The Problematic Single Bullet Theory

Carmine Savastano wrote:            The President's (Warren) Commission has generated divisive findings that some declare are conclusive.

"Some"? Be specific. Which shit-for-brains idiot did that?

(Pardon me, I'm in a bad mood).

However, repeated aspects of the of the Single Bullet theory do not find support from the Commission's own experts. Unfortunately, the lower evidentiary threshold of a "preponderance of evidence" did not require these discrepancies to enjoy additional review. In my view if an unbiased and complete review occurred it would regard all testimony by the Commission witnesses. They would not ignore relevant contending evidence to the advantage of their predisposed findings.
We must first assess the Commission's claims. Notably these claims do not state any definitive pattern of the shots or their order. The Commission in effect only described what is possible and did not limit themselves to a single sequence of shots but three separate possible sequences. i. Yet they state attempts to be as "precise as possible". Ironically, Commission supporters often demand an exact sequence from those who oppose the Commission. It is not incumbent upon those who discover the Commission's many failings to correct them.  

The Commission said there were three shots. No more, no less.

Now having defined the hypothetical nature of some Commission assertions, what do the ballistics experts state exactly? Are the conclusive claims about the Commission's findings reasonable? Robert Frazier of the FBI did conclude bullets found were fired by C2766 (Oswald's Carcano) "to the exclusion of all other weapons" three other Bureau agents corroborate his findings. However, when conducting testing simulations the Bureau and Secret Service agents fail provide a substantial review. The vehicle used was not the Presidential limousine but a similar Secret Service vehicle; this would not provide the exact environment of the assassination. Even slight differences could affect the testing outcomes.

James Humes himself said it was "not likely" CE-399 caused the damage claimed.

Officials claimed any discrepancies were accounted for.

Yeah, the shit-for-brains "officials" do stuff like that.

That's why they're shit-for-brains "officials".

However, feasible problems continued during the recreation. Two Bureau agents were used having "approximately" the same physical characteristics as Kennedy and Connally. They sat in the alternate car in the "relative positions" of Kennedy and Connally." ii. Thus, two men similar to the victims sat in a similar car in similar positions. Yet none of that is exacting inquiry and allows for assumptions and substantial error of key measurements, angles, and trajectories. One does not need to be a ballistics expert to note the need for measurements of greater accuracy.

WTF are you talking about "greater" accuracy? Start simple! How about "something more than just abject conjecture"?

The standard for a recreation should include at least a majority of the original conditions and related items. The Commission recreations determined the "alinement (sic) of points of entry was only indicative and not conclusive that one bullet hit both men." iii. Dr. Light, one of three Army Ballistics Branch experts believed the evidence was "insufficient" to form a conclusive determination. The two experts who supported the Commission hypothesis stated the Commission view was "probable", not conclusive. iv. Additionally, these experts had only the information offered by the Commission.

Keep it simple. The magic bullet theory requires the bullet to go up after it enters Kennedy's back. Let's run some numbers on that one. Let's figure out the probability that a descending bullet without hitting bone suddenly veers upwards.

The asserted chain of custody officials currently cited by some critics is not the only account offered to the Commission. Counsel Rankin states, "...the problem is difficult to determine because we have a statement from the hospital (Parkland) that the bullet that was more whole than the others was found on a stretcher which they brought the President in to the hospital on,

That is a lie. There is no such statement.

and then we have testimony later that goes back on the same ground in which the person in charge of the stretcher and the attendant said this bullet was found under the blanket on the stretcher Governor Connally was on, and it is  a complete..." Commissioner Russell interrupts, "I thought it was found on the stretcher of the President." Rankin affirms, "That was the first story..." v. Despite the Commission crediting Parkland Engineer Tomlinson with finding the bullet, Tomlinson does not affirm which stretcher it was found upon. vi. These conflicts offer a possible problem with the actual origins of the bullet.

The quality of the FBI "investigation" in this matter is near-zero.

That's because J Edgar Hoover and the FBI were engaged in a cover-up, which included the deliberate alteration and obfuscation of evidence, as well as direct tampering, defacing, and outright fabrication.

Imprecise drawings with conflicting details were used as evidence. vii. Commission Lead Counsel Rankin states, "We have an explanation in the autopsy that probably a fragment came out of the front of the neck, but with the elevation the shot must have come from, and the angle, it seems quite apparent now, since we have the picture of where the bullet entered in the back, that the bullet entered below the shoulder blade to the right of the backbone, which is below the place where the picture shows the bullet came out in the neckband of the shirt in front, and the bullet according to the autopsy didn't strike any bone at all, that particular bullet, and go through." viii.

You're being way too nice, Carmine. "Imprecise"? Try deliberately inaccurate.

The Bethesda doctors' presumptions ix. influenced Commission determinations, and the earlier Parkland statements contending the Single Bullet theory were largely ignored. x. Yet even autopsy officials supporting the official wound placement, dispute the Single Bullet theory. Dr. James Humes and Dr. Pierre Finck both did not support the Single Bullet after reviewing the medical evidence. xi. xii. Dr. Ebersole and Ms. Spencer did not the support the wound placement and thus, the Single Bullet theory. xiii. xiv.
 
Why are we even discussing this? To the best of my meager knowledge there is overwhelming evidence that the entire CE-399 story was a farce before it even started. CE-399 is most definitely not the bullet that hit John Connally, that much can be said with a very high degree of confidence.

Remaining fragments within the two victims and the lack of damage to the bullet do not support the Commission's findings. Governor Connally's clothing is laundered shortly after the assassination. Only a single official discovering and handling Commission exhibit 399 at Parkland Hospital could subsequently identify the bullet in evidence as the same projectile. xv. Not very conclusive in my view.

Oh goodie. Please name the "official".

The original statements of over twenty Parkland and Bethesda medical staff contend the wound placement and the essence of the Single Bullet theory. Different wounds would not support the official findings. They also possibly support a second gunman and conspiracy. Dozens of additional witnesses are ignored who stated the Grassy Knoll area was the origin of at least one shot. The Commission exhibited a pattern of ignoring dozens of witnesses if they offered contending evidence. This includes Commission experts.

The historical facts are quite clear AFAIK and they're supported in detail by the timing of events.

Arlen Specter invented the Magic Bullet Theory when the James Tague story went public. The Tague story proved the Warren Commission's original three-bullet hypothesis to be impossible (they had first claimed that one bullet hit Kennedy in the back, a second bullet hit Connally, and the third bullet was the kill shot), and that's why they needed the Magic Bullet.

There was no other reason. The Magic Bullet existed so the Warren Commission could save face.

Repeated modern televised attempts to prove the Single Bullet proposition have claimed to solve all serious questions. However, like former officials many of the tests did not use exacting standards. If these tests truly desired accuracy, would they not actually use the building the crime allegedly occurred in? Would they not conduct at least cursory inspection of the Knoll as a firing point based on so many witnesses? In my view, perhaps accuracy is not the overriding concern for some but ratings. The Single Bullet theory might be well known, yet it remains inconclusive.

Arlen Specter pulled the Magic Missile out his butt. There is absolutely zero evidence - ZERO - for anything even close to a "magic projectile".

The Magic Bullet is pure, 100% conjecture. It is not supported by any evidence. None of it! There is not a single shred of actual evidence that supports the Magic Bullet Theory.

We might as well be talking about JFK being abducted by space aliens, the Magic Myth is about at the same level and deserves about the same level of ridicule.

Sincerely,
C. A. A. Savastano

facebook/NeapMG
neamg.com

i. Report of the President's Commission, Chapter II The Assassination, Number of Shots, pp. 110-117 
ii. Report of the Pres. Com., Chapter II, The Trajectory, p.97
iii.  Ibid, The Trajectory, The First Bullet that Hit,  p. 107
iv.  Ibid, p. 109
v. President's Commission Executive Session, January 27, 1964, p. 196
vi.  Report of the Pres. Com., p.79-81
vii. Hearings of the Present's Commission, Volume XVI, Commission Exhibit 386, Schematic drawing made at Bethesda Naval Hospital from description of what Comdr. James J. Humes observed, p. 977
viii. Pres. Com. Exec. Session, Jan 27, p. 193
ix. Assassination Records Review Board Hearings, Dr. James Humes, p. 144
x. Hearings of the Pres. Com. Vol. VI,  Dr. Gene Akin, Dr. Charles Baxter, Dr. Charles Carrico, Dr. William Clark, Dr. Don Curtis, Dr. Marion Jenkins, Dr. Ronald Jones, Dr. Robert McClelland, Dr. Malcolm Perry , Dr. Paul Peters, Dr. Kenneth Salyer, Nurse Diana Bowron, pp. 1-134
xi. Hearings of the Pres. Com., Vol. II, Testimony of Dr. Pierre Finck, p. 382
xii. Hearings of the Pres. Com., Vol. II, Testimony of Dr. James Humes, pp. 374, 375
xiii. Hearings of the House Select Comm. on Assassinations, Medical Panel, March 11, 1978, p. 3
xiv. ARRB, Deposition of Saundra Spencer, 1997, p. 38-58
xv. Hearings of the Pres. Com., Vol. XXIV, Rifle Bullet C1, p. 412

This is how the "officials" get us - they distract us with 23 volumes of idiotic stuff like the Magic Bullshit.

Then we spend hours and hours trying to "prove them wrong", which is a losing proposition in the first place.

The right thing to do is to confront the officials and demand that they prove their idiotic theories.

From my POV, the Magic Bullet is more idiotic than the most idiotic conspiracy theory I've read (and I've read some doozies over the years).

nonsqtr wrote:"Some"? Be specific. Which shit-for-brains idiot did that?

(Pardon me, I'm in a bad mood).

We all have our bad moods from time to time. n00bs are no exception.

"Some"? Be specific. Which shit-for-brains idiot did that?

(Pardon me, I'm in a bad mood).

We all have our bad moods from time to time. n00bs are no exception.

I blame the Warren Commission. All 26 volumes worth. I should start a "stupid evidence" list. Here ladies and gentlemen, for your amazement and consternation is a "photocopy of a Life Magazine article" entered into official evidence. (There are several possibilities as to why a photocopy was required, but based upon the Commission's pattern of behavior it is quite likely the original magazine was private property and there was no budget to purchase it).


All I can say is they sure took J Edgar's word for a lot of stuff - which is kind of a problem even at this late date - but I was reading today about how the Russians were apparently convinced that LBJ did it (this having been revealed in the pile of KGB docs that Boris Yeltsin gave to Bill Clinton). The Warren Commission's appeal to "officialdom" is even more appalling in this context, even in the document titles they make sure to tell you that everything is "official". The "FBI Memo From The Director On Letterhead" is equivalent to the stamp of approval for the Warren Commission, it's better than being thrice blessed by Tibetan holy men - and meanwhile Allen Dulles is completely out of the loop, calmly smoking his pipe in the corner. Strange theater.


I'm just mad 'cause the aforementioned shit-for-brains idiots are actually making me enter all this information into the computer, most of it is useless but "because it's official" it all has to be in there... y'know... I was hoping to be able to devote some time to the 54 volumes of Oswald's 201 File but the damn Warren Commission stuff just goes on forever... anyway, it's pretty amazing more people didn't call these clowns on their BS. These were the most senior and respected "officials" in the country, and they failed to exercise even the most basic level of oversight on entities like the FBI and the Dallas Police. Prolly 'cause they were "officials" too, and by golly anything they were willing to sign their names too must be the truth, right?


I think you're right, the inescapable conclusion is there had to be some corrupt cops in the mix. The "who" of that one is kind of problematic though, 'cause there's so many candidates. I was entertaining an interesting possibility while reading the Markham testimony today - that the Tippit shooting was a "plan B". Like, maybe Oswald was the one they were supposed to shoot, and he didn't show up. ('Cause he was already in the theater, just like the concession guy said). So they went to Plan B, which was to shoot the cop and blame it on Oswald. There's an eyewitness report from the woman who was with Ruby when the news first came over the radio that Kennedy had been shot, she said Ruby turned white as a sheet. It occurs to me that he may have been out of the loop - "a little" in the loop maybe, but not all the way. Maybe he thought they were just going to spray a few bullets through the plaza, y'know... or maybe he thought they were after Connally or someone else. (Oswald had a connection to Connally, but not to Kennedy that I know of so far). Or maybe Ruby didn't even know what they were going to do, maybe he'd just been told to do a few things to help out so he did 'em.


In addition to the cops on the street though, if there were a high-level guy in the DPD who was corrupt, that would help explain a lot of things. Someone like... Fritz. Or Curry. Someone capable of running his own little network inside the Dallas Police Department. Someone who could "gather" the information from personnel and use it to "run" the events on the ground. Oswald said he was a patsy, but we don't really know when he realized that. He could have realized it before he got to his boarding house, and maybe that's why he didn't show up for TIppit. TIPPIT was sitting at the Gloco waiting for someone to cross the bridge, and even though I remember reading somewhere that it would have been pretty much directly on the bus path, we don't know if he was waiting for Oswald or waiting for someone else. (Like maybe brown suit man who ran down the knoll into the car about 10 minutes after the assassination). The thing about it is, if you don't assume there as a "Plan B" already in place, then things get complicated and you find you have to draw more people into the conspiracy. And it's abundantly clear that there were cops with some kind of inside knowledge, even from the verbal reports of what was said in the Texas Theater one gets the impression that "more than one" of the Dallas Police already knew that Oswald would be charged with the murder of President Kennedy.

Non,

      I agree that official were quite deficient in their inquiry. Perhaps the greatest mistake they made was letting Hoover and McCone sign statements that Oswald had no connection to either group, and thus did not conduct a thorough inspection of internal files.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Non,

      I agree that official were quite deficient in their inquiry. Perhaps the greatest mistake they made was letting Hoover and McCone sign statements that Oswald had no connection to either group, and thus did not conduct a thorough inspection of internal files.

The Warren Commission based its evidence primarily on the input (and investigations) of three groups: the FBI, the Secret Service, and the Dallas Police. Each of those three groups had its own reason(s) for wanting to hide and cover up the truth. And the whole idea that Dulles could even sit on the Commission is ludicrous. What a clown parade - Dulles and the "Director for Life", together with an unwilling Supreme Court Justice (to make the entire proceeding unassailable).

You say "mistake", but I'm quite sure it was deliberate. The specific purpose of the Warren Commission was to paint Oswald as the lone assassin (regardless of the truth). The commission did not "disregard" contrary witnesses, they actively ignored them. Carmine, one must understand this for what it is: a con. A put-up job. This is almost like that movie "The Sting", remember that one? The "Big Con", I think they called it. The game is really simple if you know what the goal is - and there's enough money to go around, so everyone's happy and no one has a reason to talk.

A "real" investigation would reveal that each of the Warren Commission's three primary sources of information was horribly corrupt. These are the most trusted most "official" agencies in our government, the cops, the FBI, and the Secret Service. The spooks are kind of borderline (no one really trusts 'em), but the rest of 'em are supposed to be "trustworthy" God forbid anyone should reveal that the entire Justice Department and all of its siblings were played for patsies. That they'd all been penetrated and suborned by organized crime.

Which leads me to the next question - why Oswald? There's the simple answer, but there may be a deeper one too. Whoever did this was into some "symbolism", like for instance we have Umbrella Man, and Radio man with the raised fist (might have been a signal, but it also might have been symbolic, apparently it caused some of the officials to take notice)... and it is conceivable that the "choice of Oswald" as a patsy was also somehow symbolic. Maybe someone found out whom Oswald "really" worked for - and maybe Oswald really worked for Bobby Kennedy. Think about it - let's say you're Bobby, and you discover that you can't trust Hoover and you also can't trust Dulles. So you start building your own network (which is apparently exactly what Bobby did, via Harry Ruiz and others). Now, if you wanted to know what was going on in the Cuban exile community, and you needed to find out who was really doing what, how would you go about it? (Realizing that the moment you did anything, both sides would already know)?

Wouldn't you go to someone on the inside you could trust (like, a general maybe, or a State Department mucky-muck), and say, "pssst.... I need a couple of people, of a very specific kind.... can you find me anyone like that?" 

If it were done this way it would place Oswald squarely into an intelligence gathering role, and if that's the case one may begin to understand some of his seemingly contradictory behavior.

And if you were the Warren Commission, isn't this the first place you'd look? It is, unless you really didn't want to look there. Those letters from McCone and Hoover sealed off a [u]vast[/I]

Non,

             I agree that it is feasible that Oswald was used as a patsy. However, in my view it was a select few who benefited the most. For instance some have concluded Johnson was a Conspirator, however in my view he did not most benefit. While he was President for four years, he inherited a Presidency in the shadow of JFK. No matter what Johnson did he would be blamed for the assassination, much like Oswald. In my view someone who benefited more than Johnson and had ties to the Agency, Mafia, and Bureau was Hoover. Additionally Hoover received the first lifetime appointment in Executive Branch history and had influence and position to suppress what many could not.

Yes, and the Secret Service was taken off the chopping block, confirmed in their existence in the Treasury Department, and given a larger budget.

Johnson may have benefited but others got so much more.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Non,

             I agree that it is feasible that Oswald was used as a patsy. However, in my view it was a select few who benefited the most. For instance some have concluded Johnson was a Conspirator, however in my view he did not most benefit. While he was President for four years, he inherited a Presidency in the shadow of JFK. No matter what Johnson did he would be blamed for the assassination, much like Oswald. In my view someone who benefited more than Johnson and had ties to the Agency, Mafia, and Bureau was Hoover. Additionally Hoover received the first lifetime appointment in Executive Branch history and had influence and position to suppress what many could not.

If Oswald was not used as a patsy, what do you think his role was?

Steely,

           I do think it is feasible he was the patsy of sorts. The question in my view that remains is what is his level of feasible complicity? Was he a CIA dupe intended to start a war with Castro, is this why the first shot he could have fired missed? Perhaps he was a feasible FBI informant who repeatedly attempted to infiltrate groups and Communist circles such as Sergio Smiths, Carlos Bringuier's, The FPCC, the Socialist Youth Movement, his jaunt to Russia, et al. I do believe he was more than just a convenient patsy. Perhaps he knew of a plot but not the true aim of it. According to the CIA assassination Guide he was a perfect expendable assassin. i. A political and social outsider with assumed motivations that are vague and useful to indicate guilt. 

i. The National Security Archive, Electronic Briefing Book No. 4, "CIA and Assassination Proposals, 1952-1954, Document and transcript", George Washington University, georgewashington.edu, Document 1, "The Assassin", p. 4

Carmine, I suggest the CIA didn't know who Oswald really was. Consider this - DRE was a CIA project, yes? (via Joannides and all that) - so along comes Oswald, and Bringuier thinks he's trying to "penetrate" the organization. What's the logical thing for Bringuier to do?

The logical thing for him to do would be to go straight to Joannides and say, "hey, who is this guy that tried to infiltrate our organization?" That should have raised all kinds of alarm bells within the CIA, shouldn't it? "Hey, an unknown American just tried to penetrate our organization" - WHEREUPON, if the CIA checked, they would "at first" have discovered the same thing that everyone else thought they knew - namely that Oswald was a Communist and he was trying to get to Cuba somehow.

If they wanted "more" information than that, they would have had to go to ONI or something - whoever was "really" running Oswald - which they may or may not have known, so in this case we should have seen a flurry of inquiries from the CIA. And maybe those inquiries are some of the 50,000 CIA documents that are still being withheld? Ya think? Maybe?

I think it is also a mistake to view the CIA in today's terms. In 1963 the CIA was a mere vestige of its present self, it was porous and only marginally capable. After all, it tried at least a dozen times to assassinate a simple latin dictator and failed - and even failed to such a degree that it felt it had to bring in the professionals (in the form of the Mafia).

The CIA in the early 60's was of the mistaken opinion that they could take an average citizen and turn him into a killing machine. That's what MK/ULTRA was all about, exactly that. What they discovered though, is their method wouldn't work on ordinary citizens, it wasn't reliable. And therefore the assassination "manuals" become little more than wish lists, assuming they could find individuals who would adhere to their every instruction.

I find Oswald's drinking behavior singularly enlightening. It's not that he "couldn't" hold his liquor, it's more like he didn't want to - and that is very strange for a New Yorker in the 60's. (Usually that's only found in problem situations or in situations where there are things "other than alcohol" in the mix). Oswald seems to have been quite scared by the idea of a loose tongue. He may have been much more in control than the Warren Commission would like us to believe. After all, if you're a serious spy "the clown" is one of the best available legends.

Non,

         I agree. In my view the CIA is not directly involved. Their suppression in my view is explained to conceal the plans and aid they gave to the Mafia and anti Castro Cubans. While some have doubts about Mafia involvement, I would contend they indeed were involved. However I do not believe they could have undertaken the assassination without at least one complicit highly placed Executive official to suppress the necessary information. If this official additionally had influence and connections in the Agency, the CIA like Johnson could be falsely implicated beyond their actual prior illegality. However, their plans were known to the Mafia, Cuban groups, the FBI, and anyone else with access. When you compare the guide to Oswald in my view it is compelling that someone was following a playbook.

Carmine Savastano wrote:Non,

         I agree. In my view the CIA is not directly involved. Their suppression in my view is explained to conceal the plans and aid they gave to the Mafia and anti Castro Cubans. While some have doubts about Mafia involvement, I would contend they indeed were involved. However I do not believe they could have undertaken the assassination without at least one complicit highly placed Executive official to suppress the necessary information. If this official additionally had influence and connections in the Agency, the CIA like Johnson could be falsely implicated beyond their actual prior illegality. However, their plans were known to the Mafia, Cuban groups, the FBI, and anyone else with access. When you compare the guide to Oswald in my view it is compelling that someone was following a playbook.

Hi Carmine, I'm pretty sure we agree on all of these points. I've been giving your "minimalist" viewpoint some further consideration, there's definitely a lot of merit in it.

The picture I'm getting at this point, is that just about everyone in this theater had "divided loyalties". For example, consider someone like Frank Sturgis. He was CIA, yes this is true, so one might imagine that he was somehow "loyal to the government", but it turns out there's an entirely different puppetmaster in play, because Sturgis was a mafia man through and through and his only real loyalty was to himself (meaning, he mainly wanted to stay alive, and I get the impression he was a lot more scared of the mafia than he was of the incompetents in the CIA).

The Warren Commission depended on three "official" bodies for their evidence, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the DPD - and in each of those organizations there was at least one highly placed individual who's been suborned (by the Mafia). And my take is, that at the time, the Mafia was "almost as powerful as the US government" domestically - in fact the only thing that really differentiated the Mafia and the US government in terms of sheer power, were the nuclear weapons. Everything else, the Mafia had "almost" as much of as our government.

Because of the nature of the CIA and the careful and secret way they supposedly operate, it occurs to me that even "one" corrupt CIA agent could taint the entire organization, and give people like you and me reason and suspicion to believe that "the entire CIA" was somehow involved - but as you say, it's entirely true that one highly placed individual could have caused some serious damage - and even generated the paperwork to cover it.

Something interesting just flashed on my radar screen yesterday - and that is Oswald's preparation for a supposed trip (and possible move) to the DC area. This would have been in the October ('63) time frame, about a month prior to the assassination. Oswald had written some letters to communist organizations on the east coast indicating that he might be planning to move into the area, and could they please help him get connected and set up. Then, a while later, he wrote another letter to the CP-USA explaining that he was cancelling his plans and wouldn't be coming east after all.

Now, I've always viewed that incident in the context of some "leafleting" activity or something like that, but it turns out upon further reading that Jack Ruby may be the person who actually put Oswald up to this, this "planned move east".

Turns out, there are dozens of eyewitnesses who saw Ruby and Oswald together prior to the assassination - and not just "together", but schmoozing in different ways. One story even has Ruby throwing Oswald down the stairs at the Carousel Club!

Non,

       I appreciate your support for the merits of the minimalist ideas. Your view on the mixed loyalties is quite accurate. Indeed repeated key people were members of the Mafia or had close ties with a member. It is this constant mixing of interests and members that I believe has concealed some of the important connections. A perfect example in my view of this is Johnny Roselli. He has links to the Mafia, CIA, and anti-Castro Cubans. The Agency at first uses him with abandon. 

When the Robert Maheu plots fail, William K Harvey takes over. Phase 2 (ZRRFILE) is then conducted just with Harvey and Roselli at the helm. Even after the Agency has told Harvey and others to stop associations, they continue. They recur so often after the assassination the Bureau actually cancels observation Roselli with a person resembling Harvey. Did I mention Harvey was a former FBI agent? He is just one of the handful I believe had direct knowledge of a plot and mixed loyalties. If he did not aid in crafting the assassination, he definitely realized what occurred and was silent. Just as Allen Dulles was silent about the Castro plots to the Commission.

A joke I thought relevant to our discussion: What is the difference between the Mafia and the Government? The Mafia is organized crime.

Yes, Harvey. When told of the assassination he is alleged to have said, "Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. It's probably a good thing." So, yes he may have known what it was all about.

I'm really zooming in on the drug angle. Who were the major players in the drug game? And where were the drugs coming from? Turns out a lot of them were coming from Mexico, an example of which would be the ship in Galveston that Fruge et al checked out.

A kilo is not a lot of dope, it's something one could easily fit in a backpack or a briefcase or some such thing. A small package means lower risk, aboard ship as well (it can be more easily hidden). And, the words the FBI uses to describe that whole thing, are "pipeline" and "channel", they seem to indicate that these kilo-at-a-time deals were a regular occurrence.

On the street, a gram is a decent amount for an addict, it might last a week or so, so a kilo would feed a thousand addicts for a week (ballpark). Meaning, Ruby or whoever would have to repeat the drug run once a week. And, I imagine that as a smart mobster, he probably had different sets of connections in play at any given time, and most likely there were several such "pipelines or channels".

So then, whoever's on the other end of this thing, starts in Mexico, yes?

I'm not yet clear on what the Mexican drug picture looked like at that time, whether the Mexican government was running the show (via the federales or any other way), or whether there was an outside gang like maybe a cartel or even the mafia. If today's picture is any indication, the CIA was probably involved somehow. Anyone who wanted to get drugs out of the country on a regular basis had to have some protection of some sort, and there has been an historical pattern of CIA pilots running drugs on the side.

The other half of it is that the Cuban stuff was mostly staging out of Nicaragua, which would have been a great opportunity for a little drug-running. And, both Roselli and Marcello were involved heavily in Nicaragua (and the neighboring countries as well).

The street value of a gram could be in the twenty dollar range somewhere (in 1963 dollars), so a dealer who got a kilo and broke it up into grams for street sale could net a clean ten thousand give or take (which would be like a hundred thousand today). And that's per week, so in other words, as a source of revenue for the mafia that's significant. They're going to want to keep that up, keep it going.

Now - Oswald, has a couple of oddball connections into the drug thing. First, there is Kerry Thornley. In 1963, to the best of everyone's knowledge, Thornley was furiously dropping acid. Then later he started the Discordian Society.... this guy was pretty whacked out. And Oswald was hanging with him in the late summer of 1963, in New Orleans.

Then - Cuba and money-raising for the Cubans. People like Loran Hall, and William Seymour, who were arrested for transporting amphetamines (among other things) in October of 1963. Drugs are a quick way to raise money, right? And, if you were trying to raise money for a cause "other than the mafia" (like, say, a Castro thing), it might behoove you to make sure you're on the same page with the nice family men before you start doing business. They do stuff like that, if it's a cause they agree with they'll back off or step on the street amounts a little more, to encourage you to buy from the other guy for a minute, and then a day or two later they turn the spigot back on.

So, IF we accept that Jack Ruby was somehow involved in the drug business in Dallas, then we should probably consider these factors. Also a factor is that a couple of the TSBD employees had rap sheets for narcotics, and back in the day "narcotics" could have been just about anything.... however.... I'm interested specifically in the heroin, because it's the biggest money maker and it's also the smallest package. 23 pounds of pot would be a bit more noticeable....

10k a week makes half a million a year, that's nothing to sneeze at. How much was the take from gambling or prostitution in Dallas? Probably along the same lines, would be my guess - allegedly the gambling figure was 70 million for the entire state of Texas, but I haven't seen much specific information on Dallas so far. Have you read into mob history? There must be stories about Civello and Campisi from the other side, yes?

Non,

           Campisi was involved in Dallas in minor gambling early on. As he became more involved in crime he is mentioned in additional files. The FBI notes that Campisi is a possibility as an informant. Campisi visits Jack Ruby in jail after his murder of Oswald. These are feasible connections between Ruby, Campisi and Marcello. i. ii. iii. iv. However as I stated before it does not in my view begin and end with the Mafia, a few of their leaders feasibly just play a large part. 


(all pages numbers are listed from the original document, not the MFF order) 


i. HSCA, FBI Subject Files, C-D, No Title, Joe Campisi, p. 5


ii. HSCA, FBI Sub. Files, C-D, No Title, Joseph Campisi, p.3-4 


iii. HSCA FBI Sub. Files, C-D, No Title, , Joesph Campisi p.1-2


iv. HSCA FBI Sub. Files, C-D, No TItle, Joe Campisi:Joseph Campisi

Hi Carmine, the Rose Cheramie story still rings true to me. There's only one reason to send a tired old hooker all the way from Florida to pick up a kilo of dope - and that's if the person on the other end knows and trusts her. That connection should have been checked out thoroughly, but alas it seems to be lost forever. But I digress...

I assert that the kill shot came from the front. The farcically corrupt Warren Commission asserts that it came from the back. Who's right? There's actually more evidence to support my position than theirs, but because they're "official" they get to say this is the way it is and we can't prove otherwise (mainly because they've mangled all the evidence, and stolen Kennedy's brain).

Non,

       We shall have to agree to disagree about Cheramie.  

Yet I too agree that at least one shot was feasibly fired from the Grassy Knoll, according to in my estimation at least 21 witnesses (HSCA count) 28 (My Count) 30+ (John McAdams Count). I often enjoy telling critics I think there were more witnesses than the HSCA but less than McAdams. 

I attempted to only use the witnesses that directly cite the Knoll area (Knoll, pergola in some form (cement structure, memorial) the picket fence area, train yards directly connected)specifically. Do not worry that most official evidence proves their case it does not in my view. Even with all the problems in evidence it is these very mistakes and suppression that redouble feasible suspicions. 

If we add in that most testimony from Bethesda and Parkland support many irregularities, influences, and confirmed repeated destruction and suppression of evidence occurred, a feasible conspiracy begins to form. In my view the best weapons against official distortions in most cases is official evidence. I did enjoy telling a few people who were part of the Ruth Paine fan club that she might not be the angelic figure they had hoped and offering her sister's CIA Security file. It does not prove Ruth was in the CIA but she did talk to one at most major holidays. I wonder who came up in conversation?

Well, I just counted 24 official "conclusions" by the Warren Commission, and I'm pretty sure 22 of them are outright wrong.

Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone.
He did not fire a rifle.
He did know Jack Ruby prior to the assassination.
Jack Ruby was indeed a mobster.
The kill shot came from the front.
There were more than three shots.

... etc

Carmine, the next time someone uses the words "authoritative" and Warren Commission in the same sentence, please send 'em over to me (if you get tired of talking to 'em), I'll take care of the problem and it'll be my pleasure to do so.

There are two little words, that people always seem to forget about - like when the politicians tell 'em it's a "financial crisis worse than the Great Depression".

The two little words are "prove it".

Prove there was a magic bullet. Prove CE-399 went suddenly and mysteriously upwards while it was travelling at 500 feet per second, without hitting bone or metal or any other impediment.

If you can't prove it, it's just conjecture - and there is nothing authoritative about conjecture, no matter whose mouth it happens to originate from.

The fact is the Warren Commission relied on the FBI while the FBI was mangling all the evidence. Anyone besides Johnson would have seen that instantly and put an end to it,

"Mismanagement" is the word that comes to mind. The desperate psychopaths running the show are piss-poor managers, that's the way it looks.

Non,

       I wholly agree. Colossal mismanagement, tremendous incompetence, and the many hidden agendas of competing official groups. Among all that a feasible small murderous plot. I do not blame most officials, they were never prepared to handle the amount of evidence and scope of the events. 

I would contend some blame rests with some of the official leaders who suppressed the evidence to hide their mistakes and agenda to declare Oswald the lone guilty party. Of course it is those handful who were actively complicit or intentionally "ignorant" of the evidence that deserve the most contempt.

In my view some like Dulles, knew of relevant evidence (Castro assassination plots) and his own part in that evidence, and said nothing.

Yes, this fellow Dulles is certainly an important player.

One name that's been popping up again and again, in my research lately (which as you know presently involves mainly loading lots and lots of data records into the computer), is Prescott Bush.

Prescott Bush seems like an extraordinarily dangerous character, all things considered.

Not only did he get involved with Dulles in organizing the CIA at its inception, he's also responsible for Nixon's political career and a host of other "important figures in the JFK assassination".

And his son George HW, at a very young age, was already apparently selling nuclear materials to the Israelis, and also furnishing the United States government with materials (ships) and "plausible deniability" that they otherwise would have been hard pressed to get.

Non,
 
         While I would agree the Bush family is prominent and has definitely(unfortunately)become a fixture of American politics, they in 1963 were not as powerful and influential. Prescott in my view was dangerous in the halls of power by revising corporate laws. While I would think it likely he was a Kennedy detractor his place in any plot in my view is unfeasible. His son likewise might have been a peripheral agent of the CIA with ties to anti Castro activities, but not in my view directly involved in the assassination. 

Dulles is in my view possible, but as former DCI he did not have the daily information available to him and direct influencing of events. That in my view leaves only a few high officials with sufficient power to do so. I would propose that it might be the Mafia Bosses did not even realize they were being aided. It may have been blackmail or possibly the official aiding them would benefit immensely and hated the Kennedy brothers in equal measure.