State of the JFK Document Releases 2021

Rex Bradford has done an outstanding job of addressing the new JFK document releases via the Mary Ferrell Foundation site.  You may find the material, his reviews and assessments here:

Even if you don’t intend to dig into the documents themselves, his commentary on the these releases – as compared to the previous ones – as well as the state of the records themselves is important reading.

If you are unfamiliar with JFK records but curious as to how the archiving of the nations documents occurs you will also find this valuable information.

Oswald, Mexico and the “Poison Pill”

For those waiting to see research related to the newest document releases, the first thing you need to know is that only thirty some of the documents released were previously unseen.  The rest have been available for at least a few years, and were simply reissued with some redactions removed.

However, one of the releases has stimulated some interesting conversation and leads me to this post on Oswald and Mexico City.  That document is a CIA summary document of November. 24, 1963 related to Oswald in Mexico.  That document records that the Bureau became aware of Oswald’s visit to the Russian Embassy via “technical sources”, very likely the sophisticated telephone line intercept system operated jointly by the CIA and the Office of the Mexican President – which tapped a variety of targeted telephone lines in Mexico City via a central phone exchange recording system. This has system has been described at length in the work of Bill Simpich; the very special relationship between the CIA and the Mexican president in the work of Jeff Morley.

Much of that document is familiar, however item 5 proves to be of special interest since it states that the earliest information available is that Oswald had apparently arrived in Mexico by car. That statement is especially interesting in that similar information is found in Mexican tourist agency documents.

In recent years researchers such as John Armstrong and David Josephs have continued to point out the fact that the entire official story of Oswald in Mexico is based on a combination of highly problematic and inconsistent information submitted to the Warren Commission in a summary report from the FBI.  That report totally glossed over the reality that their investigation had uncovered a variety of conflicting information about Oswald’s travel and contacts, as well as indications that his travel very well might have involved unknown parties at certain stages.

As late as March 12, 1964 the FBI was still unclear about many points in regard to Oswald and Mexico City, a confusion fueled by internal conflicts in the records being supplied to them from Mexican officials and departments.  The field agents also faced significant pressure to wrap the whole travel issue up and do away with troubling loose ends, one of Hoover’s messages to them was very clear on that point, stating that unless the Bureau could “prove Oswald was on a bus, this possibility will always exist that he left by automobile as indicated in Mexican Immigration Records. “

One of the very real problems the FBI faced was that its work heavily relied on materials gathered by the Mexican Federal Police – who can be demonstrated to have been heavily influenced by the CIA’s field office in Mexico City.  Given the high-level relationships between that office and the Mexican presidency (best described by Jeff Morley) it would be expected that the CIA’s interests and concerns would be represented in any information given to the FBI. Yet in the end the Bureau was forced to weave that information supplied to them into an official story of Oswald’s travel – a story in which researchers Armstrong and Josephs have demonstrated to be based on bus tickets, transfers and schedules which actually do not fully match the overall FBI scenario.

In fact, their research revealed that Mexican authorities had seized bus company records and actually altered dates, writing in the names of bus drivers as well as themselves listing “Oswald” as being on certain buses. In the process records such as certain bus manifests simply went missing.

Ultimately the FBI report avoided both all issues of impersonation and the possibility that others had been associated with Oswald in any activities related to Mexico; it was the information in that report which was the basis for the official Warren Commission story of Oswald in Mexico. 

That story might have been less well received by the Warren Commission (we not have internal memos that show the Commission itself realized how dependent they were on the FBI and that they did not fully trust all the information coming from Hoover) and/or the public if either had been aware of a later, internal FBI memorandum which contains Hoovers handwritten warning not to trust the CIA when working with them.

That note specifically references being the Bureau having been misled by the CIA in regard to Oswald in Mexico. Given that note was made by Hoover himself, and given the very long list of issues which have developed around the purported appearance of Oswald at the Cuban consulate, it appears that Hoover had come to understand what we know in some detail – that Oswald was indeed impersonated at the Cuban consulate, impersonated as part of a CIA counter intelligence and propaganda program.  I describe that program and the individuals involved in it in my most recent book, Tipping Point.

Over the years I’ve come to believe the story of Oswald in Mexico City may be significant to the assassination conspiracy, but in a way a good bit different than I initially thought – and wrote. That evolving view will be more obvious with David Boylan and my new Red Bird leads paper becomes available on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site – regardless of that I have no doubt at all that “Oswald in Mexico City” is quite significant to the CIA, especially in regard to Lead #2.

But what I have also come to much more fully appreciate is how Oswald himself was “hijacked” by individuals with a working knowledge of the way in which Oswald and his identity were being used in ongoing and approved CIA operations, operations carried out by both SAS and WAVE personnel in Miami. In that regard the concept of Oswald as a “poison pill” to trap the CIA into its own assassination related cover up does not relate on entirely to Mexico City but rather to a series of events which started in New Orleans months earlier.

Tipping Point Update

If you have read or intend to read Tipping Point, one of the things you are going to come across is that it contains considerable detail on several areas which you may not be familiar with from other JFK assassination writing. One example, courtesy of David Boylan’s research, is an examination of the organizational structure of the CIA’s JMWAVE station in Miami and its 1963 staffing relationship/connections to Desmond Fitzgerald’s Special Affairs Staff. SAS was tasked with carrying on covert Kennedy Administration action against Cuba as the successor to Mongoose – ostensibly operating only under the oversight and direction of the new, higher level Cuban Coordinating Committee.

Other examples of “deep dives” include an exploration of the DRE (Cuban Student Directorate) and its activities in 1963 as well as the relatively little discussed Commando Mambises covert maritime operations against Cuba in 1963.

Readers familiar with my other books on the subject may deal with the complexity of names and cryptonyms by using the extensive end notes and citations in the book. However any serious reader, plus anyone who wants to use the book for further research of their own, will likely want to have reference to as through an index as possible.

We did have a basic index available for the book but admittedly it was limited. The good news is that – thanks to some very dedicated volunteer work and several months of slogging – we can now offer a greatly expanded Tipping Point Index. You will find it in the Tipping Point area on the Mary Ferrell Foundation and it is available for download. I hope you find it helpful and for those who may still wonder what is in Tipping Point, it might give you a much better view to that.

As a reminder, its only useful with the actual paginated, published book. And if you take a look and decide to use it I would certainly be interested in your feedback:

JFK Lancer 2021 Conference Update

Conference details and tentative speaker schedule:

Sessions will be streamed Friday and Saturday beginning at 9 AM Central and Sunday at Noon Central on November 19-21

The conference will be “virtual” with presentations streamed during the conference dates, and with a dedicated Facebook page for registered attendees to ask questions and participate in dialogs with presenters.  The fee will be $64.99 for conference viewing only, and $119.99 for conference viewing plus digital download.

All ticketed attendees will have the ability to re watch any presentation as often as they want until the 30th of November.

Reservations may be made at:

Speaker Schedule / Subject to Change

Friday, November 19:

Debra Conway

Don Jefferies with Chuck Ochelli

Bart Kamp with Malcolm Blunt (two part)

Larry Schnapf

Stuart Wexler

Brent Holland 

Saturday, November 20:

Debra Conway

Russ Baker

Bill Simpich

Johnny Cairns

Larry Hancock and David Boylan (two part)

Gill Jesus

Andrew Kiel

Bill Kelly

Sunday, November 21

Debra Conway

Robert Groden

Jim DiEugenio

Mike Chesser

I plan to be in the Attendee Facebook forum as much as possible over the three days, to answer questions on my presentations and work and to help/facilitate with general conference questions and inquiries. If you have not registered yet I encourage you to do so, it will be a learning experience and our speakers will be covering a broad range of research as well as updates on what is going on with document releases, legal challenges and the overall effort to pursue the real history of the Kennedy assassination.

Red Bird Lead #2 / Using Lee Oswald?

David Boylan and I just finished our second Red Bird show with Chuck. I will say up front that our work on this second lead is much more of a challenge to communicate than Lead #1. Dealing with Lead #1 was basically a matter of developing the likely identities of the Colonel and the Cuban at Red Bird airfield. Beyond that the questions deal with examining who the “they” who were planning on attacking JFK in Dallas might be.

Lead #2 begins with an approach to rent not only an airplane but to get a pilot (January) to fly it on a long distance trip the week of the assassination – an approach which January rejected because he was suspicious the man and woman involved actually might have the intention of hijacking the aircraft to Cuba.

If Lee Oswald was indeed with the two people, albeit as only an observer from their parked car, getting something from the lead involves reverse engineering what chain of events might have brought him to Red Bird at that point in time – and the relatively implosive implications of that such a chain of events might indicate about Oswald in the fall of 1963 as well as his activities the week of the assassination and on November 22 as well.

We explored both elements with Chuck in a 2 hour conversation – we will also be presenting two “structured” sessions at the Lancer 2021 conference which cover both leads and we anticipate publishing a research monograph which covers both sometime relatively early in 2022.

I’d encourage you to join us at the conference for our presentations but in the interim you might want to take a listen to the show, which you can find at the following link:

Red Bird Leads

I’ve posted previously that David Boylan and I have been exploring two separate leads which came out of incidents at Red Bird airfield outside of Dallas, Texas. Both leads relate to incidents which occurred in the days immediately prior to the assassination. Our plan is to essentially have our research available as a written monograph, provided in the same form as our Wheaton Lead research. While the draft manuscript is virtually complete, editing and getting it online will take a good bit of time so that is unlikely to happen until early next year.

In the interim we are doing some interviews on the research, and we will be presenting two separate sessions, one on each lead, for the JFK Lancer 2021 conference. Additional interviews will follow after publication of the research. As with any lead, there are extensions that we would like to follow long term – if that proves to be possible.

The first Red Bird lead involves a military surplus transport aircraft that was being modified, with the title transferred to what appears to have been anticipated use in a covert operation designated as AMWORLD. That aircraft was accepted for title transfer and then flown out of Dallas the afternoon of November 22, 1963.

The second involves an attempt by a young man and woman to rent a private aircraft for a long distance flight to an unspecified destination – their effort was rejected the aircraft operator, for a variety of reasons including his suspicion that they might have been intending to hijack it for a flight to Cuba. That lead also involved a report to the FBI that a young man who was with the two but who remained seated in their car bore a strong resemblance to Lee Harvey Oswald.,

Research into both of these leads has been ongoing for years, but only recently have certain details emerged which allows us to associate names and events in way that examines them much more closely.

If you would like an introduction to them, we explored Lead #1 with Chuck Ochelli earlier and you can listen to that program at the following link – we will be moving on to discuss Lead #2 with him this coming Thursday.

JFK January Lead Number 1


David and I just finished doing almost three hours of recording the Lead 1 and 2 presentations for the upcoming Lancer virtual conference. We worked hard at focusing and refining it so I hope everyone gets a chance to engage with the research there. It was certainly an exhausting evening on Zoom.

We are continuing to add small amounts of information, most for context and to answer questions that have come up during the dialogs so far.

As for the research paper, David – after recovering – will resume working with the edits we are receiving from two different supporters but its going to be a good bit before it goes up for an actual read. I’d say sometime in the first quarter but would not want to guess how early at this point.

JFK Lancer Conference Registration

I wanted to advise everyone that there is now have a registration page up for the JFK Lancer 2021 Conference – you will find it at:

Note the new domain name for JFK Lancer and a new site is under development. That will take some time, bur the conference itself will stream separately – as well as have its own attendee Facebook page.

There have also been comments that a virtual conference does not allow for the guided walking tours of the Plaza that we had routinely done over the years.  As it so happens Gabriella and I recorded and extended video of that walking tour last year, unfortunately we had some problems getting it  posted on Facebook. This year she has new video editing software, and we are certainly going to try to make that available for the attendees.  The good news is that if that works there will be no risk of the rain or sleet or cold wind we sometimes ran into in November in the “live” tours.

As a reminder, this year’s scheduled speakers include:

Scheduled presenters at this time include Jim DiEugenio, David Boylan,  Donald Jeffries with Chuck Ochelli, Larry Schnapf, Mike Chesser, Bill Simpich, Andrew Kiel, Debra Conway, Larry Hancock, Stuart Wexler, Malcolm Blunt, Bill Kelly, Russ Baker, Gill Jesus, Robert Groden, and Brent Holland. 

For more details about the conference and speakers you may want to listen to a short interview that Doug Campbell was nice enough to do so that we could elaborate on some of the speakers and how the conference operates:

JFK Lancer 2021 Conference

JFK Lancer will host its 2021 annual conference November 19-21.   The conference will again be “virtual” with presentations streamed during the conference dates and with a dedicated Facebook page for registered attendees to ask questions and participate in dialogs with presenters.  The feel  will be $64.99 for conference viewing only and $119.99 for conference viewing plus digital download.

Scheduled presenters at this time include Jim DiEugenio, David Boylan, Bill Simpich, Donald Jeffries with Chuck Ochelli, Larry Schnapf, Mike Chesser, Andrew Kiel, Debra Conway, Larry Hancock, Stuart Wexler, Malcolm Blunt, Bill Kelly, Russ Baker, Gill Jesus, Robert Groden, and Brent Holland.  Other presenters have been invited but have not yet committed as of this date. 

Due to web hosting issues JFK Lancer is in the process of opening a new web site – with a new domain name – and that site should be available shortly. It will provide the access to register for the 2021 conference. 

Work on the conference itself is well under way and proceeding on schedule – the conference itself will be streamed independently through a commercial web company. 

I will provide further updates here, but if possible please share with others that the 2021 conference itself is indeed alive, well and proceeding towards November. 

Lee Oswald

Recently I’ve been involved with a number of online discussions relating to Lee Oswald, including a scenario which would involve his volunteer participation in what would be considered an a “false flag” attack on President Kennedy – intended to point the blame for the incident on Cuba and Fidel Castro.  A “false flag” hijacked by conspirators and turned real.  Some people see Oswald accepting a role in that type of action, even a role that involved making intentionally missed shots from the sixth floor and framing himself.

Personally, I have lots of issues with such a scenario – although as I’ve said in the past, I would consider the concept as a type of “cover” to recruit certain very low-level participants, such as Jack Ruby, into minor roles.  Roles which about twelve thirty on November 22, 1963 unexpectedly turned them into accessories to murder.

This post is not about the idea of such a “false flag”, instead it is about my view of Lee Oswald after some 30 years of looking at him from the “outside in” – I have no training or experience in profiling, however I’ve spent so much time on his activities, social interactions, his writing, his notebook entries, and even photographs of him from childhood on (the photographs demonstrate he was never a “lone nut” but that he very much did like girls) that I’ve developed my own impression of his personality and motivations.

Based on that I offer the following as my overall view of Oswald:

As a youth Oswald was not a loner, he did have teenage friends, and he was also considered a bit of a clown (that is shown in photos of him cutting up in the classroom). He was not someone inclined to follow the rules in class or for that matter elsewhere.  It seems fair to say that he also had a problem with “authority figures’, probably based on his rather chaotic home life. Still, he could follow the rules – when he wanted to and was necessary to his personal agenda and interests.

Oswald always displayed an adventurous nature and a wide range of interests, ranging from amateur astronomy to aircraft and flying – as seen in his joining a Civil Air Patrol youth squadron. Later it was most likely a bit of a technical bent that landed him in training and a job assignment in radar once he was in the Marines. His earlier interests (even his science fiction reading) may have helped him score relatively high in the standard recruit placement tests.

Beyond that Oswald was a “populist” in his political beliefs, anti-establishment in a sense, but more anti-authority in attitude. That shows up in his disciplinary problems in the service, and is certainly confirmed in personal descriptions from individuals he served with in the Marines. In terms of broad political views, he did lean towards socialism (as he admitted in a radio interview) but certainly not Lenin’s views of communism.

Oswald’s library reading records, and more importantly his activities inside Russia, show no particular interest in communism; even in Russia he associated with none of the available political groups nor explored political ideology.  What he did do was make friends, go hunting on occasion and in particular chat up as many potential girlfriends as possible.

(note: the following bolding and font size is courtesy of WordPress and I’ve had no luck changing it so please just read on)

Most likely the best general view of Lee Oswald was summed up in remarks from his friend George de Mohrenschildt.  George was as close as Lee as anyone was, especially following Oswald’s return from Russia in 1962.  He described Oswald (whom he appeared to actually like in some ways) as being limited in his political knowledge, more inclined to parrot slogans than anything else. Overall, George descried him as a proto-hippie, socialist in attitude, very contrarian, anti-authority, and generally argumentative – given to being annoying if the conversation drifted into political topics.

Beyond that what can be said positively about Oswald is that he was always an “adventurer”, curious and interested in new experiences, a risk taker, emotional if irked, not afraid of physical conflicts (demonstrated by fights in school and even a fight on a bus about racist seating practices) and even an incident with a Sergeant in the Marines. 

It can also be said that Oswald had an interest in foreign affairs, but most specifically in events where populist/anti-colonial action was in play.  While in the Marines he appears to have focused in on the revolution against Batista in Cuba (per his friend Nelson Delgado) and the possibility of similar revolutions against Yankee imperialism across Central America – he even tried to get his buddy Delgado to quite the Marines with him and go join those movements.

Oswald’s interest in Cuba continued while in the Marines (including his contacts with the Cuban embassy in Los Angeles when stationed in California) and resurfaced once he was back from Dallas – and very disillusioned by what he had seen in Russia (as evident in the manuscript he prepared about this time there).

There is certainly reason to think that he was pro-Castro revolution, pro-Castro regime, and anti-imperialist.  His manuscript definitively shows him opposed to Soviet Union nationalism which he felt was simply using the political facade of communism.

Oswald’s engagement with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee and his attempts to infiltrate an anti-Castro activist group in New Orleans are both quite consistent with that view, as was his reporting on the anti-Castro exiles to the FBI.  As a Castro regime supporter, he was inherently hostile to anti-Castro Cubans and their efforts.

The one major inconsistency we do find are his late summer letters to the Communist Party USA, especially his remark about going underground.  Certainly, that is in conflict with his manuscript remarks about CPUSA being essentially a tool and dupe of the Soviet nationalist agenda. The most interesting point of the letters is that they position Oswald as more politically radical than any of his known public remarks or activities (such as leafleting and protesting) up to that point in time.

However, the letters were also sent at a point in time in which he had been acting as a source for the FBI in New Orleans, and the letters themselves were collected by an asset the FBI had placed in the FPCC’s own headquarters. Discussion of Oswald’s “use” by the intelligence community is something far beyond this post, and may have begun as early as certain of his activities in Japan.  I’ve written about this at some length and previously used the term “dangle” to describe him.  While that may have been true on a couple of occasions, I’ve become more inclined to see him as “tagged”, visible to multiple groups and agencies and simply monitored – for multiple purposes but certainly to identify individuals who might respond to his public “image”.  

In short, my view of Oswald circa 1963, is that while he had become discouraged over the Soviet model of socialism/populism, there is no sign that he felt the same about the Cuban experience and in fact championed it as being something that he could endorse, and actively promote.  While he would have been encouraged by JFK’s public commitment not to invade Cuba following the missile crisis (his remarks about JFK appear generally positive) he was also increasingly frustrated by not being able to join in the Cuban experience personally.

His own experiences with the American system were taking him nowhere in particular, and Cuba still appealed to him – in fact that summer his wife had agreed to go along with him to Cuba, if he could come up with a way to get there.  She told him if he could get there alone, and then send for her, she would do that as well.

November in Dallas 2021

JFK Lancer will be hosting a 2021 conference in its long running series of research seminars relating to the political assassinations of the 1960’s. As with last year’s event, this year the conference will continue to be “virtual”, with presenters recorded in advance and streamed during the three days of November 19-21.

A conference page will also be available so all those who register can directly chat with and submit questions for the presenters, that worked especially well last year and there were some excellent discussion threads during the conference.

There will be a number of well respected, long time researchers as well as some new names this year, but as usual the focus will be on providing as much new research and information as possible. We will also have speakers relating some very interesting personal experiences and insights into the inquiries and investigations of the very first years work (and first generation researchers) related to both the JFK and RFK assassinations.

A full list of presenters will be made available as soon as everyone confirms, that is still some weeks down the road at this point, and of course the same is true for the presentation schedule.

At present JFK Lancer is going though the throes of moving its WEB site onto a new, updated, server and the site itself is not available as Debra Conway works with the server hosting company – those things are never as easy as anyone would hope, so it may be several days before the site is back up and before conference registration will be available.

In the meantime, if you have questions or if you need to place orders for materials you can email Debra directly at