Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

     If that is SA Clint Hill in the Hankins photo, I'll eat a bug. Whoever that is atop the Limo has at least 25 lbs on Hill. Look at the size of the head/face.
2
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
James, could you have actually found Mumford herself?
Maybe she headed west at first like the DCM.

Bronson seems to suggest a grey haired woman, who in Wiegman ran east first and is missing in Bothun,
so perhaps she followed Calvery's group part of the way at least.

     The footage of the person/woman? walking West was captured After Wiegman had filmed Mumford on the ground.  The people racing Up the grassy knoll verify Wiegman having already completed his filming inside Dealey Plaza. In fact, Wiegman has already climbed back inside his Camera Car and actually driven past/West of this section of the grassy knoll.
3
General Discussion & Debate / The HSCA Says...Johnny Roselli
« Last post by Rob Caprio on Today at 03:47:09 AM »
📥 "Whether you agree with him or not, researchers such as Rob Caprio for example, took the sensible initiative and saved his own research, and he is now reposting them back on the Forum.
All other members are free to do the same.” –Duncan MacRae

********************************************

Disclaimer: I will no longer respond to any posts that are off topic and/or meant to derail the issue of the opening post. This should not be taken as me running, but instead seen as me keeping the topic on track.

I have no issue with any WC defender, therefore, I am happy to discuss the case in a manner that uses the actual evidence with them. IF the WC was correct in their final conclusion as they claim then this should be no problem for them.

I will not participate in any personal discussions with them as these are meant to distract and discredit instead of focusing on the JFK assassination. I come here to discuss and learn about the JFK assassination and nothing more.

No more games with the LNers. The LNers have to to discuss the WC's, HSCA's and ARRB's evidence or move along.

One would think IF the assassination occurred as the WC said then the LNers would welcome the opportunity to discuss and refute the posts in this series, but they seem more determined to have the posts stopped. I think that this shows that the WC's version of events is not correct.

****************************************

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) would continue their look into people that may have had something to do with the assassination of President John F. Kennedy (JFK) that had ties to the Mafia. And in all of these cases ties to the CIA too. This particular person was a conduit between the Mafia and the CIA in their efforts to kill Cuban Dictator Fidel Castro in the early 1960s.

The HSCA Says…Johnny Roselli.


************************************************

When the HSCA turned to the issue of the CIA-Mafia plots against Castro we see the introduction of Johnny Roselli’s name into their report. The HSCA said that the Mafia decided to assist the CIA in their attempts to get rid of Castro for two reasons.

Quote on

(2) CIA-Mafia Plots.--Turning next to the CIA-Mafia plots, the committee found in its investigation that organized crime probably was active in attempts to assassinate Castro, independent of any activity it engaged in with the CIA, as the 1977 Task Force Report had suggested.  The committee found that during the initial stages of the joint operation, organized crime decided to assist the CIA for two reasons: CIA sponsorship would mean official sanction and logistical support for a Castro assassination; and a relationship with the CIA in the assassination of a foreign leader could be used by organized crime as leverage to prevent prosecution for unrelated offenses. (HSCA Report, p. 114)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

Clearly, their cooperation could be “leverage” for many other things they did not want to be prosecuted for too and perhaps one of these was the help of parts of the Mafia in the murder of JFK. This assistance in this matter, and remember Giancana claimed they helped in the removal of other leaders too, would buy them a lot of leverage for other issues.

The HSCA claims that after early 1963 however the Mafia no longer had any interest in the removal of Castro, but kept acting like they did to keep the CIA on their side and away from prosecuting them for other issues.


Quote on

During the latter stages of the CIA-Mafia operation, from early 1962 to early 1963, however, organized crime may no longer have been interested in assassinating Castro. The Soviet influence in Cuba had rendered the prospect of regaining the old Havana territory less likely, and there were fortunes to be made in the Bahamas and elsewhere.  There is reason to speculate that the Mafia continued to appear to participate in the plots just to keep the CIA interested, in hopes of preventing prosecution of organized crime figures and others involved in the plots. (Ibid)

Quote off

This is all well and good, but keep in mind one important fact—the CIA has NO jurisdiction in the United States (U.S.) so what would the CIA be prosecuting the Mafia for? The FBI has jurisdiction in all things that relate to the Mafia in the U.S., thus, what would their cooperation with the CIA do to help them in this country against prosecution from the FBI? The sheer fact of the CIA recruiting on U.S. soil should have been addressed not just by the Warren Commission (WC), but by the FBI too when all of this became clear as the CIA has no right to do that within the U.S., but as usual we saw no action by anyone on this issue.

A former FBI agent, Robert Maheu, would be hired to assist the CIA as a go-between the Mafia personnel for the Castro attempts as he had turned to a career in private investigation. (It should be remembered that he worked for Howard Hughes too for years and he had links to the CIA as well.) It was no coincidence that the release of the CIA-Mafia plots came from Roselli in 1967 at a time he was trying to avoid deportation and prosecution for his illegal gambling activities.


Quote on

As for Roselli, the committee considered it significant that public revelations about the plots corresponded with his efforts to avoid deportation in 1966 and 1971 and to escape prosecution for illegal gambling activities in 1967. It was Roselli who managed the release of information about the plots and who proposed the so-called turnaround theory of the Kennedy assassination (Cuban exiles hired by the Mafia as hit men, captured by Castro. were forced to "turn around" and murder President Kennedy). The committee found it quite plausible that Roselli would have manipulated public perception of the, facts of the plots, then tried to get the CIA to intervene in his legal problems as the price for his agreeing to make no further disclosures. (Ibid)

Quote off

We can see Roselli had a good bit of motivation to release this information when he did, and we can see he was the one that first brought up the “turn around” theory involving Castro and JFK. We don’t know if he invented this one or not as he could have been told to leak it by someone else or some group who would benefit from it too. The Castro did it theory is a theory that is as big a red herring as the LHO did it all alone theory as both are meant to take the focus off of who was really responsible and involved. Even if Castro wanted revenge and satisfaction the removal of JFK was the worst way to go about it for Cuba as Lyndon B. Johhnson (LBJ) was much more of a war-hawk that JFK. LBJ never did anything to Cuba when he took over so could this mean Castro had information on what really happened to JFK? Could he have said if you come after me I will tell the world who was responsible in the assassination of JFK? I have never really read a plausible reason for why we never really bothered Cuba again after JFK’s murder so this is something we can’t just dismiss out of hand IMO.

The HSCA wrote this about the Mafia’s possible role in the murder of JFK.


Quote on

The committee's investigation revealed that Mafia figures are rational, pragmatic "businessmen" who often realine their associations and form partnerships with ex-enemies when it is expedient. While Castro, by 1963, was an old enemy of organized crime, it was more important that both Castro and the Mafia were ailing financially, chiefly as a result of pressures applied by the Kennedy administration. Thus, they had a common motive that might have made an alliance more attractive than a split based on mutual animosity.

By 1963 also, Cuban exiles bitterly opposed to Castro were being frustrated by the Kennedy administration. Many of them had come to conclude that the U.S. President was an obstacle requiring elimination even more urgently than the Cuban dictator. The Mafia had been enlisted by the CIA because of its access to anti-Castro Cuban operatives both in and out of Cuba. In its attempt to determine if the Mafia plot associations could have led to the assassination, the committee, therefore, recognized that Cuban antagonism toward President Kennedy did not depend on whether the Cubans were pro- or anti-Castro. (Ibid, p. 115)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

The issue of the Cuban exiles is an important one as we have to again ask if they were motivated to rid the U.S. of JFK because he wouldn’t take action against Catro then why did they NOT want to rid the country of LBJ when he did NOTHING against Cuba while serving as president? Does this make any sense to you? It doesn’t to me and shows once again to me that the exiles were just a tool for those that really wanted JFK gone.

The HSCA found that the CIA-Mafia plot had the essentials to be involved in the murder of JFK, but of course they failed to find the evidence they needed to show this.


Quote on

The committee found that the CIA-Mafia-Cuban plots had all the elements necessary for a successful assassination conspiracy--people, motive and means, and the evidence indicated that the participants might well have considered using the resources at their disposal to increase their power and alleviate their problems by assassinating the President. Nevertheless, the committee was ultimately frustrated in its attempt to determine details of those activities that might have led to the assassination--identification of participants, associations, timing of events and so on. Many of the key figures of the Castro plots had, for example, since died or, as in the case of both Giancana and Roselli, had been murdered.

Quote off

As I have said before many times, evidence cannot be found if it is either really not looked for or so much time has gone by that all such evidence is no longer available to find. This proves nothing as these elements—CIA, Mafia & Cuban exiles—were more than likely involved in some way, but unfortunately it may be too late to show how unless the government releases the many documents still locked up.

The HSCA would say the conclusion of the Senate committee and the CIA was not believable to them for the following reasons.


Quote on

The committee, moreover, was unable to accept the conclusion of the CIA and the Senate committee that the CIA-Mafia plots were irrelevant because they had been terminated in February 1963, several months before the assassination. The record is clear that the relationships created by the plots did not terminate, nor had the threat to Castro abated by that time. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that the inherently sinister relationships had become benign by November 22, 1963.

In June 1963, according to the interim report of the Senate committee, Roselli had dinner with William Harvey, chief of the CIA's Cuban Task Force. CIA files show that Roselli continued to maintain direct contact with Harvey at least until 1967, and he was in touch, at least indirectly, with the Agency's Chief of the Operational Support Branch. Office of Security, as late as 1971. The Task Force Report itself alluded to information that, as late as June 1964, gangster elements in Miami were offering $150,000 for Castro's life, an amount mentioned to the syndicate representatives by CIA case officers at an earlier date." (Ibid, p. 116)

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Quote off

A minor point in the first paragraph should be pointed out to be incorrect. February to November is more than a “several months” as they wrote. In fact, it is three-quarters of a year, but the point is still the same as they said the plots did not terminate in February 1963 anyway. As we have seen before there were discussions to kill Castro on the very day of the assassination in Paris, France, when CIA officer Desmond Fitzgerald meets with Rolondo Cubela (AM/LASH) and presents him with a poison pen. This shows they did not end in February 1963 as some claimed they did. But again, why did these plans go away as soon as the shooting died down in Dallas? That is a very important question I have never seen a satisfactory answer to.

William Harvey has been suspected to have been involved in some way for many years by various researchers, but the evidence to support the claim has never been shown. Harvey was stationed in Italy at the time of the assassination and comments like this did not prevent others from suspecting him—“This was bound to happen, and it’s probably good that it did.” One can see he was NO JFK or Kennedy fan from this comment. E. Howard Hunt certainly pointed his finger at Harvey and said LBJ could have used him with promises of promoting him since he had been demoted by the Kennedys following his refusal to stop his plans for Castro. Harvey also had connections to both Trafficante and Giancana who both seemed to have some connections to what happened on November 22, 1963.

This tied the bow neatly as Trafficante got the contract from the CIA to kill Castro and he passed it on to Maheu who then passed it on to Giancana and Roselli. (Ibid, p. 173)

Roselli would say LHO was meant to be met by a contact at the Texas Theater (TT) and then flown out of the country where he would be done in. The body would be then presented to show he was shot while trying to “resist arrest.” They had an alternate plan of sending him to Cuba to set up Castro for the murder of JFK and this would have presented the CIA and the military with a great reason to invade. To me the ONLY reason this never happened is because Castro learned who was really behind the assassination and pretty much blackmailed those responsible into doing something else. What other reason can there be for why we never bothered Cuba again?

According to information published by columnist Jack Anderson the problem all of these guys had was that Trafficante was a mole for Castro and was reporting everything to him that the CIA was trying to do. Giancana said that Trafficante was a “a rat.” This would explain why Castro was so well informed of the plans to kill him as well. Giancana’s hitman and enforcer Charles Nicoletti said he was leaving the mob because the CIA was “taking over the operation” and he wanted no parts of that. If this is true then it shows the CIA had a much bigger role in the mob’s plans and operations than has ever been admitted. What could this mean in regards to the events of November 22, 1963?

What do you think Roselli’s role was in the murder of JFK if any? His ties to various people and organizations certainly make him a man who bears further investigation. His highly timely death (for those that wanted what he knew kept quiet) also makes one wonder how much he really knew about what happened to JFK.
4
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Prayer Woman
« Last post by Barry Pollard on Today at 02:53:21 AM »

Quotes... taken from this very thread, context is all yours.
5
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Prayer Woman
« Last post by Barry Pollard on Today at 02:44:51 AM »
0.0!

Not anatomically correct the evidence says and puh-lease, walls of text you give me?  Ai vey.

Watch the gif above carefully, your "women's face" is level with BL's who's actually on the 5th step lol, two down from the landing,
what's really amazing is that you haven't dropped this element of it yet.
Only looks like a woman to you because "she" has "long bushy hair" but your prime suspect has short hair lol
Relatives tell you it's not her, you will not except it.
Your "forensics" led you to believe this was an overlay of a real picture of Oswald on PM and screamed "He's too skinny, game over".


That's as far as I read.
6
The FBI knew on 23/11/1963 that CE 677 (K2) and CE 142 (Q10) were identical.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

So where did Drain get the idea that they were not by typing out the report AFTER the results had been known by his own agency?

In addition, fibres were found adhering to the paper bag, whereas the FBI expert testified that they came from within the paper bag. Big difference and indicates possible cross-contamination between the items.

You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
7
Two seconds, Towner to Bothun,
Here's the big names in Bothun

compare them to Towner's GK men, it's very close in time(Cancellare coming in from the right/east).
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

"The Cuban" is surrounded by more people with cameras than he's probably ever seen, most of which are pointing directly toward the area he's at and he chooses this moment to pull out a massive walkie talkie and either proclaim victory to his team or tell 'em "ixnay on the hombre, no speakee now"?

"The Cuban" label has to come from the Cutler/Sprague years si?
8
General Discussion & Debate / Re: Prayer Woman
« Last post by John Mytton on Today at 01:45:06 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login

Just keep getting people to admit it looks like a face,




JohnM
9
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login
No doubt you will misrepresent what I said a few months from now, though.  "Couldn't be bothered". :D That exemplifies your entire approach to the evidence in this case.

Quote
No doubt you will misrepresent what I said a few months from now, though.

I quoted your words, if that's a problem then sucko!

Quote
"Couldn't be bothered". :D That exemplifies your entire approach to the evidence in this case.

Sorry John, but your posts aren't evidence in this case.

JohnM
10
General Discussion & Debate / Prayer Woman
« Last post by Brian Doyle on Today at 12:58:15 AM »
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login


No Barry...All that regurgitated other website stuff has been refuted and you haven't answered the fact the woman's face is exactly where it should be on Prayer Man's body...Is exactly the right size in proportion to that body...And has symmetry between the features...You give yourself away because your style stays safely away from committing to what exactly it is if it isn't a real woman's face?...Your only option is a mirage and a mirage simply can't conform to that many qualifiers like those I've listed...Like the goofy members of that other site, the best you can offer is a miraculous illusion occurred by coincidence in the exact place, size, and symmetry that a real face would occur...It is laughable that you present that with a straight face seeing how ridiculous it is...Your silly images here do nothing of the sort nor could you articulate how they did so...You're playing those silly games again and I am really foolish to honor the silly mush you type with a serious response...In the other thread Duncan erased over a year ago I showed how the elongated forehead was a person who pulled behind Prayer Man from the other frame... The face itself is a contiguous part of Prayer Man and is a legitimate representation of Sarah's face...You can see a blurry version of the same face without the elongated forehead in the other Wiegman frame...Like Ray, that's a forensic lock that you to respond to by ignoring...The face being isolated in the other frame proves the face in the Davidson frame is not associated with the elongated forehead on a scientific basis because it is scientifically impossible for a freak illusion to occur twice in different frames...I have been posting this for several years...The opposition ignores it and posts the same old disproven elongated forehead nonsense over and over again in response even though it has been credibly refuted...We were talking the Davidson image and you switched the subject matter to irrelevant other images that failed to make any point... There's a word for that that Duncan won't let me use...Let me know when you can answer the credible, intelligent photo forensic proof I just posted Barry...So far you haven't...The buttons already cinched it...You failed to respond...
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10