John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, was murdered during a motorcade as it passed through Dealey Plaza in Dallas on 22 November 1963. The official government account of the crime, known as The Warren Report after its Chair, Chief Justice of the United States, Earl Warren–but technically entitled, The Report of the President’s Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1964) — held that JFK was killed by a lone, demented assassin named Lee Harvey Oswald, who fired three shots with a high-velocity rifle from a sixth floor window of the nearby Texas School Book Depository, scoring two hits and one miss, which struck a distant concrete curb, ricocheted and slightly injured by-stander James Tague. (A photograph of the injury may be found in Robert Groden, The Killing of a President 1993, p. 41.)
Until 9/11, no other conspiracy had drawn so much attention with more than half of Americans believing JFK was the victim of a larger conspiracy with some polls recording as high as 80%. Why? In Best Evidence, David S. Lifton explains several anomalies in the JFK conspiracy:
- Nine days before the assassination, FBI agent Don Adams investigated claims of a plot to kill JFK that was to take place in Miami. This was also the stated plan of E Howard Hunt on his deathbed confession. His investigation was whitewashed and the smoking gun evidence of claims before and after by a suspect was not even given mention in the Warren Commission Report. Years later he requested his FBI investigation report via FOIA request and was shocked to see it had been deleted or altered. See Interview HERE
- Thirteen days before Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, a man named Joseph Milteer was tape recorded telling Miami police informant William Somerset that the murder of Kennedy was “in the working,” that the best means of killing Kennedy was “from an office building with a high-powered rifle,” and that “they will pick up somebody within hours afterwards, if anything like that would happen just to throw the public off.”
- Government agents swooped down upon anyone in the crowd who had taken pictures of the assassination and confiscated their cameras and film.
Miami Police notified the Secret Service, and there are indications that an unannounced motorcade in Miami scheduled for later that month was cancelled. After the Kennedy assassination, informant Somerset spoke to Milteer on the phone. Police and FBI interviews with Somersett revealed that Milteer was jubilant, and said that “everything ran true to form. I guess you thought I was kidding when I said he would be killed from a window with a high-powered rifle.” The HSCA investigated whether a man photographed standing in the crowd in Dealey Plaza was Milteer – the resemblance is certainly strong. the HSCA’s photographic panel determined, based on height calculations, that the man was likely not Milteer. FBI agent Don Adams, who investigated Milteer before and after the JFK assassination says its him without a doubt.
- They altered the Zapruder movie film of the assassination, cutting and splicing frames to change the outcome. The limousine was returned to the Ford Motor Co. on the following Monday.
- Secret Service removed and replaced the windshield of Kennedy’s limousine so they could cover up the fact that it had a bullet hole coming from the front (the grassy knoll).
- At least two clean, unreformed bullets were planted by agents–one in the limo, and one on Connally’s stretcher (which was a mistake–they intended it for Kennedy’s stretcher).
- There were at least two coffins being transported back to Washington–the one riding with Jackie was empty–the real one was flown to Walter Reed Army hospital via helo from the back of Air Force One, where doctors extracted all bullets that showed a frontal entry. They made a huge entry into the front of the neck to extract a bullet that had entered the neck from the front. A false bullet wound was also created in the back with a pristine bullet showing no deformation, and which only penetrated an inch into soft tissue (the mysterious “magic bullet”).
- When the real body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital for autopsy, it came in a gray military coffin zipped in a body bag. Two FBI agents in the room took detailed notes, and described the autopsy physician exclaiming that this body has already been dissected. In fact the top of the head came off on the table, and the brain had been removed. The report of these two agents was suppressed by J. Edgar Hoover.
- John J. McCloy, President of the Chase Manhattan Bank, and President of the World Bank, was named to the Warren Commission, presumably to make certain the banking dimensions behind the assassination were concealed from the public.
- All navy personnel present were threatened with dire consequences if they mentioned anything they saw. Some eventually spoke out about what happened when Congress held the second Kennedy investigation.
- The autopsy physician at Bethesda admitted to burning his initial report and rewriting one that he had been “instructed” to write–conforming to the altered body.
- Photographs of the autopsy were locked up and the Warren Commission only allowed artist sketches to be presented. When the real photos surfaced years later, it was evident the artist had been instructed to alter the appearance of the photos.
- Earl Warren and his Commission had a mandated outcome to arrive at, which they did so despite massive evidence to the contrary. Warren knew very well what he and others were doing was false. Arlen Specter was an assistant legal counsel to the Commission and also knew of the need for a predetermined outcome. He later converted to the democratic party as a US Senator. The “good old boys” take care of their own.
- A former CIA team member in Dallas, Marita Lorenz admitted in a letter to JFK’s mother that she had overheard various members of her team bragging about how they were going to kill JFK. She left the team before the assassination, but later on sent the letter of apology to Rose Kennedy.
- Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby before he could talk about his CIA relationships. Oswald knew he had been set up for this hit, and the single shooter scenario was foisted upon the American public to cover for the government hit squads–both of whom were former workers with CIA and the underworld. The close relationship of the CIA with the underworld is detailed in book “Crossfire”.
- Numerous witnesses were badgered and threatened to keep silent, especially the numerous ones who knew about the shots from the grassy knoll. Over 20 witnesses who would not change their stories met with mysterious deaths.”
Lee Harvey Oswald. The Fingerprint of Intelligence
One of the more intriguing and mysterious elements of Lee Oswald’s (1939-1963) incarceration at the Dallas Police Department jail is a couple of telephone calls he attempted to make, one in particular to John David Hurt (1909-1981) of Raleigh, North Carolina on November 23, 1963. This call is yet more evidence of Oswald’s involvement with CIA at the very highest levels of operation.
The story of what has become known as the Raleigh Call begins, for our purposes, on the 5th floor of the Dallas Municipal Building where Alice Swinney (b. 1919) worked as a telephone operator. She had been informed by Dallas Police around 7p that 2 men would visit her if Lee Oswald attempted to make a telephone call.
At around 10:15p a co-worker, Alveeta Treon (1920-1999), arrived to relieve Swinney earlier than her normal 11p. About 10 minutes later 2 unidentified men entered the switchboard room, and setup in the equipment room.
Sometime after 10:30p, a call from Oswald came through the switchboard which both women answered simultaneously. Swinney took charge of the call, but put Oswald on hold while she communicated with the 2 men in the equipment room. They told her not to place the call and to tell Oswald that there was no answer. After returning to Oswald, she informed him that there was no answer.
The details of the requested call from Oswald were preserved by Treon including the annotation that the call was outbound to a John Hurt in Raleigh, NC for which 2 numbers in area code 919 were provided by the caller. Treon saved the card because her daughter, who was with her that night, wanted a souvenir of the historic event.
Word about the call and Treon’s memento surfaced in 1968 and was eventually investigated by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, at which time the 2 operators were interviewed again. Surrell Brady, an attorney working for Robert Blakey, chief counsel for the Committee, investigated the event in greater detail, locating John David Hurt, a non-commissioned officer veteran of World War 2 who had worked in counter intelligence.
He indeed had the number provided by Oswald, but claimed complete ignorance of why he was named by Oswald or why Oswald would have even called. Hurt had fallen on hard times, having lost his job in 1955 and suffered severe psoriasis and arthritis, going on 100% government disability in 1963.
Thus Hurt seems an unlikely candidate as an intelligence operative. However, the significance is not that Oswald tried to contact John Hurt, but that Oswald was attempting to contact a cut-out, a man who in this case was useless. Former CIA agent Victor Marchetti informed Grover Proctor, who has conducted extensive research on the Raleigh Call, that Oswald was attempting to call someone who could put him in touch with people who could help him.
More than likely the man who could help was New York attorney John Abt whom he had attempted to contact earlier that afternoon or evening – sometime during Louise Swinney’s shift and prior to Oswald’s attempted call to Hurt.
Not surprisingly, Oswald could not reach Abt, most likely for the same reason that he could not reach Hurt – Swinney failed to place the call.
Interestingly enough, North Carolina was not terra incognito for Oswald. Proctor uncovered additional evidence showing that Nag’s Head, North Carolina was home of an Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) training site for fake defectors, of whom Oswald was one from 1959-1962 while stationed in the USSR.
Oddly enough, Proctor makes the idiotic, and demonstrably false, claim that there is no evidence of Oswald being involved with the CIA. The facts speak otherwise, beginning with his tour of duty with the US Marines, especially in Japan, then USSR, New Orleans, Dallas, and Mexico City. Oswald worked not only for the CIA, but ONI, FBI, and other US intelligence agencies, possessing the very highest of security clearances. His file at the US State Department eventually caused Otto Otepka to be fired from his job where he had built a sterling reputation until such time as he attempted to follow Department policies in handling Oswald’s highly confidential file.
While many are puzzled by the Raleigh Call, it is not so mysterious. Oswald had been given a bogus cut-out. It is as simple as that. Oswald’s handlers had no intention of giving their agent any help in his framing as the patsy. The operator handling Oswald’s calls was instructed not to place them, and Oswald was given a useless cut-out. He was a doomed man long before November 24, 1963.
In 1960 Lyndon Johnson’s closest political supporters urged him to enter the race when John F. Kennedy emerged as favourite to win the Democratic Party nomination. Sam Rayburn was especially keen for Johnson to defeat Kennedy. So was John Connally who established a Citizens-for-Johnson Committee. As Ralph G. Martin, pointed out, Johnson felt no need to campaign against Kennedy as he was convinced he “would destroy himself on the religious issue”. (1)
Theodore H. White argued in “The Making of the President” that it was impossible for Johnson to win by taking on Kennedy from the beginning. “These men (Johnson, Rayburn and Connally) knew that the Johnson candidacy could not be muscled by seeking individual Convention delegates…. Their plans rested squarely on their control of Congress, on the enormous accumulation of political debts and uncashed obligations that, between them, Johnson and Rayburn had earned over years of the legislative trade.” (2)
It was not until 5th July, 1960, that Johnson finally declared himself an official candidate. Johnson had been forced to leave it as late as this because he was unwilling to resign as Majority leader of the Senate. He therefore had to wait until Rayburn and himself had recessed Congress on 3rd July. Johnson immediately went onto the attack by pointed out that: “Those who have engaged in active campaigns since January have missed hundreds of votes. This I could not do – for my country or my party. Someone had to tend the store.” (3)
Johnson now portrayed the front-runner as being “too young and “too inexperienced” (4) He also tried to get as Kennedy via his father. He described Joe Kennedy as being pro-Hitler. He was therefore opposing John Kennedy as he “did not want any Chamberlain umbrella man!” (5) Johnson also made reference to Kennedy’s health, pointing out that he had Addison’s disease. (6)
Despite this dirty tricks campaign, Johnson was unable to stop Kennedy being nominated. Johnson was obviously upset by this result but comforted himself with the fact that as Majority leader, he remained the second most powerful man in American politics. The great surprise is that Johnson was willing to sacrifice this power in order to become Kennedy’s running-mate.
In his book, The Making of the President, Theodore H. White, expresses shock at both Kennedy’s decision to offer Johnson’s the post, and his eventual acceptance of what appeared to be a demotion. White adds that this mystery will only be solved by “tomorrow’s historians”. (7)
The idea that Johnson should be Kennedy’s running-mate was first suggested by Philip Graham of the Washington Post. Graham, the key figure in the CIA’s Operation Mockingbird, had been campaigning strongly for Johnson to get the nomination. However, when Graham arrived at the Democratic Party Convention in Los Angeles on 8th July, Johnson told him that Kennedy would win by a landslide. Graham then had a meeting with Robert Kennedy and was finally convinced that Johnson had indeed lost his race to be the presidential candidate.
According to Katharine Graham, her husband and Joe Alsop, arranged a meeting with John Kennedy on 11th July. Alsop started the conversation with the following comment: “We’ve come to talk to you about the vice-presidency. Something may happen to you, and Symington is far too shallow a puddle for the United States to dive into.” Graham then explained the advantages that Johnson would “add to the ticket”. What is more, it would remove Johnson as leader of the Senate. (8)
Kennedy agreed that Johnson would be a great asset. He knew that Johnson could deliver Texas. As Victor Lasky pointed out: “Every phase of the state’s election machinery from precinct tally clerk to the State Board of Canvassers was in the hands of Organization (read LBJ) Democrats.” (9)
Hugh Sidey of Time Magazine, interviewed Kennedy on the eve of the Los Angeles convention. He later claimed that Kennedy told him: “if I had my choice I would have Lyndon Johnson as my running mate. And I’m going to offer it to him, but he isn’t going to take it.” (10)
After the meeting with Graham and Alsop, Kennedy told his aide, Kenneth P. O’Donnell, that it made sense to have Johnson on the ticket but he knew that he would never accept the position as it would mean he would lose his powerful position in the Senate. Kennedy assured O’Donnell that Stuart Symington, “who was acceptable to both the labor leaders and the Southerners” would be his running-mate. (11)
The mystery that has to be explained is not that Johnson was offered the post, but that he accepted it. Bobby Baker has provided an interesting account of the discussions that went on about the possibility of Johnson becoming Kennedy’s running-mate. Baker describes how Johnson told him that Kennedy was coming to see him at his hotel. John Connally was of the opinion that Kennedy would offer him the job. Johnson asked Baker what he should do. Baker replied: “It’s no disgrace to hold the second highest office in the land and be one heartbeat away from the presidency.” Connally added that Johnson would be able to deliver Texas for Kennedy.
At this stage Johnson appeared to be against the idea. He told Baker that he would have “trouble with some of my Texas friends if I decide to run.” Sam Rayburn was one of these “Texas friends” who was strongly opposed to the suggestion that Johnson should become Kennedy’s running-mate. He quoted another Texan, John Nance Garner, who held the post under Franklin D. Roosevelt, as saying: “The office ain’t worth a pitcher of warm spit.” However, according to Baker, John Connally and Phil Graham “worked on” Rayburn until he “came round” to the idea that Johnson should become Kennedy’s running-mate.
There still remained a significant number of opponents to Johnson’s strategy. Baker adds in his autobiography that “several Texas congressmen, spoiled by LBJ’s special attentions to their pet legislative schemes, begged him not to leave his powerful Senate post.” (12)
According to Baker, one of Johnson’s political friends resorted to threats of violence against Johnson if he became the vice-presidential candidate. This was oil millionaire, Robert S. Kerr. In their book, The Case Against Congress, Drew Pearson and Jack Anderson claim that “Robert S. Kerr, oil millionaire, uranium king, cattle baron and Senator from Oklahoma… dominated the Senate’s back rooms in the late 1950s and early 1960s.” (13) Pearson and Anderson point out that Kerr main concern in Congress was to preserve the oil depletion allowance.
In “Wheeling and Dealing” Baker described what happened when Kerr arrived at the meeting in Johnson’s hotel room: “Kerr literally was livid. There were angry red splotches on his face. He glared at me, at LBJ, and at Lady Bird. ‘Get me my .38,’ he yelled. ‘I’m gonna kill every damn one of you. I can’t believe that my three best friends would betray me.’ Senator Kerr did not seem to be joking. As I attempted to calm him he kept shouting that we’d combined to ruin the Senate, ruin ourselves, and ruin him personally.”
Johnson responded to this outburst by telling Baker to take Kerr in the bathroom and “explain things to him”. Baker did this and after hearing about the reasons for Johnson’s decision to accept the post, “Senator Kerr put a burly arm around me and said, “Son, you are right and I was wrong. I’m sorry I mistreated you.”
What did Baker tell Kerr that dramatically changed his mind on this issue? According to Baker, he told Kerr: “If he’s elected vice-president, he’ll be an excellent conduit between the White House and the Hill.” What is more, if Kennedy is defeated, Johnson can blame it on Kennedy’s religion and be the likely victor in the attempt to be the Democratic Party candidate in the 1964 election. (14)
Kerr would have been well aware of this argument before he entered the bathroom with Baker. If Kerr did change his mind about Johnson’s becoming Kennedy’s running-mate, then Baker told him something else in the bathroom. Maybe he explained that Johnson would become president before 1964.
What we do know is that Kennedy’s close political advisers were shocked when Johnson accepted the post. They, like Kennedy himself, expected him to reject the offer. Why would Johnson give up his position as the second most powerful position in the country? Kenneth P. O’ Donnell was highly suspicious of Johnson’s motives. When he mentioned this to Kennedy he replied: “I’m forty-three years old, and I’m the healthiest candidate for President in the United States. You’ve traveled with me enough to know that. I’m not going to die in office. So the Vice-Presidency doesn’t mean anything. I’m thinking of something else, the leadership in the Senate. If we win, it will be by a small margin and I won’t be able to live with Lyndon Johnson as the leader of a small majority in the Senate.” (15)
The problem with this argument is that Johnson was also aware that as Vice President he would lose his political power. This is why Kennedy told his aides that Johnson would turn the offer down. Yet there is evidence that Johnson was desperate to become Kennedy’s running-mate. One of Kennedy’s most important advisers, Hyman Raskin, claims that Kennedy had a meeting with Johnson and Rayburn early on the morning after his nomination. According to all other sources, at this time, these two men were strongly opposed to the idea of Johnson becoming Kennedy’s running-mate. However, Kennedy told Raskin a different story. Johnson was very keen to join the ticket and “made an offer he could not refuse”. Raskin took this to mean that Kennedy was blackmailed into offering Johnson the post. (16)
This view is supported by another of Kennedy’s close advisers. Pierre Salinger was opposed to the idea of Johnson being Kennedy’s running-mate. He believed that the decision would lose more votes than it would gain. Salinger believed that Kennedy would lose the support of blacks and trade unionists if Johnson became the vice-presidential candidate. Although Johnson would deliver Texas his place on the ticket would mean Kennedy would lose California. A few days after the decision had been made, Salinger asked Kennedy why? He replied, “The whole story will never be known. And it’s just as well that it won’t be.” Salinger also got the impression that Kennedy had been blackmailed into accepting Johnson. (17)
Kennedy must have been very concerned about this development. Why would Johnson blackmail him into accepting a post that had less power than the one that he already had? It only made sense if Johnson was going to continue using this strategy as vice president. Maybe this was only the first of many threats of blackmail. Would Johnson use his position to force Kennedy to appoint his friends such as John Connally and Fred Korth to important positions in his administration?
Kennedy must also have considered another possibility. Did Johnson plan to replace him as president? This seems to have been on Kennedy’s mind when he told Kenneth O’Donnell that he did not intend to die in office.
Given these events, it is possible that the assassination of John F. Kennedy was considered as early as 1960. If so, it is important to look closely at those people who played important roles in obtaining for Johnson the post of vice president.
Foreknowledge of the Assassination?
One of the more amusing events involved in assassination studies occurred when Liz Smith, a syndicated columnist, apprised her readers that, although she had always taken for granted that The Warren Report (1964) was right and that Oswald had been a lone assassin, after reading Noel Twyman, Bloody Treason (1997), she was no longer sure. This provoked an outraged response from Jack Valenti, the Hollywood Czar and former aide to LBJ, who proclaimed that there was a simple way to know for sure no conspiracy had been involved, namely: that, if there had been a conspiracy, someone would have talked — and no one has talked! The possibility of a small scale conspiracy or that most of the conspirators might have been eliminated right away to keep things quiet may have escaped him, but for a conspiracy of any magnitude–involving dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of people–what Valenti said may have seemed to be right. Of course, that presumes Valenti knew what he was talking about.
On a single page of Bloody Treason (1997, p. 285), for example, Noel lists eight names of prominent persons who have talked, including Mafia Dons Carlos Marcello and Santo Trafficante, Jr.; right-wing extremist Joseph Milteer; mobster Johnny Roselli; high ranking CIA official David Atlee Phillips; his old boss, Lyndon Baines Johnson; CIA contract agent and professional anti-Communist Frank Sturgis; and Sam Giancanna, who confessed the complicity of the mob in collusion with the CIA to his brother, Chuck. If Valenti cared about the truth in a matter of this kind, then he might have wanted to read Twyman’s book before he set out to trash it, or visited his local book store and picked up a copy of Double Cross (1992)
These are hardly the only persons to have talked about the assassination. Jim Hicks, for example, who bears a striking resemblance to someone photographed outside of the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City impersonating Lee Oswald, was photographed in Dealey Plaza with an antenna hanging out of his pocket and claims to have been a communications coordinator for the killing. Charles Harrelson, serving a life term for the assassination of a federal judge with a high – powered rifle, once confessed to having killed Kennedy, by which I take it he meant he had fired the fatal shot. Chauncey Holt, a counterfeiter who worked as a contract agent for the CIA, has told me he was instructed to bring 15 sets of forged Secret Service credentials to Dealey Plaza, which he dutifully prepared, but that, in light of his extensive experience with the underworld, he thought it was not a mob hit but rather a military operation. I now suspect that Chauncey was correct.
And there are others. Perhaps the most interesting is Madeleine Duncan Brown, a former mistress of LBJ by whom she had a son, who was not LBJ’s only offspring out of wedlock but was his only son. Among the fascinating details she conveys in a book of their affair, Texas in the Morning (1997), is that Lyndon told her, at a social, event the night before the murder at the home of oil baron Clint Murchison, that after tomorrow he would not have to put up with embarrassment from those Kennedy boys any longer. And that, during a New Year’s Eve rendezvous at The Driskill Hotel in Austin, when she confronted him with rumors (rampant in Dallas at the time) that he had been involved (since no one stood to gain more personally), he blew up at her and told her that the CIA and the oil boys had decided that Jack had to be taken out – which is about as close as we are going to get to the font
Stories abound of those who expressed foreknowledge of the JFK assassination. Do these stories indicate actual awareness of the coming murder, or are they urban legends? If some of them do indicate foreknowledge, what does this contribute to an understanding of who was behind the Kennedy assassination?
Predictions of Joseph Milteer – Examines the tape-recorded predictions of right-wing extremist Joseph Milteer.
The Odio Incident – Who were the three men who visited Silvia Odio in late September of 1963, one of whom was introduced as “Leon Oswald”?
Rose Cherami – Did Rose Cherami, in hospital after being struck by an automobile, tell hospital workers that Kennedy would be killed in Dallas?
Allegations of PFC Eugene Dinkin – Why did Eugene Dinkin, a cryptographic operator stationed in France, go AWOL just weeks before the JFK assassination?
Homer Echevarria – Taking Care of Kennedy – An informant reported that Cuban exile Homer Echevarria said, on November 21 1963, discussed what would happen “as soon as we take care of Kennedy.”
Richard Case Nagell – The Man Who Knew Too Much – Was decorated Korean War veteran Richard Case Nagell an undercover agent who knew Oswald, or was he out of his mind?
Other incidents of note include the Parrot Jungle incident, the Kirknewton intercept, the “Grimsby call,” and the allegations of Elizabeth Cole, Karyn Kupcinet, and Adele Edison. See also: Gilberto Alvarado Allegation and Luisa Calderon Foreknowledge Allegation.
The motorcade route was changed at the last minute and the assassination occurred on the changed part.
Think about it. As Chief of Police Jesse Curry confirmed in his JFK Assassination File (1969), which I discuss elsewhere in this volume, it was not until 18 November 1963 that the final motorcade route was settled at a meeting between representatives of the Police Department and the Secret Service, when it was agreed that the motorcade would take a right off Main Street onto Houston and a very sharp left onto Urn en route to the Trade Mart, where JFK~ was scheduled to present a luncheon speech. At the turn from Houston onto Elm, remarkably, the motorcade was considered over and local security was no longer provided. This appears to be such a transparent pretext for disavowing responsibility for the President’s security by the Dallas Police as to be indicative of what is known in the law as “consciousness of guilt” in failing to take or in taking measures that ordinarily would or would not be taken–save for knowledge of the circumstances of a crime
Indeed, the revised motorcade route was never published in the newspapers, which raises a fascinating question, namely: How did the alleged assassin even know that the President would pass by the Texas School Book Depository in order for him to shoot him? In an interesting study, “The Mathematical Improbability of the Kennedy Assassination,” The Dealey Plaza Echo (November 1999), pp. 2-6, Ed Dorsch, Jr., has calculated that the probability of Oswald and JFK coming within 100 yards of each other at random during his Presidency is approximately 1 in 1 hundred billion! This suggests an encounter by the two was almost certainly no accident, yet Oswald had no reason to know he would only have to show up for work to have the chance to shoot JFK — and his wife even said that he had overslept! A more plausible explanation is that their proximity was not a matter of chance but was coordinated by plans about which Oswald had no knowledge and over which he had no control.
Secret Service policies for the protection of the President were massively violated during the motorcade in Dallas.
More than a dozen Secret Service policies for the protection of the President seem to have been violated during the motorcade in Dallas, including no protective military presence; no coverage of open windows; motorcycles out of position; agents not riding on the Presidential limousine; vehicles in improper sequence; utilization of an improper route, which included a turn of more than 900; limousine slowed nearly to a halt at the corner of Houston and Elm; the limousine came to a halt after bullets began to be fired; agents were virtually unresponsive; brains and blood were washed from the limousine at Parkland, even before the President had been pronounced dead; the limousine was stripped down and being rebuilt already Monday, the day of the formal state funeral; a substitute windshield was later produced as evidence; and so on–discoveries that are strengthened and extended by Vincent Palamara and Douglas Weldon, J.D., in this book.
As an illustration, consider the sequence of vehicles. As the accompanying diagram displays (see Richard F. Sprague, Computers and Automation May 1970, pp. 48-49), the Presidential limousine was the lead vehicle in the motorcade, followed by the Secret Service ~~ Queen Mary,” the Vice-Presidential limousine, the Vice-President’s security, then the Mayor, some dignitaries, Press Car #1, Press Car #2, and so on, which is completely absurd. A proper motorcade would have the lower-ranking dignitaries early on, then those in between, and finally the highest official, who would naturally be surrounded by the press, who were there, after all, to cover a political event! In this case, however, everything was wrong — even though, as Richard Trask, Pictures of the Pain (1994), p. 45, has observed, the vehicles were identified with numerals, where the Mayor’s car, for example, was marked with a number “1” on its windshield. Indeed, the President’s personal physician, Admiral Burkley, was in the very last car!
Congress passed the JFK Act of 1992. One month later, the Secret Service began its compliance efforts. However, in January 1995, the Secret Service destroyed presidential protection survey reports for some of President Kennedy’s trips in the fall of 1963. The Review Board learned of the destruction approximately one week after the Secret Service destroyed them, when the Board was drafting its request for additional information. The Board believed that the Secret Service files on the President’s travel in the weeks preceding his murder would be relevant
—-From the ARRB Final Report (1998), p. 149.
This had to be deliberate, it had to be wrong, and everyone involved with security had to know that it was wrong. In this regard, one of the most remarkable paragraphs in the Final Report of the Assassination Records Review Board (1998) is the following:
Here again we appear to be confronted with one more indication of consciousness of guilt, which we must add to other indications of Secret Service complicity in the death of JFK.
Those who defend the Warren Commission’s lone gunman thesis point to key items of physical evidence tying Oswald to the crime. But skeptics point to evidence which exonerates Oswald. They can’t both be right.
One possibility is that some of the evidence itself is planted, lied about, or tampered with.
An example of the conundrum: CE 399, “the magic bullet,” has markings tying it to the rifle was found on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository, attributed to Oswald. But Oswald’s cheek failed a paraffin test given to see if he had fired a rifle that day, and CE 399 itself was found mysteriously on a hospital stretcher more than an hour after the shooting. Was CE 399 fired from the rifle at an earlier date and then planted on the hospital stretcher?
Serious allegations of tampering have been made regarding the following items of physical evidence, among others. The arguments in each case are largely circumstantial, and have varying degrees of support.
- CE 399 – The “magic bullet” found on a stretcher in Parkland Hospital, with rifle markings tying it to the “Oswald” rifle.
- Cartridges – Only two cartridges were turned over by the Dallas Police to the FBI initially, with a third coming later. This cartridge is dented in such a way that it could not now be fired.
- Paper bag – The paper bag purportedly used by Oswald to carry the rifle into the TSBD building.
- Bullet fragments – The fragments taken from victims, Governor Connally in particular.
- Windshield – The windshield from the Presidential limousine, showing only a crack where some witnesses claim to have seen a through-and-through hole.
- Tippit murder cartridges – Cartridge cases found at the scene of the murder of Officer Tippit.
- “Backyard” photos – Photos of Oswald holding a rifle and pistol were disputed by Oswald himself.
- Autopsy photos & X-rays – Photographs and X-rays of the JFK autopsy held by the National Archives, including brain photos from a supplemental exam.
- Zapruder film – Recently some have even questioned the authenticity of the Zapruder film home movie of the assassination.
- Kennedy’s body – David Lifton has explained the discrepancy in medical reporting between Dallas and Bethesda as due to alteration of the President’s body prior to autopsy.
Video & Photo Editing by the CIA
Oswald was in the Doorway
At 12:30 PM on 22 November 1963, Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway of the Texas School Book Depository watching the Presidential motorcade, and he was captured on film by James “Ike” Altgens of the Associated Press. Although the issue has been disputed for decades, there is now abundant and compelling evidence which proves –beyond all reasonable doubt — that Lee was the “Man in the Doorway” in the famous Altgens photo (seen below), where he is standing next to the white column on the left.
The area within the red rectangle in the image above is enlarged below.
Dr. Jerome Corsi and researcher Ralph C. Cinque examine evidence at photographic manipulation related to the CIA and FBI’s investigation of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. Cinque shows that Lee Harvey Oswald was standing in the doorway at the moment JFK was shot and that the Altgens photo was altered to hide the face of Billy Lovelady (who was standing next to Oswald – Lovelady himself confirmed this), another worker at the Texas School Book Depository who allegedly looked similar to Oswald, and that Oswald’s photo was also altered to look more like Lovelady. Watch below:
“The evidence is that Oswald was in front of the building. There were people who saw him in front of the building. I am satisfied in my own mind from Secret Service evidence and other evidence that Lee Harvey Oswald was the Man in the Doorway.” Professor Gerald McKnight
Was the Zapruder film altered?
Since The Warren Report (1964) published many of the frames of the Zapruder film and placed heavy reliance upon its authenticity in arriving at its conclusions about how many shots were fired and the time it took to fire them, if the photographic evidence is flawed, then the Commission’s conclusions are equally in doubt. And, indeed, there are many reasons to question the authenticity of the Zapruder film as well as much of the other photographic evidence. In his major study of the assassination of JFK, Bloody Treason (1997), Noel Twyman reports consulting with Roderick Ryan, a leading technical expert on motion picture film. Twyman had been puzzled by the discovery of numerous anomalies in the film, including blurred stationary background figures but sharp focus of the limousine in frame 302 versus the sharp focus of both in frame 303
When Twyman asked Ryan how this could be explained, he stated, “the limousine is moving in 302 and standing still in 303” (Twyman 1997, p. 150). And when Twyman asked him about the mysterious ~’blob” that seems to shift around from frame to frame immediately after the fatal head shot at frame 313, Ryan told him “it looked as if the blobs had been painted in” (Twyman 1997, p. 151). [Editor’s note: The cover highlights “the blob” and Jackie’s face, which also seems to be painted in.] Ryan’s opinions are all the more important insofar as they corroborate conclusions about film alteration that had been drawn independently by Jack White and by David Mantik, initially in Part IV of Assassination Science (1998) and now in Part V of the current volume. Dr. Ryan received an Oscar for his technical contributions to the motion picture industry during the April 2000 Academy Awards
Among the most remarkable discoveries of the ARRB, moreover, was locating two persons who worked on processing a home movie of the assassination at the National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC) run by the CIA the weekend of the murder. This movie, which appears to have been the “out-of-camera” original of the Zapruder film, was studied by Homer McMahon, who was in charge of the color laboratory at the time. He has reported that, after viewing it at least 10 times, he had concluded that JFK was hit 6 or 8 times from at least three directions, a conclusion subsequently dismissed by Secret Service Agent William Smith, who declared that MeMahon had to be mistaken because only three shots had been fired from above and behind, an opinion he had reached without interviews conducted for the ARRB by Douglas Home and published here.
Research commissioned by the Discovery Channel for a special on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy has inadvertently solved a mystery that has perplexed researchers and fueled vitriolic debate in recent years.
The discovery presents problem for the U.S. government by confirming that key photographic evidence of the assassination was altered and fabricated to implicate the alleged assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, who was himself gunned down two days later by Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby.
The authenticity of “the Zapruder film” (with its “back and to the left”, describing Kennedy’ head movement after a fatal shot made famous by Oliver Stone’s “JFK”) has been a heated topic in the research community.
At least four books have included studies offering proofs that it has been faked. None of them, however, were as obvious and elegant as this. The special, “Death in Dealey Plaza,” aired on the U.S. Discovery Channel on February 26 and March 1, and on the Australian Discovery Channel on November 4, 5, and 15.
A Polaroid photograph taken by Dallas resident Mary Ann Moorman on Elm Street in Dealey Plaza, Dallas on November 22, 1963 shows the President slumping in reaction to a gunshot, as well as the infamous “grassy knoll” in the background.
Moorman had driven to Dealey Plaza with her friend, Jean Lollis Hill, to see the presidential motorcade. They chose a location on the south side of Elm Street, down the hill from the Texas School Book Depository, where there were few spectators to block their view. The Discovery Channel commissioned a reconstruction of the Moorman Polaroid, using a camera identical to Moorman’s. Gary Mack, JFK historian and the Archivist for The Sixth Floor Museum located in Dealey Plaza, worked with Discovery Channel researchers to ensure that Moorman’s location was precisely that shown in the Zapruder film, that three men seen standing on the steps in the background of the Moorman Polaroid were re-created accurately, and that the settings of the Polaroid camera matched those of Mary Moorman’s on the day of the assassination.
The research presented was intended to determine why possible shooters on the grassy knoll are so difficult to see in the Moorman Polaroid. But the reconstruction has inadvertently answered a more important question: where was Mary Moorman standing when she took her Polaroid?
Dallas Times-Herald, published on the day of the assassination, reported that Mary Moorman and Jean Hill were standing in the street when Mary took her photograph. Moorman herself repeated the claim when interviewed by Charley Jones on News Radio 1080 KRLD, broadcast live from The Sixth Floor Museum in 1997.
The Zapruder film, however, shows her standing still on the grass at the time she snapped the Polaroid. (See Figure 1 above.)
Jean Hill told authorities after the assassination that she had called to the President to get his attention, a claim repeated by Mary Moorman herself in the Discovery Channel special. In a 1965 letter to historian Richard B. Trask, Hill stated that she had “jumped into the street and yelled, ‘Mr. President, we want to take your picture!'” This is rather striking, because the Zapruder film shows Hill standing completely still on the grass, with hands clasped, and only snapping her head toward the President at the last moment. It constitutes a proof that the film has been faked on its own.
Continued on next page…