Its hard to convey the extent of the material that gets covered at the annual November in Dallas research conference. That’s partially because of the breadth of speakers but beyond that its the extent to which informal conversations and dialogs allow you to explore thoughts stimulated by those presentations.  Having been around the subject of President Kennedy’s assassination for some time I’m going to share a few of the points which intrigued me personally.

First, the extent to which Malcolm Blunt and John Newman have been able to map out so much of the CIA’s organizational structure and internal communications is amazing.  And while that might not seem of interest to all those who continually search for smoking guns – it should. As an example it appears not that they have traced out a routing request which directed that internal communications relating to Lee Oswald’s defection were to only be circulated to Counter Intelligence – before you yawn, the second point is that the request appears to have been placed before Oswald’s pseudo defection to Russia.

In another presentation, John Newman reviewed documents which showed that Henry Hecksher – a topic of previous posts here and a candidate for Richard Case Nagell’s “Bob” in Mexico City – had been stationed in Havana at the same time as David Phillips and was heavily involved in security activities for Phillips, who was under commercial cover in Cuba. When you add that to travel documents showing Hecksher going to Mexico City at the same time Nagell was there and the fact that Hecksher was later assigned to head the AM/WORLD project, things become even more interesting.

Finally, I have to say that for the first time in a great many years I am fairly well convinced – by Michael Chesser’s conference presentation on the enhanced HSCA skull X-rays – that there were two shots to JFK’s head and that one was most definitely from the front and into the hairline, impacting at exactly the same point the Parkland Doctor indicated in his television interview that afternoon as he pointed to his own head. The presentation also confirmed the degree of post Bethesda tampering with the medical evidence which have become so clear over the years.

I can’t even begin to detail the rest of the conferences, DVD’s will be available from Lancer early next year. I can say that after all these years it is encouraging to see that dedicated researchers are still surfacing important new information.


8 responses »

  1. David Brown says:

    Larry, Shocked no mention of Robertson. Is it controversial? Is it denied? Is the shot from Daltex in the back (and not penetrating and tracked through) and out the throat (and not an entry as the Parkland Doctors said) just too much? It has to be — it is from the correct angle, it is deflected, it did go at the precise time to cause the precise reactions and impacts and Zapruder blurs!. Does the science trump the eyewitness testimony we have been relying on to prove conspiracy? I surely believe so. Let me know what you believe. Coupled with Law’s second edition and the pre-autopsy scene of Humes’ craniotomy this should be Stone’s JFK II. David

  2. larryjoe2 says:

    David, I limited my comments strictly to what I’m convinced was a frontal shot into the hairline, not discussing other shots or wounds. Since I’m convinced much of the medical evidence was manipulated I will leave others to wrestle with the full body of medical evidence not to mention witness observations of the shooting – but a frontal shot makes multiple shooters certain and a conspiracy self evident so I leave it at that. As my friend Jim Marr’s noted long ago, its way too easy to get hung up in details of the crime that can never be perfectly resolved, now its more than time to proceed with the assumption of conspiracy and pursue the conspirators. My post was simply in line with that.

  3. David Brown says:

    could you give me William Law’s email?

  4. Anthony says:

    Those are very interesting points. Is there a reference for the document Professor Newman is referring to please? A definite CI interest in Oswald pre-dating his defection seems to me to be of potentially considerable significance so I’ve been trying to find the original document without success.
    Many thanks

  5. larryjoe2 says:

    I’ll have to inquire about the document, Malcolm Blunt talked about it and John Newman showed documents but I don’t think this is online. They have both been working at NARA recently and the documents related to this may not be part of the recent release; it was clear that John was referencing a number of documents which were not. I’ll check..

  6. David Brown says:

    could you forward to James DiEugenio i do not have his email thx David

  7. larryjoe2 says:

    Happy to forward something to Jim, just email it to me at and I will send it his way.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s