Saturday, March 28, 2015

Coming Soon

Friday, March 27, 2015

So, about all that Tony Sforza stuff John Newman talked about. Well, it just might be wrong.

I got a nice email from Alan Dale who was kind of the host and master of ceremonies at the A.A.R.C. conference tonight. It's kind of an addendum or a post script to what John Newman spoke about.  And since it came from John Newman I'm going to post it here and on the blog I have devoted to John Newman's presentations over the years.

At first glance it seemed quite odd to me as it seems to contradict a vital part of what John's presentation was all about. John is going to have a new book out on JFK and Cuba called "Where Angels Fear to Tread." I believe it is the first of a five part series.  This first book should be published in May. So, clarification with lots of notes and sources, and the RTIF numbers for CIA documents will be in our hands soon.  I can't wait for that.

*A note from Dr. Newman: According to CIA documents, Tony Sforza, aka Henry Sloman, was hiding in his home during the Bay of Pigs invasion. One document that speaks about this is a one-page biography of Tepedino attributed to Francisco Wilfredo “Pancho” Varona Alonso (AMCONCERT-1) that was written on 17 June 1962. The note at the bottom states that Tepedino’s “father is known as Sloman. Sloman remained in hiding in his home 18-21 April 1961.” The first part of that note is not true and it misled the present author during research for my current work during the summer of 2014. As Sforza's daughter, Charmaine Sforza-Flick pointed out to the author, Tepedino’s father, Francesco Antonio Tepedino, was not her father.[1] Her father did use the pseudonyms Frank Stevens and Henry Sloman, as well as “Enrique,” the Spanish name for Henry.  

Before I met Charmaine Sforza-Flick at the AARC conference in September 2014, I had incorrectly tied Sforza to Carlos’ step-father, Francesco Antonio Tepedino based on the information in Pancho’s memo. After the conference I began to look into that memo in more detail and quickly discovered that Pancho had little or no facility for the English language. An English-Spanish translator would have to have been involved in producing the document. The translator would not have been Sforza because he knew that he was not Tepedino’s father. Jefferson Morley later pointed out to me when we examined the memo closely that there is the hint of a hand edit above the word “as” which might be the word “to.” This correction would change the meaning to: Tepedino’s “father was known to Sloman,” instead of “known as” Sloman. I now believe Morley was correct on that point. 

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

It went so well the last time, they want to do it again!

Ruth Paine's 1955 Bel Air station wagon (allegedly) is up for sale oneway

I can't speak for it's authenticity but I'll give this person credit for taking a lot of photos to show exactly what kind of shape this POS is in.

See -

Dr. William Pepper fears for Sirhan Sirhan's life.

Dr. William Pepper, Sirhan Sirhan's lawyer, fears that Sirhan Sirhan may be killed in prison as he files a Certificate for Appealability.

Details are here.

Friday, March 20, 2015

A great silent color film of Spring 1963 at the Kennedy White House.

See -

Hal Hendrix dies.

Hal Hendrix was a journalist who had ties with the CIA.  Exactly what those ties were seems to be debated. There are many CIA documents that mention him on the Mary Ferrell Foundation site.

John Simkin, referencing speculation from Larry Hancock, thinks Hendrix was given the code name AM/Carbon-1.  Joan Mellon references Hendrix in her book on Jim Garrison, "A Farewell to Justice," calling Hendrix a CIA media asset.  He certainly seemed to be exactly that.

However, Hal Hendrix was not AM/Carbon-1 according to the CIA AM crypts on the Mary Ferrell site.  It gives TWO RIF numbers, 104-10072-10289 and 104-10308-10135 which will get you TWO CIA documents. However, neither document actually comes right out and says, yes, Hal Hendrix was AM/Carbon-1. But, that's not a problem

The first one I looked at was 104-10072-10289.  It has been badly copied as you can see text on the left hand side has been cut off.  This represents only the loss of a letter or two and you can make out the words but it's annoying. This continues on another page where two letters are cut off.
Anyway, on the bottom of one page of the document they give the details of AM/Carbon-1's journalistic career.

Now, if you went to the AARC conference, or if you saw the video  on C-SPAN, you learned that the CIA will try to fragment people and give them multiple false names, code names, etc., in cables, but they will often mention a specific action, event, or something from the history of a specific individual as THE CLUE that although a guy may be called Moe in one document, Larry in another, Curley in yet another, and finally Shemp, the fact that a key biographical piece of information is given with every document and every name when you can collect and read many, many examples of this you can DEFRAGMENT all of this and see that it is really one guy being talked about.

So, AM/Carbon-1 began his career at a location, probably the Miami Herald, in 1957 working at the City Desk. He rose through the ranks to cover major political developments in the Miami area. In 1962 people notice the guy.  He does not yet have knowledge and experience as a Latin American specialist but it seems he wants to be one. Certain specific actions are mentioned as well as dates for certain specific articles in Miami newspapers.  If checked out this should determine who
AM/Carbon-1 was.

104-10072-10289 is a very interesting document. This document uses the false name "Reuteman," who is really CIA station chief Ted Shackley. AM/Carbon-2 introduced AM/Carbon-1 to"Reuteman."
The whole reason the CIA sought out Miami media elites was to nix any bad publicity about any CIA operations which were going on in the area.

The CIA already had AM/Carbon-2 in their pocket, but they want to get AM/Carbon-1. Hendrix seems to be the one who wanted to be and was a Latin American specialist.  So, I'm thinking Larry Hancock is right and the info on the Mary Ferrell site is incorrect.

Saturday, March 7, 2015

I noticed something as I watched a DVD I have of "Unsolved History: JFK, Death in Dealey Plaza."

I don't recall if I or anyone else has commented upon what I'm going to write about this phony documentary that aired on The Discovery Channel some years ago now.

Robin Unger told me about it because it has good quality version of several films and photographs of the assassination, before, during, and after.

So, I want to mention how they handled the Hughes film.  Hughes films from Main Street looking North up Houston Street.  He stops filming seconds after the limousine makes the turn from Houston onto Elm Street because he can no longer see it. However, he does film the front of the TSBD.  So, people have wondered does the film show Oswald in the window, a window with someone else there, or just a window with no one there.  So, they highlight and zoom in on the southeast corner window on the sixth floor showing a few frames of this cropped area.  So, as Gary (Not My Real Name) Mack, who is referred to as an historian, narrates and we see the limo make the turn they superimpose the crop of Hughes highlighting the alleged snipers nest over and on top of the Hughes film.  In other words they use the Hughes film to hide the Hughes film.

At about 12:53 seconds into the DVD you'll see this:

Now you'll notice the crop is enlarged and is actually a few frames ahead of the rest of the screen image which shows the limo making the turn.  I say the crop is ahead of the rest of the screen image of the Hughes film because in the crop you can see that the top of the alleged sniper's nest is hitting the very top of the film edge.  So, we are not going to see the seventh floor or the Hertz rent-a-car sign.  But, we don't see the top edge of the Hughes film as the car makes the turn.

The crop they use is very close to this.  They use these six windows and superimpose this onto the Hughes film so you'll never really get to see what may or may not be there in the alleged sniper's nest.

Now slowly the crop section is moved to the left and gets superimposed onto the existing portion of the TSBD we see on the left.  This happens at 13:07 seconds into the DVD.  See it?

One clue is the fact that the crop sticks out above the black border on top that the rest of the film frame has.  Another clue is the green lamp post.

This is the Hughes film at about 13:06.  Compare and contrast the image below with the image above.

In this image below you can see the break in the line of the vertical green lamp post. You can also see a break in the vertical line of the corner of the building just to the right of the break in the line of the green lamp post.

Why did they do this? I think they really wanted to prevent you from seeing anything, or any motion in the area of the sniper's nest.  They used a crop of the Hughes film to hide a section of the Hughes film. 

Monday, March 2, 2015

An update on Edward Sinker, a guy I wrote about almost exactly a year ago

I wrote about this guy in March 2104. Edward M Sinker, he's worse than you thought. That was a follow up piece to an article Jeff Morley had on his site "Fraudster claims to have viewed rarely seen JFK medical evidence." A jury convicted him of mail fraud and he spent 4 months in prison.

This idiot is a fraud from the word go.  And now nearly a year later he's emailed me.  He's a member of that type of idiot that thinks I or anyone else needs his permission to write about him.

The "words of others," he is so dismissive of in his email happened to be A JURY THAT CONVICTED HIM! He also uses the abbreviation J.D. after his name as though he still has his law license, which he doesn't anymore.

Here's his email:

Edward Sinker

12:05 AM (17 hours ago)

to me

What kind of researcher relies solely on the words of others?  Why have you not attempted to contact me if you're so enamored and self-righteous with the truth?

I am now affording you that opportunity. I have fourth stage cancer with less than a year to live, so I truly don't give a rat's ass what you think.  However, even convicted felons sometimes are concerned about the truth and what they leave behind. Ever wonder why the FBI was so interested in me? Why they chased me in the first place? Are you so stupid that you believe juries always arrive at the correct verdict? If you weren't so fucking lazy, you might have read the trial transcript and discovered that the Judge, though he could not toss out the jury's verdict, found that I told the truth. That's what a real researcher would have done.

Edward M. Sinker, J.D.

Sent from my iPad