One of the more blatant fabrications of the Warren Commission Sham was the introduction of Charles Givens' fictional account of going back up to the 6th floor and seeing Oswald coming from the southeast corner. How do LNers deal with this fabrication? How do they explain it away?

Just because Charles Givens didn't mention seeing Oswald in his earlier statements, you think that means he "fabricated" his later statements and during his testimony in front of the Warren Commission?

Silly.

Givens merely didn't mention his brief encounter with Oswald when Givens wrote his affidavit. Such an omission certainly doesn't mean that Givens' sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald never happened. Only a conspiracy theorist would possibly believe such a thing.

Plus, we know that there's no good reason for the authorities to start putting words into Givens' mouth about seeing Oswald on the sixth floor, because even WITHOUT Givens' account of seeing LHO on the sixth floor at approximately 11:55 AM, there is still ample witness testimony from other Depository employees who said they saw (and heard) Oswald on an UPPER FLOOR (either the fifth or sixth floor) shortly before noon. Those other employees are Billy Lovelady, Bonnie Ray Williams, and Danny Arce. And even Givens HIMSELF, in this FBI report, talks about hearing Oswald shout down the elevator shaft.

There is some confusion surrounding some of Charles Givens' statements with respect to Oswald asking to have the elevator sent back upstairs to him, which I talk about in this article.

But even if conspiracists wish to toss Charlie Givens under the bus and deem him a totally worthless liar (which many CTers have done), what do they do with Lovelady and Williams and Arce with respect to their individual observations about seeing (and hearing) Lee Oswald on an upper floor of the TSBD shortly before 12:00 noon on 11/22/63?

With those three witnesses saying what they each said, why would the FBI or the Warren Commission (or anyone else) have felt the need to coerce Charlie Givens to tell some wild tale about seeing Oswald in just about the VERY SAME PLACE at just about the VERY SAME TIME that those three other men saw him?

Many CTers think the FBI (and later the Warren Commission) desperately needed a witness on the inside of the TSBD building to place Oswald on the sixth floor to firm up the FBI's and WC's framing of poor innocent Lee Harvey Oswald. Therefore, per CTers, they got the easily-coerced Givens to add a lie to his story about going back up to the sixth floor to get his cigarettes and then seeing Oswald up there.

But if the goal of the FBI and Warren Commission was to shore up their "case" against Oswald, why wouldn't they have made Givens' lies even BETTER? They could have gotten Givens to say he saw Oswald moving boxes in the southeast corner of the sixth floor. Or they could have gotten Givens to say he actually saw Oswald with a long brown package too.

But instead, Givens' "cigarettes and jacket" story pretty much amounts to nothing more than the testimony given by Lovelady, Arce, and Williams -- i.e., Givens sees Oswald on an upper floor without a package, and without a gun. The biggest difference would be that Givens did place a definitive floor number on Oswald's whereabouts--the sixth floor (the Floor Of Death), whereas some of the other witnesses I mentioned were not quite sure whether Oswald was shouting down his request for an elevator from the FIFTH floor or the SIXTH Floor.

But if Givens' "going to get cigarettes" story was nothing but a fabrication invented by the authorities, it amounted to very little more than what other witnesses were also providing (or would very soon be providing to the Warren Commission).

In addition, I'll also add that Charles Givens' 11/22/63 affidavit is one that is very brief. It's a very short statement made voluntarily by Givens within hours of the assassination. Givens uses short, to-the-point sentences, not elaborating on anything at all--not even the shooting. He merely says "I think I heard three shots".

So it's fairly obvious to me when looking at Givens' 11/22 affidavit that it wasn't Givens' purpose at that time to go into very much detail about anything that happened on November 22. He was obviously making it as short as he could. And just because he did not mention his encounter with Oswald on the sixth floor in that very brief statement, that certainly does not mean such an encounter never took place.

Givens' statement given to the FBI on November 22nd is another matter for discussion. It's true that Givens didn't say anything about going back up to the sixth floor to get his jacket and cigarettes in that November 22nd interview with two FBI agents. But Givens did mention hearing Oswald shout down to have the elevator sent back up "so that he (LEE) could have the elevator returned to the SIXTH FLOOR" (DVP's emphasis).

So it's fairly clear from that FBI statement that Givens was saying he thought Oswald was on the SIXTH FLOOR and wanted an elevator to be sent back up to the SIXTH floor.

With such detail coming from Charles Givens himself about Oswald being on the SIXTH FLOOR shortly before noon on the day of the assassination, why on Earth would the FBI (or anyone else) feel the need to then coerce Givens to add an additional layer of lies to his story, which would be a fabricated layer of lies that essentially ADDS NOTHING NEW to the story Charlie Givens had already told the two FBI agents who interviewed him on November 22, 1963?

Also....

The conspiracy theorists who think Charles Givens just MADE UP his sixth-floor encounter with Lee Oswald due to the fact that Givens said nothing about such an encounter in his original November 22nd affidavit are going to have to accuse Billy Lovelady of pretty much the very same thing (i.e., leaving out important "I heard Oswald shout down the elevator shaft from an upper floor around noontime" information in his affidavit), because in Lovelady's 11/22/63 affidavit, he never says a thing about such an occurrence.

More here:
https://jfk-archives.blogspot.com/search?q=Charles+Givens

.
In a recent Substack blurb for his soon-to-be-released book(?) about Lee Harvey Oswald, Codename: “NALIM,” Brian D. Litman — the guy who produced, arranged, or somehow put together the 1993 bit of (unwitting?) KGB disinformation known as Passport to Assassination by “former” KGB officer Oleg Nechiporenko — which book, although ostensibly about the former Marine sharpshooter and U-2 radar operator’s two-and-a-half years in the USSR and his controversial trip to Mexico City seven weeks before the assassination, inexplicably devotes fifty pages to how stupid and sadistic CIA officer Tennent H. Bagley was to so grossly misunderstand and mistreat February 1964 physical defector to the U.S., Major I mean Lieutenant-Colonel I mean Captain Yuri Nosenko — included the following excerpt from the upcoming book, or whatever it is:

At a different meeting, [former KGB Chief] Vladimir Yefimovich [Semichastniy] told me that he was personally devastated with the defection of Yuri Ivanovich Nosenko in February of 1964.

“A false defection, they say? [as some in the West thought],” he said ironically. “I could only wish that it had been so!” he shot. “I saw new grey hairs spontaneously sprout during the fallout,” he told me. “I wanted to strangle the privileged little [rhymes with snit]” he said of Nosenko. “Such a betrayal! Unforgivable!!” said the long-serving spymaster. [final set of brackets in original]

. . . . . . .


Here’s the reply I posted to Brian D. Litman’s blurb:


Dear Brian,

You (and Gerald Posner, et al.) have been played like a fiddle, my friend.

As detailed by Yuri Nosenko’s primary case officer, Tennent H. Bagley, in his 2007 Yale University Press book, Spy Wars: Moles, Mysteries, and Deadly Games, and his 2014 book, Spymaster, putative KGB staff officer Nosenko was a false defector-in-place in Geneva in June 1962, sent there by Second Chief Directorate Chief Oleg Gribanov to discredit what KGB headquarters knew (probably, we now know, via Angleton’s confidant, mentor, and mole-hunting superior in the Office of Security, Bruce Solie) what recent true defector Anatoly Golitsyn was telling CIA Counterintelligence Chief James Angleton about penetrations of the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies.

You really owe it to yourself to read Bagley’s books, Brian, so you can become well-informed for a change and stop unwittingly(?) spreading KGB disinformation.

They’re FREE to read at Internet Archive!

It won’t cost you one thin . . . uhh . . . dime!

And, while you’re at it, you should read the pertinent parts of John N. Newman’s 2022 book, Uncovering Popov’s Mole, as well.

(He dedicated it to Bagley.)


-- Tom

. . . . . . .


Dear Tom (may I call you Tom?),

I recently decided to exorcise from myself from certain demons which have haunted me for the past ~34 years since I began my relationship with the Soviet cum Russian intelligence community. The last time I got more vigorously engaged was in 2013 when I spoke at the two principal symposia on assassination (the Wecht Institute and the Dallas "Lancer" conference).

After that, I assure you, I was not positively reinforced to continue to expend temporal resources in the JFK Domain.

That was not difficult to do because there were/are many other areas that captured my fancy. This, especially given that I … with the assistance of my then-client KGB Colonel Oleg Maximovich Nechiporenko - and his rich cache of notes taken from the Minsk Archives … answered fully my questions as to … “who did it?” It was abundantly clear to me.

Ergo, with my own curiosity adequately sated. I moved on for the next 34 years with very little diversion.

That said, the Historical Record makes its demands known and there are internal gremlins who demand expiation.

Especially when I see how "the Mexico City intermezzo" is now being perceived and worse, clownishly-presented by presumptively intelligent people who have been denied the perspective with which - by some inscrutable fate - I have been availed.

A correct Exorcism requires that I re-acquaint myself with the State-of-the-Art in JFK discourse. Or at least those which are pre-eminent in the Public Fora

of which pertain to this beloved Topic.

I rediscovered the "http://jfkassassinationforum.com" and I observed that you are very active there.

It is abundantly clear that you are very passionate about Nosenko being a Gribanov plant. Fine.

Now, besides that, might you advise me as to within which "who did it?" orbit you rotate?

Just so I can get properly oriented since I can already sense the presence of a passionate expositor with the tenacity of a under-caloried Belgian Malinois.

So … in which direction do you bend, Sir?

. . . . . . .


Dear Brian,

Assuming that you’ve read more than just three or-so of my posts in both the “JFK Assassination” and the “Politics” sections at that forum, you probably have a correct inkling that I’m anti-Trump, anti-Putin (anti-all-things-KGB, actually), and that I’m convinced that all three shots were fired, over 10.2 seconds, from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest from Oswald’s short-rifle to the exclusion of any other firearm on Earth.

Yes, Brian, . . . gasp . . . after years of study, I think the so-called “Single Bullet Theory” is correct.

Given the above, if Oswald wasn't the shooter, then the evil, evil, evil CIA, or the evil, evil, evil [fill in the blank] must have had oodles and gobs of bad guys and bad gals involved in the planning, the patsy-ing, the planting of evidence, the shooting, the planting of more evidence, the getting-away, the alteration of oodles and gobs of films, photos, and X-rays, and the (evidently ongoing!) cover-up.

Which I find highly implausible.

On the other hand, if the Russians and/or the pro-Castro Cubans were involved, it must have been “only” of a logistical or diversionary (flash-bang-smoke-in-the-bushes?) nature.

If I were to suspect anyone in that rather farfetched scenario, I suppose it would be Igor Vaganov, Gilberto Policarpo Lopez (with whose estranged daughter I was in e-mail contact about five years ago), and/or Miguel Casas Saez.

Regarding your boy, Nosenko, having read Bagley’s Spy Wars (have you read it, yet?), I’m convinced that he was a false defector-in-place in Geneva in June 1962, sent there by Gribanov to discredit what Golitsyn was telling personally-duped-by-a-mole Angleton about penetrations of the CIA, the FBI, and the intelligence services of our NATO allies, and I lean toward W. Alan Messer’s theory that he was a rogue physical defector to the U.S. in February 1964 who used the Kremlin-approved message, “The World-Class* Humanitarian Organization Known as the KGB Had Absolutely Nothing to Do with Oswald in the USSR” as his “ticket” to The Land of Milk and Honey, and whose bona fides Kulak, Kochnov, and Yurchenko, et al., had no choice but to support.


*Pardon the pun.


-- Tom

"They" framed a Castroite in order to justify a war to remove Castro - Operation Northwoods and all of that - and then "they" conducted an investigation that cleared Cuba/Castro of any role. All of those allegations by people that Oswald met with Cuban agents - the "Twist Party" et cetera - were knocked down by the CIA. Oswald acted alone "they" said.

Yes, the same CIA that killed JFK and supposedly framed Oswald to justify removing Castro then helped exonerate Castro. Why would they do that? In conspiracy world all of these contradictions are fine as long as it helps promote a conspiracy.

Especially if the CIA -- Solie?, McCoy?, Kisevalter?, and Paisley? -- and the FBI -- Polyakov in 1962; Kulak from 1962 to 1977 -- were penetrated by KGB agents, and said conspiracies ultimately benefited the KGB (today's SVR and FSB).

And I give you Donald J. Trump.

(12-13-63 FBI report on a 12-11 interview, CD188, p. 3-5) When Governor Connally was asked about the elapsed time between the first and last shot he remarked “Fast, my God it was fast. It seemed like a split second. Just that quick” and he snapped his fingers three times rapidly to illustrate the time and said “unbelievably quick…Governor Connally felt the shots were fired so fast the assassin had hit him by accident on the second shot.”.

"It seemed like a split second"
"Fast, my God it was fast."
"A very, very brief span of time"
"unbelievably quick"

You don't need to thank me for doing your research for you (once again).
Now, getting back to my question - Do you believe there were two shots a split second apart, like JBC says there was?

Since JBC was referring to the time between the first and third shots, we know that what “ seemed like a split second" was at least the time between z222 and z313 - five seconds and, if the first shot was before z202 based on Phil and Linda Willis’ testimony, a bit more than six seconds.  We know that there could be two bolt action operations and two aimed shots in that amount of time.

I don’t believe there were any bullet fragments in the chest, as per Dr Shaw’s WC testimony.  But he did have fragments in the wrist and leg.  The wrist wound is troublesome when you analyze the holes in the suit and shirt sleeves, and the pants.  Using both mannequins and a live stand in, I’ve run string through pre cut holes in a suit and shirt with French cuffs in the exact locations documented in the official record.  For the string to align, the French cuff had to be completely out of the suit sleeve and the forearm pronated (thumb down) to the near extreme end of its range.  Also the exit hole in the French cuff was jagged and highly irregular—almost a zig zag shape.  And yet the entry hole in the pants was round and the flesh wound in the leg described as “punctate” by Dr Shires.  The odds of a completely unstable bullet making the irregular exit hole in the cuff and within a few inches landing presumably base first to make a round hole has to be astronomical.

FBI firearms examiner Robert Frazier said that he could make no determinations from the holes in the shirt and jacket due to the fact that they had been laundered. I assume that the pants had been cleaned as well.