JFK Assassination Forum

Jeff Morley, who says there is a "fact pattern" that the CIA was somehow involved in the JFKA, says there is a "paucity" of evidence that Castro was involved (see below).

Maybe so. But then--- 

Fidel Castro, through the Brazilian ambassador, warned "U.S. leaders" in September 1963 that they would "not be safe" if they continued aiding "terrorist plans to eliminate Cuban leaders".  (Fidel also told a reporter the same thing).

This warning was issued on September 7, 1963, at the Brazilian Embassy in Havana. The timing and location led some nervous CIA men to wonder if Castro was signaling his knowledge of a secret CIA meeting with a Cuban national (code name AM/LASH, later identified as Rolando Cubela) in São Paulo, Brazil, earlier that same day to discuss assassination plots.

---

In truth, there is paucity of evidence of any organization being behind the JFKA. Only speculation. A ton of work has gone into showing a CIA connection...and we still have only straws to grasp at.

Bill Harvey might have been seen on a plane headed for Dallas in 1963! Evidence! A fact pattern!

In fact, KGB and G-2 were involved with LHO. Does that mean they prompted LHO into the JFKA? That's speculative too.

Here is Morley:

Another Investigator Cites a Missing JFK Document. Why Now?
Six decades after JFK's death, opposing forces in Washington still battle for control of the story of his assassination.
JEFFERSON MORLEY
 

The CIA is sitting on a document showing that the Mexican government believed Fidel Castro was behind the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963. So says Washington Post columnist David Ignatius in a column in which I am quoted.

Ignatius’ source, Washington attorney James Johnston, is credible. He investigated the CIA in 1975-76 for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities and has written a book on JFK’s assassination. He told Ignatius a story that he had never told before: that CIA officials showed him a classified document in 1975 asserting that “the Mexican government had investigated Kennedy’s assassination and concluded Cuba was responsible.”

According to a vetting slip that Johnston saw, the file “had only been read by five other people, one of whom was Richard Helms, who headed the CIA from 1966 to 1973.”

I believe Johnston when he says he saw such a document. He’s well-informed, has extensive investigative experience, and he’s an advocate of full disclosure. (Earlier this year, he told “Elizabeth Vargas Reports” about another CIA document that seems to be missing.)

If there is such a document, the Agency should, of course, release it. As I told Ignatius, “I’m not aware that the CIA has released any such document.”

But, as I also told the Post columnist., there is no evidence that Mexican security officials ever implicated Cuba in JFK’s death, which is important context for this story.

Remember too, that the “Castro Done It” theory is a hardy perennial in the discourse around JFK’s assassination. To fully understand Ignatius’ column, it is essential to know the origins of “Castro Done It” theory, the paucity of credible evidence to support it, and (this is key) why it has resurfaced at this moment...[/size][/size]
[/i]

Of course not.

"THE EVIL, EVIL, EVIL CIA DID IT!!!"

-- Jefferson "Comrade" Morley

As soon as someone is able to duplicate the variant shadows seen in the backyard rifle photos, they will have a convincing argument for the photos' authenticity. So far, no one has been able to duplicate the variant shadows. The HSCA's photographic experts conducted an elaborate reenactment using a mannequin to try to duplicate the shadows, but they failed miserably, so much so that they had to fall back on the bogus argument that a 1D vanishing point analysis explained away the variant shadows.

You're just trying to change the subject now that your previous lines of attack have failed miserably. It's just another attempt from you to move the goal posts. We weren't talking about the "variant shadows" in this thread, only about the PEP's parallax analysis and your continuing misunderstanding of it.

BTW, the 1-point (not 1D) perspective study performed by the PEP demonstrates beyond any reasonable doubt that the shadows are not "variant" as you blindly assert. The notion that the VPA was "bogus" is more proof that you fundamentally don't understand what the PEP was doing, how they did it, or why.

I again point out that it is very revealing that the HSCA PEP published no parallax measurements for 133-C, even though they were supposedly establishing that the backgrounds in the three photos are not all the same, and that they made no effort to determine if the camera's angular position (pitch, yaw, and roll) changed between exposures. They only measured for horizontal and vertical movement (and found only "very small" and "slight" camera movement--a certain indicator of fraud given how the photos were allegedly made). And, the differences in the distances between background objects in 133-A and 133-B were so small that the PEP had to use computer analysis and high magnification/microscopes to detect and measure them.

The HSCA and Fraud in the Backyard Rifle Photos
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JiOqKWO-XJSO-z_lk6bSgUBXq_vD1yZs/view

This is just a great big steaming pile of fringe reset. Let's go through each odiferous nugget:

MG: I again point out that it is very revealing that the HSCA PEP published no parallax measurements for 133-C, even though they were supposedly establishing that the backgrounds in the three photos are not all the same

Again, in order to disprove the contention that the backgrounds in CE133A, CE133B, and CE133C are identical, all they had to do is show that the backgrounds in any two of them were not identical. The PEP did that explicitly with the parallax analysis on CE133A and CE133B. They did so implicitly when they noted that the photos can be viewed as stereo pairs.


MG: and that they made no effort to determine if the camera's angular position (pitch, yaw, and roll) changed between exposures.

They didn't need to once they'd already established that parallax existed between CE133A and CE133B.  This is another example of you trying to move the goal posts.


MG: They only measured for horizontal and vertical movement (and found only "very small" and "slight" camera movement--a certain indicator of fraud given how the photos were allegedly made).

Again, measuring for horizontal and vertical movement is all they needed to do to disprove Jack White's claim that the backgrounds were identical. In fact, they would have only needed to show 1 dimension of movement to disprove White's claim.


MG: and found only "very small" and "slight" camera movement--a certain indicator of fraud given how the photos were allegedly made.

Exactly how much movement is "very small" and "slight?" How much would be expected? You have no idea, do you? And "certain indicator of fraud" is simply an unsupported invention all your own.


MG:  And, the differences in the distances between background objects in 133-A and 133-B were so small that the PEP had to use computer analysis and high magnification/microscopes to detect and measure them.

As far as I can tell from the PEP report and the HSCA testimonies of McCamy and Kirk, the PEP used neither computers nor microscopes to perform the parallax analysis. I've asked you before, and I'll ask you now, where did you get this idea? you didn't answer the last time.

Do you think JFK's and JBC's quick head turns to their right around Z-140(?) and Z-150(?), respectively, were conscious turns in response to hearing a loud sound, or "startle reactions," or neither?

It appears to me that JFK was fixing his hair at about Z140 and his first response was a quick head turn to his left around the mid Z140s. I currently believe that head turn could have been, in part, a startle reaction and automatic reaction to check on his wife. JFK then turned to his right around the mid Z150s. I currently believe that could have been an intentional turn. It appears to me that JFK’s right turn was made, then he recognized and acknowledged some spectators with a wave. In my opinion JFK was very concerned about how he appeared to the crowds and the cameras. I think that the wave and smile represented his quick regain of his composure (for the crowds’ and cameras’) and subsequently his own projected image.

On the other hand, it appears to me that JBC initially and very quickly turned his head slightly to his right in the mid Z140s. I suspect this was a startle reaction and that he turned it as far as it would go to the right. I suspect he didn’t see JFK out of his peripheral vision at that point in time because JFK had already turned his head to his left. It appears to me that JBC then turned his head to his left around the mid Z150s. I suspect this could have been, in part, a startle reaction or an automatic glance towards his wife. We tend to do these types of things automatically without much conscious thought beforehand. JBC has stopped smiling and appears to me to have a very concerned look on his face (which can be seen in the Croft photo also, along with a concerned look (instead of her smile) on Jackie’s face).

One has to look very carefully to see that JBC’s head initially turned to his right slightly and quickly just before the turn to his left. JFK’s initial head turn was to his right. JBC’s initial turn to his right is what made his left head turn be slightly later than JFK’s left head turn. This all happened in the Z140s and Z150s and Z160s.

Once he completes the turn to his (R), Connally's upper torso is squared up with JFK.

Dear Comrade Storing,

What do you mean by "squared up with"?

He is face-to-face with JFK.

Dear Comrade Storing,

Their heads are roughly parallel and about three feet apart.

JFK's face is "in profile" to Connally's view, be it peripherally or straight on, and his forearm is raised and he's waving to someone. JFK's forearm and hand are therefore partially obscuring Connally's peripheral (i.e., "out of the corner of my eye") view of him.

That is no "glimpse" as you claim.

Dear Comrade Storing,

Connally, himself said in so many words that he tried to catch a glimpse of JFK over his right shoulder.

We had just made the turn, well, when I heard what I thought was a shot. I heard this noise which I immediately took to be a rifle shot. I instinctively turned to my right [he forgot that the first thing he'd done was turn his head quickly to his left to see if Nellie was okay] because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, so I turned to look back over my right shoulder, and I saw nothing unusual except just people in the crowd, but I did not catch the President in the corner of my eye, and I was interested, because once I heard the shot in my own mind I identified it as a rifle shot, and I immediately -- the only thought that crossed my mind was that this is an assassination attempt. So, I looked, failing to see him, I was turning to look back over my left shoulder into the back seat, but I never got that far in my turn. (emphasis added)

And please post your source for your claiming that Governor Connally was, "more focused on the background than the foreground".

Dear Comrade Storing,

In case you missed it, above, Connally said, "Because the sound appeared to come from over my right shoulder, I turned to look back over my right shoulder."


Rhetorical question:

Why would Connally's impression of the directionality of the shot cause him to turn in that same direction unless it was to try to locate the shooter?


D'oh!


-- Tom