Thursday, 8 December 2011


Judyth Vary Baker, Conspiracy Culture Bookstore, Oct. 2011

Two two-hour interviews are presented here, with full information about the Kennedy assassination, vaccine dangers, our current epidemic of cancer, Big Pharma's refusal to provide inexpensive cures for cancer, and the ongoing cover-up --which also uses the media and planted trolls -- to protect and aid the illegal government that took over America, while blaming the innocent patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald.  
The first two-hour interview, below, was one of dozens conducted in Toronto,Canada, during the only book tour for ME & LEE, HOW I CAME TO KNOW,LOVE AND LOSE LEE HARVEY OSWALD, in the only public appearances ever made by Judyth Vary Baker.  Baker, who lives in undisclosed locations in and out of the Eurozone due to threats and stalking, speaks about the Kennedy assassination,the weaponizing of cancer, vaccine dangers, and how Lee Harvey Oswald was framed for the murder of President Kennedy.

Interview: Judyth Vary Baker, Oct. 2011
"Conspiracy Cafe" with George Freund
Tonight in a two hour special broadcast Judyth Vary Baker author of Me and Lee the inside story of the assassination of President Kennedy and Lee Oswald reveals her heart and thoughts in this ever present saga. We explore the plot to kill Castro, the weaponization of cancer into the assassin`s silver bullet, the role of Lee Oswald as an asset of the Office of Naval Intelligence, the big pharma role in keeping us sick, what you can do to stay healthy. This is a roller coaster ride from start to finish. We simulcast with Judyth on Montreal`s CJAD. We compare corporate radio with our brand. We explore the use of the cancer weapon in the modern era and wonder if it was used to silence Canada`s other leadership hopeful Jack Layton. We look at the deaths from Roswell Park in various plane crashes. We name names...
Every Thursday 8:00pm (live on The truly beautiful people get their news from alternative sources. Put something wild into your evening news with Conspiracy Cafe. Join host George Freund for stories to regain control of your life. Check out the Conspiracy Cafe website, or email George here.

"Happy Birthday" celebration,Toronto, Oct. 18,2011: Judyth
cuts the handcuffs apart on Lee's birthday cake, to cheers!

Friday, 18 November 2011

THE CIA DEFENDS Max Holland -- "Historian" who claims Oswald Killed JFK

Well--they've done it again. Ignored new witnesses in the Kennedy assassination ---such as myself--while giving old-time CIA asset Max Holland yet another opportunity to declare Lee Oswald is now 'proven' to have killed Kennedy.
Uh...sure, Max. We believe you. After all, the CIA believes you!
Yes, Max Holland continues to create pieces of rewritten history that mainstream media--most lately FOX NEWS --takes seriously. Why not? the CIA defends Holland. The CIA tells us they did not help kill Kennedy. The same CIA whose director, Richard Helms, told Congress that the CIA will lie whenever necessary.
Max Holland has kindly provided this year's contribution to the government's annual November LIE that Lee Harvey Oswald killed President John F. Kennedy.  To do so, he had to invent a new whopper--that the Zapruder film did not film the 'first' shot --giving Lee Oswald an extra five seconds to shoot. How convenient. How unfortunate that the Secret Service had no reaction whatsoever to this so-called gunshot. Nor did the pigeons on the rooftop of the TSBD.  nor did anybody in the crowd. But the extra five seconds, never reported by anybody in the past at that point in the motorcade,gives Holland his chance to 'prove' Lee Oswald had time  to shoot--a problem that inconveniently kept coming up these past 48 years.
Next,Holland wants us to know that 'someone' can be seen,with enhancement to the original flms taken that day, moving around on the 6th floor of the TSBD.  As if we didn't know this previously!  He declares it is Lee Oswald, never indicating that witnesses said TWO people had been seen on the 6th floor--not just one. But to mention a second person there would mean a conspiracy--so Max ignores the reports that two persons were present.  For example:
and note this:

Arnold and Barbara Rowland :
From the street Arnold Rowland saw TWO men on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository minutes before the assassination. One at the western window was carrying a gun. The other man at the eastern window (the so called 'sniper's nest') was a dark complected man. The FBI wrote nothing about this and the Warren commission said he was mistaken.

Carolyn Walther :
From the street Carolyn Walther saw TWO men on one of the upper floors of the Texas School Book Depository minutes before the assassination. She heard one shot, then two almost simultaneously, then a fourth shot. She was never called as a witness by the Warren commission.…

Ruby Henderson :
From the street Ruby Henderson saw TWO men on the 6th floor of the Texas School Book Depository. Again, she heard one shot, then two almost simultaneously, then a fourth shot. Likewise she was never called as a witness by the Warren commission.

John Powell :
John Powell was an inmate on the 6th floor of the Dallas county jail, straight across the street from the book depository. He and some of his inmates saw TWO dark complected men in the southeast corner ('sniper's nest') of the book depository. None of them were called to testify before the Warren commission.

Robert H West :
Robert H West stood in the old courthouse. He heard FOUR shots.

Amos E Euins :
Amos E Euins saw a man fire a rifle from the 6th floor of the book depository. He described the man as black and bald. He heard FOUR shots. Euins's mother received several phone threats before he should give statement before the Warren commission.

Holland is long known from Voice of America and his writings published in the CIA's magazine--Studies in Intelligence.  For example:

Max Holland
[CIA/50s/Guat]. HollandMax. "The 'Photo Gap' that Delayed Discovery of Missiles in Cuba." Studies in Intelligence 49, no. 4 (2005): 15-30. "The political ...


C.I.A. Police Training by Kai Bird, Max Holland
C.I.A. Police Training Magazine article by Kai Bird, Max Holland; The Nation, Vol. 242, June 7, 1986. Read C.I.A. Police Training at Questia library.
CIA documents; HollandMax. “Operation PBHistory: The Aftermath of SUCCESS” International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence. 17: 300-332 ...

Well, we could go on and on...but Fox News doesn't go 'on' at all...they simply call Holland a "Historian" and give him front page attention (Nov.18, 2011).


The Lie That Linked CIA to the Kennedy Assassination — Central ... › ... › Studies in Intelligence › studies ›fall_winter_2001
The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is an independent US Government agency ...... See Max Holland, “The Demon in Jim Garrison,” Wilson Quarterly, Vol. ...

Seasoned researcher Lisa Pease wrote this awhile back: 

to The Nation:
Dear Editors,

I was shocked that you allowed Max Holland to comment on the recent JFK Conference. He’s already shown his lack of journalistic integrity on the subject. In the current piece, he made the bald-faced lie that “In point of fact, 99.99 percent of the HSCA’s report improved upon or underscored the accuracy of the Warren Report’s key findings.” It did nothing of the sort, as those of us in the research community who have actually READ the HSCA’s report know very well. Is there no fact checker at The Nation?
When you rightly avoided publishing his article espousing the notion that the KGB caused Americans to suspect CIA involvement in the JFK case, he took it to the CIA, which published it happily, since it exculpated them of any involvement in the Kennedy assassination. But that’s not necessarily a new relationship. Holland got his early start with the Voice of America, a well-known outlet for the CIA’s propaganda during the Cold War.
In fact, that was the pattern at the conference, which I also attended. While most leading researchers on the case believe elements of the CIA were directly involved, those who take the opposite view, like Holland, invariably end up having a cozy relationship with the chief suspect.
It should embarrass you to learn that Holland omitted mention of the most interesting and heated exchange at the conference. Two speakers rose to debate the acoustic evidence on which the HSCA based its conclusion of “probable conspiracy.” The first, Richard Garwin, said the sound evidence was off by a second, and therefore proved nothing. The second, Don Thomas, said that Garwin was using a different copy of the audio tape, proven by the number on the tape, and that the discrepancy was attributed to its being a copy. Thomas then showed how the sound evidence matched perfectly with all the extant video evidence. It was a stunning refutation of Garwin’s weak defense of the non-conspiracy view.

Would it surprise you to learn that Garwin was, as he admitted publicly when challenged, a CIA man? As a conference participant, I found that confession stunning. As a “journalist”, Max Holland didn’t even find that worthy of mention.

Is Max Holland a CIA asset at The Nation? If he is, that’s a tragedy for the nation and The Nation. If he isn’t, he’s simply a guy who, for whatever private reason, is more comfortable repeating the assertions of others than uncovering the truth. And his “99.99%” statement shows he’s willing to lie to do so. So it hardly matters if he’s CIA or not. Whatever he is, he sure doesn’t belong at The Nation.
We continue to learn every day how official lies bring heinous tragedy upon the innocent. His perversions of history do no less damage. We can’t learn the lessons of history when he presents a false version of it.

Lisa Pease


Probe V7N6: Max Holland Rescues the Warren Commission and the ...
Max Holland, whose words have appeared in The Nation, in mainstream publications, as well as in U.S. government-sponsored publications, such as the CIA's ...


A Moral Economy
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
your computer “ + Max Holland.” You will find on the first page alone numerous articles by Holland supporting and defending the CIA and attacking ..

Saturday, 24 September 2011


What's holding up this paper bag? Curtain rods?

Proof the FBI Changed Documents, and Vincent Bugliosi Was Wrong

by Pat Speer
13 Apr 2009
In 2007, the legendary true crime writer Vincent Bugliosi released Reclaiming History, a Bible-sized book designed to answer all the questions regarding a possible conspiracy in the murder of President John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, his “answers” provoked more questions. This short essay examines both the way Bugliosi dealt with one controversial matter, and the truth about this matter, as recently discovered by the author.
Although it is not mentioned in the text itself, on Reclaiming History's accompanying CD-ROM Bugliosi tackles a particularly troublesome question related to a pair of conflicting FBI reports. Intriguingly, these reports were written on the finding of a paper bag in the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), the workplace of alleged assassin Lee Harvey Oswald. The Warren Commission had concluded that Oswald had made this bag from paper materials available in the shipping room of the building, (Warren Report, p. 136) and had then used this bag to carry his rifle into the building. But the Commission had failed to uncover and reveal an important problem with the purported match between the paper used to create this bag, and the paper then in use in the building. Bugliosi compounds this mistake. On page 405 of his endnotes, Bugliosi discusses this problem and offers an explanation:
In a 1980 article in Penn Jones Jr.’s conspiracy newsletter, Continuing Inquiry, critic Jack White claimed that the FBI had “sanitized” a document relating to the FBI’s examination of the paper and tape used to construct the bag found in the Depository, and hence, was part of the “cover-up” to hide the truth about the assassination. White reported that two nearly identically worded FBI documents, found by a researcher at the National Archives, offered two opposite conclusions regarding the source of the paper Oswald allegedly used to construct the bag. One version stated that paper samples obtained from the Depository shipping area on November 22 were found to have the same observable characteristics as the brown paper bag recovered from the sixth-floor sniper’s nest. A second version said that the paper samples were found “not to be identical” with the paper gun sack discovered at the scene of the shooting. (Jack White, “The Case of Q-10 or the FBI Cover-Up Is in the Bag”, Continuing Inquiry, February 22, 1980, pp.1–2)

Paper bag being carried from TSBD.
Although White crowed that the documents “cast doubt on the credibility of the official story,” and his allegations have subsequently been used by a parade of critics in many conspiracy books, magazine articles, and Internet postings as “proof ” of the FBI’s willingness to alter evidence in the Kennedy case, the two documents are no doubt examples of a misunderstanding that was cleared up by the Warren Commission in early 1964. In a March 12, 1964, letter, Warren Commission general counsel J. Lee Rankin asked FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to settle the two ostensibly contradictory FBI reports. Rankin wrote, “We are in doubt. Please submit a report . . . as to the tests made and the conclusions drawn.” (FBI Record 124-10045-10081, Letter from J. Lee Rankin to J. Edgar Hoover, March 12, 1964, p.1; see also FBI Record 124-10022-10200) A week later, on March 19, Hoover responded that both reports were correct. The first report, dated January 7, 1964, referred to samples obtained from the Depository on December 1, 1963 (nine days after the assassination). By then, the shipping department had replaced its roll of wrapping paper with a fresh roll, since the fall period was its “heavy shipping season.” Consequently, the samples obtained by the FBI in December did not match the characteristics of the paper bag found on the day of the shooting. The second report, dated January 13, 1964, related to samples taken from the Depository on November 22, the day of the assassination. These samples were found to be “similar in color to [the bag recovered from the sixth floor]” and were “similar in appearance under ultraviolet fluorescence, as well as in microscopic and all other observable physical characteristics.” However, Hoover noted that while the paper bag found on the sixth floor could have been made from the materials available at the Depository, the paper and tape did not contain any watermarks or other significant, unique, identifying features. Consequently, the paper bag could have been constructed from similar materials “obtained from many paper dealers, or from other users.” (FBI Record 124-10022-10199, Letter from J. EdgarHoover to J. Lee Rankin, March 19, 1964, pp.1–2; see also FBI Record 124-10045-10082; CD 897, pp.157–168CE 1965, 23 H 816)
Bugliosi's explanation is both incredibly deceptive and incredibly wrong.

11/30/63 FBI report on paper bag, stating that it had the "same
observable characteristics" as TSBD-furnished paper. CD 5 p.129.
Click image to view full document page.
This is easy to see, once you know where to look. The article to which Bugliosi refers is a February 22, 1980 essay on the probable changing of a document provided the Warren Commission as part of an 11-30-63 FBI report (see Commission Document 5, p. 129, shown at right). What Bugliosi either fails to notice or fails to tell his readers, however, is the first thing he should have noticed: the date on the document. As displayed on the cover of the 1980 article dismissed by Bugliosi, and therefore presumably read by Bugliosi, both versions of the document were dictated on 11/29/63. This date is problematic. By Bugliosi's own account, the paper samples that did not match the characteristics of the paper bag were obtained on 12-1-63. can a report refer to the results of a test that has not yet been performed, on an object that has not yet been procured? It can't. One might venture then that Bugliosi's "explanation" is little more than smoke, and that he really has no clue how to refute Jack White's article.

Alternate 11/30/63 FBI report discovered in National Archives by
Gary Shaw, stating that the TSBD-furnished paper was "found
not to be identical with the paper gun case."'
Reprinted in Henry Hurt's "Reasonable Doubt."
But, if so, he's not the first to run from this issue. Although it's widely presumed the document saying the paper and bag were not identical was first discovered in 1980, it was actually found years earlier, and brought to the government's attention at a time when it could easily have been investigated. Courageously, the discoverer of this document, J. Gary Shaw,discussed the document’s existence at a 9-17-77 conference sponsored by the House Select Committee on Assassinations, and suggested they interview FBI agent Vincent Drain, the author of the documents.
While the HSCA, sadly, failed to heed Shaw's request, we can still take comfort that Shaw found some outside interest, and that a series of researchers were able to ask and answer many of the questions the HSCA ignored. In 1981, researcher Ed Tatro, inspired by Jack White’s 1980 article on Shaw’s discovery, contacted the FBI seeking an explanation for the two conflicting documents. The Bureau's initial response explained nothing. In 1984, however, Tatro asked again, and this time received what is as close to an “official” explanation as we are likely to receive. As recounted by Tatro in an article in the January 1985 issue of The Third Decade, the FBI’s Assistant Director of the Office of Congressional and Public Affairs, William Baker, offered that the document discovered by Shaw was found to be “inaccurate” upon review at FBI headquarters, and that “The Dallas office was instructed to make corrections at that time.” To the question of how Shaw was able to find an uncorrected copy in the files, Baker explained further that the FBI sent two copies of the 11-30-63 master report to the Warren Commission, one on 12-20-63 and one three days later, and that the first copy had the uncorrected copy of page 129 later discovered by Shaw. As Shaw confirmed to this writer that he found the document in the Warren Commission’s files, and not the FBI’s files, this actually makes sense.
But this explanation also raises some questions. In 1980, after the appearance of Jack White’s article in The Continuing Inquiry, journalist Earl Golz asked the supposed author of these reports, FBI agent Vincent Drain, about the two conflicting reports bearing his name. Now, if Drain’s words were consistent with Baker’s subsequent explanation, one might reasonably conclude that the “mystery” surrounding the conflicting documents had mostly been solved. As reported by Jerry Rose in the March 1985 issue of The Third Decade, however, Drain’s answers were at odds with what Baker told Tatro. While Drain, in order to align with Baker’s subsequent explanation, should have admitted something along the lines of “I screwed up, and was asked to rewrite my report” he instead “expressed shock at seeing” the documents and “said he was as ‘puzzled’ as Golz about them.” Even more problematic, in light of what Baker was to reveal, Drain “expressed certainty that the copy saying the materials tested were the same was the original document,” and speculated that the document discovered by Shaw, and subsequently acknowledged by the FBI’s Assistant Director to be the de facto original document, was a “fake.”
If Drain, who had no way of knowing what Baker was to tell Tatro, was deliberately deceiving Golz, he was at least consistent. In 1984, author Henry Hurt asked Drain about the documents a second time, and gave him a second chance to admit he’d mistakenly written an “inaccurate” report, as later claimed by Baker. But Drain once again held firm. According to Hurt, Drain responded "I am certainly as perplexed as you are" and then claimed the report saying the paper bag and paper sample had the same observable characteristics was correct. (p. 98 of Reasonable Doubt, by Henry Hurt, Henry Holt and Co., 1985). (As a conclusion that the bag and sample were not identical would have cast doubt on the "official story" holding that Oswald created the bag at his work, Drain's proposal that the correct document was the one claiming the bag and sample matched was not exactly a surprise.)

The smoking file: 12-18-63 airtel from Shanklin to HQ.
Click image to view full document page.
Buried deep within the FBI’s files, however, there was a surprise. In thefirst part of Rose’s article in the March 1985 issue of The Third Decade he revealed that researcher Paul Hoch had uncovered a document demonstrating once and for all that Drain had indeed originally wrote that the paper sample and bag were "found not to be identical", and that this had later been changed upon orders from headquarters. This "smoking gun" document, so to speak, can be found in FBI File 105-82555, section 39, page 7. It is a 12-18-63 airtel from the Dallas Special-Agent-in-Charge, J. Gordon Shanklin back to FBI Headquarters, reporting that he is replacing page 129 of the FBI's 11-30-63 report with a different page, and is sending out additional copies of this page so that the page can be replaced in every copy of the report.
Should that document have not proved fatal to Drain’s story, however, two documents subsequently uncovered by Jerry Rose helped bury it completely. As revealed in the May 1985 issue of The Third Decade, the first of these documents, a 12-6-63 airtel from FBI Director Hoover’s office to Dallas, makes note that Drain’s report on page 129 of the 11-30-63 Report contains an “inaccurate statement” and orders the Dallas Special-Agent-in-Charge Shanklin to “handle corrections.”
The second document, from 12-11-63, is an airtel from Dallas back to Washington reporting Shanklin’s progress, and notes that the “necessary actions to correct inaccuracy” are “being taken.”
From these documents, then, one can only conclude that Drain, who’d only escorted the first day evidence from Dallas to Washington, and then flown it back, had either inaccurately represented the FBI Laboratory’s findings on an important piece of this evidence, or had accurately represented the Laboratory’s findings after a decision had been made not to do so. The former is suggested by reports and testimony claiming that the paper bag and sample had “the same observable characteristics.” The latter is suggested by the strange fact that Drain, for what would have to have been considered a monumental mistake, apparently received no reprimand, and that Hoover and Shanklin, in their correspondence on the “inaccurate statement” in Drain’s report, expressed no interest whatsoever on how he came to make such a statement.
While one could go on from here to discuss which version of Drain’s report was actually “accurate”, we’ll stop here instead and focus on the simple, unavoidable fact that the three documents just cited prove beyond any doubt that the FBI did, at least on occasion, change reports, even after they had been signed, dated, typed-up, and circulated.
For those studying U.S. history, this creates a problem. Historians, of all stripes and shapes, operate under the assumption the documents they are studying are written on the day they are dated, and are written by those signing the document. If Vincent Drain, when given the chance, had simply admitted he'd screwed up, and that his superiors had forced him to rewrite an inaccurate report, and that this was the only time this happened, perhaps we might still feel confident this holds true of FBI documents. Drain's initials, after all, appear on the revised document. But he did not. He either lied or forgot entirely about what would have to be considered a major mistake on his part.
As a consequence, we are left to wonder...did the paper sample have the "same observable characteristics" as the bag, or were the paper sample and bag "found not to be identical"?
And, more importantly…what other archive documents have been re-written weeks or months after the fact, and re-inserted in the record as if they were the original documents?
We await Bugliosi’s “answer.”

Thursday, 22 September 2011


Loyal Friend to Honor Lee Harvey Oswald on his 72nd Birthday

Friend and author Judyth Vary Baker to celebrate Lee Harvey Oswald's 72nd birthday

Judyth in 1964. She was Lee Harvey Oswald's confidante in New Orleans

Quote startI won’t live to see another birthday cake,” 
Lee said quietly into the pay phone in Dallas, 
“unless I can get out of here. And if I don’t
 do it right, we’ll all get killed.Quote end

Walterville, Oregon (PRWEB) September 22, 2011
Twenty year-old Judy Vary Baker listened soberly to these ominous words from a pay phone in Gainesville, Florida, as she recounts in her memoir, ME & LEE: How I came to know, love and lose Lee Harvey Oswald.
It was October 19, 1963. Her friend Lee Harvey Oswald had just had his 24th birthday the day before, and called Judy, as he did twice each week, to share what he was learning about the plot to kill President Kennedy. Judy knew Lee Oswald well. She had spent the summer of 1963 with him in New Orleans. Now, he was in Dallas, and she was in Florida. As her book documents in painstaking detail, she knew about the mercurial world of spies in which he worked; she knew about his time in Russia and his connection to the Mafia; she knew about his trip to Mexico City; she understood why he was becoming frightened of the real-world killers whose ring he had penetrated. Their code was hard. If Lee ran to protect himself now, he was afraid that they would retaliate by brutally killing his wife, his two young daughters, and possibly even his girlfriend to whom he was speaking on the phone. Their phone calls continued until Wednesday, November 20, 1963. Then, on November 24th, she watched the man she loved get murdered on live national television.
ME & LEE: How I came to know, love and lose Lee Harvey Oswald is a 600-page non-fiction autobiography by Judyth Vary Baker, which recounts Judy’s summer with Lee, their cover jobs at Reily Coffee Company, the secret medical project they worked on together, and the secrets he shared with her about JFK’s impending assassination.
Oct. 18, 2011 would have been Lee Harvey Oswald’s 72nd birthday and Judy Vary Baker, a recluse who rarely makes public appearances, wants to mark the date by asking the world to reconsider Oswald’s role in history. Her take: Lee was an undercover agent who had penetrated a ring determined to murder President Kennedy and was actually trying to prevent it. Instead, they framed him for the crime, and then murdered him before he could defend himself in a court of law. Ms. Vary Baker asserts that Lee Oswald was trying to prevent JFK’s murder, not cause it.
Former Governor Jesse Ventura calls Judy’s book “stunning” and ranked it among his six favorite conspiracy reads, adding that “her book shows beyond any doubt that (Oswald) was clearly a government agent.”
Judy’s connection to Oswald was documented earlier in a 2007 book entitled Dr. Mary’s Monkey, authored by Edward Haslam. In 2010 Judy came forward with her own book validating that her association with Oswald was personal, professional, and romantic. Me & Lee is a memoir that blows the lid off the Lee Harvey Oswald debate, and even names some of the men responsible for Kennedy’s assassination. It is a must-read for anyone interested in American history, politics or the fates of star-crossed lovers.
Afraid for her own life after the JFK assassination, Judy dropped out of sight and lived a quiet life until her children were grown. Today, she continues to live in an undisclosed location overseas, but will make a rare North American public appearance to mark her former lover’s birthday and to continue her efforts to clear his name.
Lee Harvey Oswald was framed. Visit
Lola4JVB4LHO at YouTube to learn more!

Ms. Baker will be at limited events in Toronto, Canada from Oct. 15 to 22, 2011, to schedule an interview:
US: Cheron Brylski, 504.897.6110, cbrylski(at)aol(dot)com
Canada/International: Kris Millegan, 541.744.0090, publicity(at)trineday(dot)net

Share ThisShareThis Email Contact Email PDF Version PDF Printer Friendly Version Print

Sunday, 12 June 2011


by Judyth Vary Baker

The blanket that held the “killer” rifle was used to “prove” Lee Harvey Oswald shot President John F. Kennedy. Persons who were known to have seen and touched the blanket are Lee Harvey Oswald, his wife Marina, their baby daughter June, Michael Paine (estranged husband of Ruth Paine and an “Oswald’ lookalike) and Ruth Paine (stepped on the blanket to show it was empty, to the [police—but how did she know it was empty?).
The blanket supposedly looked like this when tied up with the rifle inside:
Warren Commission placed a rifle inside and wrapped/tied blanket to show what it looked like.
Lee Harvey Oswald (foreground) was a well-trained Marine
 Photo shows blanket tied at both ends with string.  The knot used was a “granny knot” plus a “bowtie” (shestring) knot, difficult to see in the WC photo.  Oswald (foreground in photo,below) was a Marine who passed all his training, which included tying knots properly –important for anyone in the Navy or the Marines
Eventually the Warren Commission questioned FBI experts about the blanket and the string that tied up the blanket at both ends.  

In the testimony below, the important parts are in bold face and underlined like this:

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will come to order. The purpose of today's hearing is to take the testimony of Paul Stombaugh and James O. Cadigan. Mr. Stombaugh is a hair and fiber expert with the FBI, and Mr. Cadigan is a questioned documents expert with the FBI. They have been asked to provide technical information to assist the Commission in its work. 
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you notice anything else about the blanket which you would like to relate, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. The blanket exhibited much wear.

[NOTE  BY JVB: below, the “granny knot” is made to look—unless you are alert—as if it is a hard knot to untie instead of being a very easy knot to untie. This is either an accident of the stenographer or a deliberate misrepresentation. The word “not” has been added to make the information correct, below, as indicated by [not] ].
Mr. EISENBERG. In your opinion, would the blanket have made a secure package wrapped in the way and manner that it appeared to you?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it would have. With the crease at fold "A," had it been folded down, it would have made a very snug and secure package containing some type of item in it.
Mr. EISENBERG. Any distinctive accidental markings on it?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I found none. 
Mr. STOMBAUGH. No; I found none.
Mr. EISENBERG. What kind--was it tied in a knot?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir; it was tied in a granny knot, and also a bow knot.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you illustrate that for us? You are holding up a piece of string?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is another piece of string, not the original.
Mr. EISENBERG. Not the original.
Mr. STOMBAUGH. A granny knot is a common knot, tied with two simple thumb knots. It is [not ]  a very hard knot to open as opposed to the boy scout knot, or the square knot rather, which is tied in this manner. This knot is very easy to open because all one has to do is to pull one free end of it and the other free end slides out.
Mr. EISENBERG. You are referring to the so-called "boy scout" knot?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is actually not a boy scout knot but a square knot.
Mr. EISENBERG. And you tie that left over right, right over left, is that the formula? [E. refers to square, not granny knot]
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes; left over right and right over left.
Mr. EISENBERG. How do you spell that, by the way?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. G-r-a-n-n-y.
Mr. EISENBERG. The granny knot, Mr. Stombaugh, is this a common or an uncommon knot?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. It is a very common knot. I believe that knot is tied more than any other knot because it is right over right, right over right, and it is usually used by people wrapping packages who want it tied securely so the package will not come open.
Mr. EISENBERG. Did you say there was also a bow knot?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. Yes, sir.
Mr. EISENBERG. Could you illustrate that?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is the type of knot we use when we tie our shoe strings. It is made by forming a loop with the one free end, and wrapping the other free end around it and pulling it through.
Mr. EISENBERG. Is that a hard or an easy knot to slip out, Mr. Stombaugh?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. This is very easy, because you just take one of the loose ends and pull it and the knot falls apart.
Mr. EISENBERG. What was the relationship between the granny knot and the bow knot?
Mr. STOMBAUGH. I don't know. I have seen this numerous times, on numerous different occasions when one would either tie a granny knot or a square knot and follow it up with a bow knot. The granny knot would be to secure the package so it would not come loose. The bow knot is a temporary knot tied by one who wants the string to come off easily.
Now why they would tie a granny knot and follow this up with a bow knot I don't know, unless they had some long loose ends which they wanted to slacken up, shorten up, rather, so as they would not be hanging down. 
Mr. EISENBERG. The Exhibit Paine No. 2 is tied into a knot at this point. Can you tell us what kind of a knot that is?

Mr. STOMBAUGH. This was a simple bow knot which I put into it. 

In the above statements, we clearly see that the ends of the string were still long, so whoever tied the ends then made a bowknot to bring the ends shorter. Mothers who tie their children’s shoelaces do this, of course, so the child will not trip. Ruth Paine had a young son who wore laced shoes. Those interested in reading more about Ruth Paine and the blanket are invited to read my blog entry of June 3, 2011 at:
Ruth and Michael Paine’s connections with the blanket are established and suspicious.
The question: did Lee Harvey Oswald tie the knots in the string?
Answer: Every Marine learned to tie the Square Knot, Bowline, Figure-Eight Retrace, and the Round Turn with Two Half Hitches. People who have not been in the Navy or Marines may not know how to tie a reliable knot and are most likely to use the granny knot. 
What is a granny knot?
granny knot
an incorrect version of a square knot in which the bights cross each other in the wrong direction next to the end, so as to produce a knot that is insecure.
Wikipedia: “The reef knot is commonly taught as left over right, tuck under then right over left, tuck under. The granny knot is the first step repeated twice, left over right, tuck under. This is a very common mistake made by people learning to tie a reef knot.”
I knew Lee Harvey Oswald.  And I knew Lee knew how to tie a reef knot: as mentioned in my book, Me & Lee, he had tied string across the two posts of my bed at 1032 Marengo, upon which he had hung balloons and a “welcome home” sign written in crayon.  He used reef knots: he did not use granny knots.  I’m the one, after all, who finally had to untie the string and take the sign down! I had training of my own in tying knots after years in Girl Scouts.  The knots Lee tied were reef knots.  So, when I came across the testimony (above) while researching the blog that eventually became a paper about the blanket, that  “granny knot” information took a few days to sink in. Then I realized that I was looking at evidence—real evidence—that Lee had been framed.
NO Marine would have used granny knots to tie that blanket.
We had already established in the blog article that Lee, who adored his little girl June, would not have used the blanket Marina said Junie “loved to play with” in which to wrap a rifle.
Knots are so important in the Navy, Marines and CAP (Civil Air Patrol) that everyone enrolled is expected to learn them. Lee Harvey Oswald was taught how to properly tie knots when a young teen.  He was in the CAP and learned knot-tying there even before he entered the Marines and got yet more course instructions on knot tying, which is used on boats and ships as well as in rescue and search and rescue operations.  The USNSCC manual has an entire chapter (#7) devoted to knots.  Lee Harvey Oswald tied knots under military-style supervision for more than three years and was barely 24 in November, 1963.
Other names for the granny knot show it’s the kind of knot an uninstructed person uses:
Granny knot, False knot, Lubber’s knot, Calf knot, Booby knot
Should not be used as a bend. Inferior to reef knot for binding purposes, it can release suddenly and unpredictably.
Conclusion: yet another indication that Lee Harvey Oswald was framed for the murder of JFK, in this instance with the help of someone who did not know how to make a proper knot -- possibly a woman.


Information about Lee Harvey Oswald and my book, Me & Lee.

Nigel Turner

Nigel Turner
His business card shows a knight in armor on a charging warhorse....