, 33 years associated with the
US Army, even if Oswald pulled the triggers, motovated by his own presented
pollical position, the act of the
assassination of JFK, was part of the Cold War International Communist
Conspiracy. In my position, that's how I justify
doing as JFK asked when he was elected, even though I did not support him in
his election, thru two wars and dificult
service.
If
Oswald did have one or a few accomplices, but carried out that actual
assassination by himself, ala John Wilkes Booth, the physical evidence
would look exactly like it does. Therefore, it is theoretically
possible that Oswald was part of such a small scale conspiracy and
that his accomplice(s) simply disappeared after the act.
Since you brought up the JWB conspiracy, consider that the roles played by
the others
were so "small scale" that they slipped under the eyes of the investigators,
or the details
were simply witheld from the WC as well as other offical investigations.
I have seen
no evidence that any such evidence exists.
Then you have not really considered the fingerprint evidence as well as
other factors connected directly or
indirectly to Oswald......but that's ok. The idea another left his prints
on a rifle owned by Oswald, and in
his sole possession since it was delivered to him is hard to accept...but
the evidence is there as well as the
effort to conceal this by the FBI.....
The work of many of the published CT's present no solid evidence in support
of their positions so I can
accept you and others have "seen no evidence" in support of conspiracy.
The passage of time and the
lack of any such evidence emerging leads me to believe that LHO was
acting on no one's behald except his own.
> The "Weisberg Project"
>
> "No Single Man - The Crisis of Credibility" is the project title, based on
> a
> quote from
> Harold Weisberg's book "Oswald in New Orleans" (p27).....aka the "Weisberg
> Project" or "WP"
>
As is the fate for every CT, Weisberg went to his grave having failed
to produce the evidence to support what he believed.
In many aspects he did not have the details available today, and in more he
followed the wrong paths.
> On my part my work is based on the detailed consideration of my
> fingerprint
> work and several
> validated suspects, who I believe were associated with the actions of Lee
> Harvey Oswald and
> his involvement in the events that ended in the assassination of JFK.
>
> First Stage:
> Next week I will be spending several days in Columbus, Ohio obtaining the
> police records
> of one of my key suspects. (Ohio Historical Society holds the 1962
> records).
> This man, fought
> in the Cuban Revolution along with Castro and Che. He is mentioned in
> several of my past threads
> and is mentioned in Martino's book "I was Castro's Prisoner".
>
> I did one FOIA project on him and consider him a direct link to actions
> associated with Ruby, Ferrie, Che, and RFK.
>
I hate to rain on your parade, but I cannot imagine there has been an
avenue for such links that has not been explored and each time it has
come up empty.
Your not raining on my parade.....the paths I follow are supported by
offical records, so I'm
not running on "empty".
In a legal trial sense you are right....but if I charge that Robert John
Gentle was part of a conspiracy
that involved Oswald, it would be your burden to show he had no association
to the events
in question. I don't have to prove he wasn't....that would be the burden
of those that don't
accept the record presented.
> There is no "cast of thousands" and I actually support some of the efforts
> to control some of the records and evidence for reasons of National
> Security,
> as indicated by Chief Justice Warren. I also consider at least 5 of those,
> who were involved, are dead.
>
> jko
I would wish you luck, but you will need much more than that. You will
need a miracle.
I agree I will need a "miracle" to convince many familar with this case. I
just hope that the work
presented provides the needed valdiated material to allow for further
investigation into the facts
presented.
jko
John Blubaugh
>
>
>
> >I'm finally getting off my ass to get back into detailed research into the
> >assassination of JFK.
>
> Good grief, Jim....hasn't this bloody subject been researched to death already?
> Talk about diminishing returns. It's time we convince a major newspaper to
> investigate the controversial issues. And convincing them to do that is a
> monumental task--trust me! For instance, no exageration, I've faxed literally
> hundreds of newspapers around the globe compelling arguments that JFK's wounds
> were lied about or grossly misreported (I even mention that one FPP member has
> admitted this was done).......with only a handfull expressing any interest
> whatsoever and none willing to investigate much less report the story.
>
> I'm all but through researching....but I'll continue to try to get the
> historical record corrected.
>
> Have fun researching.
>
> John Canal
>
> P.S. It's sad, IMHO, when discussions about issues like the bag LHO was carrying
> have been recycled since nineteen-forgotten and fascinating nuggets/questions
> like "Why did Humes ask Perry if they (Parkland docs) created a puncture in
> JFK's back", "Why did Perry first tell Specter that Humes phoned him Friday
> afternoon", or "Why did Greer have JFK's clothes stuffed in his WH locker
> instead of giving them to Humes" aren't even mentioned, much less discussed or
> explained.
>
> :-(
>
I agree with you about the reclycling but those disagreements are
valid. I like the questions you brought up too. I don't pay much
attention to your discussion of the location of the wounds because
nothing but an exhumation and an autopsy by an independent panel will
answer that. If you really believe what you say, you should be
demanding exactly that.
JB
Anthony Marsh
> I'm finally getting off my ass to get back into detailed research into the
> assassination of JFK.
>
> As always I like to extend the offer to work with published or non published
> researchers (LN's and CT's)
> who hold opinions on the case other then my own on this specific project.
>
Fine, first you have to admit upfront that you think that the Pedro
Charles letters are real. And you have to admit that you think that Castro
was behind it.
John Canal
>For me, the question of Oswald's guilt was settled a long time ago. He
>pulled the trigger in both of these murders. I see no compelling
>evidence that anybody except Oswald fired a shot at JFK that day. The
>only question that is even worth asking is whether he had any
>accomplices. Even a single accomplice would make this a conspiracy.
Doubtfull at best LHO had any accomplices. He was hired at TSBD in
Sept/63...up until about a week before the assassination the plans were
for the luncheon to be held at the Women's Center west of downtown, not at
the Trade Mart. The individual who was most responible for getting the
plans changed was JBC (suggested reading is Ken O'Donnell's WC testimony
as well as "The Advance Man" by J. Bruno and Greenfield). The point is
that the motorcade was brought to LHO by someone obviously not involved
with LHO....JFK was tragically unlucky.
Nonetheless, the CTs will claim that, if the motorcade didn't go to the
Trademart, LHO or an accomplice would have gone wherever it needed to go
to kill JFK, and that the killers simply got lucky--their job was made
easier by JBC.
And if you believe that there's some beach front property coming up for
sale soon you might be interested in......it even has oil on it...no well
needed!
:-)
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
James K. Olmstead
"John Canal" <John_...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:hu8gh...@drn.newsguy.com...
> In article <4c07b1fd$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu>, James K. Olmstead says...
>>
>>I'm finally getting off my ass to get back into detailed research into the
>>assassination of JFK.
>
> Good grief, Jim....hasn't this bloody subject been researched to death
> already?
John: I present new considerations.....a few I have presented in the past
and some I will present in much greater detail. Material I have witheld
as part of my filmscripts, but feel need to be placed on the table.
I know of your efforts in getting the word out.
jko
John Blubaugh
> On Jun 3, 10:19 am, "James K. Olmstead" <jolmst...@neo.rr.com> wrote:> I'm finally getting off my ass to get back into detailed research into the
> > assassination of JFK.
>
> > As always I like to extend the offer to work with published or non published
> > researchers (LN's and CT's)
> > who hold opinions on the case other then my own on this specific project.
>
> > I support Lee Harvey Oswald was in fact involved in the events, however the
> > fingerprint evidence and
> > how it is still being handled by the FBI, remains in my opinion, exculpatory
> > evidence in favor of Oswald not pulling
> > the trigger killing JFK or Officer Tippit.
>
> Well since you asked for LN opinions, I will give you mine bluntly, as
> is my style. The evidence for Oswald's guilt in the murders of both
> JFK and JDT is absolutely overwhelming and conclusive. I cannot
> imagine a set of circumstances that would generate so much evidence
> that points to Oswald in these crimes if somebody else had commited
> them. The body of evidence can be pieced together in only one logical
> way. Oswald did it. I cannot find the exact quote, but Vincent
> Bugliosi said something to the effect that either Lee Harvey Oswald
> murdered JFK or thousands of people were working in concert to make it
> appear that he had. The latter possibility is just too far fetched to
> contemplate.
>
You whole premise is absurd and so is that of Bugliosi. It would take
thousands of people, hundreds of people or even dozens of people. Once the
decision is made to kill JFK it would only take five or six people to pull
it off. Of course the evidence point toward Oswald. If he was going to be
their Patsy, they would make absolutely sure that is the case. I have
always wondered about Oswald's statement about owning a rifle. He
supposedly said he did not own one. He didn't say that he used to own one.
If I were setting LHO up, the first thing I would have had him do was get
a rifle of some sort (I would have given him a few extra bucks to get a
better one than the piece of crap he owned) and I would have made sure to
get pictures of him holding the weapon. Then, I would have bought that
weapon from him and I would have made sure it was in the TSBD with spent
shells where the shots were fired. I would have used that rifle if it was
possible to hit anything with it. If not, I would have had something using
the same ammunition that could get the job done. The timing is perfect to
have the floor empty with it being lunch time or I would have found
someway for LHO to be out of the way (in the lunch room) and the floor
cleared. So, I would have one shooter there and a back-up on the grassy
knoll if anything went wrong. There may have been other backups but the
one will suffice. Now you have a plan that only includes three or four
people for a professional hit and escape from the scene. Escape wouldn't
be too difficult, there were too many people in the area for the police to
detain everyone. The MC would be planted, the shells planted and the shots
made with an escape from the TSBD in minute or less carrying the real
weapon broken down and concealed under a coat or in a brief case.
> For me, the question of Oswald's guilt was settled a long time ago. He
> pulled the trigger in both of these murders.
That is because you believed the story that he was a dirty little commie
who must be guilty. You were sure of his guilt before he was apprehended
(I think you have stated that before but I have not checked it). You
ignore any evidence either physical or eyewitness that does not lead to
that conclusion.
I see no compelling
> evidence that anybody except Oswald fired a shot at JFK that day.
The HSCA has already determined that you are wrong about that and they
were very critical of the way the WC conducted their investigation and
they made recomendations on how to do such an investigation in the future.
The
> only question that is even worth asking is whether he had any
> accomplices. Even a single accomplice would make this a conspiracy. If
> Oswald did have one or a few accomplices, but carried out that actual
> assassination by himself, ala John Wilkes Booth, the physical evidence
> would look exactly like it does.
The physical evidence would also look exactly like it does if
professionals had set LHO up as he claimed. That is the whole idea of
having a Patsy.
Therefore, it is theoretically
> possible that Oswald was part of such a small scale conspiracy and
> that his accomplice(s) simply disappeared after the act. I have seen
> no evidence that any such evidence exists. The passage of time and the
> lack of any such evidence emerging leads me to believe that LHO was
> acting on no one's behald except his own.
>
You forget that the HSCA already determined that there were such
people and at least one shot was fired from the grassy knoll.
> > The "Weisberg Project"
>
> > "No Single Man - The Crisis of Credibility" is the project title, based on a
> > quote from
> > Harold Weisberg's book "Oswald in New Orleans" (p27).....aka the "Weisberg
> > Project" or "WP"
>
> As is the fate for every CT, Weisberg went to his grave having failed
> to produce the evidence to support what he believed.
>
Such will be the case until the government is forced to disclose all of
the information it is keeping from the public and JFK's body is exhumed
and examined by an international panel to attempt to discover what
actually did happen.
>
> > On my part my work is based on the detailed consideration of my fingerprint
> > work and several
> > validated suspects, who I believe were associated with the actions of Lee
> > Harvey Oswald and
> > his involvement in the events that ended in the assassination of JFK.
>
> > First Stage:
> > Next week I will be spending several days in Columbus, Ohio obtaining the
> > police records
> > of one of my key suspects. (Ohio Historical Society holds the 1962 records).
> > This man, fought
> > in the Cuban Revolution along with Castro and Che. He is mentioned in
> > several of my past threads
> > and is mentioned in Martino's book "I was Castro's Prisoner".
>
> > I did one FOIA project on him and consider him a direct link to actions
> > associated with Ruby, Ferrie, Che, and RFK.
>
> I hate to rain on your parade, but I cannot imagine there has been an
> avenue for such links that has not been explored and each time it has
> come up empty.
>
No, they haven't come up empty. You just refuse to recognize them or
anything that points away from the WC fairy tale.
You are wrong. The first done in any investigation is to eliminate
suspects by clearing them. If a wife is murdered, the husband is the first
person to be investigated. There are records of them immediately stepping
up for whatever is asked of them to get that part of the investigation
over and move on to the real culprits.
> > There is no "cast of thousands" and I actually support some of the efforts
> > to control some of the records and evidence for reasons of National
> > Security,
> > as indicated by Chief Justice Warren. I also consider at least 5 of those,
> > who were involved, are dead.
>
> > jko
>
> I would wish you luck, but you will need much more than that. You will
> need a miracle.- Hide quoted text -
>
The only miracle he will need is for the damned government to come
clean after all of these years.
JB
John Canal
Ray says...
>
>On Jun 3, 1:26=A0pm, John Canal <John_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>"nineteen-forgotten and fascinating nuggets/questions
>like "Why did Humes ask Perry if they (Parkland docs) created a
>puncture in
>JFK's back",
>
>Mr. Canal:
>
>If convenient, could you please post sources for Humes's question to
>Perry re the back wound,
6WCH17
>plus sources for this other question raised
>in your post:
>
>"Why did Greer have JFK's clothes stuffed in his WH locker
>instead of giving them to Humes"
HSCA interview with Greer [Doc# 1870-10099-10491]
>Thank you.
No problem.
Let us know if you figure out the answers. I think I have and it took me
about a year to do it....but I'm not going there again. Heck, nobody here
believes anything that conflicts with their theories anyway.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
Herbert Blenner
If Humes saw what we see in F5 then he had every motivation to ask
Perry if Parkland made a wound in Kennedy's back.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/rotatedf5.jpg
F5 shows the longitudinal wound reported by Humes as a 4 mm by 7 mm
"oval" below and to the left of the 7 mm by 10 mm transverse ellipse
described by the Clark and the Forensic Pathology Panels.
Closer examination of F5 show that the "oval" wound has both circular
and linear portions that are characteristic of wounding by a yawed
bullet. These characteristics are undeniable on a higher resolution
scan of F5.
http://mysite.verizon.net/a1eah71/temps/be5_hi.jpg
So if F5 is true then Humes was confronted by two wounds on Kennedy's
back with the elliptical wound indicating an entry and the "oval"
keyhole wound belonging to a shored exit.
The attempt by the Forensic Pathology Panel to combine the
incompatible characteristics of the transverse ellipse with the
longitudinal "oval" into one wound strongly supports the veracity and
my interpretation of F5.
Herbert
David Von Pein
>>> "I cannot find the exact quote, but Vincent Bugliosi said something to
the effect that either Lee Harvey Oswald murdered JFK or thousands of
people were working in concert to make it appear that he had." <<<
It was Bud who said that (and it's a damn good quote too, getting
right to the heart of the matter):
"Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like
Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007 [4 months before Vince
Bugliosi's book was released]
The original 2007 post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.conspiracy.jfk/msg/bfe877d069a14595
James K. Olmstead
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4c07d84d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
> On 6/3/2010 10:19 AM, James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> I'm finally getting off my ass to get back into detailed research into
>> the
>> assassination of JFK.
>>
>> As always I like to extend the offer to work with published or non
>> published
>> researchers (LN's and CT's)
>> who hold opinions on the case other then my own on this specific project.
>>
>
> Fine, first you have to admit upfront that you think that the Pedro
> Charles letters are real. And you have to admit that you think that Castro
> was behind it.
>
Tony: For the last time.....Che's people are associated with the PC
letters. I mentioned this several times in the past and will continue to
do so. Castro was NOT behind the PC letters.
jko
Ray
Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007 [4 months before Vince
Bugliosi's book was released]"
In the recent Mossad assassination in Abu Dhubai, 26 people (so far) have
been identified as participants in the plot.
THe total number of people involved was probably greater than 26, and
ditto in the JFK assassination plot.
But the total number of people involved was probably about the same in
BOTH PLOTS.
Had it not beern for the video cameras and good police work, the world
would believe that the Abu Dhabu assassination was the work of ONE MAN.
John Canal
Herbert Blenner says...
>
>On Jun 3, 4:49=A0pm, Ray <j.raymondcarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
Herbert,
Let me get your opinion on something. On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being
the dumbest thing anyone has ever done, how you you rate Humes seeing two
back wounds on the body and then having two B & W and two color photos of
those wounds taken and claiming there was only one wound in the photos?
BTW, FWIW, that's not the reason I came up with for why Humes asked Perry
if they [Parkland docs] had caused a wound in JFK's back.
--
John Canal
jca...@webtv.net
bigdog
> "bigdog" <jecorbett1...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
anyone could have carried out the assassination as presented by the WC
with Oswald's MC. This is where I would ask, what was so difficult
about the alleged shooting feat by Oswald? Firing three shots at a
man, all at distances of less than 90 yards, and hitting him twice.
The two shots that hit the intended victim were roughly a foot apart.
Is this supposed to be an incredible feat of marksmanship? Did
Weisberg, like so many CTs, gravitate to the second shot miss scenario
which would have given Oswald a maximum of 5.6 seconds to fire all
three shots and ignore the other possible scenarios presented by the
WC which would have given Oswald 8-9 seconds to fire 3 shots (even
more if one wants to propose a much earlier missed first shot than is
generally accepted). While the second shot miss scenario does make the
shooting more difficult, even that has been demonstrated to be
possible although probably at the outer limits of Oswald's skill
level. Does Weisberg not believe that anyone could have carried out
the shooting with the MC in evidence. I've always found that to be a
curious argument given that the ballistic matching of the only
recovered bullets indicates that the MC was the murder weapon.
Somebody did the shooting with that rifle.
> In the minds of many there is a "Crisis of Credibility" concerning how the
> WC investigation was conducted
> and how key aspects of the case were witheld from the public and remain
> witheld to this day.
>
> The body of evidence can be pieced together in only one logical
> way.
>
> Not really, it can be if you ignore any aspect of Oswald's "Defense".
>
I have yet to see a plausible alternative.
> Oswald did it. I cannot find the exact quote, but Vincent
> Bugliosi said something to the effect that either Lee Harvey Oswald
> murdered JFK or thousands of people were working in concert to make it
> appear that he had. The latter possibility is just too far fetched to
> contemplate.
>
> Weisberg and Bugliosi clearly show the basic view of the prosecution and the
> defense positions, which and
> criminal defense lawyer would have to examine. One looking at the other
> just as deeply as the stand they defend.
> I base all my research on this "Trial Book" principle....looking at both
> positions equally.
>
A practical demonstration of the prosecution and defense tactics was
conducted in a mock trial conducted by a London TV station with Jerry
Spence, arguably the finest criminal trial lawyer of his day, acting
as Oswald's defense. Bugliosi won a finding of guilty.
This is speculative at best. Until you are able to establish that
there is at least one fingerprint on the weapon that could not have
been left by Oswald, you have nothing.
If there were prints that were unidentifiable, then it cannot be
assumed that Oswald was not the one who put them there. There is a
definitive palmprint from Oswald on the weapon. The FBI found partial
fingerprints that did not have enough points to say they were
conclusively Oswald's, but they could not rule out that they were
Oswald's which means that what they did have matched Oswald's prints
but without enough matching points to meet their standards for saying
they were definitively Oswald's.
I reject this premise entirely. Whether we are talking about a
criminal trial or simply an academic excercise, the burden of proof
rests with the one who is postulating a theory. You can accuse anyone
to your heart's content, but if you cannot supply compelling evidence
for those accusations, there is no burden on anyone to disprove them.
> > There is no "cast of thousands" and I actually support some of the efforts
> > to control some of the records and evidence for reasons of National
> > Security,
> > as indicated by Chief Justice Warren. I also consider at least 5 of those,
> > who were involved, are dead.
>
> > jko
>
> I would wish you luck, but you will need much more than that. You will
> need a miracle.
>
> I agree I will need a "miracle" to convince many familar with this case. I
> just hope that the work
> presented provides the needed valdiated material to allow for further
> investigation into the facts
> presented.
>
> jko- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
bigdog
This is exactly Bugliosi's point. All the evidence ended up pointing
at Oswald and that evidence was developed by thousands of people
working for a wide variety of entities. We have the DPD, the sheriff's
department, the Secret Service, the FBI, the Army and Navy (the
autopsy) and numerous crime labs around the country.
> I have
> always wondered about Oswald's statement about owning a rifle. He
> supposedly said he did not own one.
And you believed him, despite the paper trail that establishes he
ordered the rifle, the pictures of him with the rifle, and the
statement of Marina that he has used the rifle to try to kill
Walker.
> He didn't say that he used to own one.
> If I were setting LHO up, the first thing I would have had him do was get
> a rifle of some sort (I would have given him a few extra bucks to get a
> better one than the piece of crap he owned) and I would have made sure to
> get pictures of him holding the weapon. Then, I would have bought that
> weapon from him and I would have made sure it was in the TSBD with spent
> shells where the shots were fired.
Would this be right after you said "You are getting sleepy...."
> I would have used that rifle if it was
> possible to hit anything with it. If not, I would have had something using
> the same ammunition that could get the job done. The timing is perfect to
> have the floor empty with it being lunch time or I would have found
> someway for LHO to be out of the way (in the lunch room) and the floor
> cleared. So, I would have one shooter there and a back-up on the grassy
> knoll if anything went wrong. There may have been other backups but the
> one will suffice. Now you have a plan that only includes three or four
> people for a professional hit and escape from the scene. Escape wouldn't
> be too difficult, there were too many people in the area for the police to
> detain everyone. The MC would be planted, the shells planted and the shots
> made with an escape from the TSBD in minute or less carrying the real
> weapon broken down and concealed under a coat or in a brief case.
>
Very fascinating and very complicated. Only one problem. Not a shred
of evidence to support a word of it. Oswald bringing the weapon to
work that day, hiding on the vacated 6th floor, and then sticking it
out the window and shooting the POTUS when he rode by is a lot less
complicated and is supported by the evidence.
> > For me, the question of Oswald's guilt was settled a long time ago. He
> > pulled the trigger in both of these murders.
>
> That is because you believed the story that he was a dirty little commie
> who must be guilty.
I believe he was a dirty little commie and I believe he was guilty but
I don't believe he was guilty because he was a dirtly little commie. I
believe he was guilty because the is what the hard evidence screams at
us. Given the same evidence, I would have believed his guilty whether
he was a John Bircher, a Klansman, or a member of the Knights of
Columbus.
> You were sure of his guilt before he was apprehended
> (I think you have stated that before but I have not checked it).
You should have checked it because you would have found out you are
dead wrong. I never wrote any such thing. I never thought any such
thing. Why would I?. Before he was apprehended, I had no idea who he
was.
> You
> ignore any evidence either physical or eyewitness that does not lead to
> that conclusion.
>
I don't need to ignore any physical evidence because there is none
that points to anyone except Oswald and I have no problem ignoring
eyewitnesses who are demostrably wrong.
> I see no compelling
>
> > evidence that anybody except Oswald fired a shot at JFK that day.
>
> The HSCA has already determined that you are wrong about that and they
> were very critical of the way the WC conducted their investigation and
> they made recomendations on how to do such an investigation in the future.
>
You have at various times described the WC as being political hacks.
Only four members of the commision were career politicians. Earl
Warren had been a politician but once he was elevated to Chief
Justice, that took him out of the realm of politics since justices are
appointed for life. On the other hand, every member of the HSCA was a
politician, or hack to use your term. But you find these hacks to be
more credible?
> The
>
> > only question that is even worth asking is whether he had any
> > accomplices. Even a single accomplice would make this a conspiracy. If
> > Oswald did have one or a few accomplices, but carried out that actual
> > assassination by himself, ala John Wilkes Booth, the physical evidence
> > would look exactly like it does.
>
> The physical evidence would also look exactly like it does if
> professionals had set LHO up as he claimed. That is the whole idea of
> having a Patsy.
>
That would only be possible if everyone who participated in the
investigation was in on the cover up. If anyone at any level refused
to go along, we would have conflicting evidence. This takes us to
Bugliosi's cast of thousands that would have been necessary to
engineer the cover up you claim happened.
> Therefore, it is theoretically
>
> > possible that Oswald was part of such a small scale conspiracy and
> > that his accomplice(s) simply disappeared after the act. I have seen
> > no evidence that any such evidence exists. The passage of time and the
> > lack of any such evidence emerging leads me to believe that LHO was
> > acting on no one's behald except his own.
>
> You forget that the HSCA already determined that there were such
> people and at least one shot was fired from the grassy knoll.
>
No, I didn't forget it. I disregard it. I don't accept whatever the
government tells me.
> > > The "Weisberg Project"
>
> > > "No Single Man - The Crisis of Credibility" is the project title, based on a
> > > quote from
> > > Harold Weisberg's book "Oswald in New Orleans" (p27).....aka the "Weisberg
> > > Project" or "WP"
>
> > As is the fate for every CT, Weisberg went to his grave having failed
> > to produce the evidence to support what he believed.
>
> Such will be the case until the government is forced to disclose all of
> the information it is keeping from the public and JFK's body is exhumed
> and examined by an international panel to attempt to discover what
> actually did happen.
>
Will that happen before or after hell freezes over?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On my part my work is based on the detailed consideration of my fingerprint
> > > work and several
> > > validated suspects, who I believe were associated with the actions of Lee
> > > Harvey Oswald and
> > > his involvement in the events that ended in the assassination of JFK.
>
> > > First Stage:
> > > Next week I will be spending several days in Columbus, Ohio obtaining the
> > > police records
> > > of one of my key suspects. (Ohio Historical Society holds the 1962 records).
> > > This man, fought
> > > in the Cuban Revolution along with Castro and Che. He is mentioned in
> > > several of my past threads
> > > and is mentioned in Martino's book "I was Castro's Prisoner".
>
> > > I did one FOIA project on him and consider him a direct link to actions
> > > associated with Ruby, Ferrie, Che, and RFK.
>
> > I hate to rain on your parade, but I cannot imagine there has been an
> > avenue for such links that has not been explored and each time it has
> > come up empty.
>
> No, they haven't come up empty. You just refuse to recognize them or
> anything that points away from the WC fairy tale.
>
No one has EVER produced any compelling evidence that anyone except
Oswald participated in the crime. Nothing but wild speculation
concocted out of thin air.
If the cops can't find evidence the husband is guilty, the husband
doesn't have to do a thing.
> There are records of them immediately stepping
> up for whatever is asked of them to get that part of the investigation
> over and move on to the real culprits.
>
> > > There is no "cast of thousands" and I actually support some of the efforts
> > > to control some of the records and evidence for reasons of National
> > > Security,
> > > as indicated by Chief Justice Warren. I also consider at least 5 of those,
> > > who were involved, are dead.
>
> > > jko
>
> > I would wish you luck, but you will need much more than that. You will
> > need a miracle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> The only miracle he will need is for the damned government to come
> clean after all of these years.
>
You speak of the government as if it were monolithic with a shared
purpose. This shows a lack of understanding of how government works.
Anthony Marsh
SO, you are only admitting that you think that the Pedro Charles letters
are real, but you think Che was the Chief, not Castro.
Can you explain why all four letters were typed on the same typewriter,
but each with a different fictitious name? Do the letters being mailed
AFTER the assassination make sense to you as part of a Che plot using
Oswald?
> jko
bigdog
> "Either Oswald alone, or thousands working to make it look like
> Oz did it alone." -- Bud; January 19, 2007 [4 months before Vince
> Bugliosi's book was released]"
>
> In the recent Mossad assassination in Abu Dhubai, 26 people (so far) have
> been identified as participants in the plot.
>
participants but after more than 46 years, only one has been
identified in JFK's assassination. I wonder why.
> THe total number of people involved was probably greater than 26, and
> ditto in the JFK assassination plot.
>
> But the total number of people involved was probably about the same in
> BOTH PLOTS.
>
How did you arrive at this calculation?
> Had it not beern for the video cameras and good police work, the world
> would believe that the Abu Dhabu assassination was the work of ONE MAN.
Was that the Abdhul Zapruder tape?
Bud
> Bugliosi's book was released]"
>
> In the recent Mossad assassination in Abu Dhubai, 26 people (so far) have
> been identified as participants in the plot.
>
> THe total number of people involved was probably greater than 26, and
> ditto in the JFK assassination plot.
>
> But the total number of people involved was probably about the same in
> BOTH PLOTS.
>
> Had it not beern for the video cameras and good police work, the world
> would believe that the Abu Dhabu assassination was the work of ONE MAN.
What steps did the Abu assassination team take to make it look like
the murder was the work of one man? It`s the impossibly elaborate plot
to make Oswald appear guilty that is obviously false, LNers are not
disputing that it is possible to have multiple people work together to
commit assassination.
Herbert Blenner
> In article <f51ac16c-b106-46c0-a6d0-773d75cbc...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
done, how do you rate the expectation by the FPP that nobody would
notice their transverse back wound differed from the longitudinal
wound described by Humes?
Herbert
James K. Olmstead
> On 6/3/2010 11:04 PM, James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> "Anthony Marsh"<anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:4c07d84d$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
>>> On 6/3/2010 10:19 AM, James K. Olmstead wrote:
>>>> I'm finally getting off my ass to get back into detailed research into
>>>> the
>>>> assassination of JFK.
>>>>
>>>> As always I like to extend the offer to work with published or non
>>>> published
>>>> researchers (LN's and CT's)
>>>> who hold opinions on the case other then my own on this specific
>>>> project.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Fine, first you have to admit upfront that you think that the Pedro
>>> Charles letters are real. And you have to admit that you think that
>>> Castro
>>> was behind it.
>>>
>>
>> Tony: For the last time.....Che's people are associated with the PC
>> letters. I mentioned this several times in the past and will continue to
>> do so. Castro was NOT behind the PC letters.
>>
>
> SO, you are only admitting that you think that the Pedro Charles letters
> are real, but you think Che was the Chief, not Castro.
Let me once again try and get this across to you:
1. The events and people discribed in the letters match the actions of
several people known to be associated with actions connected to Oswald.
2. These people that can be associated with the letters were individuals
that Che controled or influenced.
> Can you explain why all four letters were typed on the same typewriter,
> but each with a different fictitious name?
The same typewriter was used and different names were applied
Do the letters being mailed
> AFTER the assassination make sense to you as part of a Che plot using
> Oswald?
Much of the details associated with the case, that presented leads came
AFTER the assassination.
Now who said anything about Che using Oswald? Che for the most part was
the Cuban leader who wanted JFK dead.....his people are associated with
actions of Oswald, but that does not mean that Oswald was controled by
Che.
It took several years but Che was killed for his actions....Castro
remained in power, for the most part by kicking Che out of Cuba and
renouncing his Cuban citizenship after the assassination of JFK.
I honestly wish you would quit trying to make my expressed views into what
you want to think and not what I think.
jko
James K. Olmstead
I believe that is basically what Weisberg is saying...except he indicates
"no single man"...which I take as meaning whoever pulled the trigger had
help.
This is where I would ask, what was so difficult about the alleged
shooting feat by Oswald?
Weisberg appartently did not accept that Oswald fired the shots....not
that the shooting could not take place.
Firing three shots at a man, all at distances of less than 90 yards, and
hitting him twice. The two shots that hit the intended victim were roughly
a foot apart. Is this supposed to be an incredible feat of marksmanship?
Did Weisberg, like so many CTs, gravitate to the second shot miss scenario
which would have given Oswald a maximum of 5.6 seconds to fire all three
shots and ignore the other possible scenarios presented by the WC which
would have given Oswald 8-9 seconds to fire 3 shots (even more if one
wants to propose a much earlier missed first shot than is generally
accepted). While the second shot miss scenario does make the shooting more
difficult, even that has been demonstrated to be possible although
probably at the outer limits of Oswald's skill level. Does Weisberg not
believe that anyone could have carried out the shooting with the MC in
evidence. I've always found that to be a curious argument given that the
ballistic matching of the only recovered bullets indicates that the MC was
the murder weapon. Somebody did the shooting with that rifle.
I really can not speak for Weisberg....I'm not a devotee of his work,
however he has collected a very large collection of documents which I plan
to examine. I only want to insure I give credit to his work if I find
material I've missed or that I need to fill in some blanks. Re-reading
his books over the last few days has brought several interesting
considerations that I've found to be interesting enough to look deeper
into.
> In the minds of many there is a "Crisis of Credibility" concerning how
the > WC investigation was conducted > and how key aspects of the case
were witheld from the public and remain > witheld to this day. > > The
body of evidence can be pieced together in only one logical > way. > > Not
really, it can be if you ignore any aspect of Oswald's "Defense". > I have
yet to see a plausible alternative.
None have been presented...most have a vendeta against one or more
individuals that have not aided in Oswald's defense.
> Oswald did it. I cannot find the exact quote, but Vincent
> Bugliosi said something to the effect that either Lee Harvey Oswald
> murdered JFK or thousands of people were working in concert to make it
> appear that he had. The latter possibility is just too far fetched to
> contemplate.
>
> Weisberg and Bugliosi clearly show the basic view of the prosecution and
> the
> defense positions, which and
> criminal defense lawyer would have to examine. One looking at the other
> just as deeply as the stand they defend.
> I base all my research on this "Trial Book" principle....looking at both
> positions equally.
>
A practical demonstration of the prosecution and defense tactics was
conducted in a mock trial conducted by a London TV station with Jerry
Spence, arguably the finest criminal trial lawyer of his day, acting as
Oswald's defense. Bugliosi won a finding of guilty.
The trouble with that "mock trial" in my opinion is that Spence had to
defend against wacko CT charges and not detailed aspects of the case that
surfaced AFTER that "mock trial". Nobody could defend Oswald based on the
presented CT's in that "mock trial".
The FBI only considered the palmprint on the barrel as Oswald's...and
rejected confirming that at least 2 latents on the trigger guard were
Oswald's. HOWEVER, that are a total of 18 partial latents (considered
partial because the overlap one another) on the triggerguard. They witheld
the "lifted images" of the prints on the triggerguard from the WC. They
still hold that lift, in W. Va.....not in the National Archives as part of
the JFK collection of evidence.
Then you have to explain the difference between the published photographs
of WCE 720 and WCE 721 with the actual photographs. I admit that I do not
want to claim that the published photographs are "doctored" but the
originals show the "extra" latent images and the published versions do
not. I handled this material at the archives first hand, which few have
bothered to do. They didn't even handle the palmprint in the HSCA
investigation....(they couldn't find it).
The witholding of evidence is far from "nothing". The refusal of the FBI
to use computer generated software in use today by the FBI is far from
"nothing".
If there were prints that were unidentifiable, then it cannot be assumed
that Oswald was not the one who put them there.
This is what makes the evidence exculpatory....they can not be assumed
that "another" was not the one who put them there. Spence NEVER presented
the fingerprint conflicts in Oswald's defense.
There is a definitive palmprint from Oswald on the weapon. The FBI found
partial fingerprints that did not have enough points to say they were
conclusively Oswald's, but they could not rule out that they were Oswald's
which means that what they did have matched Oswald's prints but without
enough matching points to meet their standards for saying they were
definitively Oswald's.
Only two of the total fall into this consideration....what about the other
latents on the same evidence.
The latent images on the rifle is not the only concern...there are latents
on the "bag" "box" and "car #10" to consider.
How can you? I have compelling evidence for my facts of considerations (
I don't like the word "accusatons"), so who is going to "disprove
them"....surely you don't expect me to jump up and yell I'm
crazy.....that's why I asked for LN'er's interested to join in.
So far your're the only one to at least walk up to the plate....and I want
you to know I respect that.
jko
Anthony Marsh
Don't try to lecture me. You are being evasive. You won't just come
right out and admit what you think, because you know you have a kooky
theory. You dance around the issue.
> 1. The events and people discribed in the letters match the actions of
> several people known to be associated with actions connected to Oswald.
>
Nonsense. The letters were made up.
> 2. These people that can be associated with the letters were individuals
> that Che controled or influenced.
>
No, they don't exist.
>> Can you explain why all four letters were typed on the same typewriter,
>> but each with a different fictitious name?
>
> The same typewriter was used and different names were applied
>
And you can't figure out that means it's a hoax?
> Do the letters being mailed
>> AFTER the assassination make sense to you as part of a Che plot using
>> Oswald?
>
> Much of the details associated with the case, that presented leads came
> AFTER the assassination.
>
Stop being evasive. Deal with what I said. The letters were mailed AFTER
the assassination.
> Now who said anything about Che using Oswald? Che for the most part was
> the Cuban leader who wanted JFK dead.....his people are associated with
> actions of Oswald, but that does not mean that Oswald was controled by
> Che.
>
The letter speaks about impressing the Chief. Hoover interpreted that as
Castro. But you can't admit that so you HINT that it means Che. You want
Che to be the mastermind.
> It took several years but Che was killed for his actions....Castro
Silly. You use cheap innuendo to make it look as if the US knew that Che
was the mastermind and took its revenge by killing him.
Post Hoc Fallacy.
> remained in power, for the most part by kicking Che out of Cuba and
> renouncing his Cuban citizenship after the assassination of JFK.
>
Proof? Evidence? Nothing? You think Castro caved in to CIA pressure to
oust Che?
> I honestly wish you would quit trying to make my expressed views into what
> you want to think and not what I think.
>
Then start answering my questions and telling everyone what you honestly
think.
> jko
James K. Olmstead
The image may or may not gone thru so I'm sending the comments on it again.
It is just over a week since the assassination and less then a week since
the death of Oswald.This timing is critical to understand.
It is prior to the formation of the WC and just when the "investigation"
would be "fresh" , timely and most valuable to gather critical details.
As a side note if I had this document in 1969 or 1991 my research would be
much further along then it is today. When I obtained it my
work did in fact advance deeper into the case. To me this is the
cornerstone of the "Crisis of Credibity" concerning the investigation into
the death of JFK and LHO. Most CT's believe in various elements of "cover
up" assoicated with this case by the USG intelligence
community. To me this supports that belief, it puts the investigation by
the CIA into a very very small box.
Details of Consideration on Directive 86012
1. Priority:
a. This has a priority "PPPP" indicator
b. Handwritten information indicates copies were placed in additional "P"
files.
c. Handwritten information indicates directive is a "Dup of 258-668"
d. Handwritten information indicates copies were placed in "various "P"
files via "White (Gestetner)"
I consider "White" being a "code name" for "Gestetner" but can not establish
this as fact.
Research has not been conducted as of yet as to details concerning "P" files
with "PPPP" indicators, I hope others who have delt into the CIA
filing system, related to this case might provide additional insight. It
has not been a priority as of yet in my work but any concern must be delt
with
at some point. The reason being is to consider how many other documents had
such indicators and how important are these "P" files in learning
new details concerning the case and events. Any assistance here would be
welcomed.*
*The Central Intelligence Agency Miscellaneous Files Folder Title List held
at the archives does not list "P" files. Therefore the file
falls into a specific file group that is not "miscellaneous". Based on the
RYBAT indicator this "P" file group is "sensitive".
2. Authorization:
a. The only true indicator of authorization is indicated by the initials
"LFK" within the CIA.
The identity of "LFK" must be established as well as the chain of command
"above" this individual. So far "LFK" has been enough in my work,
since my work is based on illustration of the conflicts of the
investigation. I'm not after "blood" just making the effort to show the
historical record.
If anyone can positively identify "LFK" that information would be welcomed.
3. Directive to:
a. It is clear that the priority of the directive is sent to the Mexican CIA
station.
b. The notes on the document indicate that copies were placed in other
unknown at this time files
4. Timeline of Directive:
a. A large number of directives were authorized during this period, some
have bearing on this others do not, so it's timeline in the sequence is
important.
I have not yet spent the time in trying to establish directives prior to or
after this one that are "missing" or "still witheld" since the task is far
greater then
I have time for alone.
5. RYBAT GPFLOOR:
a. RYBAT: Indicates that the information is very sensitive
b. GPFLOOR: Lee Harvey Oswald, J.F. Kennedy's assassin
It is clear that this document is very sensitive based on the instructions
of the directive.
6. REF MEXI 7160:
a. Indicates background reference
7. The Directions:
A. >1. Station's [double] agents obviously cannot direct pointed question to
[C/O's] but should be alert to and report any comments on assassination.<
a. Unfortunately a detailed list of the Mexi Station "Double Agents" is not
available....nor are the chances of one being assembled and presented to the
public will ever come about.
b. The same goes for a listing of "C/O's"
c. The reporting "any comments on assassination" is so general it is absurd
to consider in a sensitive directive....there is nothing sensitive of such a
simple yet overwhelming generality. Thousands of comments would be made and
were hourly in the weeks ahead....yet they would have no
specific value, unless thousands of man hours were spent tracking down
additional information of who, what, when or why the comments were
made. Totally impractical and time consuming.
One of the most critical aspects of the directions involves knowing the
value of the "double agents" and "C/O's" as to credibity and loyality. It
is a well
known consideration that in some cases "double agents" are in fact "triple
agents".....especially those associated with Cuba during this time period.
Some
"double agents" or former assets such as "Alvardo" (one of the concerns of
this directive) had prior contact with other intelligence operation
conducted by other countries
and were involved in DGI operations.
B. > Perhaps can provke discussion in innocuous questions as to general
effect events expected to have on inter-national relations.<
a. "innocuous questions" have little intelligence value.....they are
"harmless" and provide no great insight.
b. The newspapers worldwide were loaded with comments by world leaders,
captains of industry etc etc that would provide far greater insight
to the effect on "inter-national relations"
The specific of the types of questions to be "asked" or "reported on" shows
viritually no interest in obtaining "facts" or "insight" from Double Agents
or C/O's.
However the restriction is far more telling then the specifics of the
direction of questioning.
C. >2. In instructing agents station should not of course make any reference
to Oswald/Duran/Alvardo Et Al.<
a. The restriction here is absurd..... "innocuous questions" concerning key
individuals of the investigation should not be made. At this point in time
Oswald
would be a major subject for any indirect or simple question on "opinion".
The inclusion of Duran and Alvardo are key here as well. The additional
concern, focused
on by many examining this case is who in the hell are the "Et Al". We know
who was investigated over the years, but why is such a broad spectrum of
individuals, at this
point in time, taboo?
In my opinion a detailed listing of possible sources should have been
compiled and distributed to all to gather details and facts....not
"questions as general effect".
The last sentence is very disturbing as well.
D. >Or to investigative measures being taken.<
a. By nature of this directive NO INVESTIGATIVE MEASURES ARE BEING TAKEN.
B. Everyone concerned is to ignore the proceedures taking place.
Is it any wonder that countless articles or books have been written
concerning conspiracy and cover up dealing with the assassination?
jko
Peter Fokes
<jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
top post:
Gestetner is the name of a copying machine.
"The Gestetner, named for its inventor David Gestetner, is a
duplicating machine."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestetner
Perhaps "White" refers to the type of copying paper used.
Peter Fokes
Anthony Marsh
So once again you pretend to be a WC defender by claiming that Oswald
was the only shooter, while secretly believing that it was a conspiracy
because Oswald was paid by the Cubans.
James K. Olmstead
Tony....I'm not being evasive...I've stated what I think concerning the PC
letters
you just can't accept it. You just want the details I have, however you
would be
the last person I'd share detailed research with. I presented facts in the
past and
when the time is right will present more......but not directly to you.
In case you don't remember, around 2004-05 I posted on a major volume of
documents
received from the CIA/US Army dealing with four record groups that were
scheduled for
destruction. These records dealt with DGI agents in the US and other
related operations
conducted by the DGI. Several of those documents supported the actions in
the PC letters
the central figure being Mendoza and a group in Miami, that still operates
today.
There are four female agents that could be "the lady in red" at this time I
still can't narrow her identity
down any farther then these four. Mendoza and each of the four women would
have had or had known
contact with Oswald in Mexico City. All were by nature of the offical
positions held, run by Che.
jko
jko
James K. Olmstead
"Peter Fokes" <pfo...@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:chqk061klf4932siq...@4ax.com...
> On 5 Jun 2010 11:15:26 -0400, "James K. Olmstead"
> <jolm...@neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
> top post:
>
> Gestetner is the name of a copying machine.
>
> "The Gestetner, named for its inventor David Gestetner, is a
> duplicating machine."
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestetner
>
> http://www.gestetner.com/
>
> Perhaps "White" refers to the type of copying paper used.
>
Pete: Seems odd to write that in if that is the case.....but glad you
bothered to look at at least one conconsideration.
jko
James K. Olmstead
Tony: If the above was directed towards me....the comment was made by
"bigdog". Neither of us claim Oswald was paid by "the Cubans". Once again
you demonstrate your lack of comprehenson of what somebody has said.
jko
Anthony Marsh
You continue to be evasive. You can't answer a simple question. Because
it would reveal how kooky your theory is.
> you just can't accept it. You just want the details I have, however you
> would be
I don't want your damn details. I don't need them. You have nothing but
speculation.
> the last person I'd share detailed research with. I presented facts in the
> past and
> when the time is right will present more......but not directly to you.
>
No, you won't.
> In case you don't remember, around 2004-05 I posted on a major volume of
> documents
> received from the CIA/US Army dealing with four record groups that were
> scheduled for
> destruction. These records dealt with DGI agents in the US and other
> related operations
> conducted by the DGI. Several of those documents supported the actions in
> the PC letters
> the central figure being Mendoza and a group in Miami, that still operates
> today.
>
Supported the actions? More evasion.
Where do the Pedro Charles letters mention Mendoza?
Thwy don't. You are just making up crap again.
> There are four female agents that could be "the lady in red" at this time I
> still can't narrow her identity
> down any farther then these four. Mendoza and each of the four women would
> have had or had known
> contact with Oswald in Mexico City. All were by nature of the offical
> positions held, run by Che.
>
The Pedro Charles letters claim that Oswald was working for Castro, not
Anthony Marsh
Your theory is that Oswald was working for Che. If you believe the Pedro
Charles letters, which you claim you have confirmed, they state quite
clearly that Oswald was paid by a Cuban agent.
> jko
James K. Olmstead
*****The Cuban friend of Carlos Bringuier named Leonardo **LNU** (who
speaks Russian) associated to Che, June 4, 1964, by CB, IMHO is my prime
suspect, as the author of the PC letters....I can not prove this at this
time but this is part of on-going research.
I've never claimed I can prove all of my views that are still being
*researched*.
jko
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4c0ae63e$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...
Anthony Marsh
> Ok Tony.....just to piss you off here you go......
>
> *****The Cuban friend of Carlos Bringuier named Leonardo **LNU** (who
> speaks Russian) associated to Che, June 4, 1964, by CB, IMHO is my prime
> suspect, as the author of the PC letters....I can not prove this at this
> time but this is part of on-going research.
>
Explain to everyone how one single person can be the author of four
different letters and it not be a hoax. I thought you said the letters
were genuine. That was my question. Not who committed the hoax.
James K. Olmstead
> On 6/6/2010 4:34 PM, James K. Olmstead wrote:
>> Ok Tony.....just to piss you off here you go......
>>
>> *****The Cuban friend of Carlos Bringuier named Leonardo **LNU** (who
>> speaks Russian) associated to Che, June 4, 1964, by CB, IMHO is my prime
>> suspect, as the author of the PC letters....I can not prove this at this
>> time but this is part of on-going research.
>>
>
> Explain to everyone how one single person can be the author of four
> different letters and it not be a hoax. I thought you said the letters
> were genuine. That was my question. Not who committed the hoax.
>
Tony: I've always supported that the EVENTS/PERSONS/ACTION DESCRIBED in
the letters can be associated to Oswald's known actions.....I never
claimed they were 100% "genuine"....thats only what YOU CLAIM that I
claim.
As to one single person being the author....get real...the same typewriter
for all was used, which supports one person as the author....EVEN IF THEY
WERE A HOAX. One person writing four letters (or more) using the same
typewriter is NO INDICATOR of them being real or fake.
jko
Anthony Marsh
Ok, now we are getting somewhere. Now you finally admit that the letters
are a hoax. So what is your theory about why the conspirators would reveal
their conspiracy in the form of hoax letters? You claim the people are
real. Please prove that each author of each letter is a real known person.
> jko
Ray
The Pedro Charles letters claim that Oswald was working for Castro,
not Che.
Mr. Marsh:
Can you point us to the most important source(s) on the Pedro Charles
letters, and/or a good discussion of the issue?
Thank You.
Anthony Marsh
My article is not the most up to date information but it is a good
overview and chock full of documents.
http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm
Ray
My article is not the most up to date information but it is a good
overview and chock full of documents.
> http://www.the-puzzle-palace.com/cubahoax.htm
Thank you Mr. Marsh, it is a very good overview.
How does one cite these documents? are they from the Warren Commission
records?
Anthony Marsh
You can just call the WC documents.
If you want to be extremely accurate you can look up the RIF numbers in
the JFK Records Act collection.
tomnln
"Anthony Marsh" <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:4c119440$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu...