Leavelle's "Report on officer's duties in regards to Officer Tippit's murder," describing events that occurred 11/22-23/63, is worth a read. Statements at the top of the second page are on point.
Det. L. C. Graves and I then took Helen Markham to her home in Oak Cliff. We stopped at the used car lot, 501 E. Jefferson, where we talked with the manager, Ted Calloway [sic], who told me he had seen the suspect running from the scene with a gun in his hand and how he was dressed--with dark trousers, shirt light color, jacket and a T shirt; that the shirt and jacket were open and he could see the T shirt. A colored porter, Sam Guinyard, of Waxahachie, Texas said he also saw the suspect and could identify him. I also talked with another employee of the lot, Domingo Benavides, 509 E. Jefferson, who said he went to the scene of the shooting and picked up two empty hulls and gave them to Officer Poe.
If Benavides had eyewitness credentials this was a good time to declare them but he did not.
To sum things up, nothing prior to Benavides' WC testimony establishes his role as a murder eyewitness, not even his own statements, and Leavelle's reports establish the opposite. Reasons for Benavides' eventual elevation into the role were simple & cogent. It kept Bowley & his watch at bay while precluding the presence of a second assailant.
One senses there was a subornation sweepstakes between Callaway & Benavides. The former blew billows of smoke to which the latter held up a cracked mirror, hence his WC undermining of Callaway's tale.
03-05-2018, 05:42 PM (This post was last modified: 04-05-2018, 05:03 PM by James Lateer.)
To me, the big picture is this:
1) Tippit had been paid or coerced into murdering Oswald.
2) The plan was to have Oswald "shot while escaping." This can be concluded because there was no reason to have Oswald arrested, interrogated for two days without any transcripts and then murdered in the police station. The fact that this occured means something went wrong in the planning.
3) Tippit was under orders from the top DPD officials like the mayor and Detective Fritz.
4) The rank and file DID NOT WANT THE DPD TO KILL OSWALD. The DPD had ample warning about the upcoming assassination and made that decision collectively.
5) The DPD followed orders in driving Oswald to the car of Tippit. Since Tippit was killed with ammo of two different brands, this means the DPD AND OSWALD both killed Tippit.
6) The real clincher is this: in the Texas Theater, LHO pulled A LOADER REVOLVER on the police. As we know today, if you pull a loaded revolver on a number of armed policemen, you will look like a Swiss cheese pretty quickly. The fact that the Dallas Police risked their lives to disarm Oswald proves they did not want the responsiblity of killing him.
7) The rank and file of the DPD got their way. The DPD was not considered responsible (and hence not legally guilty) of the murder of Oswald, but that was put on Jack Ruby.
8) Oswald was proven to have fired a pistol by the paraffin tests. But there were two brands of bullets and shell casings. The only way you could have that is if the DPD also fired on Tippit. You did not have "concealed carry" back in the day. So no civilians would just happen by with a gun in hand to shoot bullits that hit Officer Tippit.
In my mind, if you follow the mindset of the people involved on 11-22-63, you can learn as much as you might learn from the forensics.
03-05-2018, 07:23 PM (This post was last modified: 03-05-2018, 07:39 PM by Alan Ford.)
Well said, Mr. Lateer, especially your No. 1 in your numeric points listed. That is a likely scenario.
Another one I've been mulling over and over with for some time now is the possibility that Tippitt never knew what hit him, meaning he was cleverly coaxed into position for his own demise, because those in the know wanted his physical attributes for nefarious purposes as they conned a nation with a bogus autopsy to meet their contrived wishes.
[/FONT]Combing through some of the earlier reports that day, I actually came across a photo of a downed Stop sign right there at the corner of 10th & Patton...
*Credit The portal to Texas History
According to their records developed that very afternoon Tippitt met his demise just some 132 feet from this very corner (10th & Patton)
Somebody was trying to get out of Dodge pronto.
It's too bad those charged w/investigating the actual events of 10th & Patton completely ignored Mr. Wright's keen observations that afternoon. His observations were corroborated by another eyewitness on scene that afternoon, who the commission also chose to ignore.
Milo Reech Wrote:Leavelle's "Report on officer's duties in regards to Officer Tippit's murder," describing events that occurred 11/22-23/63, is worth a read. Statements at the top of the second page are on point.
Det. L. C. Graves and I then took Helen Markham to her home in Oak Cliff. We stopped at the used car lot, 501 E. Jefferson, where we talked with the manager, Ted Calloway [sic], who told me he had seen the suspect running from the scene with a gun in his hand and how he was dressed--with dark trousers, shirt light color, jacket and a T shirt; that the shirt and jacket were open and he could see the T shirt. A colored porter, Sam Guinyard, of Waxahachie, Texas said he also saw the suspect and could identify him. I also talked with another employee of the lot, Domingo Benavides, 509 E. Jefferson, who said he went to the scene of the shooting and picked up two empty hulls and gave them to Officer Poe.
If Benavides had eyewitness credentials this was a good time to declare them but he did not.
To sum things up, nothing prior to Benavides' WC testimony establishes his role as a murder eyewitness, not even his own statements, and Leavelle's reports establish the opposite. Reasons for Benavides' eventual elevation into the role were simple & cogent. It kept Bowley & his watch at bay while precluding the presence of a second assailant.
One senses there was a subornation sweepstakes between Callaway & Benavides. The former blew billows of smoke to which the latter held up a cracked mirror, hence his WC undermining of Callaway's tale.
Milo... thanks for the well presented concept. (Leavelle's barely legible report at the bottom)
The idea that Benavides was elevated to a witness to shield us from BOWLEY's timestamp, and all the witnesses of 2 men is sound to me although the statements and timings are all in evidence so I don't see what that accomplished..
He gives testimony in April of 1964 yet his twin brother had just been killed in a bar fight in February (from Gary Murr "The Murder of Dallas Police Officer JD Tippit" 1971)
One would think that the fear involved was more than enough to have Domingo add detail to his testimony
Up to the following description of his hair what does DB say?
Mr. BELIN - What else did you see? Mr. BENAVIDES - Then I seen the man turn and walk back to the sidewalk and go on the sidewalk and he walked maybe 5 foot and then kind of stalled. He didn't exactly stop. And he threw one shell and must have took five or six more steps and threw the other shell up, and then he kind of stepped up to a pretty good trot going around the corner.
We will see below that this line of testimony had to have been fed to him... there was a 4th shot to his head while he was on the ground... but DB doesn't recall this
Mr. BELIN - Let me ask you now, I would like to have you relate again the action of the man with the gun as you saw him now. Mr. BENAVIDES - As I saw him, I really---I mean really got a good view of the man after the bullets were fired, he had just tuned. He was just turning away. In other words, he was pointing toward the officer, and he had just turned away to his left, and then he started. There was a big tree, and it seemed like he started back going to the curb of the street and into the sidewalk, and then he turned and went down the sidewalk to, well, until he got in front of the corner house, and then he turned to the left there and went on down Patton Street.
Mr. BENAVIDES - Well, he was kind of, well, just about your size. Mr. BELIN - About my size? I am standing up. Mr. BENAVIDES - You are about 5' 10"? Mr. BELIN - I am between 5' 10" and 5' 11". Closer to 5' 11", I believe.
Mr. BELIN - What color hair did he have? Mr. BENAVIDES - Oh, dark. I mean not dark. Mr. BELIN - Black hair? Mr. BENAVIDES - No. Not black or brown, just kind of a---- Mr. BELIN - My color hair? Mr. BENAVIDES - Yes. Mr. BELIN - You say he is my size, my weight, and my color hair? Mr. BENAVIDES - He kind of looks like---well, his hair was a little bit curlier.
Mr. BENAVIDES - Later on that evening, about 4 o'clock, there was two officers came by and asked for me, Mr. Callaway asked me---I had told them that I had seen the officer, and the reporters were there and I was trying to hide from the reporters because they will just bother you all the time. Then I found out that they thought this was the guy that killed the President. At the time I didn't know the President was dead or he had been shot. I was just trying to hide from the reporters and everything, and these two officers came around and asked me if I'd seen him, and I told him yes, and told them what I had seen, and they asked me if I could identify him, and I said I don't think I could. It this time I was sure, I wasn't sure that I could or not. I wasn't going to say I could identify and go down and couldn't have. Mr. BELIN - Did he ever take you to the police station and ask you if you could identify him? Mr. BENAVIDES - No; they didn't.
====================
DJ: So we have a man who probably did not see much of anything while ducked down in his truck simply say he could not ID the man... except the "anything else" which he adds virtually disqualifies Oswald...
I guess I am having a hard time seeing where he was "elevated" and how anything he says disqualifies BOWLEY and MARKHAM ???
The detail he adds disqualifies Oswald as the suspect...??? Oswald's hair tapers off and is not squared off So if he's going to help out... what's he doing?
It is obvious from this question that they are fine with what they've asked already....
Mr. BELIN - Okay, well, I thank you. I was flying from St. Louis to Des Moines, Iowa. at about this time. Is there anything else?
So, one thing that always has bothered me about him was he only hers 3 shots and does not describe a very key action by "the suspect" as recounted by Jack TATUM... Tippit was shot FOUR TIMES, not 3... 3 times to the upper chest, then a delay and a 4th shot to the right front with virtually the same path as the JFK shot
BAYLOR UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER Wednesday, Feb. 1st, 1978. OFFICE OF PHOTO DEPARTMENT OF HOBIEZELLE HOSPITAL 3500 GASTON AVE, DALLAS, TEXAS. Investigators Jack Moriarty and Joe Basteri, menders of the Select Committee on Assassinations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington., D.C. are in the office of the Director of Photography of the hospital mentioned above, and Mr. JACK RAY TATUM, The Director, has been interviewed with regard to his first hand knowledge, of the Fatal shooting of Officer J.D. Tippit, here in Dallas, Friday, November 22nd, 1963. Mr. Tatum will reiterate his statement to be reduced to typewritten form (By Moriarty) "Mr. Tatum, if you'll repeat your statement slowly, I'll attempt to type it." Although I did not remember the exact time I remember it was early in the afternoon on Friday, November 22, 1963. I was driving XXXX north on Denver and stopped at 10th St. when I first saw the squad car and men walking on the sidewalk near the squad car. Both the squad car and this young white male were coming in my direction(East on 10th Street). At the time I was just approaching the squad car, I noticed this young white male with both hands in the pockets of his zippered jacket leaning over the passenger side of the squad car. This young white male was looking into the squad car from the passenger side. The next thing I knew I heard something that sounded like gun shots as I approached the intersection. (10th & Patton). I heard three shots in rapid (illegible)I went right through the intersection, stopped my car and turned to look back. I then saw the officer lying on the street and saw this young white man standing near the front of the squad car. Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street. At that point this young man looked around him and then started to walk away in my direction and as he started to break into a small run in my direction, I sped off in my auto. All I saw him to the intersection and run south on Patton towards Jefferson.
Leavelle's report (pretty pathetic copy job, huh?) yet we can make out end of the 5th line from bottom of 1st paragraph: "Another witness .... but did not see suspect, was Domingo Benavides"
Milo - I think we agree... I just don't see the significance... can you help me?
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
James Lateer Wrote:To me, the big picture is this:
1) Tippit had been paid or coerced into murdering Oswald.
2) The plan was to have Oswald "shot while escaping." This can be concluded because there was on reason to have Oswald arrested, interrogated for two days without any transcripts and then murdered in the police station. The fact that this occured means something went wrong in the planning.
3) Tippit was under orders from the top DPD officials like the mayor and Detective Fritz.
4) The rank and file DID NOT WANT THE DPD TO KILL OSWALD. The DPD had ample warning about the upcoming assassination and made that decision collectively.
5) The DPD followed orders in driving Oswald to the car of Tippit. Since Tippit was killed with ammo of two different brands, this means the DPD AND OSWALD both killed Tippit.
6) The real clincher is this: in the Texas Theater, LHO pulled A LOADER REVOLVER on the police. As we know today, if you pull a loaded revolver on a number of armed policemen, you will look like a Swiss cheese pretty quickly. The fact that the Dallas Police risked their lives to disarm Oswald proves they did not want the responsiblity of killing him.
7) The rank and file of the DPD got their way. The DPD was not considered responsible (and hence not legally guilty) of the murder of Oswald, but that was put on Jack Ruby.
8) Oswald was proven to have fired a pistol by the paraffin tests. But there were two brands of bullets and shell casings. The only way you could have that is if the DPD also fired on Tippit. You did not have "concealed carry" back in the day. So no civilians would just happen by with a gun in hand to shoot bullits that hit Officer Tippit.
In my mind, if you follow the mindset of the people involved on 11-22-63, you can learn as much as you might learn from the forensics.
Sure would like to see the basis for these conclusions....
1 - Based on what?
2 - Interesting thought... which "plans" have you been privy to that you can share?
3 - Come on now James... you're just making things up now.... Connect Cabell with Tippit (you are aware there was more than one TIPPIT on the force?) Fritz was Homicide Chief https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html...8&tab=page G M TIPPIT https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html...4&tab=page J D TIPPIT https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html...1&tab=page W W TIPPIT
4 - Kinda cryptic to me James... you honestly think that DPD had choices?
you may wish to look more deeply at ASCI and the reservists LUMPKIN, GANNOWAY, and CRICHTON... Stringfellow as well...
5 - Oswald was most likely driven to the theater in the "honk-honk" police car just after 1pm.
There is simply no way to connect Oswald to Tippit...
6 - Are you sure about that James? All that was said was that they heard a "click" as a misfire... If you read my article on the Pistol and the story of the shells left in the pistol, or not... it may become more clear.
7 - Yes, the DPD served up Oswald for his death... whether that was a Rank and File decision, you'd need to offer something to prove that... or even suggest it
8 - The handling of cardboard and newspaper packing materials will leave the same nitrates on the hands... the problem with that conclusion is he only used one hand to shoot... and the nitrates show up on his PALMS... where the residue would not reach...
I'm sorry to throw in the wrench... I just don't see the same conclusions based on the research available...
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Sorry for the makeshift quote but I keep getting markup errors when trying to quote separate portions of DJ's post #14.
DJ: So we have a man who probably did not see much of anything while ducked down in his truck simply say he could not ID the man... except the "anything else" which he adds virtually disqualifies Oswald...
I guess I am having a hard time seeing where he was "elevated" and how anything he says disqualifies BOWLEY and MARKHAM ??? ...
So, one thing that always has bothered me about him was he only hers 3 shots and does not describe a very key action by "the suspect" as recounted by Jack TATUM... Tippit was shot FOUR TIMES, not 3... 3 times to the upper chest, then a delay and a 4th shot to the right front with virtually the same path as the JFK shot ...
Milo - I think we agree... I just don't see the significance... can you help me?
See previous post #5. The argument is Benavides was not present on 10th street when Tippit was murdered. He debuted later at the scene. The essay that is the subject of this thread says otherwise.
Reasons why Benavides was called on to supplant (not disqualify) Bowley for the sake of WR:
1. Bowley's Ruby connection.
2. Bowley looked at his watch & remembered the time.
Therefore Bowley was removed from the scene and Benavides was assigned to make the radio call. At some point his role was elevated into eyewitness status (see "Eyewitnesses" WR p.166 -- he's #2). A side effect was heading off the presence of a second assailant, notwithstanding discrepancies & quirks in his WC testimony. As to disqualifying Markham, I'm trying to help, but I don't see where it happened. Maybe you can help me?
Forget about Tatum. He didn't witness the murder either. The belated coup-de-grace to the head is nonsense. Moriarty fudged the whole thing.
See: https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...Jack-Tatum
Tatum is not mentioned by name in the essay, although there's an anonymous reference in section VI.
If you see no significance in setting facts straight, why did you put so much effort into your splendid analysis of the Mexico City episode?
In response to questions regarding the above Oswald-Tippit theory posed by Mr. Josephs:
True confession: I have never worked as a homicide investigator. My only credentials are (1) I watched nearly every show on the O J Simpson case (for many months) featuring Geraldo Rivera back in the 1990's and (2) am am currently reading book #180 on the general subject of the JFK assassination and related 1950's and 1960's history.
Everyone on this website probably has more details at their fingertips than I do regarding the forensics and witnesses in the JFK case. Frankly, I have not directed my research into the details of the forensics, although I feel that the two best books on that aspect are The Man Who Knew Too Much by Dick Russell and LBJ: Mastermind of the JFK Assassination by Philip Nelson.
If JFK buffs are waiting for a smoking gun or documentary evidence or a confession to solve the JFK case, I think we never see it even if we live to age 105. However, the good news is that we don't really need a smoking gun, a confession or documentary proof.
In A Simple Act of Murder by Mark Fuhrman, he demonstrates how a veteran detective can take an issue like the magic bullet theory and disprove it by applying his experience and sound logic.
Not to claim that I am any Sherlock Holmes, but it those type of murder mysteries, the hero of the book is the genius investigator like Piorot and Shirlock Holmes. They solve cases by lining up the facts in such a way that unexplained facts are explained.
In my opinion, Dr. Jeffry Caufield in General Walker...offers the only good explanation as to why Oswald was in a voter registration drive in Clinton, Louisiana. Likewise, even if you consider her work as fiction, Judyth Vary Baker offers the only theory (in my opinion) which explains Oswald's trip to the Jackson Louisiana Mental Hospital. Finally, Mikhail Lebedev (which is explicitly presented as fiction) offers the only explanation which ties Eastern European issues directly to the assassination.
Once we feel that we have an overall concept of the assassination plot, then the intermediate facts and evidence begin (in my experience) to fit into place much more easily.
In my posting above, I just asked the question: "was Oswald's detention at the Police Station for two days, and murder on live TV part of the plan?" Or was it evidence that the plan had gone awry.
Every little bit of new evidence (to me) provides another dot in the process of connecting the dots. You have to have a lot of dots in your head before you can connect the dots. Not all the dots are (or will ever be) out on the table as raw material.
The most recent new important information released (in 2017) was the fact that Dallas Mayor Earle Cabell had been a CIA asset as early as the mid-1950's. That new fact influences my speculation that the nucleus of the Dallas part of the plot was probably Mayor Cabell, Sorrels, Fritz, Lumkin, Tippit and similar figures. (The planners would have limited the players to the minimum number required).
We know that Tippit was placed (by the DPD) directly in the path of Oswald's flight and all other police had been ordered to downtown Dallas. Why was he in Oswald's flight path?
I would really like to know the consensus opinion of specialists like Mr. Josephs and other forensic-oriented researchers as to whether Oswald's apprehension and presence in the DPD for two days was (A) part of the plan or (B) evidence of a screw-up.
Just off the top of my head, it would seem like a screw up. But I don't have a lot of details to back that up one way or another.
Milo Reech Wrote:If you see no significance in setting facts straight, why did you put so much effort into your splendid analysis of the Mexico City episode?
Milo.... "If..Then.." statements like the one above begin with one bad mistake... assuming.
I don't know who you are ... you've been lurking since 2016 with only a handful of posts to date... and you feel it important to call me out with a back-handed compliment/insult?
It's obvious you take the case seriously and have a good command of the info.... so I went to your post about Jack Tatum and what do I find? WHY questions... sigh you write:
"There are several problems with this. One is why would the assassin run around the back of the car to administer the last shot point blank?"
So your entire argument is that TATUM conflicts with MARKHAM... a witness Liebeler called "worthless" and that I indeed use to contrast against the Davis sisters.... but I don't really need her either....
Tatum says: "I then saw the officer lying on the street and saw this young white man standing near the front of the squad car. Next this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer as he was lying in the street."
So Milo, other than YOU being incredulous to the concept... what do you have that proves this didn't happen?
As I see it, the testimonies are fully compatible....
Tatum:
I then saw the officer lying on the street and saw this young white man standing near the front of the squad car. Next. this man with a gun in his hand ran toward the back of the squad car, but instead of running away he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street. At that point this young man looked around him and then started to walk away in my direction and as he started to break into a small run in my direction, I sped off in my auto. All I saw him to the intersection and run south on Patton towards Jefferson.
Milo - as Tatum states it, do you see this as 1 or 2 people? #1: this young white man and #2 this man with a gun in his hand... ???
why do I ask?
#1 MARKHAM "After he shot the policeman he turned around, came back around toward Patton Street. He wasn't he didn't seem to be in a no hurry.
"...he stepped into the street and shot the police officer who was lying in the street. At that point this young man looked around him and then started to walk away in my direction "
Since Helen wasn't really watching anyway... how would she know where he was as he shoots? The shooting stops, she looks and he fools with the gun and looks at her...
I thought he hadn't done anything, and he was fooling with his gun in his hands, and he seen me, and he stops."
And she neither saw nor heard another shot.
the reason the WC lawyers saw MARKHAM as worthless was that she screws up the entire timeline knowing when she goes to work and which bus she catches... maybe she wasn't all that worthless?
Mrs. MARKHAM. I put my hands over my face and closed my eyes, because I knew he was going to kill me. I couldn't scream, I couldn't holler. I froze. Mr. DULLES. I think you testified about that then he began to run slowly. Mrs. MARKHAM. Then- Mr. DULLES. Was that after he saw you? Mrs. MARKHAM. Yes; after I put my hands up, and when I had opened my fingers and my eyes and slowly pulled them down, he was trotting off.
started to walk away in my direction and as he started to break into a small run in my direction
Since this is back EAST one assumes the man goes back around the car and turns back WEST towards PATTON...
But this matches to what MARKHAM says Milo....
Mrs. MARKHAM. He ran back, turned and came back down 10th to Patton Street. He cut across Patton Street like this. Mr. BELIN. Heading toward what street? Mrs. MARKHAM. Toward Jefferson; yes, sir. Then he was still in sight when I began to scream and holler and run to this police car, well, to Mr. Tippit.
I sped off in my auto. All I saw him to the intersection and run south on Patton towards Jefferson
So help me out here Milo.... where's the contradiction? and btw, there were 4 shots... 2 entered his torso, one entered his head and one more was stopped by a button...
At a 90 degree angle it says
"Superficial injury
missle not
in body"
.
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
I would really like to know the consensus opinion of specialists like Mr. Josephs and other forensic-oriented researchers as to whether Oswald's apprehension and presence in the DPD for two days was (A) part of the plan or (B) evidence of a screw-up.
Just off the top of my head, it would seem like a screw up. But I don't have a lot of details to back that up one way or another.
James Lateer
I'm blushing... ::bowtie::
As a third Generation player you must know I stand on the shoulders of 2 great generations of researchers, authors and the like. While I do feel I've uncovered a few new things in my time... without the pioneering work of a list of people too long to post... I'd still be filing FOIA just to see a document - 3 years later....
Your question strikes at the heart of the results we see from that event...
I think using the phrase "part of the plan" invokes an authority none of us has... that of a COVERT OPS planner.
Furthermore, the desired outcome of any plan depends on which level of the assassination structure you ask: Mechanic (to kill), Facilitator (enable the mechanics & frame the patsy), SPONSOR (insure the plan succeeds and no Facilitator or Mechanic is prosecuted unless desired) (paraphrase of a Michael Evica & Charles Drago concept)
So how'd they do?
Mechanic - JFK was killed... success... I think we'd put the mafia and/or Cuban assassins in this role Facilitator - JFK dies and a Patsy was arrested (a question you may ask yourself is: do you believe if TIPPIT was put in a position requiring him to kill Oswald, he failed... or were the person(s) he stumbled upon in front of his 2nd home on 10th street people he knew which allowed him to be killed?) To me, if it was Oswald walking down 10th from the east, toward Tippit.. killing him would be straight forward. that's another reason I don't see Oswald on 10th... Sponsor - those who lived at this level can be divided into 2 groups... the SPONSOR like a Curtis Lemay who insured Bethesda concluded what it needed more like a Facilitator... and then those who had the gravitas to put things into motion as well as insure protection for those involved.... Some say Averill Harriman, McGeorge Bundy, the Texas Oilmen, Army Reserve Intelligence Colonels....
the point being, how can we ever hope to prove a Sponsor connection and what good does finding the Facilitators do to our understanding? The CIA's Phillips, Hunt, and the gang were the Facilitators and were amazingly effective at stopping the investigation there... in the minutia of the case... while those who shape the world move on to other matters....
I think most of us can argue both sides of your question pretty effectively and with evidence that supports it...
Before Fritz goes into talk with Oswald the first time he stops off at Sheriff Decker's office.... while we are not sure what is said, what we KNOW is that one of the largest Homicide departments in the country does not tape record or provide a stenographer for Oswald's interrogations....
Once upon a time Khidr, the Teacher of Moses, called upon mankind with a warning. At a certain date, he said, all the water in the world which had not been specially hoarded, would disappear. It would then be renewed with different water, which would drive men mad.
Only one man listened to the meaning of this advice. He collected water, went to a secure place where he stored it, and waited for the water to change its character.
On the appointed date the streams stopped running, the wells went dry, and the man who had listened, seeing this happening, went to his retreat and drank his preserved water.
When he saw, from his security, the waterfalls again beginning to flow, this man descended among the other sons of men. He found that they were thinking and talking in an entirely different way from before; yet they had no memory of what had happened, nor of having been warned. When he tried to talk to them, he realized that they thought that he was mad, and they showed hostility or compassion, not understanding.
At first he drank none of the new water, but went back to his concealment, to draw on his supplies, every day. Finally, however, he took the decision to drink the new water because he could not bear the loneliness of living, behaving and thinking in a different way from everyone else. He drank the new water, and became like the rest. Then he forgot all about his own store of special water, and his fellows began to look upon him as a madman who had miraculously been restored to sanity.
====
and Finally, One can use SUN TZU to gain an appreciation of the planner's skills:
18. All warfare is based on deception.
19. Hence, when able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near.
20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.
21. If he is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him.
22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant.
23. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them.
24. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected.
25. These military devices, leading to victory, must not be divulged beforehand.
26. Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose.
Likewise, the last section of the ART of WAR is the use of SPIES:
20. Whether the object be to crush an army, to storm a city, or to assassinate an individual, it is always necessary to begin by finding out the names of the attendants, the aides-de-camp, and door-keepers and sentries of the general in command. Our spies must be commissioned to ascertain these.
21.The enemy's spies who have come to spy on us must be sought out, tempted with bribes, led away and comfortably housed. Thus they will become converted spies and available for our service.
22. It is through the information brought by the converted spy that we are able to acquire and employ local and inward spies.
23.It is owing to his information, again, that we can cause the doomed spy to carry false tidings to the enemy.
24. Lastly, it is by his information that the surviving spy can be used on appointed occasions.
25. The end and aim of spying in all its five varieties is knowledge of the enemy; and this knowledge can only be derived, in the first instance, from the converted spy. Hence it is essential that the converted spy be treated with the utmost liberality.
26. Of old, the rise of the Yin dynasty was due to I Chih who had served under the Hsia. Likewise, the rise of the Chou dynasty was due to Lu Ya who had served under the Yin.
27. Hence it is only the enlightened ruler and the wise general who will use the highest intelligence of the army for purposes of spying and thereby they achieve great results. Spies are a most important element in water, because on them depends an army's ability to move.
THE END
Once in a while you get shown the light
in the strangest of places if you look at it right..... R. Hunter
Thanks so much for this opinion to all readers and posters on this issue. I think it vastly underestimates the JFK research community to give more credit to the planners of the JFK assassination than to those who have researched it over the past 55 years.
Although the cover-up has succeeded to some extent, the cover-up does not, to me, indicate any genius on the part of those who perpetrated the crime. I would say, the perpetrators were 5% genius and 95% just plain horrible people.
I guess you could give a lot of credit to the people like Ferdinand Eberstadt, Herbert Hoover, Everett Dirksen and company who invented (and put in place) the National Security State in 1946 to 1950. But the people who took advantage of the work done back then do not deserve a lot of credit in my opinion. And I'm talking about people like E Howard Hunt and Ken Starr. These are not brilliant people, they're just bad people.
Even Hitler was maybe 10% genius and 90% just plain rotten. If you are looking for genius in public affairs, you have to look to people like Thomas Jefferson and Lenin. They built something up which lasted (and arguably left most people better off). Hitler just tore stuff down. (Apparenty, that's the function of reactionaries).
As for the identification of the SPONSORS of the JFK assassination, the prior posting seems to assume that the SPONSORS are known entities, but that we just can't get proof against them. This concept seems to be based on the idea that, since we are talking about a crime, that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is required.
In synthesyzing and building on the work of the research giants from the past, I personally do not adhere to the criminal law standard of proof. Rather, the better standard in my opinion is not proof beyond a doubt. The better test is "which is the most probable explanation?"
Probably most readers on this site assume that the SPONSORS of the JFK assassination were Curtis LeMay, Allen Dulles, James Angleton, etc. As some people might know, my identification as to the sponsors is radically different.
In my opinion, the sponsors were the worldwide network of ex-Nazis and probably some key people high up in the West German government as well as those who controlled NATO. They were obviously working together with the US National Security State. But their activities, in my opinion, are the reason why the murder of the President occured on 11-22-63 and not in some other time and place.
In other words, these ex-Nazis were the proximate cause, but by no means the only cause. Their motivation was the prime motivation, the precipitating cause.
The only JFK book I have read twice is Fletcher Prouty's book on the assassination. He Secret Team book would no doubt be of equal value. But I do think that (even if the involvement of the sponsors can never be proven), we can determine who they probably were and, more importantly, why they acted. This is, to me, the purpose of history books and actually, the purpose of historical research itself. Different, and maybe more important even than criminal investigation and punishment.
