I don't understand the assertion by one of the authors that Oswald's landing a job at the TSBD via a tip from Ruth Paine was just happenstance. Frankly, that assertion is so ridiculous as to cast doubt on the author's interpretations and reporting of other key facts. Since Oswald was being set up as the patsy--at least as far back as his supposed trip to Mexico--how can it be a mere coincidence that Oswald ended up working in a building at the most vulnerable point on the parade route, where the alleged rifle (or rifles--first reported in the media as a German Mauzer and only later as a Mannlicher-Carcano to conveniently match Oswald's mail order) and shells were "found" (or planted) on the sixth floor. MOREOVER, just before Oswald started work at the TSBD, the employment agency called Ruth Paine's house to alert him to the availability of a better-paying job as a baggage handler; the woman who answered the phone--almost certainly Ruth Paine--never passed on that message to him. So to posit Oswald's presence in the TSBD as a matter of mere chance is preposterous, given the overall contextual evidence, and suggests that the authors are pushing a skewed perspective rather than dealing dispassionately with the evidence. In fact, when I heard their interpretation about his landing the job at TSBD, I thought, "These guys have a weird interpretive agenda, I don't trust them, and I"m not going to waste money and time on this book."
My thinking has been congruent with yours for 60 years. Without discarding the conclusions you and I made, I have found my stance regarding the conspiracy shifting slightly to where I am more confused than I am adamant. There are things I do not know and there are some I am convinced of.
This was the first JFKfacts podcast I have viewed and it reinforced the shifting of my stance. There were also reflections of the positions I have now come to question. Have we not read that the Hands Off Cuba leaflets distributed at the Trade Center were printed by a CIA front?
Mr. Gunny and Mr. Williamson: The offer of the job as a baggage handler is covered in detail in James W. Douglass's "JFK and the Unspeakable." pp. 172-173, and is meticulously sourced to the WC testimony of Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission. He called Ruth Paine's phone on October 15, the day before Oswald began work at the TSBD, offering a job as a baggage handler for Trans Texas Airways that paid a a hundred dollars ($1,000 in current dollars) more per month than the TSBD job--a major difference for anyone, especially for someone in Oswald's financial straits. The person answering the phone told him Oswald was not there. He tried calling again the next morning and again was told Oswald was not there and had begun working at another job.
Douglass then quotes an extended portion of Paine's WC testimony on this subject in which she is obviously lying: first she claims never to have heard of any such offer, and then quickly shifts gears to recall some such offer, which she claimed "fell through--that there was not that possibility." She even claims that it was Oswald who told her about that job and told her that the airline job had been filled and was not available. This contradicts the much clearer and more honest testimony of the employment agent, Robert Adams, who testified to the WC, "I do not know whether he was ever advised of this referral, but under the circumstances I do not see how he could have been."
In the space of a couple of minutes of questioning, Paine first claimed no recollection of the airline offer, then a vague recollection, and then fabricated a story about Oswald having told her about it. Clearly she was the person who answered the phone, and she obviously never told Oswald because she WANTED him at the TSBD even though it paid $12,000 less per year (in current dollars) than the airline job. This was a friend? No . . . this was a liar and agent of some sort with an agenda.
These readily accessible facts upend Hancock and Ryan's supposition that Oswald's presence at the TSBC was happenstance. Obviously he was guided to the job by Paine.
Ed, do not allow Hancock's misguided wild speculation to sway you. Hancock is dead-wrong on every major point. Read Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, Jim DiEugenio, David Talbot. Larry Hancock is wrong about everything.
I started with Lane in the spring of '68 and have the books of all you mention except Hancock. I've been reconsidering myself and may not need Hancock's thoughts. Ruth Paine is a cog in the wheel but she may not have been aware of where things would lead. Oswald was everywhere and, like a stray dog, we may not yet know where he's been.
I meant that I have not read Larry Hancock's new book. I thought Someone Would Have Talked was important in that it covered a new direction. I also think Mary Haverstick got into a direction that has been looked at a lot, but maybe not looked at quite enough.
Thank you for your post. Hancock is wrong about all his conclusions and assertions. At least he confessed that over 1/3rd of the book is pure speculation.
Thank you for refreshing me with the details of the job phone calls. I think we can conclude Paine lied, but not necessarily for pathological reasons. The reason could have been professional. I was familiar with the phone offer of a better job for Oswald before I read Douglas. I also have his book in audio form and have listened to it several times on long dog walks. This matter is especially significant in that it becomes harder to believe the Oswalds ever ended up at the Paine house by coincidence. Unfortunately, we still do not have evidence that any Paine would have been privy to assassination plans. But this phone call is very suggestive of involvement by a powerful force. The FBI intercepted phone call between the Paines is also intriguing.
It is worth considering that the ongoing coverup is still being orchestrated but not necessarily by the force which assisted those involved in the assassination. The reasons for still covering up may not even be related to preventing disclosure of who the assassins were.
Whether LHO intended to shoot JFK or not doesn't matter. If he were set up to be the patsy, he still needed to be present at the TSBD on the day of the motorcade.
He wouldn't have had to shoot JFK to hijack a plane to Cuba. He would have had to stay in one place and work to get the money to do so had he taken that route. He didn't do that, he went to the TSBD instead.
We have Oswald for all intents and purposes a the only amateur shooter involved.
I simply don't believe any of other individuals or federal agencies involved would have left it to LHO by himself to make the hit. The CIA very simply had too much to lose to screw the hit up. Additionally why else would CIA lie so much about LHO if the truth would have worked better?
What I do see more clearly is Oswald seems to have lacked any serious -motive -. Could be that Lee wanted to see the motorcade. Him being in Dallas where JFK was hated, not so different from New Orleans where Castro was hated. Him being at the TSBD would be his - opportunity - to see the man in person. The - method -. If LHO intended to actually shoot JFK and shot at him someone made damned sure JFK didn't survive.
I do not believe the massive head wound was an Oswald shot.
I don't see his presence at TSBD as being a coincidence, same as I don't see individuals obfuscating the truth of what happened in Dallas Friday November 22, 1963 as necessarily being anything unusual, even today.
I've long wondered if others might sense the same things I now do. You, at least, seem to. Over the years I've been at the place other contributors to this site seem to be on. Many times I read Kennedy was going to tear up the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. I am unaware of any agency ever being eliminated and I can't believe the CIA itself was overly concerned about Kennedy's words. If elements in the CIA were involved in planning Kennedy's assassination, I don't think it would be because they feared what he could do to the agency. While the murder was successful, it was anything but professional. As you say, there was too much to lose by relying on an amateur. There do seem to be characters within the government capable of involving themselves in this crime but no one has yet produced the clue which would isolate them from others. Oswald called himself a "patsy" but that does not make him one. If he was telling the truth, it was the only truth he did say while in custody. Multiple shooters.
I hesitate to start this reply. Pretty much everything in D.C. is going to change as a result of 47 & 47 1/2. Getting those JFK records become more remote everyday that passes in my humble opinion.
Another reason to for my hesitation. Is the lack of any traction gained by my efforts to publicize the NUMEC, Apollo Affair, which CIA definitely knew about!. An event which should interest lots of people. Understanding exactly what the Zionists at USAEC got away with during the research and development of the hydrogen bomb is critical to anyone understanding how we got to the point we find ourselves today.
Factual history is the only history that matters. Jeff M. knows this
and so do I.
However the dissolution of the USAEC and the ensuing creation of the (nick named) Energy Reorganization Act , a nick name that resulted because of the Official name of the 'Act' was thirty five words long, was related to Safeguards abuses, look it up!. The Act passed the Senate Aug 15, 1974 after G Ford assumed the presidency Aug 9, 1974. Hardly anyone in the public at large noticed it happened or why the dissolution of the USAEC happened. The USAEC's early history needed to forgotten for many reasons, NUMEC included.
All of which happened as a direct result of the U.S. AEC's horrible reputation of failing to secure dangerous materials. The publicized reason was based on the conflict of interest between licensing civilian nuclear power plants and designing and building nuclear weapons. Regardless of the name the institutions had some very serious issues
The size of this USAEC story competes with the size the JFK mystery, believe me.
None of this history seems to wet anyone's curiosity.
Now before I lose you completely. Here is the deal.
Our government has done a stellar job of covering up it's failures of the trust of Americans, 911 being the most recent very large fiasco which has resulted in were we find ourselves at this point in time.
I will be overjoyed if the story of the JFK murder ever comes out with enough evidence to convince anyone of what really happened before I die. It's not looking as if it will.
Ed you write you don't think CIA was concerned about JFK threats to CIA. I think you miss the fact that Angleton, A. Dulles, Helms, the mob and the Cuba group surely were. This group is all that mattered. The compartmental division employed by James Jesus Angleton and CIA obstruction have work so far. CIA by 1963 was a very large institution.
I simply don't follow your logic here.
You write " There seem to be characters within the government capable of involving themselves in the crime but no one has yet produced the clue which would isolate them from others."
Disclaimer: It is not my intent here to be mean or disrespectful, this story is a convoluted mess and a very real mystery by lack of important facts. Exactly as the CIA's Angleton desired. This is the reason the CIA will not release the information. I don't expect the Divisor in Chief will miss this fact.
Jeff Morley and a great number of others understand the isolation you speak of is exactly the way these things work, especially counter intelligence.
By the way have you ever studied LBJ's connections to the underworld. Him and the 6300 ft runway, with two aircraft at his ranch in Texas?
I think that any reasons that point to witting cooperation with the CIA are pathological. I have no doubt that Ruth Paine was a witting CIA agent--decades later, she was up to her old tricks in NIcaragua, posing as a peace activist while feverishly taking notes on the names of her "comrades" and claiming to be working for a left newspaper that disavowed any knowledge of her.
There is such a large amount of testimony about Oswald’s affiliation with David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, (including the address stamp on the leaflets), Ruby, Shaw, and the CIA anti-Castro Cuban cause, not to mention the testimony of Richard Case Nagell, the strange questions about Atsugi, Russian courses, the Helsinki stay, the source of his funds when he had so little personally, the ease of his return to the U.S., the lack of debriefing, the Raleigh call …that it all begs the question: Is there much more to the “2nd Oswald” than the authors believe or was LHO just so much better at keeping his entanglements and purposes secret than the authors assume?
I’m not saying Oswald shot at Kennedy (I don’t think so) or was even aware of the plan for 11/22 (I don’t know).
I’m saying there is so much in the broad research data pointing towards the possibility of Oswald’s “witting” connection to U.S. intelligence and the interview didn’t go very far in resolving that issue, for me anyway.
Extremely interesting. I was surprised there were not any questions about the Walker shooting. Was Oswald involved in that? (The WC certainly did push that narrative to more or less say “well Oswald took a shot at Gen Walker so he’s very capable of killing JFK”.) Marina told that Lee said he did….Ruth Paine of course “found” Oswald’s handwritten note about the Walker incident and the bullets supposedly matched the rifle. George D. kind of alluded to Oswald shooting at Walker…was he involved, framed, etc…..where does that fit in?
I've read the book and came away with more questions than answers. The full portrait of Oswald's personality was well done. He's more three dimensional than ever. But their belief that he's not being set up until after New Orleans can't be. In June '60, Hoover writes to the Department of State that someone may be using Oswald's identity while he's in Russia. Why would someone being using his identity if not to attach him to something nefarious? And why does Hoover think this is a matter of "Internal Security", which is included in the memo's subjects? There are other sightings of Oswald in the US while he's abroad. Clearly, to me, someone is setting him up - for something - before he's even returned from Russia. And the FBI, at least, has noticed.
Thanks JB for your post. Great catch. I agree with you entirely. Hancock's admission that 1/3rd of the book is speculation is such an understatement. I was disappointed that anyone bought into Hancock's nonsense. Your comments made my day.
^^^^^^ Review, part one, by Johnny Cairns, other than confusing Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-Minnesota) for the extreme right wing Senator Joseph McCarthy (R - Wisconsin), he makes cogent arguments worth considering
Edward, You just posted the best comment of all. Hancock's self-admitted speculation is rubbish. Glad that people see through his nonsense. Thank you very much for commenting.
Author states LHO was almost nonchalant after being picked up. Then he says that LHO may have killed Tippet (gunpowder on hands). Even if he had not killed JFK he would have been extremely nervous if the had killed Tippet. Also says if they had found his rifle in the Book Depository that would have been enough to nail him. No, not really. The Cubans seem to be yahoos. How could they have pulled this off with all the connections involved. A lot of confusing stuff, including saying he was a legit communist.
Was it her pathologies which led Ruth Paine to invite the destitute Oswalds into her home? Just as important, was it really necessary to replace the plywood flooring on the TSBD 6th floor?
For every effect, there is a cause. While I am guilty of sensing that Ms. Paine disapproved of the relationship between Lee and Marina Oswald, I am convinced that Paine's generosity was actually the result of a directive from an exterior overseer.
Hoover's letter is dated 6/3/60, which notes "Funds Transmitted to Residents of Russia" on 5/24/60. It makes sense that the FBI would pay attention to something like this. But he ends with "since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate...". This is 6 months before elections day, 11/8/60. JFK won't be sworn into office until 1/20/61. So this is WELL before the Bay of Pigs, Oct. of '62 or any contact or deals with Khrushchev. The Military/Industrial/Congressional Complex very well may've assumed Nixon would win. At any rate, there would be no plot against JFK at this point. He hadn't yet done anything to outrage them. Castro consolidates his power '59-'60, so, knowing Oswald is in USSR, 'someone' starts setting up Oswald with impersonations in order to use him for something they're planning, such as removing Castro. Whether you go with Hancock & Boylan's just Oswald or Armstrong's Harvey & Lee, some kind of maneuvering is happening around Oswald.
I don't understand the assertion by one of the authors that Oswald's landing a job at the TSBD via a tip from Ruth Paine was just happenstance. Frankly, that assertion is so ridiculous as to cast doubt on the author's interpretations and reporting of other key facts. Since Oswald was being set up as the patsy--at least as far back as his supposed trip to Mexico--how can it be a mere coincidence that Oswald ended up working in a building at the most vulnerable point on the parade route, where the alleged rifle (or rifles--first reported in the media as a German Mauzer and only later as a Mannlicher-Carcano to conveniently match Oswald's mail order) and shells were "found" (or planted) on the sixth floor. MOREOVER, just before Oswald started work at the TSBD, the employment agency called Ruth Paine's house to alert him to the availability of a better-paying job as a baggage handler; the woman who answered the phone--almost certainly Ruth Paine--never passed on that message to him. So to posit Oswald's presence in the TSBD as a matter of mere chance is preposterous, given the overall contextual evidence, and suggests that the authors are pushing a skewed perspective rather than dealing dispassionately with the evidence. In fact, when I heard their interpretation about his landing the job at TSBD, I thought, "These guys have a weird interpretive agenda, I don't trust them, and I"m not going to waste money and time on this book."
My thinking has been congruent with yours for 60 years. Without discarding the conclusions you and I made, I have found my stance regarding the conspiracy shifting slightly to where I am more confused than I am adamant. There are things I do not know and there are some I am convinced of.
This was the first JFKfacts podcast I have viewed and it reinforced the shifting of my stance. There were also reflections of the positions I have now come to question. Have we not read that the Hands Off Cuba leaflets distributed at the Trade Center were printed by a CIA front?
Mr. Gunny and Mr. Williamson: The offer of the job as a baggage handler is covered in detail in James W. Douglass's "JFK and the Unspeakable." pp. 172-173, and is meticulously sourced to the WC testimony of Robert Adams of the Texas Employment Commission. He called Ruth Paine's phone on October 15, the day before Oswald began work at the TSBD, offering a job as a baggage handler for Trans Texas Airways that paid a a hundred dollars ($1,000 in current dollars) more per month than the TSBD job--a major difference for anyone, especially for someone in Oswald's financial straits. The person answering the phone told him Oswald was not there. He tried calling again the next morning and again was told Oswald was not there and had begun working at another job.
Douglass then quotes an extended portion of Paine's WC testimony on this subject in which she is obviously lying: first she claims never to have heard of any such offer, and then quickly shifts gears to recall some such offer, which she claimed "fell through--that there was not that possibility." She even claims that it was Oswald who told her about that job and told her that the airline job had been filled and was not available. This contradicts the much clearer and more honest testimony of the employment agent, Robert Adams, who testified to the WC, "I do not know whether he was ever advised of this referral, but under the circumstances I do not see how he could have been."
In the space of a couple of minutes of questioning, Paine first claimed no recollection of the airline offer, then a vague recollection, and then fabricated a story about Oswald having told her about it. Clearly she was the person who answered the phone, and she obviously never told Oswald because she WANTED him at the TSBD even though it paid $12,000 less per year (in current dollars) than the airline job. This was a friend? No . . . this was a liar and agent of some sort with an agenda.
These readily accessible facts upend Hancock and Ryan's supposition that Oswald's presence at the TSBC was happenstance. Obviously he was guided to the job by Paine.
Thanks you for this info it does make perfect sense. You made a great catch here.
Thanks again.
I agree with you Robert. It is a shame a few people will fall for Hancock's nonsense.
I too am very puzzled by comments about LHO's job at the book warehouse.
Question to Kaufman - where was the baggage handling job, airport or rail station. I'm figuring airport but, this is the JFK murder puzzle, so!
I have to wonder if he had been instructed to stay there or was it a personal transportation issue? Definitely an odd addition to the story.
Ed, do not allow Hancock's misguided wild speculation to sway you. Hancock is dead-wrong on every major point. Read Mark Lane, Vincent Salandria, Jim DiEugenio, David Talbot. Larry Hancock is wrong about everything.
I started with Lane in the spring of '68 and have the books of all you mention except Hancock. I've been reconsidering myself and may not need Hancock's thoughts. Ruth Paine is a cog in the wheel but she may not have been aware of where things would lead. Oswald was everywhere and, like a stray dog, we may not yet know where he's been.
I meant that I have not read Larry Hancock's new book. I thought Someone Would Have Talked was important in that it covered a new direction. I also think Mary Haverstick got into a direction that has been looked at a lot, but maybe not looked at quite enough.
Bravo William. Thank you for your insight, and your honesty. I agree Hancock is wrong on all major points.
Thank you for your post. Hancock is wrong about all his conclusions and assertions. At least he confessed that over 1/3rd of the book is pure speculation.
Thank you for refreshing me with the details of the job phone calls. I think we can conclude Paine lied, but not necessarily for pathological reasons. The reason could have been professional. I was familiar with the phone offer of a better job for Oswald before I read Douglas. I also have his book in audio form and have listened to it several times on long dog walks. This matter is especially significant in that it becomes harder to believe the Oswalds ever ended up at the Paine house by coincidence. Unfortunately, we still do not have evidence that any Paine would have been privy to assassination plans. But this phone call is very suggestive of involvement by a powerful force. The FBI intercepted phone call between the Paines is also intriguing.
Ed, your comment is very insightful. You wrote: "suggestive of involvement by a powerful force." I completely agree with you. Thanks for posting.
It is worth considering that the ongoing coverup is still being orchestrated but not necessarily by the force which assisted those involved in the assassination. The reasons for still covering up may not even be related to preventing disclosure of who the assassins were.
Just seems something is off here.
Whether LHO intended to shoot JFK or not doesn't matter. If he were set up to be the patsy, he still needed to be present at the TSBD on the day of the motorcade.
He wouldn't have had to shoot JFK to hijack a plane to Cuba. He would have had to stay in one place and work to get the money to do so had he taken that route. He didn't do that, he went to the TSBD instead.
We have Oswald for all intents and purposes a the only amateur shooter involved.
I simply don't believe any of other individuals or federal agencies involved would have left it to LHO by himself to make the hit. The CIA very simply had too much to lose to screw the hit up. Additionally why else would CIA lie so much about LHO if the truth would have worked better?
What I do see more clearly is Oswald seems to have lacked any serious -motive -. Could be that Lee wanted to see the motorcade. Him being in Dallas where JFK was hated, not so different from New Orleans where Castro was hated. Him being at the TSBD would be his - opportunity - to see the man in person. The - method -. If LHO intended to actually shoot JFK and shot at him someone made damned sure JFK didn't survive.
I do not believe the massive head wound was an Oswald shot.
I don't see his presence at TSBD as being a coincidence, same as I don't see individuals obfuscating the truth of what happened in Dallas Friday November 22, 1963 as necessarily being anything unusual, even today.
Thanks Jeff & the SubStack crew.
I've long wondered if others might sense the same things I now do. You, at least, seem to. Over the years I've been at the place other contributors to this site seem to be on. Many times I read Kennedy was going to tear up the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds. I am unaware of any agency ever being eliminated and I can't believe the CIA itself was overly concerned about Kennedy's words. If elements in the CIA were involved in planning Kennedy's assassination, I don't think it would be because they feared what he could do to the agency. While the murder was successful, it was anything but professional. As you say, there was too much to lose by relying on an amateur. There do seem to be characters within the government capable of involving themselves in this crime but no one has yet produced the clue which would isolate them from others. Oswald called himself a "patsy" but that does not make him one. If he was telling the truth, it was the only truth he did say while in custody. Multiple shooters.
I hesitate to start this reply. Pretty much everything in D.C. is going to change as a result of 47 & 47 1/2. Getting those JFK records become more remote everyday that passes in my humble opinion.
Another reason to for my hesitation. Is the lack of any traction gained by my efforts to publicize the NUMEC, Apollo Affair, which CIA definitely knew about!. An event which should interest lots of people. Understanding exactly what the Zionists at USAEC got away with during the research and development of the hydrogen bomb is critical to anyone understanding how we got to the point we find ourselves today.
Factual history is the only history that matters. Jeff M. knows this
and so do I.
However the dissolution of the USAEC and the ensuing creation of the (nick named) Energy Reorganization Act , a nick name that resulted because of the Official name of the 'Act' was thirty five words long, was related to Safeguards abuses, look it up!. The Act passed the Senate Aug 15, 1974 after G Ford assumed the presidency Aug 9, 1974. Hardly anyone in the public at large noticed it happened or why the dissolution of the USAEC happened. The USAEC's early history needed to forgotten for many reasons, NUMEC included.
All of which happened as a direct result of the U.S. AEC's horrible reputation of failing to secure dangerous materials. The publicized reason was based on the conflict of interest between licensing civilian nuclear power plants and designing and building nuclear weapons. Regardless of the name the institutions had some very serious issues
The size of this USAEC story competes with the size the JFK mystery, believe me.
None of this history seems to wet anyone's curiosity.
Now before I lose you completely. Here is the deal.
Our government has done a stellar job of covering up it's failures of the trust of Americans, 911 being the most recent very large fiasco which has resulted in were we find ourselves at this point in time.
I will be overjoyed if the story of the JFK murder ever comes out with enough evidence to convince anyone of what really happened before I die. It's not looking as if it will.
Ed you write you don't think CIA was concerned about JFK threats to CIA. I think you miss the fact that Angleton, A. Dulles, Helms, the mob and the Cuba group surely were. This group is all that mattered. The compartmental division employed by James Jesus Angleton and CIA obstruction have work so far. CIA by 1963 was a very large institution.
I simply don't follow your logic here.
You write " There seem to be characters within the government capable of involving themselves in the crime but no one has yet produced the clue which would isolate them from others."
Disclaimer: It is not my intent here to be mean or disrespectful, this story is a convoluted mess and a very real mystery by lack of important facts. Exactly as the CIA's Angleton desired. This is the reason the CIA will not release the information. I don't expect the Divisor in Chief will miss this fact.
Jeff Morley and a great number of others understand the isolation you speak of is exactly the way these things work, especially counter intelligence.
By the way have you ever studied LBJ's connections to the underworld. Him and the 6300 ft runway, with two aircraft at his ranch in Texas?
Thanks for your interest.
I think that any reasons that point to witting cooperation with the CIA are pathological. I have no doubt that Ruth Paine was a witting CIA agent--decades later, she was up to her old tricks in NIcaragua, posing as a peace activist while feverishly taking notes on the names of her "comrades" and claiming to be working for a left newspaper that disavowed any knowledge of her.
Great interview.
One big question / problem I have:
There is such a large amount of testimony about Oswald’s affiliation with David Ferrie, Guy Bannister, (including the address stamp on the leaflets), Ruby, Shaw, and the CIA anti-Castro Cuban cause, not to mention the testimony of Richard Case Nagell, the strange questions about Atsugi, Russian courses, the Helsinki stay, the source of his funds when he had so little personally, the ease of his return to the U.S., the lack of debriefing, the Raleigh call …that it all begs the question: Is there much more to the “2nd Oswald” than the authors believe or was LHO just so much better at keeping his entanglements and purposes secret than the authors assume?
I’m not saying Oswald shot at Kennedy (I don’t think so) or was even aware of the plan for 11/22 (I don’t know).
I’m saying there is so much in the broad research data pointing towards the possibility of Oswald’s “witting” connection to U.S. intelligence and the interview didn’t go very far in resolving that issue, for me anyway.
Great post. Thank you. I too, think Hancock is wrong on all the major issues.
Thanks Bill.
The stuff you cannot find anywhere else you can find here.
Sitting in on these conversations is a pure education for me and I consider it a special treat.
Nothing as great as listening to experts talk about what they know in a relaxed, friendly atmosphere.
The puzzle is becoming a more complete visual for me. Great stuff here , again!
Extremely interesting. I was surprised there were not any questions about the Walker shooting. Was Oswald involved in that? (The WC certainly did push that narrative to more or less say “well Oswald took a shot at Gen Walker so he’s very capable of killing JFK”.) Marina told that Lee said he did….Ruth Paine of course “found” Oswald’s handwritten note about the Walker incident and the bullets supposedly matched the rifle. George D. kind of alluded to Oswald shooting at Walker…was he involved, framed, etc…..where does that fit in?
I've read the book and came away with more questions than answers. The full portrait of Oswald's personality was well done. He's more three dimensional than ever. But their belief that he's not being set up until after New Orleans can't be. In June '60, Hoover writes to the Department of State that someone may be using Oswald's identity while he's in Russia. Why would someone being using his identity if not to attach him to something nefarious? And why does Hoover think this is a matter of "Internal Security", which is included in the memo's subjects? There are other sightings of Oswald in the US while he's abroad. Clearly, to me, someone is setting him up - for something - before he's even returned from Russia. And the FBI, at least, has noticed.
Thanks JB for your post. Great catch. I agree with you entirely. Hancock's admission that 1/3rd of the book is speculation is such an understatement. I was disappointed that anyone bought into Hancock's nonsense. Your comments made my day.
Was he being set up before Kennedy became president?
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-oswald-puzzle-the-pieces-that-won-t-fit-part-1
^^^^^^ Review, part one, by Johnny Cairns, other than confusing Senator Eugene McCarthy (D-Minnesota) for the extreme right wing Senator Joseph McCarthy (R - Wisconsin), he makes cogent arguments worth considering
I just read Cairnes' piece on LHO's USMC career and his "defection" to the USSR in 1959.
I highly recommend it.
Sen. Schweiker was right 50 years ago, when he said "Oswald had the fingerprints of intelligence all over him."
Unlike the Liberty Mutual "Limu Emu," he was not just some young dreamer.
He was, witting or unwitting, an agency asset.
Edward, You just posted the best comment of all. Hancock's self-admitted speculation is rubbish. Glad that people see through his nonsense. Thank you very much for commenting.
I will second that. Thanks for posting. Hancock's self-described speculation is nonsense.
https://www.kennedysandking.com/john-f-kennedy-articles/the-oswald-puzzle-the-pieces-that-won-t-fit-part-1
At the very least, it fails to account plausibly for the host of points raised by Cairns and others - his sources are mentioned in both parts 1 & 2.
Author states LHO was almost nonchalant after being picked up. Then he says that LHO may have killed Tippet (gunpowder on hands). Even if he had not killed JFK he would have been extremely nervous if the had killed Tippet. Also says if they had found his rifle in the Book Depository that would have been enough to nail him. No, not really. The Cubans seem to be yahoos. How could they have pulled this off with all the connections involved. A lot of confusing stuff, including saying he was a legit communist.
I respect the authors and have read most of Hancock's books. Which is why I was surprised to finish the new book with so many questions.
Larry Hancock's new book is awful. The only "puzzle" is Hancock's motives. He obviously is not seeking the Truth.
Hancock claims: "LHO "probably" did not shoot JFK, but did shoot Officer Tippet".
Hancock claims LHO was a Lenin/Marxist. Not an Agent pretending to be a Communist.
Hancock claims David Atlee Phillips was not acting on orders from his Superiors.
It is a sad commentary on the current state of our understanding of who killed JFK, that people will fall for this Hancock rubbish.
Was it her pathologies which led Ruth Paine to invite the destitute Oswalds into her home? Just as important, was it really necessary to replace the plywood flooring on the TSBD 6th floor?
You think this was an act of altruism or a planned hand-off from her fellow CIA asset de Morenschildt, who just happened to introduce them at a party?
For every effect, there is a cause. While I am guilty of sensing that Ms. Paine disapproved of the relationship between Lee and Marina Oswald, I am convinced that Paine's generosity was actually the result of a directive from an exterior overseer.
Hoover's letter is dated 6/3/60, which notes "Funds Transmitted to Residents of Russia" on 5/24/60. It makes sense that the FBI would pay attention to something like this. But he ends with "since there is a possibility that an imposter is using Oswald's birth certificate...". This is 6 months before elections day, 11/8/60. JFK won't be sworn into office until 1/20/61. So this is WELL before the Bay of Pigs, Oct. of '62 or any contact or deals with Khrushchev. The Military/Industrial/Congressional Complex very well may've assumed Nixon would win. At any rate, there would be no plot against JFK at this point. He hadn't yet done anything to outrage them. Castro consolidates his power '59-'60, so, knowing Oswald is in USSR, 'someone' starts setting up Oswald with impersonations in order to use him for something they're planning, such as removing Castro. Whether you go with Hancock & Boylan's just Oswald or Armstrong's Harvey & Lee, some kind of maneuvering is happening around Oswald.
Great episode!