In 1975, Eugene Dinkin sued the U. S. Department of Defense and the CIA for denying a variety of his rights during the preparation of Warren Commission Document 943 . Here is his complaint: Dinkin contends that there is no statute of limitations when it comes to Presidential Commissions. His case was brought 11 years after the publication of the Warren Report. Dinkin claims he was falsely arrested and imprisoned; that he received unlawful medical treatment; that he was libeled; and that false evidence was submitted to the Warren Commission. Dinkin apparently believed he was being monitored by the government as he asks the court to "enjoin the Federal government and its Investigative Agencies from conducting any surveillance or interference of my normal daily activities." Dinkin says that he has "never made any allegations whatsoever to the Central Intelligence Agency," but CD 943 never makes that claim. His supposed plan to "upset the impending" assassination was nothing short of ridiculous. Why would any ambassador agree to see a Private First Class? Dinkin talks of a second party who was part of his plan but never identifies that person. He is probably referring to Private First Class Dennis De Witt. When Dinkin supposedly sent a letter to Robert Kennedy in October 1963, he signed it under his own name but used the return address for De Witt. He did that because he believed the letter might be intercepted "since he felt the Army authorities might well be censoring his mail." He then says he "related the above warning" to several ambassadors, but just who did he talk to? Supposedly the ambassador of Israel listened to Dinkin and told him how to present himself at the U. S. embassy. Dinkin writes that when he heard that President Diem of South Vietnam had been assassinated, "I realized that I would appear moreso [sic] to be a crank and that there was no possibility whatsoever of convincing anyone of influence that an assassination was impending against President Kennedy." In any event, Dinkin continued to try to tell his story to journalists. But even the Overseas Weekly thought his story was "farfetched." Dinkin then goes to the U. S. Embassy in Bonn but leaves because they asked for proof of his military leave and his military ID. This doesn't make any sense -- he claims he had a valid leave permit, and he wasn't shy about telling people that he was in the military. This paragraph stuck out: During my stay at Walter Reed an aide who believed I was the subject of a frame did relate to me that the medical report from the European Command contained statements that I had referred to General Paul L. Freeman, USAREUR commander, and a Colonel Dixon, 82nd Ordnance Battalion commander, as the "secret president and vice-president of the John Birch Society." The same aide did identify for me a plant, that is, a Government operative posing as a patient, who sought me out remarking that he was happy to meet someone who knew the truth, namely, that Robert Kennedy had ordered the assassination. I don't believe there was government operative at Walter Reed and that a plant told Dinkin that Robert Kennedy ordered the assassination. But Dinkin's next line is the kicker: I would not be surprised if this "truth" was obscenely incorporated into CD 943. It should be noted that CD 943 had not been released when Dinkin launched this lawsuit (it was not declassified until 1997), and, of course, it did not "obscenely" incorporate the "truth" referred to. Dinkin claims he was incarcerated by "orders of the U. S. Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency." Dinkins then goes off the deep end: I maintain that the United States Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency by policy decision at the highest level did attempt, in the manner of a totalitarian police state apparatus, to extract, and coerce correct and officially solicited information, and did receive the complete cooperation of military medical officers, who in the process did function and conduct themselves as political prostitutes, disgracing themselves and scorning their medical oaths and obligations in order to remain in the good graces of Government Authority. At the highest level? Dinkins doesn't really deny that he made a speech about the bond program. Dinkin nitpicks at the date at which he was seen in the press room of the UN Building in Geneva. But he certainly was there, no? Dinkins writes that: The United States Department of Defense and the Central Intelligence Agency did have knowledge that I and others had been conducting a study of propaganda techniques in the mass media, and that I had derived my conclusion that a conspiracy existed to assassinate the President from that study. Nice to see in his own words that his conclusions about an assassination attempt came from his mass media study and NOT from any encrypted message received in the line of duty. Now we finally get into some of Dinkin's proofs: In the summer and fall of 1963 I became aware of newsphotographs [sic] of unusual structure. More specifically, these newsphotographs contained images which were not clearly distinguishable at normal viewing distance, but did take on greater perceptual definition when viewed from greater distances or with focal distortion obtained by squinting. Scientific American magazine of September 1972, aptly demonstrates this phenomenon in reproduction of the "Cubist Portrait" by Leon D. Harmon of Bell Telephone Laboratories. Here is the Cubist portrait referred to by Dinkin : Dinkins then explains why this is important: The Cubist Portrait demonstrates that a fusion of gestalt elements occur when the viewer squints or observes the display from a distance of 15 feet or more, thereby producing sufficient focal distortion for the image of a man to be distinguishable as a more normally perceptible configuration. This reminds me of a story from James Kirkwood's American Grotesque : (pages 536 - 537) Dinkin then discusses a New York Times Crossword puzzle: See Exhibit D. This crossword puzzle design appearing in the New York Times Magazine of March 25, 1975 demonstrates that computer designed images based upon the principle of the "least amount of visual information" do occur in the mass media. The image is barely perceptible at reading distance, but easily approximates photographic definition when viewed at arms length and greater distance. Here is the New York Times crossword puzzle from March 25, 1975. I certainly don't see anything of interest, but I don't have a copy of Dinkin's Exhibit D, and perhaps he was referencing another puzzle. Dinkin's Exhibit E is as follows: On November 1st, 1963, I did then have the right to examine a UPI Photo entitled "Figures in Probe", which appeared in the Stars and Stripes newspaper; and I did have the right to interpret that this photograph had artificial modification characteristics and contained a latent image (designed according to the above described principle). I did have the right to turn the photograph 90 degrees counterclockwise and to view it from a distance and to then perceive the face of a man with conspicuous cut or scar on the forehead, gaping mouth, and strangely outlined eyes. I did have the right on November 1, 1963, as I do now, to believe that this image was a representation of the man who would be designated as the assassin. I do now have the right to rephotograph "Figures in Probe", recovering the latent image by application of a moderate degree of focal distortion, and to compare it for similarities of facial characteristics with photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. Here is the photograph from the Stars and Stripes : One page from a submission by Eugene Dinkin to the HSCA Carole Tyler's photograph was in many newspapers in the United States: The Memphis Press-Scimitar, October 29, 1963 Dinkin's next item: I further believe that numerous photographs of the events of the assassination have been doctored with computer designed, implanted images, which are recoverable by application of focal distortion. Exhibit F, an AP photograph of 11/22/63, and Exhibit G, a Wide World Photo of 11/22/63 demonstrate this implantation phenomenon. This is the photograph that Dinkin is referencing: Kennedy at Love Field Dinkin saw the face of Leon Trotsky in the above photograph: From Dinkin's HSCA submission. Dinkin then states: It is my contention also that some of the photographic exhibits of the Warren Commission Report have been altered to contain such latent configurations, which are recoverable by application of focal distortion. Dinkin scores an own goal: The photographic processes in these demonstrations are well known to most photojournalists, industrial photographers, advertising specialists, perception laboratories, and the Federal Communications Commission. There is a vast difference between considering oneself "brainwashed" and being knowledgeable about perceptual illusion, anamorphic images, partial cue recognition, peripheral vision reception, Maybe there isn't a vast difference! Then Dinkin claims that "No laws have been passed limiting knowledge of these subjects to privileged parties, yet these Agencies of the Federal Government have acted as though that condition did exist." After reading Dinkin's analysis, maybe there should be a law. I don't have a copy of the ruling, but I doubt that Dinkin won his case. Coming up in part four: Dinkin's submission to the HSCA. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Eugene Dinkin Did Eugene Dinkin Try to Stop the JFK Assassination? Dinkin's story from 1964 about his interpretation of various newspapers. Eugene Dinkin and Jim Garrison A Garrison investigator spoke to Dinkin in 1968.

The Yipster Times, January - February 1977 Private First Class Eugene Dinkin was a crypto operator stationed in Germany. In the fall of 1963, he started reviewing the Stars and Stripes newspaper and became convinced that there were subliminal messages pointing to the assassination of JFK. He tried to warn people that JFK would be killed on Thanksgiving Day in November 1963, but ended up being sent to Walter Reed Hospital in Washington for psychiatric treatment. Dinkin's story was told by Dick Russell in his book The Man Who Knew Too Much (see pages 552 - 557 in the first edition), and James DiEugenio has published three articles about Dinkin on his website. So, let's dive in and take a deep look at the Dinkin story. Let's have a look at what was being said in 1963 - 1964. The FBI interviewed Dinkin in April 1964, and he told them the nature and genesis of his suspicions : Note that Dinkin's suspicions were not related to any work in cryptography. Dinkin had taken courses in psychology in college and he felt he that could interpret the subliminal messages that he believed were embedded in the Stars and Stripes newspaper and in certain Hearst newspapers. Dinkin did not go to his superiors with this information although he did discuss it with some of his military friends : Dinkin believed that the assassination would take place on Thanksgiving Day -- that was the "semi-religious occasion" mentioned above. He also claimed that he sent a letter to Robert Kennedy on October 16, 1963, warning him of the plot. Dinkin told the FBI he was already in trouble with the military because he was refusing to buy U.S. bonds : Dinkin was then transferred: That poor Marine who had to listen to Dinkin and his theories. Dinkin said he was then told to undergo psychiatric evaluation on November 5, 1963, but instead he went AWOL -- traveling to Switzerland using a "false army identification card with forged travel orders": Here is a teletype that the CIA sent to the White House, the Secret Service, the State Department and the FBI on November 29, 1963 : I'm not surprised that the reporter did not really believe Dinkin. When Dinkin returned from his trip to Geneva, he was held in detention, and then he claimed his papers were then stolen: I don't know why they would take Dinkin's "proofs" since they all came from public sources. Dinkin could reassemble his so-called evidence. In a later post, you will see Dinkin's proofs. Dinkins underwent psychiatric evaluation in November 1963 which resulted in a recommendation that he be discharged from the military. He was then admitted to Walter Reed Hospital in Washington on December 5, 1963 : Here is how Dinkin described the psychiatric examinations : Even Dinkin realized that his claims were crazy: Dinkin "stated he was well aware that his theory and the facts surrounding his attempts to bring his theory to the proper authorities was extremely "wild" and could be construed by a person untrained in psychology to be 'crazy.'" While Dinkin was at Walter Reed Hospital his mother wrote to Attorney General Robert Kennedy: Mrs. Dinkin writes that her son was initially taken for a psych evaluation because of the bond issue: Eugene was sent to Landstahl Hospital in Germany for a psycho-evaluation because he refused to take a Bond after having read [the] book ("Living Bill of Rights") which was sent to him by Justice W. O. Douglas") He wrote to the Overseas Weekly and afterwards lost his crypto security clearance. While enroute to Landstahl, Col. Dickson and Lt. Col. Black came into the orderly room of his company and phoned Psychiatrist Col. Hutson and gave him a direct order to find him psychologically unfit to handle security information, and to write a Paranoic evaluation. He claims this to be a frame up. Then Mrs. Dinkin writes that "several weeks later through his data, he became convinced that Pres. Kennedy would be assassinated in the month of November -- most likely Nov. 28th, 1963." So, Dinkin's psychological problems were being examined before he brought up his theories on the assassination. Herbert Miller, the Assistant Attorney General, forwarded her letter to the Secretary of the Army: And he also wrote back to Mrs. Dinkin: The Army replied to Mrs. Dinkin: I do not know if Army personnel were pressured to buy bonds, but I wouldn't be surprised. Mrs. Dinkin also wrote to Senator Everett Dirksen, and here is the Army's response to her letter: (I don't have a copy of Mrs. Dinkin's letter but it must have been similar to the one above). Lippincott says that Dinkin was a "crypto operator" He was probably operating some the cryptography machines, and you can see here that a crypto operator was a relatively low-level job. Overseas Weekly was a tabloid newspaper that was initially banned at military bases. I guess the Army was not happy that Dinkin wrote them a letter for publication. That resulted in his transfer to duties that did not need a security clearance. Dinkin had his first psych examination in September. It's interesting that he described the Stars and Stripes as a "right wing nazi scum paper." And you can also see an example of his supposed ability to decode images: His specific references included two headlines pertaining to President Kennedy, between which appeared a picture of Mr. Gromyko, thus allegedly typing together President Kennedy and communism. Dinkins was definitely upset over the issues of buying bonds : So, Dinkin might have had several articles published in Overseas Weekly . And here is a clue as to how his fellow Marines felt about him : The last line reads: "All with whom subj talked assessed him as crackpot." The FBI report on the interview was forwarded to the Warren Commission : I'm not surprised that the Warren Commission did not ask Dinkin to testify, just as they did not ask psychic Jeane Dixon to testify. After all, she predicted the JFK assassination in 1956, no? Ft. Worth Star-Telegram, Mary 13, 1956 Coming Up: Eugene Dinkin, Part Two -- Jim Garrison Gets Interested.

Tucker Carlson just interviewed Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. Kuznick and Stone are the authors of The Untold History of the United States . You can read Ron Radosh's review of their book here . Michael Moynihan reviewed it here. Sean Wilentz has a chapter on Untold History in his book, The Politicians & the Egalitarians : the Hidden History of American Politics The entire interview is completely nuts. Stone and Kuznick want the United States to be allies with Putin's Russia and believe that it's the United States that is clamoring for war. There's way too much silliness for anyone to sit through. At about the six-minute mark, Stone is upset that the United States is insulting Putin, at about the nine-minute mark they talk about Henry Wallace and say the United States could have avoided the Cold War, and at the twelve-minute mark, they talk about the United States invading Afghanistan. Of course, that never happened. In 2001, the Northern Alliance was fighting the Taliban and the Americans helped the Alliance march into Kabul. It even appears that Oliver Stone is a 9/11 truther. Here is an excerpt from a transcript (12:11) Tucker Carlson : Let me ask you .. do you think the people who said that we need a new Pearl Harbor in order to rebuild. How do you think they felt about 9/11? Peter Kuznick : I think they saw it as a tragedy and an opportunity. You know, I think they ... Tucker Carlson : You're not suggesting they knew about it. Peter Kuznick : No, I'm not suggesting that. And Oliver ... Oliver Stone : I think it's a mystery. Tucker Carlson : In what sense? Oliver Stone : I think it's a mystery. I don't think it's solved, because all the events of 9/11 have not come out. Tucker Carlson : No, they haven't. Why do you think that is? Oliver Stone : I would have to really study this, but it's just so many questions I have, so many. It's, this is not the subject today. But yes, it leads to this feeling that there's a cabal, or something in Washington that has been there, kind of a strange ghost-like cabal that goes back to the 60s with Kennedy's murder. Tucker Carlson : Yes. Oliver Stone : ... that continues in some strange embodiment today. And I don't ask, it sounds, it sounds like it, but it's that strange concept. But you have to think about, Tucker Carlson : We can't assess it because the files are still classified. 23 years later. Oliver Stone : There is something about conspiracies now, I mean, all, a lot of the lunatics have come out of the asylum with no doubt, Tucker Carlson : Yes. Oliver Stone : But there's a lot out there in the public that really should be examined and questioned and ... Tucker Carlson : Yes, Oliver Stone : ... asked, and it's, that's what's the establishment is freaking out because it's, we're overloading it, you know, we're it's running over the rapids now they can't defend them anymore. Tucker Carlson : Yes. Oliver Stone : I mean this. Tucker Carlson : Well, you were, you were once derided as a conspiracy ... I don't think so anymore. Oliver Stone : But I'm still alive. Tucker Carlson : You've lived to see your own vindication. Oliver Stone : Well, yeah, in a sense. I mean, I'd love to see Kennedy understood better by the mass because, you know, you still hear this silly Lee Harvey Oswald did-it stuff, you know. I mean it then "allegedly". They never said alleged, you know, alleged killer. Tucker Carlson : Yes. Oliver Stone : They always say killer. But you know, those are, I feel sorry that that happened, but that's a bigger story now. It's a bigger story because now it's the world is at stake. It's not the life of one man. He had a vision, as Peter said, of humanizing Russia and bringing them into the world community. That was defeated when he was killed, that was very badly defeated. Khrushchev fell shortly thereafter, the premier of Russia, he fell too, because he wasn't sufficiently strong with the United States. I would have loved to hear Oliver Stone expound on 9/11. But his idea that a cabal has taken over the United States since the JFK assassination is just plain lunacy. There is also a discussion about censorship (36:50) Oliver Stone : In this country. You've noticed the censorship has gotten far wor[se] -- you suffered from it, Tucker Carlson : Yeah, well, certainly. Oliver Stone : I suffered from it. I mean, it's you're [Kuznick] insulated because you're having tenure. But ... Tucker Carlson : how many Oscars have you won? Oliver Stone : I've won three. Tucker Carlson : You've won three ... Oliver Stone : That was a long time ago. Tucker Carlson : Right. Oliver Stone : No, but essentially, I got cut off because I did, the Putin interviews didn't help me in in Hollywood .. Tucker Carlson : But you've been cut off before then, I think, hadn't you? Oliver Stone : You know, my ability to make films was choked a little. You know, there isn't ... After 2000 things changed in the United States because we became the victim. We were suddenly -- the patriotism of the soldiers, we started Pearl Harbor [the film], Black Ship, Black Hawk Down. All the films were were different mentality than what I was presenting, which was a reality I thought to the American public, this military has to be ... why are we doing these military expeditions overseas, like in Vietnam? This is, what was my main point. I kept going at it and going at it, and I guess all of a sudden it became okay. But the people never voted. There was no candidate, there was no election that said, I'm against any empire. I want to bring it back, like back in William Brennan's, William Jennings Bryant's, back in 1898, I don't want empire. We never got the choice. We swallowed it. Peter Kuznick : Let me give a different timeline on Oliver's history. I mean, Oliver was walking on water in Hollywood with Platoon, Wall Street, Born on the Fourth of July, and then he made JFK. And then everything changed, and they started attacking JFK seven, eight months before the film was produced ... Oliver Stone : I remember. Peter Kuznick : ... based on a stolen first draft of the script, at the New York Times , Los Angeles Times , Oliver Stone : Washington Post , all that ... Peter Kuznick : ... they were all going after him as a conspiracy theorist, and, you know, and it's a very controversial movie, which takes a lot of risks. And Oliver said, admitted at the time he didn't have all the answers, but he wanted to get the questions out there and make people think about some of these issues. But at that point, he went from being Hollywood's golden boy to being the conspiracy monger. Tucker Carlson : I remember it very well -- and the late night comics, who are always tools of the existing order, jumped in. But why do you think that film and that topic, I mean ... Peter Kuznick : ... because Americans had already disagreed with the Warren Commission, and even before Oliver's movie came out, an overwhelming majority of Americans thought, didn't think that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. They didn't, from the very beginning, find that credible at all. In fact, four of the seven members of the Warren Commission didn't think that, or thought that there was likely a second ... Oliver Stone : Yes. Peter Kuznick : ... second gun, Oliver Stone : Nor Robert Kennedy, nor Lyndon Johnson, Peter Kuznick : Connally. Oliver Stone : Jackie Kennedy, so many people. Tucker Carlson : Hale Boggs. Oliver Stone : Fidel Castro, Charles de Gaulle, various British leaders. Harold Macmillan. Tucker Carlson : Did you ever talk to Castro? You knew Castro? Oliver Stone : Yeah, sure. Tucker Carlson : What did he say about it? Oliver Stone : Oh, it's, he was so sad, because he really was liked Kennedy, and he was hoping for a deal, they were in back door negotiations. Kennedy understood the Cuban Revolution, and he said eloquent [things] about it. He understood why the people were - that Cuba had been the most corrupt island in the American Empire and the Caribbean since the Platt amendment in 2001. Peter Kuznick : 1901. Oliver Stone : 1901. But a lot of this is economic. Let's not lose sight of that. You see what they got after World War Two was an economic empire, which is -- it was working. People were investing in the war economy, and they were prosperous, Tucker Carlson : Yes, Oliver Stone : but you saw the budgets grew and grew and grew. Here we are now with a trillion dollar defense budget, right? Which insane? Because we have how many bases abroad, 800 bases. That was never the intention of Eisenhower or any of those people -- to have, to control the world, to dominate every place in the world, Asia and Europe and South America, this is a gigantic empire. Do you realize how busy they are, every day trying to run this thing? Everything is coming ... Personally, I believe there's an invasion coming up. It's either going to be Iran or but I hope not. Israel is a proxy army for us. Certainly Trump supports them. And you know that Trump supports, Trump is very zealous about Israel, scary. But also, don't overlook Venezuela, which is still the one of the richest countries in the world with all its oil. Some people believe that is an easy, easy target for Trump to knock off. I pray not because it's going to be a battle. But this doesn't end, is what I'm saying. They plot every day. They they - imagine the world map. You got the China, the China challenge right, sending ships constantly, stating our supremacy right in the wa ... in the seas, Peter Kuznick : Freedom of the navigation. Oliver Stone : and China, it's, it's crazy. I mean, I understand economically. Take it on. Be competitive with China, fine. But this, we can be economically friendly. In other words, we can be competitors. I don't see why we can't be in business together, as with Russia. Russia was a capitalist country. It's no longer a communist country. Tucker Carlson : Yes. Oliver Stone : So as much as we hate communism, it doesn't make sense to antagonize Russia. They can be our partners in climate change in so many ways. Their nuclear energy industry is one of the best in the world, as is China. They can teach us, we can build SMRs in quantity, if we wanted to, we can really solve climate change. We don't have to sit here, victims of it. But this is all - this is Kennedy thinking. This is what we need. We need leadership. We need a De Gaulle, somebody who has a vision of the world, Trump, to some degree, has a vision. "Trump, to some degree, has a vision," says Stone. Really? Well, I am not surprised that Stone likes Trump because of their joint affinity with Vladimir Putin. Stone and Carlson paint themselves as victims of unjust censorship. Stone can't face the reality that he made a tendentious film about the JFK assassination, and that he victimized Clay Shaw for a second time. Stone's career went on a downward spiral because everybody thought he had gone over the deep end with JFK. It wasn't that he interviewed Putin, but that he slobbered all over him . They mention several people who purportedly believe there was a conspiracy in the JFK assassination -- even Harold Macmillan. Does anybody really care what Harold Macmillan thought about the JFK assassination? Or Jackie? And Kuznick is just plain wrong when he says that four of the seven Warren Commission members believed there was a second gunman. A few of them were uneasy with the single-bullet theory, but that was only because the Warren Commission did not do a good enough job of explaining it. They were all convinced that Oswald fired the shot that killed Kennedy. Stone believes there is some sort of American empire in which American leaders are pulling the strings of everything around the world. In his view, no other country has any agency. What is really appalling is that Stone believes that Israel is a proxy army for the United States. He also believes that China and Russia could be partners in fighting climate change. But China has repeatedly said it has no interest in that, and is continually excused in international agreements from doing anything on the climate front. Stone wants to compete economically with China - but says nothing about China stealing intellectual property and flooding markets with cheap goods made with slave labor. He cares little about repression of the Uighurs, the elimination of political rights in Hong Kong, or China's continual threatening behavior towards Taiwan. Towards the end of the interview the three talk about how little students know about history (1:33:30) Peter Kuznick : So much history that people don't know. I was talking about the ignorance about World War Two. Well, I did an anonymous survey with college students, all of whom were A students in high school, and I asked them, how many Americans died in World War Two? And the median answer I got was 90,000. So they're only off by 300,000 -- they were in the ballpark. I asked them how many Soviets died in World War Two, the median answer I got was 100,000. So they were only 27 million off, right? These are smart kids, and they know nothing. They couldn't understand World War Two. They couldn't understand the Cold War. They couldn't understand what's going on in Ukraine unless they know the history. This is why Oliver and I did The Untold History of the United States , to begin filling those blanks. Tulsi Gabbard was interviewed by the New York Times in 2019 and they asked her, what - it's a big article -- what podcasts do you watch? She says, "I don't want to talk about podcasts, but I just finished watching the Untold History of the United States , and everybody should watch it, because it fills in those blanks in the history that nobody knows, that we never learn about in this country." So 50 years from now, it depends, really, because it's going on in Japan. Oliver and I wrote an article after one of our trips in Japan called "Partners in Historical Falsification: the United States and Japan." You know it's going on. Russia. It's going everywhere. People try to sanitize, whitewash their history on the assumption that if people know true history, then they're going to rebel and want something different and something better, because, if anything, History teaches you that what is this now is not what has to exist or what should exist -- as human beings can create a much different world, and that's what the lesson of it. So, it's not just to learn the past for the sake of the past. It's to learn the past so you can shape a better future. Tucker Carlson : Of course, Peter Kuznick : and that's what, that's what Oliver and .. Tucker Carlson : It's the most reliable guidepost to the future. So, do you think, we're talking about JFK , and when it came out 30 years ago, you were roundly mocked. You are no longer mocked. People see it as likely, at the very least. Oliver Stone : So yeah, I think so. Tucker Carlson : It seems that way. Oliver Stone : They're much more accepted. Yeah. Tucker Carlson : So do you ... Peter Kuznick : That was the critics, the public loved that movie. Tucker Carlson : Oh, I know, Oliver Stone : Yeah, it did well. Did very well. Tucker Carlson : I remember. Peter Kuznick : And that led to the assassination record review board, Oliver Stone : a three-hour, six-minute movie. Peter Kuznick : It led to the Assassination Records Review Board, which is why so many documents ... Oliver Stone : which is why I did this documentary that I want you to see -- [JFK] Revisited . This is about the Assassination Records Review Board. They did good work. They didn't do everything, but they did some very good work and brought out new facts that are in this. Tucker Carlson : Why are the intelligence agencies still holding on? Oliver Stone : look, Trump had a shot in 2016 and he blew it. He got pressure from Pompeo and those guys, and then Biden killed it. And Biden know what he was doing. This is a very bad action he did. He's undercutting Congress, but they've been doing that for years anyway. Tucker Carlson : So why? Why are they so intent on keeping them secret? Oliver Stone : Well, there's obviously some bullshit in there. Yeah, obviously. I mean, I'm not saying that those are the who-killed-him names, but the same, we should know more about those CIA guys. There's files on them. Tucker Carlson : Yes. Oliver Stone : What was, what was Angleton up to, that's a big deal. James Angleton, the counter terrorism [sic] chief. What was Phillips? Dave Phillips. David Phillips up to? He was a very important factor in the Latin American operation from Guatemala on. He was the handler for Oswald, and Clay Shaw is in there. There's a bunch of people that, the fellow Joannides, that [Jefferson] Morley's chasing . George Joannides -- he's dirty all the way. He was in from the beginning, and they covered it up at the time. They brought him back as a witness for the HSCA, Anyway. Oh, and Harvey. Bill Harvey , I think he needs to be checked out. Tucker Carlson : If you had to guess as to why they're holding these documents 60 odd years later, what would it be? Oliver Stone : You know, they declare everything a secret. Everything, practically, it's just, it's, it's standard now. Peter Kuznick : Massive classification. We need more transparency. Tucker Carlson : Yes, Oliver Stone : It's a habit that it's like a dog peeing on a hydrant, you know, it's just goes on and on and on. I don't understand - if there's a names and stuff, they they redact it, they're redacted. So I'm not looking to government, but I'm looking to honesty, that's what I'm looking for. And these bureaucrats in the government, how do they feel? What do they feel about their lives? Are they working for us? Are they working for secrecy? The people have not been dealt with honestly. And we know that. I think Americans know that. I think Americans are very cynical about the government, Oliver Stone is right about secrecy -- there's too much of it. And so yes, the CIA will do everything it can to protect its methods and sources. Stone has no idea that the remaining documents have actually been released, but with redactions. He doesn't know that the Joannides personnel file was examined by the ARRB . And he still brings up the name Clay Shaw. The most embarrassing part of this section is where Kuznick quotes Tulsi Gabbard about her fondness for their book. That is yet another reason why Gabbard is unqualified for a position in American intelligence. She also loved James Douglass's book JFK and the Unspeakable , a ridiculous conspiracy book that gets everything wrong. Relevant link : RFK Jr. and Tulsi Gabbard Bring Conspiracy Nonsense into the Trump Administration Kuznick is right that students know little about history, but his book is NOT the solution. Revisionist nonsense will do them no good. He talks about countries sanitizing their history -- but why are Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick sanitizing the history of Russia? At the end of the interview, they want Donald Trump to pardon Julian Assange and Edward Snowden. Stone and Kuznick believe that Snowden should be lionized. Assange released data that put the life of Afghans at risk -- even after being warned that lives were in jeopardy. Snowden was not a whistleblower that deserves protection -- he stole state secrets and gave them to an adversary. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Regarding Tucker Carlson Tucker Carlson Continues to Embarrass Himself Ron Paul tells Carlson the U.S. lost its government on November 22, 1963. RFK Jr. Puts Words in Allen Dulles's Mouth RFK Jr. is interviewed by Tucker Carlson and makes up some quotes. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case? Carlson repeats some nonsense about Jack Ruby. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase "who shot John" is continually misused. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Regarding Oliver Stone Oliver Stone Is Delusional Stone believes he has been blacklisted in Hollywood because he interviewed Putin. Oliver Stone and Nazarbayev Stone was paid a lot of money to make his film about the dictator. Oliver Stone and Dictators There were plans to use Oliver Stone to make documentaries on several dictators. Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev...   Some people are noticing that Stone's affair with Nazarbayev is unseemly. Oliver Stone Fêtes Another Dictator Stone has made an 8-hour documentary about Nazarbayev. Oliver Stone Says Israel Wants to "Fucking Blow-Up Iran" Stone gets it all wrong again. Oliver Stone's Latest Bullshit! Stone fawns over Putin in an interview with Chris Wallace. Is Oliver Stone off his Meds?   Stone sounds insane in an interview with Russell Brand. JFK Jr. Meets Oliver Stone   JFK Jr. walks out of a dinner with Oliver Stone. My Hearty Congratulations to the Jerusalem Film Festival   Here is an opinion piece I wrote for the Jerusalem Post  about Stone's appearance at the Jerusalem Film Festival. Shame on the Jerusalem Film Festival   Even a left-wing newspaper in Israel takes exception to Stone's appearance. Oliver Stone says Putin is a "very refined individual" Stone flatters Putin in a Spanish interview. Oliver Stone Says the Russians are "Kicking Ass" in Ukraine Oliver Stone is on the side of Russia. Oliver Stone says that "Putin is a great leader for his country   Stone tells the Guardian that Putin is a great leader for Russia. Oliver Stone is now in Alex Jones Territory!   Stone claims the United States might use a nuclear bomb in Ukraine. Oliver Stone: Putin is a rational, calm, thoughtful man: the United States is a Doberman... At the Barcelona Film Festival Stone praises Putin and criticizes the United States. Has Oliver Stone Gone Mad?   Stone tweets that the United States might use nuclear weapons in Ukraine. Oliver Stone Said Vladimir Putin is "very bright" and "wise"   Stone tells Matt Taibbi that if Russia invades Ukraine, it can take what wants in a day. Oliver Stone's 'Bromance' with Vladimir Putin   The Telegraph  criticizes Stone's friendship with Putin. Oliver Stone Blames the United States for Putin's Invasion of Ukraine   In a radio interview, Stone says the US is at fault for Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Celebrities Who Have Been Friendly with Putin   Stone is one of many celebrities who side with Putin. Oliver Stone Says Vladimir Putin Fell into an American Trap   Stone posts on Facebook that Putin invaded Ukraine because of an American trap. The Day Vladimir Putin Fooled Oliver Stone with a Doctored Video   Putin showed Stone a fake video and Stone fell for it. Oliver Stone Watches Dr. Strangelove with Vladimir Putin   A bizarre excerpt from Stone's interviews with Putin. Oliver Stone is Vladimir Putin's Mouthpiece   Stone just repeats Putin's talking points on Ukraine. Oliver Stone Says that Putin was Provoked...   Of course, the United States is at fault, according to Stone. Will Oliver Stone Blame Kazakhstan Unrest on the United States?   There is unrest in Kazakhstan -- will Stone blame it on the United States? Is Oliver Stone Becoming a Lackey for China? Stone is against American arms sales to Taiwan. Oliver Stone said the CIA may have injected cancer into Hugo Chavez's rectum...   A journalist tells the truth about Stone's rants. Oliver Stone Sides with Cuba's 'Repressive Dictatorship Stone does not want a free Cuba. Two Views on Oliver Stone's Love Affair with Nazarbayev...   Some people are noticing that Stone's affair with Nazarbayev is unseemly.

Mordecai Richler was an important Canadian author whose books are studied in schools across the country. His book, The Apprenticeship of Duddy Kravitz , was made into a film with Richard Dreyfuss. Richler also wrote numerous essays and was known for his acidic tongue. His depiction of Jewish life in Montreal, my home town, is unparalleled. Caricature of Mordecai Richler by Aislin, one of Canada's finest cartoonists. Here is an essay from the May 1975 issue of Playboy Magazine. Money paragraph, towards the end: "My problem with the conspiracy theorists is that given a yard of provable dirty work, they want us to run another 99 with them to fantasy touchdowns. Something uglier. Like Senator Joe McCarthy before them, they deal irresponsibly in rumor and innuendo..."

Here is a profile of Mae Brussell by Paul Krassner, founder and publisher of The Realist , which was a very interesting satirical publication. Unfortunately, Krassner gave far too much space to conspiracy theorists. The profile shows that Mae Brussell was completely delusional. Money Quote : Mae has been our nation's number-one, self-appointed conspiracy freak since the day Jack Ruby shot Lee Harvey Oswald. Hey, I thought I was the conspiracy freak! Some people don't realize it, but the word freak does not always have a negative connotation. Brussell saw connections everywhere: I first met Mae Brussell when she provided me with leads for a story I did on Charles Manson. Then, a few months after the break-in at Democratic Party headquarters in the Watergate Hotel, Mae rang me up. She recognized names and methods of operation from her assassination research. For example, she knew that Watergate burglar James McCord had crossed paths with Lee Harvey Oswald when both had been working for CIA intelligence ... Really? And, of course, Brussell believed that the CIA killed both John and Robert Kennedy. And then she just gets absurd: Mae Brussell contends that Nixon's own Watergate plumbers, and the entire intelligence network they represented, were prepared to overthrow Nixon whenever it was deemed necessary by the true powers. Ultimately, she believes, the same men who brought Nixon to power via the Kennedy assassinations were also pulling the strings at Watergate. That is assassinations in the plural, meaning John and Robert. Even Krassner is startled by some of Brussell's claims: Sometimes Mae's theories seem like they've been pulled from the pages of a James Bond -- or perhaps an E. Howard Hunt -- spy thriller. "I found it interesting that the Cuban Watergate burglars -- who were later given a $200,000 payoff by the CIA -- were looking for the air conditioning plans for the hotels in Miami, when later it was discovered that Legionnaire's Disease may have come through the air conditioning ducts. There is the capability to use germs to neutralize people. The CIA has the germs. Legionnaire's Disease has the exact symptoms of a disease they were experimenting with at Fort Detrick, Maryland. When you hear of weapons control, you think of guns, tanks, planes, but don't hear that they're selling germs, or that Nixon ordered Richard Helms to destroy the germs at Fort Detrick and Helms didn't. Brussell then rails against psychosurgery and makes up a quote from a Dr. Jose Delgado . "We are witnessing pockets of violence, because they are now able to electronically, surgically and hypnotically kill citizens. The army alone spent $26 million in projects to alter human behavior, and they not only did it with electrode implants but with LSD plus electrodes. They alter minds so that people act without knowing why. They can make someone murder a whole family and then kill himself." Actually, the MK-Ultra program was a huge failure. Stephen Kinzer wrote in his book   Poisoner in Chief: Sidney Gottlieb and the CIA Search for Mind Control : For ten years, Gottlieb directed systematic, intense, and far-reaching research into mind control. Finally he and his comrades were forced to face their cosmic failure. Their research had shown them that mind control is a myth -- that seizing another person's mind and reprogramming it is impossible. And the Brussell goes into mysterious deaths: "Sheffield Edwards was killed and William Harvey was killed -- the CIA contacts with the Mafia people -- and the CIA agent Guy Bannister [sic] was killed. He worked with Robert Maheu and Lee Harvey Oswald and he flew out of a window. The same people who were behind it are alive today, and they're sweeping away the bodies. It's at the highest levels that these conspiracies are planned, not just with a few Cuban exiles." Of course, Guy Banister did not fly out of window. He died of a heart attack and was found in his bed in his apartment. Even rock musicians are dying in mysterious circumstances: Musicians: Otis Redding, Janis Joplin, Jimi Hendrix, Brian Jones, Jim Morrison, Mama Cass Elliott, Jim Croce, Tim Buckley -- "And almost thirty other fine musicians have died under mysterious circumstances. Rock Musicians had an ability to draw together youth at a time when protest meetings were being broken apart, and the hippie, antiwar youth became too visible with their own, unique art form at Woodstock. The Senate investigation documented that persons seeking 'racial harmony' and 'social protest' were defined as enemies of the state. Only people like Sonny and Cher, the Osmonds, John Denver and the Captain and Tennille made it as role models. They either have to tame you or kill you." I have to agree -- the Captain and Tennille was too much for me. And then Brussell brings up Freddie Prinze: "He was an active Democrat, entertained by the President at the White House, a symbol for the Chicano. He had a deep concern about who killed Kennedy. He had a copy of the Abraham Zapruder film, and he kept playing it over and over. Time magazine says he had an intrigue about death because he kept watching Kennedy die. Well, you could say he was worried about how Kennedy was killed. I know researchers who've played that film over two hundred times. It's not because they are preoccupied with death, but because it's perfectly obvious that the government is lying, that Kennedy's head is going back. And here's a guy, Freddy Prinze, who every time somebody comes over, he shows the film to them and talks about it. He tells a psychiatrist he's suicidal, who takes his gun, and then when he leaves, he hands it back to him. Then Freddy goes to Vegas and picks up a hundred Quaaludes from another doctor. The removal of Freddy Prinze means one less visual person from that stratum of society. They lose a symbol for the Puerto Rican kids sitting on the steps in New York. There are no positive visual images of Chicanos on the screen. No encouragement for the young ones, because this one's heavily doped and has blown his brains out." This is so incredibly delusional. Krassner wonders why they have not killed Brussell. She answers that it's because she only has a small audience. "That's why the CIA works on a basis of need-t0-know. Because if you know too much, you may not do what you're supposed to do. If you know that the end result is that somebody's going to be blown up twelve miles away -- and all you're supposed to do is deliver an envelope -- you may think about it. One man who called me had killed ten people -- a number of the murders were chemically induced 'apparent heart attacks' -- for the CIA. But when he was ordered to kill a Congresswoman, he refused. Another CIA agent then tried to kill him by cutting his jugular vein, but he had it sewn up and survived. Now he's vowed vengeance against them. He told me that agents listen to my show, Dialogue: Conspiracy , and I asked, "what do they think about it?" He said they think it's right on, that they can understand. That it's also a safety valve for them, something that lets them know just how far things are going." All of the killing is for the establishment of a fourth Reich: 'When Hitler failed, his officers were brought to the U.S., from inside Rockefeller Center, and to the Bahamas and Southern states to build that dream of the Fourth Reich. It is in this context that the Kennedys, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, labor leaders, judges, entertainers, reporters, authors, students, Black Panthers, Indians, Chicanos and hippies are being slain, and why the masses are being doped into control." You would think that all this nonsense would have convinced Krassner that Brussell was completely off her rocker. Well, maybe he did realize it. And that's why he let her speak. Previous Relevant Blog Posts Mae Brussell Writes the HSCA She sends a crazy memo to Rep. Carl Stokes. Was General Charles Willoughby the Mastermind of the JFK Assassination? Mae Brussell helped convince Dick Russell that Willoughby was behind the JFK assassination. Mordecai Richler on Conspiracy Theorists... A Richler article with a large section on Mae Brussell.

For several months in 1967, Assistant District Attorney William Martin, of the New Orleans D.A.'s office, had a series of meetings and exchange of letters with Richard Case Nagell. Nagell dangled a tape recording of conspirators and William Martin did everything he could to retrieve the tape. In the end, there was no tape. Conspiracy theorists now claim that Nagell was scared off because of Martin's involvement with the CIA. The Harold Weisberg Archive contains a large folder of documents from William Martin. You can also find these documents amongst the Garrison files. I have put all the major memos and letters in chronological order, and I have transcribed, to the best of my ability, Nagell's handwritten letters to Martin. I've also annotated the large memos written by Martin to Jim Garrison. The purpose of this effort is to make sense of what happened between Martin and Nagell and, at the end of this post, to contrast a conspiratorial view of what happened to what I think was really going on. You may or may not agree with my reasoning, but here are the actual documents. **************************************************************************************************************************** The Richard Case Nagell story starts with his sister. Here is a letter he wrote her on March 13, 1967: At the same time as this correspondence, David Kroman was also contacting Garrison's office about Richard Case Nagell. Richard Case Nagell was visited at the Springfield Medical Center for Federal Prisoners by William Martin, an Assistant District Attorney working for Jim Garrison, on April 10, 1967. Here is Martin's memo: (if you want to skip the memo, I have listed the salient points just below) Here are some comments on this memo: Martin visited with Nagell for about four hours over two days. He did not take notes since "the presence of a note pad and a pencil seem to make the subject nervous and reluctant to speak freely." Right at the start of the interview, Nagell said he would not provide any material or evidence. "He stated he was worried about recent events and was at this point afraid to confide in anyone." He was visited by his brother-in-law who had tried to "interrogate" him. As a result, "He (the subject) had decided to trust absolutely no one..." Nagell told Martin that "he had been a Marxist-Leninist for many years and that he had no particular love or loyalty to the United States." Nagell said that "he had kept account of our progress [the Garrison investigation] as best he could through his limited access to newspapers." Nagell said that "there had actually been three separate plots to assassinate President Kennedy. The first was a plan to kill President Kennedy by bombing (a concealed bomb in the speaker's platform or the speaker's podium) on the occasion of December of January of 1962 when the President traveled to Miami, Florida to address the group of Cuban prisoners who had taken part in the Bay of Pigs invasion and who had just been released and returned to the States. A second and similar plan to kill the President was to have taken place in June of 1963 when the President traveled to Los Angeles for an important speaking engagement. The subject stated that the first and second plots (above mentioned) had never really become serious and that the plans never did reach more than just the talking stage. The third and final plot, which did in fact end with the assassination of President Kennedy, was an offshoot of the other two plans and was planned and put into effect by the same group of people. The Cubans who "took an active part in the assassination acted as individuals..." At the start of his second interview, Nagell asked Martin "what theory Mr. Garrison was working on as regards the assassination of President Kennedy." Martin then proceeded to tell Nagell the theory that the assassination was mean to arouse a new invasion of Cuba. Nagell "followed [Martin's] words with extreme interest..." Nagell said that "he, as a Marxist-Leninist, had worked "for the other side" and had worked under the specific control of the Soviet Embassy in Mexico City." The Embassy had briefed him on the Miami and Los Angeles plots. "As to the assassination in Dallas the subject stated that his only connection was to function as a watchdog for the Soviet Embassy and to inform them of exactly what was taking place and of what progress was being made on a day to day basis." Nagell was able to "infiltrate the assassination plot" and he made a "tape recording of four voices in conversation concerning the plot..." The tape was primarily in Spanish and that one of the four people was "Arcacha" and "another individual whom the subject would only identify as "Q"." The tape is in safekeeping in a small trunk left with a friend. "An arrangement was made between the subject and this friend that under no circumstances was this box or trunk or any of its contents to be released to any person whatsoever, other than the subject, unless the friend were to be approached by a person bearing a handwritten letter in the handwriting of the subject, which letter would have to be signed by the subject in a certain secret manner." If anybody approached this friend "and attempted to obtain the box or any of its contents without first having obtained this letter signed in a secret manner, then, in that case, the friend has instructions to destroy anything and everything that had been left in his safekeeping by the subject." The name, address and telephone number of the subject's friend "has been turned over to Mr. Garrison for use at his discretion." Nagell indicated he was scheduled to be sent back to Leavenworth and that privileged communications would be easier and that he could then get the letter to Martin. Martin then conferred with an attorney who agreed that if Nagell was transferred to Leavenworth, they would have no trouble getting the letter. Martin's job was to get the letter to get the tape. Right after Martin's visit, Nagell sent him a letter on April 13, 1967: Here is the text of the letter: Dear Mr. Martin, Yesterday, I was advised by the Director of this institution that I am being recommended for transfer to either the U. S. Correctional Institute, Danbury, Connecticut, the U. S. Penitentiary, Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, or the U. S. Penitentiary at Leavenworth, Kansas, presumably in that order. Such recommendations will be forwarded to the Federal Bureau of Prisons, but, as I mentioned during your visit, final approval will likely rest with the Attorney General's office. It is my understanding, however, that I shall be sent back to Leavenworth, quickly within the next two to four weeks, to await final disposition of my [ ]. Upon my return to Leavenworth, I think it would be wise to complete the legal arrangements we discussed, without delay; that is, providing they can be [ ] satisfactorily. I am still anxious to know whether or not Mrs. Frederick is still living in Colorado and, if so, whether she can be [ ] at the address I gave you. .... Being a very important defense witness, potentially at least, I would suggest a maximum effort be instituted to confirm her whereabouts, discreetly of course, lest she get upset at any inquiry. Sincerely, Richard C. Nagell William Martin visited Nagell again on April 23, 1967. Here is his memo: (again, the salient points are below) Here are the main points of the memo: Martin obtained agreement from the prison for privileged communications with Nagell. Martin visited with Nagell on April 23, 1967. Nagell now said that the tape should show "conclusive proof of a plot to kill President Kennedy." There are four voices on the tape, including Nagell, and he was acting as interpreter only at the meeting. Names and places on the tape were cover names and "did not literally mean what they said." For instance, the name Raul is on the tape, but Raul is a cover name. "He also stated that there is a reference to San Juan, Puerto Rico on the tape but that this is a cover for name of Mexico City." The people on the tape did not know they were being taped and he would have been shot if they found out. At the beginning of the interview, Nagell said the tape recording was made on the 20th or 21st of August 1963. Later on, he said the dates were 26th, 27th, 28th and 29th of September of 1963. Of course, that is when Nagell was in jail in El Paso. "When I asked the subject about this apparent contradiction he stated that the September dates had pertained to something else and that he had not been thinking clearly of my question when he answered me." Nagell told Martin that his friend would probably give him the tape recording even without an introduction letter. Nagell said that shortly before the assassination, he had gone to Miami where he learned that two FBI agents were assigned to work with Cuban revolutionaries and that these agents were known as "THE TACOS." While in Miami he had come into possession of a 22-revolver equipped with a silencer and "that he had assumed that this weapon was going to be used in the assassination at close range." Nagell disposed of the weapon "but that he could retrieve it at any time." Nagell asked if Martin was aware of a man in San Antonio who owned a 6.5mm Mannlicher-Carcano rifle. "The subject stated that this man had known Lee Harvey Oswald and had been seen with him on many occasions." The interview completed and the next day Martin went to see Mr. Nicholas - who was responsible for arranging the privileged meeting with Nagell. Nicholas went through Nagell's file and found a pink sheet which was supposedly a form from the Secret Service about a threat to the President. Nagell was just outside and heard the discussion and he told Martin he was upset that he had been friendly with Nicholas. Nagell stalked out of the meeting and told Nicholas to take him back. Nagell then told the prison doctor that "he would not continue with his plans to have me represent him in any manner and for me to "just forget the whole thing."" The physician told Martin that Nagell "had earlier suffered severe brain damage in an airplane accident and that he also suffered from acute paranoia. The physician stated that within a few days the subject might have an equally strong and opposite reaction to this one at our last meeting and might be anxious to see me again." Martin then sent off this short memo to Jim Garrison: Martin then wrote Nagell a letter: Martin's letter was rejected by Nagell: I'm not sure when Garrison sent this note to Martin: Nagell sent this letter to Martin on May 19. 1967: The text reads as follows: Dear Mr. Martin, I am in the process of preparing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, together with a rather lengthy supporting memorandum. When completed, they will filed in the U. S. District Court, Western District of Missouri, at Kansas City, or, if I am returned to Leavenworth beforehand, they will be filed in the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kansas. I shall send a copy by registered mail either to you personally, or to District Court Judge Bernard J. Bagert, with whom, I think, you are acquainted. Necessarily, my petition will be complete; it will reference names of some persons you may wish to subpoena. The reasons for my contemplated action stems from a belief that my involvement, which, as you perfectly know by now was deeper that I have admitted to your or my sister, is going to be made public eventually, anyway. In this request, I hope only that the authorities furnish adequate safeguards for my children. I am informed today I shall be returned to Leavenworth on or about June 12, 1967. Richard C. Nagell Nagell sent this letter to Martin on May 24, 1967: The text of the letter reads: Dear Mr. Martin: This is to advise that in my opinion I am being denied the lawful right, as a person awaiting outcome of appeal, from adequately preparing a Memorandum In Support of my petition for habeas corpus, and that I do not feel I can submit a proper petition without attaching a lengthy supporting memorandum to it. Whether or not the administrative policy responsible for this situation is itself in violation of the law, is, of course, a matter for the court to decide. I can only point out that such policy has the effect of abrogating the right aforementioned and my right of privileged communications with the court. In the latter request I'm sure you can understand there are certain aspects of my case which I prefer not to become general knowledge around the institution, at best not yet, but which must seriously be raised to support my petition. I would ask that you contact Mr. Nicholas, like you did before, and request authorization to visit me under the conditions arranged previously (I promise not to panic). Request that I be allowed to present my hand-written petition and supporting memorandum to you for your perusal and inspection, and that you be permitted to take them with you in order to have them typed up. If Mr. Nicholas wishes to read them himself, that is alright with me as long as it is done in your presence. In fact, it might be a good idea to have them notarized. I cannot emphasize enough how pertinent and vital this matter is to all concerned because in these documents I shall have listed facts that can be substantiated by interviews and official records, and, I shall be willing to testify under oath concerning anything cited or alleged therein. If these arrangements cannot be made to your satisfaction, then I would suggest you ask the proper authorities to initiate court action on my behalf. In either event, I shall appreciate an early advisement of your intentions, if any, to alleviate my punishment. Also, I might advise that I have terminated correspondence with my sister because I don't want her to be dragged into this mess inadvertently. I'm certain you will understand why it had to be so. Richard Nagell Nagell sent this letter to Martin on May 31, 1967: The letter reads: Dear Mr. Martin: I don't know whether or not you are in receipt of my letters dated May 19 and May 24. I would ask that you inform Mr. Nicholas here and make arrangements to visit me as soon as possible. It is important that I speak to you before my departure for Leavenworth. I can assure you will find a visit at this time of [ ] concern to my case to our mutual benefit. Richard C. Nagell Martin wrote back on June 1, 1967: On June 7, 1967, Nagell gave this letter to William Martin to give to Frederick H. John as a letter of introduction: Here is the text of the letter: June 7, 1967 Dear Fred, This will serve to introduce Mr. William R. Martin, an attorney, who is acting on my behalf. Please have him identify himself. I have advised him that our acquaintance is derived strictly out of friendship and that you know absolutely nothing about my past dealings and activities during the years 1962 - 1963. I have written you at least twice after being sent to Leavenworth, but never received an answer. Is everything O.K.? I hope you will keep confidence in me until I am some day in the position to tell you my side of the story, relative to the offence for which I have now been twice convicted and sentenced to the maximum penalty of ten years. In the event you did not receive my last letter, and providing you still have possession of, or know the location of, my personal belongings, I would ask that you check them and give to Mr. Martin one of the small recording tapes which is labeled "Houston -- August 23, 1962" or "Houston -- August 27, 1962" or with similar phrases typed on the label. They are in a box (cigar box, I believe) beneath my films on Korea. If any of the tapes are unlabeled, then let him play the first part of this (if it is in Spanish) to ascertain which one is applicable. Thereafter, I would ask that you immediately dispose of all tape recordings that were in my trunk on September 1963, and also destroy my passport, and all "embarrassing material." (I have also advised Mr. Martin that you do not know the contents of my documentation, photographs, films, tracts, pamphlets or the nature of any belongings you have ever kept for me at my request). Please keep the other things for me, the non-recording things, until I get out of this mess. Thank you. (Please destroy this letter) Dick -- Richard Nagell Martin took the letter and found Mr. John: Nagell then wrote Martin on June 30, 1967 The letter reads as follows: Dear Mr. Martin: I am in receipt of your letter dated June 20. Since the physical evidence referred therein is no longer available, for whatever cause, I see no purpose in continuing with the preparation of my case.. Richard C. Nagell Martin replied on July 7, 1967 Nagell wrote his sister on July 8, 1967 about the tape: Nagell replied to Martin on July 13, 1967: Here is the text of the letter: Dear Mr. Martin: I am in receipt of your letter dated July 7. If I interpret your wordage correctly, it appears that you may have misconstrued my reply of June 30, and the reasons behind it. I did not mean to infer by the assessment I gave that I would not continue with the preparation of my case, nor did I mean to foster the impression that there is no additional physical evidence available to substantiate the more essential elements at stake in my case, let alone the fundamental issues involved. Rather, my assessment pertained strictly to our attorney-client relationship and was based on the assumption that since the particular item of physical evidence was not available, your representation would automatically be terminated (despite the verbiage used in your letter to June 20). In this sense, permit me to remind you that during our last discussion at Springfield you clearly indicated your sole interest in my case was to obtain access to the aforementioned evidence. Regarding such evidence, I might point out that in my letters dated March 10 and March 13 to my sister, both of which were shown to your associate, I emphasized that time was of the essence in transacting the business discussed therein. And, I feel that if the procedure outlined in my March 13 letter had been followed at the very beginning, the item referred would presently be in your custody ... for I can assure you that it did not disappear in 1964, nor was it the subject of a burglary by the opposition, notwithstanding what you were told (probably in good conscience) by the witness. Now, there have been two pertinent and recent developments in my case which call for prompt action on my part, and this is the chief reason I am writing at this time! First off, I have received notification from the Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, that the appeal composed by court-appointed counsel has been filed and should be heard during the fall session. I fully intend to block such appeal for cause that has been cited previously, namely, Mr. [ ] advisement last October that if my second conviction is reversed without my being remanded for a new trial, I shall probably be committed civilly to a mental institution, notwithstanding the facts of my mental status or the findings by the U.S. Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. Secondly, I have received a letter from an attorney who claims he has been retained by Arthur Greenstein to aid me. As I am not yet in communication with Mr. Greenstein I've been unable to confirm this, but there exists no reason to doubt the authenticity of the letter. Hence, in view of this development, I ask that you please forward my memorandum in support of petition for habeas corpus to Mr. Greenstein via postal registry; and also, that you send this correspondence relating to Senator Russell and Kennedy to my sister by registered mail. I shall, of course, be obliged to pay for the inconvenience and any expenses incurred if you will send the bill to my sister. I believe that you are in possession of both her address and that of Mr. Greenstein. In closing, let me say that I too regret the overall effort was not productive. Perhaps the situation will change in the near future. If it does, I shall certainly keep in mind what your have stated in the last paragraph of your most recent letter. Would you be so kind as to acknowledge receipt of this letter. Thank you, Richard C. Nagell Nagell then wrote another letter to Martin on July 16, 1967: The text of the letter reads: Dear Mr. Martin: I am in receipt of a letter dated July 14 from my sister, Mrs. Eleanore G. Gambert, which advises that she has not received the carbon copies of my petition for habeas corpus or its supporting memorandum. In my opinion this constitutes a flagrant breach of faith on your part as you know very well I would not have given you the original of the latter document unless you had promised to mail the carbon copies to her by registered mail . . . which you did promise at Springfield. So I am going to tell you, quite frankly, if the aforesaid documents are not released to my sister immediately, I shall take whatever legal steps appear necessary to correct the situation. I am not the fool you probably think I am, and in this respect, I strongly urge that you don't underestimate my intentions if these documents are not given to her. For your information, my sister can be reached at the Maple Lake Farm, Kenyon, Rhode Island, where she will be until July 29, after which she plans to return to Canada. Richard C. Nagell Martin then wrote Nagell's friend Arthur Greenstein: Martin wrote Nagell on July 25, 1967: Here is Martin's letter to Nagell's sister, dated July 25, 1967: Nagell wrote Martin on July 30, 1967: Here is the text of the letter: Dear Mr. Martin: I have received your letter dated July 25, in which you first allude to a lack of good manners on my part and then proceed to ridicule the substance of one of my letters as "presumptuous nonsense." Regarding the former, permit me to remind you of your promise to mail the carbon-copies of my petition and its supporting memorandum to my sister before you departed Springfield on June 7, and the fact that you failed to do so. As pertains to your reasons -- which are really quite academic -- for the ensuing month-and-a-half delay in mailing these documents, let me remind you of our accord that they would not be typed up since they were not to be filed in court. This, by itself, makes your explanation sound rather empty, to say the least. Concerning the letter reference, that is, your pious declaration of my "presumptuous nonsense," - if you are indeed referring to the balance of the letter I wrote you on July 16, then I can but say I'm sure you would not have judged the legal steps I contemplated to be either presumptuous or nonsense, had they been initiated. However, if you are referring to the communication sent your associate, also dated July 16, then I would at this time offer an apology. For I have since been apprised of information which not only convinces me there was no valid basis for the conjecture cited therein, but also that you have never acted in an operational capacity with that particular company. Still, it is unfortunate that you could not actually exercise the restraint to which you alluded in the closing paragraph of your letter, and appreciate that any individual might jump to an erroneous conclusion when he is restricted to a minimum of data and a maximum of suspicion in evaluating a given situation. I say "unfortunate", because had you displayed more tolerance in this matter, especially in view of your own shortcomings, I'm sure I would have eventually cooled off and seen to it that the physical evidence you sought at Los Angeles was delivered to your hands personally, possibly within a period of weeks. I would have done this to show that I too can be trusted to keep my part of a bargain, not that you have done so in all respects. Finally, in terminating our business and knotty association, I am going to venture that the future will show you people need me much more then I need you; that D.F. and his friends were nothing but peripheral characters, always expendable; who didn't really know the scheme of things, and couldn't tell you anything even if they were around to do so, which they are not; and that while you people may have set sail in the right direction you are now (from what I hear) about 180 degrees off course . . . but then, that is how it was meant to be. Thanks for nothing, Richard C. Nagell Interesting that Nagell says that "D.F. [David Ferrie} and his friends were nothing but peripheral characters, always expendable; who didn't really know the scheme of things ..." The Garrison investigation was "180 degrees off course," and only Nagell could right the ship. Martin wrote Nagell on August 7, 1967: Here is a letter from Nagell to Martin dated August 30, 1967: Here is the text of the letter: Dear Mr. Martin: If you recall, in my letter dated July 13, I asked that you send the correspondence related to Senator Russell and Kennedy to my sister. She received all but the original of Senator Russell's letter, to me, dated January 20, and I note by the applicable enclosure to your letter to July 25 that it was not included in the list of documents mailed to her. Hence, I would again request that you send this particular item to her, at your earliest convenience. Thank you. In answer to your letter, aforementioned, which I feel warranted a clear reply, first, let me say that if you had informed me that security considerations were partially responsible for the delay in mailing the carbon copies of the drafts of my petition and supporting memorandum, instead of the reason you did cite, such explanation would have been quite acceptable to me. As for the communication sent your associate (?) which was forwarded through privileged channels (ostensibly, at least) it is of some concern to me that you were not apprised, in any manner, of this. I did not intend for it to be -- nor do I think it should have been - kept from your [ ] It is of greater concern, however, that you are unaware of to whom I referred. The only cryptic part of my entire reference was the word "company" and I used the term as instructed with the assurance given that you would understand it. Now, I wonder about what the recipient of that communication, and several others which were forwarded to the same source through the same "privileged" channels, explaining in further detail my relationship to the subject discussed at Springfield and knowing the identify and last known whereabouts of some of the gusanos involved. I am utterly pissed off at what has, apparently, happened through what can best be called my own stupidity. Anyway; as a result of the foregoing, and for other, somewhat more practical reasons, I want you to know that I am closely reserving any and all rights of privileged communications that you may consider as having been legally in effect at the time we had our discussion. This, of course, may appear unnecessary and even academic from your standpoint and position. Nonetheless, you have it in writing for whatever purpose, if any, the future may dictate. Richard C. Nagell Here is a letter that Martin sent Nagell on September 11, 1967: On the same date, Martin sent a letter to Richard Popkin: ******************************************************************************************************************************* Discussion of the above documents I have to feel for William Martin. He did everything he could to get the supposed tape recording of the conspirators. He was walking a tightrope since the slightest comment could set off Nagell. In the end, there was no tape, and no tape has ever shown up. Nagell wrote his sister on June 12, 1967 that "one major cause of the recent setback in my dealing with Mr. Martin stems directly from his advisement that he is a former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency. He could have done no worse by telling me he was an ex-F.B.I. man. Regardless of his reasons for such advisement, I can only say it had the effect of making me extremely cautious and suspicious ... I intend to take whatever steps I deem appropriate to protect my interests in the matter at hand." Note that Martin was the one who told Nagell that he had a CIA connection. And note that Nagell's correspondence with Martin continued well after he knew of the connection. William Martin was not a CIA operative, he was just a domestic contact of the CIA in 1964 and 1965 : Here is the routing sheet for that document: You can see the notation on the bottom right that reads "No indication in OS file that MARTIN was used by any other Agency component than DCS [Domestic Contact Service]." Conspiracy theorist James DiEugenio can't quite be sure if Martin is to blame for the failure to retrieve the supposed tape. He writes in Destiny Betrayed : (page 183) "Garrison arranged to have one of the many volunteers that had flocked to his office interview Nagell. This was a lawyer named William Martin. This turned out to be one of the many errors Garrison made. For it later turned out that Martin was suspected of being one of several CIA plants in Garrison's office. And his practice was located at Shaw's International Trade Mart. Neither Nagell nor Garrison had suspicions about the man at the time of Martin's first interview with Nagell." He then writes: (page 184) "Due to the handling of certain other documents between the two, and their future filing, by July of 1967, Nagell became quite estranged from Martin, and terminated any further discussions with him." So, what was really going on? Richard Case Nagell wanted help on his appeal. He realized that Garrison could possibly help. But the only way to get that help was to entice them with something related to their case. It's interesting that Nagell was not only following Garrison's case but that he wanted Martin to tell him about their theories. That way he could make everything fit. Martin did help Nagell. He forwarded documents and he had Nagell's writ of habeas corpus typed up. You can see some of this document here. Once Martin realized the tape was not going to materialize there was no further need to help Nagell. And Nagell knew he had nothing else to keep Martin helping him. Even so, Nagell kept on writing. Many prisoners contacted Jim Garrison. Edward Whalen and Edward Girnus were two other prisoners who claimed they had important information. James Alcock, Garrison's second-in-command, went down to interview Whalen. After he returned to New Orleans, Whalen wrote him a letter saying, well, come back because I have more information. Alcock did not go back, although Garrison sent the Whalen 'lead' to the HSCA. When Nagell died in 1995, the ARRB searched his belongings. There was no tape, and no documents relevant to the JFK assassination. But no matter. The mythical tape lives on. James DiEugenio, in his book, The Assassinations, uses the supposed tape to indict Sergio Arcacha Smith in the assassination. Update The Martin-Nagell correspondence continued in 1968: Martin replied: William Martin developed a fondness for Richard Case Nagell. Richard Case Nagell Blog Posts A Wrap-Up of the Richard Case Nagell Story The Importance of Richard Case Nagell to Some Conspiracy Theorists Was Richard Case Nagell the "Most Important Witness There Is"? Jim Garrison and a few conspiracy theorists think Nagell is a very important witness. But is he really? Genesis of the Richard Case Nagell story Did David Kroman Crack the JFK Assassination Conspiracy? David Kroman met Richard Case Nagell at the Springfield Medical Center for Federal Prisoners. Stephen Jaffe, a Garrison volunteer, wrote a memo, relating Nagell's story through the eyes and ears of David Kroman. Richard Case Nagell Shoots Up the State National Bank in El Paso... Nagell was convicted of armed robbery and was sentenced to ten years, but his conviction was overturned because of startling new evidence. Richard Case Nagell and the JFK Assassination Did Richard Case Nagell Have Foreknowledge of Oswald and the JFK Assassination? There is no credible evidence that Nagell had any foreknowledge of either Lee Harvey Oswald or the JFK assassination. Did Richard Case Nagell Meet Lee Harvey Oswald? Nagell claims he met Oswald in Japan, Texas, Mexico City, and New Orleans. There is no credible evidence that he ever met Oswald. Did Richard Case Nagell Warn Fidel Castro about the Assassination? Nagell went to Cuba and met with Fidel Castro and even played ping-pong with the man. Insane Conspiracy Theories about Richard Case Nagell Who was Leon Oswald? Richard Case Nagell said that he knew the two Oswalds - Lee Harvey and Leon. Some conspiracy theorists believe this madness. Richard Popkin Melds the Second Oswald Theory with the Richard Case Nagell Story Combine one part crazy and one part ridiculous and what do you come up with? An early attempt at a unified conspiracy theory of the JFK assassination. Two Smoking Guns of the Richard Case Nagell Story Is this Document the Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story? Nagell sent conspiracy theorist Dick Russell one page of a military intelligence file which seemed to indicate that he was monitoring Oswald and his wife on behalf of the CIA. But does the whole document really show that? Dick Russell's Second Smoking Gun on the Richard Case Nagell Story Did Richard Case Nagell had an Oswald Military ID in his possession when he was arrested in September 1963? Richard Case Nagell and Jim Garrison Why Didn't Richard Case Nagell Testify at Clay Shaw's Trial? Richard Case Nagell believes that he wasn't called to testify at Clay Shaw's trial because his testimony would have blown up Jim Garrison's case. Jim Garrison Discusses Richard Case Nagell At a conference in September 1968, Garrison and his investigators discuss his face-to-face meeting with Nagell in New York City. Richard Case Nagell Sends Jim Garrison on a Wild-Goose Chase William Martin, an Assistant District Attorney working for Jim Garrison, tried to retrieve a tape that Nagell said contained the voices of three JFK assassination conspirators. Richard Popkin Writes Garrison About Richard Case Nagell Richard Popkin, author of "The Second Oswald," writes Jim Garrison about Richard Case Nagell. Garrison staffer Tom Bethell thought the Nagell lead was useless. Richard Case Nagell's Mental Health Richard Case Nagell's Fight for a Disability Pension Nagell won a full disability pension in 1982 and the 60+ page court case provides complete details on his mental problems. Why Did Richard Case Nagell Shoot Up the First National Bank of El Paso? Richard Case Nagell told a psychiatrist why he shot up the bank in El Paso in 1963. Richard Case Nagell's Family Speaks about his Mental Health The FBI spoke to Nagell's ex-wife, his mother, his sister, and one of his friends. They all agreed that Nagell had significant mental health problems. Richard Case Nagell Visits Europe in 1969... Nagell visited the American consulates in Zurich and Barcelona in 1969. He was a deeply disturbed man. Richard Case Nagell's Evidence Richard Case Nagell's Nonexistent Evidence None of the so-called evidence that Nagell promised would materialize on his death has shown up. Did this evidence ever exist?

This is an excellent review. Money Quote : Platoon leader Stone carries out his mission here with his characteristic indifference to intellectual niceties. "JFK" is a guerrilla raid on our sensibilities. Stone doesn't bother to try to win the hearts and minds of the audience with coherent, rational argument; he simply takes them prisoner. Money Quote : He [Jim Garrison] would be an ideal vehicle for exploring the assassination controversy if it weren't for the embarrassing fact that the case he brought against Shaw was a shambles: the jury reached a "not guilty" verdict in less than an hour of deliberation, and it's almost impossible to find a conspiracy theorist today who thinks that Shaw had anything to do with the assassination. Garrison tried his case mostly in the press and on television, regularly issuing wild pronouncements about evidence in his possession which would establish beyond doubt the identity of Kennedy's murderers. What he produced in court, however, was skimpy testimony from highly impeachable witnesses. Shamelessly, he turned the paucity of evidence for the conspiracy into evidence of a cover-up, and he wasn't shy (or particularly selective) about assigning blame for the supposed obstruction of his investigation. The C.I.A., the Justice Department and Lyndon Johnson all took their licks from Garrison in the media, and in one televised interview he suggested that Robert Kennedy was working against him, too. The New Yorker, January 13, 1992 Money Quote : Stone has also been saying that he's less interested in the "who" and the "how" of the conspiracy than in the "why" -- that the answer to why Kennedy was killed will lead us to the truth about everything else. The most charitable interpretation of that statement is that Stone isn't a rigorous logician: how, exactly, would someone determine why a President was murdered without first knowing who did it and how it was done. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Oliver Stone's JFK Oliver Stone Gets Away with Nonsense At an event in Dallas, Stone says that someone gave orders to Allen Dulles and James Angleton to kill JFK. Is this the Oliver Stone Contract for the Ricky White Story? Stone was interested in the White story. Daniel Patrick Moynihan on Oliver Stone's 'JFK' A very good opinion piece published in the Washington Post . The Second Coming of Jim Garrison An important article from The Atlantic  by Edward Jay Epstein on Oliver Stone's JFK . David Wrone on Oliver Stone's "JFK" Wrone was a friend of Harold Weisberg's and was also very critical of JFK . Oliver Stone says his "battles continue with the truth" More inane comments on the JFK assassination. Oliver Stone Claims He is Not a Conspiracy Theorist An excerpt from an interview with Chris Wallace. Oliver Stone's Hijacking of History   A good opinion piece from the Boston Globe . Harold Weisberg writes Oliver Stone   Two letters from Weisberg to Stone. Joe Bob Goes to the Drive-In Reviews "JFK"   A good review of Stone's JFK . Paul Hoch and Josiah Thompson on Oliver Stone's "JFK"   Two JFK researchers watch Stone's JFK . Washington Post on the 30th Anniversary of Oliver Stone's "JFK"   An interesting look back. Harold Weisberg and Tom Wicker   Wicker reviews JFK  for the New York Times  and Weisberg responds. Boston Phoenix  said Oliver Stone's JFK was "sadly homophobic"   Even this counterculture newspaper knew the truth about JFK. David Lifton Writes to Oliver Stone   David Lifton gave me permission to post this letter. Gary Cornwell on Jim Garrison and Oliver Stone   The Deputy Chief Counsel of the HSCA offers up some opinions. When Tommy Lee Jones met Jim Garrison...   Garrison instructed Tommy Lee Jones on how to play Clay Shaw. Is Oliver Stone's film, JFK , Homophobic?   The Advocate  writes about Oliver Stone and Jim Garrison. I've Been Blocked by Oliver Stone!   This post has a large Robert Sam Anson article on the film JFK  from Esquire  magazine. A New Orleans Look at Oliver Stone's JFK   Pershing Gervais, Garrison's first chief investigator, and reporter Rosemary James report back on the film JFK . George Lardner's internal Washington Post  Memo about Oliver Stone   Lardner writes a memo to his editors about Oliver Stone.

The KlausK Hotel in Finland Jefferson Morley's substack focuses on Oswald's trip to Finland and wonders about Oswald's stay at luxury hotels in Helsinki . How on earth did Oswald stay at a luxury hotel? Well, I can provide part of the answer, thanks to a Finnish correspondent. The current Klaus Kurki hotel, while it has the same name, is a different hotel from the one that Oswald stayed in. Here is an English translation of an email from the hotel management: Hotel Klaus K. wasn't opened until 2005, so unfortunately we are unable to answer your question. Klaus Kurki -hotel was a different hotel, though we still use an almost identical name to this very day. I hope you will find your answer somewhere else and be able to clarify this matter! Merry Christmastime, Kämp Collection Hotels."  So, the Klaus Kurki hotel in 1959 might not have been a luxury hotel, and that might be the same for the Hotel Torni. In addition, the American dollar was strong in the late 1950s and I guess that Finnish hotels were not expensive. Helsinki was not a hot tourist destination at that time. Here is an excerpt from a tourist guidebook from 1953 : Here is a guidebook from 1964 : Both the Torni and the Klaus Kurki are listed in the "inexpensive" section. The problem withe conspiracy theorists is that when they cannot explain something, they instantly reach for a conspiratorial conclusion. This is evident all through this article about Finland. If we cannot readily understand how Oswald entered Finland, then it must have been in connivance with the U.S. government. Why was Oswald's luggage not inspected? Perhaps because they didn't inspect everybody's? Sometimes the answers are mundane, and not conspiratorial. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley Morley Keeps Asking the Same Questions He keeps asking the same questions, and we keep posting the same answers. The JFK Assassination and Truth Conspiracy authors are playing fast and loose with the facts. Was Herminio Diaz a Grassy Knoll Assassin? There is no evidence that Diaz was involved in the JFK assassination. Morley Misleads on Arthur Schlesinger's Memo on the CIA There are clues as to what is in a redacted section of Schlesinger's memo. Jefferson Morley's Podcast on New Orleans Lays an Egg Chad Nagle and Dan Storper's article on New Orleans gets everything wrong. Chad Nagle and Dan Storper Lay an Egg Believing Michael Kurtz is problematic. Is Jefferson Morley Seeing Double? Morley wrote that there are two redacted memos on CIA reorganization, but there is only one. He wrote about Goodwin's copy as if it was a different memo, rather than a copy of the Schlesinger memo. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination. Jefferson Morley is Wrong on William Harvey, Again! Only one word is redacted in Harvey's deposition. Jefferson Morley is Wrong about Operation Northwoods, Again! There are no redactions in the Operation Northwoods document. Did Dorothy Kilgallen Have any Special Knowledge about the JFK Assassination? Kilgallen had nothing to tell. Morley's Interview of Marina Oswald Porter Fizzles! An underwhelming interview of Marina Oswald. Jefferson Morley: Able to Leap Intellectual Chasms in a Single Bound Morley often repeats stories and changes their meanings. There was NO Assassination Plot in Chicago Chad Nagle claims there was an assassination plot against JFK in Chicago in November 1963. One problem: There is no evidence of such a plot. Fred Litwin, CIA Apologist? A response to Morley's Substack post alleging that I am a CIA apologist. A Reply to Jefferson Morley on Bill Harvey   A rebuttal to Morley's response to my post Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963? Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963?   There is no credible evidence Harvey was in Dallas in November of 1963. Does it Matter Where Allen Dulles was on November 22, 1963?   Morley repeats the claim that Dulles was at a CIA training center during the weekend of the JFK assassination. He wasn't. Jefferson Morley's Claims about Reuben Efron   Morley's claims about Efron are all wrong. A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods   Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply. W. Tracy Parnell on Jefferson Morley   W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles. The Truth about Operation Northwoods   Operation Northwoods can only be understood as part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby   And a response from me. Did Dr. Louis Jolyon West Ask to Examine Jack Ruby in November 1963?   There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case?   There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Four   Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions...   An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.

Jefferson Morley has just posted his five JFK questions for 2025 . Let's go through each of his five questions, which he has asked over and over again. Will President Trump rescind CIA/Biden ‘Transparency Plans’ on Day One? I don't know when or if Trump will release the remaining redacted files. I am sure that if Trump does release the redactions that Morley and company will be extremely disappointed. Yes, we will learn a little more about the Cold War and perhaps a little more about Mexican intelligence, but we will learn precious little about the JFK assassination. Will Trump Expend Political Capital to Release JFK files? I don't think Trump will expend much political capital to release the JFK files. And that is only because I don't believe it will take much political capital to release the remaining redactions. Will RFK Jr. Have the Clout to Force Release Over CIA Objections? Actually, I hope that RFK Jr. has little clout over anything. I hope that he is not confirmed for his new job -- he is singularly unqualified for any service in government. The last thing any administration needs is his conspiracy nonsense. Will Kash Patel Declassify an FBI Report on an Alleged Dealey Plaza Gunman? There is absolutely no evidence that Herminio Diaz was a gunman. I've covered this in the past: Was Herminio Diaz a Grassy Knoll Assassin? A lot of the redactions in the FBI document that Morley cites are already public: Jefferson Morley asks why "what the CIA knew about Herminio Diaz is still off limits." Will CIA release the Joannides file? Morley has been asking this question for years. The ARRB knew exactly who Joannides was and they examined his personnel file. T hey released what is relevant and deemed the rest to be not relevant. I covered this all in this blog post. The Joannides files that Morley wants will probably not be released by Trump because they are not considered part of the JFK assassination collection of documents. I hope that Trump does release the redactions - with the exception of social security numbers of people who are still alive -- although I doubt it will stop conspiracy theorists from speculating on what is still being withheld. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on Jefferson Morley The JFK Assassination and Truth Conspiracy authors are playing fast and loose with the facts. Was Herminio Diaz a Grassy Knoll Assassin? There is no evidence that Diaz was involved in the JFK assassination. Morley Misleads on Arthur Schlesinger's Memo on the CIA There are clues as to what is in a redacted section of Schlesinger's memo. Jefferson Morley's Podcast on New Orleans Lays an Egg Chad Nagle and Dan Storper's article on New Orleans gets everything wrong. Chad Nagle and Dan Storper Lay an Egg Believing Michael Kurtz is problematic. Is Jefferson Morley Seeing Double? Morley wrote that there are two redacted memos on CIA reorganization, but there is only one. He wrote about Goodwin's copy as if it was a different memo, rather than a copy of the Schlesinger memo. Jefferson Morley is wrong about "Who Shot John?" The phrase 'who shot John' does not refer to the JFK assassination. Jefferson Morley is Wrong on William Harvey, Again! Only one word is redacted in Harvey's deposition. Jefferson Morley is Wrong about Operation Northwoods, Again! There are no redactions in the Operation Northwoods document. Did Dorothy Kilgallen Have any Special Knowledge about the JFK Assassination? Kilgallen had nothing to tell. Morley's Interview of Marina Oswald Porter Fizzles! An underwhelming interview of Marina Oswald. Jefferson Morley: Able to Leap Intellectual Chasms in a Single Bound Morley often repeats stories and changes their meanings. There was NO Assassination Plot in Chicago Chad Nagle claims there was an assassination plot against JFK in Chicago in November 1963. One problem: There is no evidence of such a plot. Fred Litwin, CIA Apologist? A response to Morley's Substack post alleging that I am a CIA apologist. A Reply to Jefferson Morley on Bill Harvey   A rebuttal to Morley's response to my post Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963? Was Bill Harvey in Dallas in November of 1963?   There is no credible evidence Harvey was in Dallas in November of 1963. Does it Matter Where Allen Dulles was on November 22, 1963?   Morley repeats the claim that Dulles was at a CIA training center during the weekend of the JFK assassination. He wasn't. Jefferson Morley's Claims about Reuben Efron   Morley's claims about Efron are all wrong. A Reply to Jefferson Morley regarding Operation Northwoods   Morley responded to my article "The Truth about Operation Northwoods." Here is my reply. W. Tracy Parnell on Jefferson Morley   W. Tracy Parnell is one of the best JFK assassination researchers out there. Here is his look at Jefferson Morley with several important articles. The Truth about Operation Northwoods   Operation Northwoods can only be understood as part of the Kennedys' war against Cuba and Operation Mongoose. Jefferson Morley Responds to my Post on MK-Ultra and Jack Ruby   And a response from me. Did Dr. Louis Jolyon West Ask to Examine Jack Ruby in November 1963?   There is no evidence that Dr. West petitioned the court to examine Jack Ruby before his trial. Did the CIA use a MK-Ultra Psychiatrist to Interfere with Jack Ruby's Case?   There is absolutely no evidence that Dr. Louis Jolyon West interfered with Jack Ruby's case. "JFK: Destiny Betrayed" Misleads Viewers on Oswald's "Hands Off Cuba!" Handbills, Part Four   Jefferson Morley used a fake Oswald handbill in his press conference for the Mary Ferrell Foundation. Redactions, Redactions, Redactions...   An examination of redactions in the JFK collection of documents.

Here is the Secret Service report on Thomas Arthur Vallee and his supposed threat to JFK in Chicago in November 1963. Did Vallee ever pose a real threat to JFK? All it says is that he made "comments against the President." But what did he actually say? Yes, Vallee didn't like Kennedy and he was a gun nut, but so were thousands of other people. There has always been a question of just how much ammunition was in Vallee's car when he was arrested : Here is an excerpt from the HSCA interview with Secret Service agent Edward Tucker about Vallee: Vallee's landlady said that he was not going to work on Saturday. But wasn't the plan to shoot JFK from the building in which he worked? This is exactly the scenario discussed in Oliver Stone's so-called document series JFK: Destiny Betrayed . Here is an excerpt from the book JFK Revisited : (pages 234 -235 of the Kindle edition) Paul Bleau : What you found in Vallee and the whole Chicago plot is so many similarities to what eventually happened in Dallas that it can’t be considered coincidental. Vallee, if we compare him to Oswald is an ex-Marine. He had been posted like Oswald in the Far East on a station that was linked to the CIA because there were U-2 surveillance planes on it. It was easy to portray him as disgruntled, anti-Kennedy, a loner, armed. He had another intelligence link that he shared with Oswald in that he trained Cuban exiles for combat, which was a CIA responsibility. And Oswald, we know, at least offered to do that, he most likely did train Cuban exiles, but we know he tried to. Oswald, as we know, was moved from New Orleans to Dallas in October to be there just at the right time for the motorcade. And he’s placed in a tall building where he gets a job and he’s adjacent to the perfect kill zone. Now, if we look at what happened to Vallee, he’s moved like a pawn in August from Long Island to Chicago to be in there in time for the motorcade. And where does he get a job? In a tall building adjacent to the motorcade with a perfect view of a kill zone. It would have forced Kennedy’s motorcade to do a sharp turn, slow down and be in a point where you could have that perfect triangulation of fire. Most of what Paul Bleau says is just not true. There were no U-2s at Vallee's Japanese airbase when he was there. There is no evidence that he "trained Cuban exiles for combat." And Oswald did not train Cuban exiles. Here is the Secret Service Protective Research File on Vallee : Previous Blog Posts on Vince Palamara's book on the supposed plot in Chicago A Reply to Vince Palamara Palamara tries to respond to my five-part series on his book. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Five An examination of Palamara's second eight pieces of corroborating evidence for the plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Four An examination of Palamara's first eight pieces of corroborating evidence for the plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Three A look at the origin of the supposed plot. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part Two A look at Homer Echeverria. Vince Palamara's Epic Failure, Part One A look at Lloyd John Wilson. Previous Blog Posts on the supposed plot in Chicago Secret Service Survey Report for Chicago, November 1963 This document was supposedly destroyed by the Secret Service. There was NO Assassination Plot in Chicago Chad Nagle tries to argue that there was a plot. Edwin Black Speaks to the HSCA   The HSCA did speak to Edwin Black. It was a memorable interview. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot   There is no evidence of a plot in Chicago against JFK. Paul Bleau and the Supposed Chicago Plot Against JFK   Bolden's story about the supposed Chicago plot has changed over the years. Paul Bleau's Plots   An examination of supposed other plots against JFK. Abraham Bolden's May 1964 Press Conference   Bolden didn't say one word about a supposed plot against JFK in Chicago.

Oliver Stone's so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass , misleads viewers on JFK's back wound. The film alleges that the Warren Commission and Gerald Ford raised the wound, and then the HSCA lowered the wound, so as to support the single-bullet theory. Here is an excerpt from a transcript: 1:04:21 Dr. Donald Miller : The face sheet for the autopsy where it shows the front and back silhouette of the body where you mark scars and bullet wounds and things. The face sheet showed the bullet wound in the back at the level of thoracic vertebra T3 which is 5 1/2 to six inches below. Whoopi Goldberg : That location coincided with what Sibert and O'Neill wrote in their report. And in order to make the facts fit the single bullet theory, one bullet doing all this damage, the doctors needed an exit point for the back wound. The Warren Commission raised the wound in the back so that it would align with the alleged exit wound in the front of Kennedy's neck. Commissioner Gerald Ford did this simply with the stroke of a pen, changing the description in their report from 'back' to 'back of the neck.' Dr. Cyril Wecht : As I recall, they said about Gerald Ford that he could not chew gum and walk at the same time. Now all of a sudden, he becomes a forensic pathologist, and a photographer, and a criminalist, and an expert, and he knows where the bullet hole was and he moved it up. Whoopi Goldberg : But then in 1979, the House Select Committee moved it lower in the back because they had pictures from the autopsy. It is conceivable that, at the time, the Warren Commission thought no one would ever see the autopsy photos. When the review board declassified the notations showing what Ford had done, the former commissioner replied that it had nothing to do with a conspiracy theory. He was only trying to be more precise. I must question whether there was any need for Dr. Cyril Wecht to add that comment in about Gerald Ford. It's nasty and not really relevant. Let's start with the face sheet: The controversy about the above diagram is not new - this was raised by Edward Jay Epstein in his book Inquest back in 1966. Dr. Thornton Boswell placed the dot in the back a little too low, but his written description on the diagram is more accurate. I'm not sure why we really care how Gerald Ford changed the description of the wound in the introductory section of the Warren Report: Screen shot from JFK Revisited The neck wounds are discussed in much more detail in a later section in the Warren Report. If Gerald Ford had that later chapter on hand, his change just added consistency and precision. Author Jean Davison asked a good question on one of the JFK assassination boards: "I respectfully ask that you take another look at this issue. My question is still, what evidence is there that Ford made his revision in order to support the SBT?" She added: "To my knowledge, [nobody] has ever explained how moving the back wound up to THE NECK supports the SBT. Nobody CAN support it, because moving the entry to the neck would destroy the WC's SBT trajectory, not strengthen it. Again I'll refer you to CE 903 . Although Specter didn't drill a hole in the stand-in's body and drive the rod through it, had he done so, the entry would be in the upper back, not in the neck. There's a string on the wall above his hand that shows an angle of about 18 degrees -- that's the approximate angle measured by a surveyor during the re-enactment and the one the WC used for its SBT. If the rod is moved up to the neck, the bullet will exit well above the exit wound under JFK's Adam's apple. Or take a look at this photo of JFK. Try drawing a line of c. 18 degrees backward from the knot in JFK's tie. Where does it come out? Upper back, right? The claim that Ford's change "strengthens" the WC's SBT is simply not true. If I haven't made my point by now, I give up." -- Jean Davison; January 2, 2007 All of this is somewhat complicated because it is important to take into account the lean of Kennedy's body - which was absent from the Warren Report/Specter perspective. Here is the photo that Jean Davison refers to: David Von Pein writes: "Ford didn't need to move the back wound up. And in fact he didn't, since the phrase he revised put the wound on "his back at a point slightly above the shoulder." [Jean's emphasis.] It can't be above the shoulder and still be in the back. (Except maybe in conspiracyland where apparently anything is possible.)" Gerald Ford made a reasonable and purely editorial change. The bullet fired from the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository was moving downward at 18 °. Moving the entry up from the base of the neck would have made it too steep for the single-bullet theory: JFK Revisited tries to create a mystery where there is none. The Warren Commission made a big mistake in not having a team of forensic pathologists examine the autopsy X-rays and photographs. But now they have been examined and we know the location of JFK's back wound. Previous Relevant Blog Posts on JFK Revisited "JFK Revisited" alleges Oswald was "placed" Oliver Stone's so-called documentary alleges that Oswald was "moved" to Dallas and "placed" in the Texas School Book Depository. This is totally ridiculous. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Throat Wound The preponderance of the evidence indicates JFK"s throat wound was one of exit. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Supposed Chicago Plot There is no evidence that there was actually a plot against JFK in Chicago. Was James Gochenaur a Credible Witness in "JFK Revisited"? Gochenaur's writings don't back up his allegations in JFK Revisited. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on Guy Banister Oliver Stone's so-called documentary claims that Guy Banister gave Oswald a room at 544 Camp Street. The evidence does not support the allegation. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on JFK's Brain, Again... Dr. Robert Kirschner's consultation with the ARRB explains a mystery in the documentary. "JFK Revisited" Misleads on the Weight of JFK's Brain JFK Revisited makes a big deal about the weight of JFK's brain and ignores a non-conspiratorial explanation. JFK Revisited Distorts John Stringer's Testimony Oliver Stone's so-called documentary makes it sound like the autopsy photographer said that he did not take the photos of JFK's brain that are in the current inventory, JFK Revisited Lays an Egg Oliver Stone took to Twitter last weekend to bemoan the fact that the mainstream press is ignoring his so-called documentary, JFK Revisited: Through the Looking Glass. Oliver Stone with "JFK Revisited" Crucifies Clay Shaw Once Again There is something really obscene about Oliver Stone once again going after Clay Shaw. JFK Revisited Doesn't Tell the Whole Truth about John Connally You won't learn everything you need to know about Connally's position on the shots from Oliver Stone's so-called documentary. JFK Revisited Uses Marina Porter to Mislead Viewers Oliver Stone tries to make it seem like Marina Porter has denied taking the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Were the Oswald Backyard Photographs Faked? Oliver Stone once again raises the issue of the legitimacy of the backyard photographs of Lee Harvey Oswald. JFK Revisited: Was Clay Shaw the elusive Clay Bertrand? This post debunks every witness that ever claimed Shaw was Bertrand. Oliver Stone's Poverty of Imagination He cannot imagine any sort of non-conspiratorial explanations for any of the suspicious pieces of evidence in his film. Was Clay Shaw a "Contract Agent" for the CIA? No, Clay Shaw was not a "contract agent." Steve Roe Blog Posts on JFK Revisited JFK Revisited: Again, Caught Creating False Mysteries "Stone/DiEugenio hatch another Bogus Mystery with Sinister Strap/Sling Mounts on Oswald's Rifle" JFK Revisited: Tripping on the Stairs Oliver Stone claims that Oswald could not have been in the sniper's nest on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Steve Roe exposes Stone's mistakes. Oliver Stone doubles-down on the Looney Frontal Shot to the President In an interview on RT [Russia Today], Oliver Stone says that the throat wound might have been made by a flechette. Oliver Stone - Deceptive Filmmaker? Steve Roe presents some examples of Oliver Stone's 'creative' abilities. A Look at the "JFK Revisited: Through The Looking Glass" Film by Oliver Stone Oliver Stone distorts the testimony about Oswald's palmprint on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle.

Episode 2 of my new podcast series, On the Trail of Delusion , is now available for viewing on YouTube . Please go out and buy Robert's excellent book on the JFK assassination : Here is my 5-star review of JFK Assassinated : Previous Episodes of On the Trail of Delusion : My first guest was Robert Reynolds who is an expert on the JFK assassination files .