The fifth and final segment of Tipping Point is now available on the Mary Ferrell Foundation.

https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Tipping_Point_Part5.html

This final segment focuses on the conspiracy in terms of its activities in Dallas, both on November 22, 1963 and during the weeks preceding the attack. It addresses the types of assets which were called into play and deployed in Dallas to support both the attack on President Kennedy, and the linkage of that attack to Cuba and Fidel Castro. Previous segments have developed the point that there the President was increasingly at risk during 1963. Active threats were known, both from the radical right (John Birch/NSRP rifle teams), and from radical Cuban exiles; those threats were reported to and communicated within the Secret Service. We now know that by October some of those threats were being taken seriously, but to date none of them show the range of assets, the level of local support activity, or the degree of planning which occurred in Dallas.  

How and why that level of support was uniquely available in Dallas emerges from the context laid out in the preceding segments, specifically in the connections between Jack Ruby, Cuban affairs, and certain members of the Havana and Las Vegas casino “crowd”. Segment 5 illustrates the danger of revealing the conspiracy which would have been inherent in a full exposure and coordinated investigation of Ruby’s history. It also demonstrates the extent to which a key portion of the plan for Dallas imploded with the capture of Lee Oswald, bringing Ruby into a totally new role.

Beyond the uniqueness of Dallas (both in terms of Lee Oswald and Jack Ruby) this segment also explores the tools and tactics of the assassination which reveal clear signs of what was a paramilitary attack employing standard infantry tactics and practices and carried out by well trained and experienced participants.  Deconstructing the attack also reveals that it was in no way designed to conceal a conspiracy. If anything it was carried out so as to reveal a multiple shooters and a level of tactical organization which would be expected from a coordinated team – not to cover itself by placing the blame on a single “lone nut”.  

The segment concludes with an examination of key elements in the chaos which followed the failure of the second element of the conspiracy (the framing of Lee Oswald as a Castro regime tool). That examination includes the follow up efforts of both those inside the conspiracy, and the senior officials in Washington D.C. who determined that national security demanded that a conspiracy neither be investigated nor exposed.  

I’ll look forward to discussing this segment here or, as usual, via your emails.

As announced earlier, the segments will be consolidated into boo form and made available in book form on Amazon, hopefully before the end of Q1, 2021

10 responses »

  1. AnthonyM says:

    Hi
    Congratulations on another excellent piece of work with ‘Tipping Point’.

    The scenario you present is by a long way the most credible general scenario of ‘who’ did it and ‘why’ they did it (as opposed to the ‘how’, which is not really the focus of the work). It works consistently and coherently across the full ‘warp and weft’ of the evidence for those two key questions of who and why to a far greater extent than the other major scenarios that have been presented over time (e.g. lone nut, Castro did it, the mob did it, the Texas oil barons etc etc.).

    Whilst there are probably a few matters of detail that could be discussed or be open to debate, that may be for another time.

    Overall Tipping Point reinforces an impression I have had for some time about the overall position of JFK research. If anything there is far too much debate and controversy about what happened, who did it and why. The evidence base has moved on to such extent since the 1990s that all three questions can now be answered with a fairly high degree of confidence at the general level and yet we still see raging debate on hypotheses that were falsified years ago or lack substantive evidence or credibility.

    When you look at the early history of the development of the modern sciences and social sciences they all went through a stage in which opinion began to coalesce into ‘schools of thought’ as the range of possibilities consistent with a growing evidence base reduced. Eventually one school emerges and becomes the dominant paradigm until some major crisis forces a shift in paradigm.

    JFK research is not even at the level of forming a few major schools of thought, and yet it should have done so by now.

    If we take your work (and those on which it draws and builds) as the basis for ‘who’ and ‘why’ and the synthesis presented by by Dr Donald B Thomas in ‘Hear no Evil’, which also builds on the work of many serious researchers, as the basis of the answer to ‘how’, we would have a very credible model. So credible that, in the absence of fundamentally significant new evidence, II now think any future developments will have to be consistent with the overall scenarios presented in those two works. There could (and hopefully will) be refinements in matters of detail (such as the exact operational purpose of the events in Mexico City) or significant extensions to the base scenarios which build upon but do not contradict them.

    It remains to be seen how much further we can collectively go to further refine these scenarios (e.g. with the Joannides documents etc.). It’s surprising how much has been achieved in recent decades, so in one sense I remain optimistic. Unfortunately I suspect we are a long way from narrowing the focus down into a consensus model, but the foundations for that are now in place.

    Well done once again on an outstanding piece of work.

  2. larryjoe2 says:

    I greatly appreciate you comments and am myself amazed about the apparent inability of the general JFK community to move past virtually any of the early tangents – even with the amazing amount of new information and detail following the work of the ARRB and re records releases and work of the past two decades.

    The extent to which we get sucked into minutia and controversy is amazing – but I suppose that’s just an artifact of the human condition (sort of like politics). I’m engaged in a series of posts in another venue right now over the simple proposition that the people viewing the Zapruder film for the first time immediately have the impression of a shot from the front and that it moves them to at least reconsider the official story. There does not even seem to be agreement on that (even though I have observed in in person literally with hundreds of individuals).

    But back to your remarks, I too wonder how much further we can go at this late date. A small number of us are brainstorming the issue of whether we can at least come up with a more detailed operational (who did what when) scenario for both the ambush and the Oswald frame. I suspect a more concrete picture of that is possible, on the other hand I don’t think we could do anything but support it circumstantially.

    What I do think is that if more serious researchers would dig into the subject based on the Tipping Point scenario, there are possibilities for some level of confirmation. Actually one of my friends has just communicated something in regard to Jack Ruby that would really help elaborate his role and is causing me to think of how he might have been brought into the plot without really understanding what was developing around him.

    I’ll be blogging on that once we can get our heads around it and make it presentable.

    • AnthonyM says:

      Yes, I’ve seen the discussion you are probably referring to…

      Interesting question as to how far the exact sequence of events can be reconstructed. At a general level the physical evidence is now sufficiently robustly understood to allow us to go quite a way into that question but with some big holes or areas where at best it could only be a posssible scenario.
      One example of that is the pre-attack reconnaisance of the TSBD. Was that undertaken by Oswald or was the TSBD chosen for Oswald because they already had an asset (witting or unwitting) in that building? I don’t know but inclined to the later, but at best 60-40 on it.
      On the other hand you’ve already set out quite a bit about Ruby and we can be fairly precise about shooter locations and weapons used and even the sequence of shots from each location.
      Interesting….

  3. larryjoe2 says:

    With all the information we have at this point I think a reasonable scenario related to targeting and framing Oswald as a patsy in Dallas is feasible – a good bit of that is in Tipping Point. Its important to note that two things coincided in time, the public announcement of JFK visiting Dallas on the Texas trip and the fact that Marnina would be in Dallas giving birth to a new baby that fall.

    The next step is to extend it into the TSBD during the days immediately before and during the attack. We are working on that at the moment….with the understanding that the team responsible for that would be doing the frame, providing overwatch for it and likely providing overwatch and diversion at other locations such as behind the fence.

    Following this track also involves the recruiting and management of Ruby, the oversight of Oswald and the recruitment of peripheral and “clueless” actors related to activities in the TSBD (recalling that there appear to have been initial actions to set up Oswald frames on Main Street prior to his taking the job at the TSBD).

    The assumption being that insertion, placement and exfiltration of the shooters would be compartmentalized and completely independent. The only common point would be the overall signalling and given the circumstances that was probably common to both teams – and by practice would be relatively simple i.e. attack unless abort signal is displayed where it is visual to everyone, then a second signal to activate a secondary action if the sniper attack fails. That would best come from someone close enough to see the impacts…which means right on Elm street.

    Working out this track is actually far easier than the actual shooting track, where we have much less context and far less information.

    • AnthonyM says:

      Well, I’d urge great caution over some of that.
      It would take a reasonable length book to go into all the physical evidence about the fatal headshot at Z312-3 and why it can be said that it came from the grassy knoll with very high confidence.
      It’s a great shame the HSCA fudged the acoustic evidence to ‘force fit’ it to their shooting scenario as that introduced all sorts of anomalies which confused the issue but the synchronisation proposed by Thomas works very well (the debate over the years is fairly easy to follow with a moderate grasp of physics and statistics). Add to that the ‘lead snowstorm’ in the autopsy x-rays, the autopsy photographs, the debate over the Konlein-Schuss effect, the kinetics of the head movements etc and it all comes together very neatly.
      We even have the time lag between the shock wave and the muzzle blast to give an indication of bullet velocity, consistent with 30-30 ammunition and an eye witness report of someone with a Winchester type rifle, which would be an appropriate match.
      In short I’d need something pretty spectacular in terms of hard evidence to make me seriously consider the shot from the grassy knoll as anything other than the fatal headshot.
      As the ballistics data is very consistent with Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition for the fragments found in the car they don’t seem to have been using top end military equipment. A hunting round from a Winchester at close range would be very lethal and consistent with the head injury though, whilst the shots from behind acted as jacketed ammunition would be expected to.
      Hate to sound a negative note…just urging caution that’s all.

  4. Brandon says:

    Great work as always Larry. I have a few speculative questions about the ambush team… I know none of this is concrete, but I want to see if I get the direction you are heading in.

    2 small shooter teams: Carlos Hernandez, Nestor Izquierdo, Felix Rodriguez, Segundo Borges, Victor Espinosa Hernandez all likely, or others of their pedigree – Jenkins trained since ’61 and under the command of Rip Robertson – all exfiltrated to Camp Guillot shortly after Dallas with the rest of the AMWORLD recruits

    1 team in front, most likely at the Grassy Knoll, 1 team behind, TSBD or Dal-Tex

    at least 1 person with TSBD/Oswald rifle plant responsibilities

    Signal/spotters on Elm – most likely Vidal Santiago and Hargraves as Dark Complected man and Umbrella man – possibly another, giving green or abort, coordinating volleys, witnessing hits, possible back-up bomb in the trunk of a car on the on-ramp

    People securing shooting locations – possible police (Olson/Tippit), or fake secret service credentials (Bernard Barker, Sturgis, Bernardo de Torres).

    Drivers infiltration/exfiltration – Jack Ruby, DPD

    pilot to get shooter team out of Dallas at Red Bird – someone like Antonio Soto , Jorge Navarro, or Mario Ginebra

    again, all speculative, but I’m just trying to summarize – thanks for the effort, and Happy New Year!

  5. larryjoe2 says:

    Yes, that’s a good overall picture but we are trying to dial it down a bit further. At the present the thought is for two separate efforts….referred to as tracks rather than teams because they were really not as structured as what we would normally think of as
    “teams”.

    Track 1 would be the shooters and likely consist of two to three actual, highly competent marksmen with field experience in both infiltration and exfiltration. From among original Cuba project trainees who had received advanced training and then sent to the Keys for maritime missions. Depending upon their shooting positions they may have had someone in place as a “blocker”, or not. Its also quite likely as you note that their weapons were placed and retrieved independently and not carried in or out. That could have been arranged locally, which would have been far less obvious. Spotters in the classic sense of “snipers” would not be necessary as the shots involved were not that difficult for experience marksmen, and certainly at moderate range. A classic infantry rifle ambush.

    Coordination is simple, the kill zone is live unless there is an abort…do attack is the default. A visual cue provided by the guys on Elm Street. If the umbrella is up its a go….something of that sort, could be the opposite. If the shooting is successful, you have a guy looking right into the car, the umbrella is pumped and secondary attacks are called off… No sophisticated radio communications necessary, even a backup at the Trade Center or Love Field cold be activated by a telephone call.

    Track 2 would have involved more people, individuals involved with framing Oswald which would have included shots from behind, possibly from the TSBD. It would also have involved overwatch and blockers and people doing a diversion behind the fence. How many of those individuals would have been local vs. from Florida is a good question, some may have been quite unwitting as to the full nature of what was going on….very desirable since it makes them accessories unwilling to talk later. Most importantly Track 2 would have been supported and provided with intelligence by Jack Ruby, also largely unwitting about the actual nature of the attack.

    Hard to say if anyone was to be flown out of Red Bird, if so possibly only a couple of guys, far safer just to put people individually into cars and get them on the road.

    I’d love to be able to dial in a tight scenario for both operational tracks including recruiting, timing, etc but of course it would be sheer speculation. We’ll see..

  6. larryjoe2 says:

    I have no particular conclusion about the shooting sequence, exact location of the shooters or for that matter the number of shots (other than that there were more than three), especially in regard to the fatal shot/s.

    Personally I can’t map the amount of smoke reported coming from under the trees (nor what I see in films) to a 30 cal rilfle, which I’m pretty familiar with having grown up with that type of weapon. However that does not mean that type of weapon was not used. I’ve fired a lot of weapons and hardly ever seen any visible smoke even with an old rifle which gets powder all over me. Which inclines me to believe there was a diversion going on without regardless of the actual shooting.

    All of which I why I don’t go into – and won’t go into – who shot from exactly where. On the other hand the overall pattern and characteristics of the attack is clear (to me at least) and matches the classic pattern of an infantry type ambush. When I speak of operational details it relates to recruiting, putting elements and assets in place, etc – not to the specifics of the firing and shots, something that I can’t see will ever be resolved.

  7. Ingemar says:

    “DPD officers W.W. Mabra and Orville Smith”

    Orville Guy Smith ( 1919 – 2004 ) was a deputy-sheriff
    William Weldon “Bo” Mabra ( 1909 – 1999 ) was a county bailiff

  8. larryjoe2 says:

    Good correction, thanks…the basic problem with their encounters does remain of course, as described…somebody was back there who was not telling the truth, he was uniformed, he was recognized and at that point the discussions ended with the researcher pursuing the issue ended. If you have SWHT I give a bit more detail there, including a reference to the Canadian researcher who had the dialogs with them. I should have obviously reread that myself rather than trusting my memory.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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