Back to Home

Photos (Clockwise from top): 1: Jack Ruby, in court recess during his trial for the murder of Lee Harvey Oswald; 2) Lee Harvey Oswald, answering questions from the press after his arrest for the murder of Officer J.D. Tippit; 3) Sidney Gottlieb, apponted head of  the CIA's infamous mind control program MKUltra in 1953; 4) an artist's rendering of early practices involving hypnosis, likely 18th Century; 5) a cartoon image of a man using a reflective crystal to hypnotize a woman; 6) David Ferrie, suspect in the assassination of JFK in November of 1963 (Ferrie had a known affinity for the practice of hypnotism and was alleged to be affiliated with Lee Harvey Oswald, fueling rumors that Oswald may have been somehow hypnotized by him to commit the assassination; 7) an alleged photograph of practices to perfect machine-driven methods of mind control; 8) an early 19th Century photograph of efforts to practice hypnotism to induce sleep; 9) Richard Helms, Director of CIA from June, 1966-February, 1973, who was fully aware of MKUltra and helped Gottlieb destroy all evidence of the project's existence in 1973 during the months before the Rockefeller Commission's investigation of crimes perpetrated by the CIA; (inset) Sirhan Bishara Sirhan, accused assassin of Robert F. Kennedy in June of 1968 at the Ambassador Hotel in California. He, too, was rumored to have been somehow directed by mind control, initiated by a "woman in a polka dot dress," who was seen in his company during several occasions prior to the assassination.

"Doubles Night" is a direct product of my 20+ years of JFK Assassination research. I'm tempted to make a case here for Oswald-Impersonators, but that's what the foreword is for: "Familiar Faces in the Clown Car: How Many Oswalds Can You Fit Into a Conspiracy?" The number is: several, but you have to research the case thoroughly in this regard. There are several incidents in which someone does something brash, sometimes loudly announcing their name is Oswald, sometimes not, but all are regarded later as "that man we saw on TV, on assassination day and for many others thereafter." People scoff often at this idea, but to me it seems quite logical: create complete and utter mayhem by providing so many Oswald sightings that police and researcher alike will be chasing their tails well into the next millennium. Many of us still are, and I'm writing this in 2017. The question to me isn't "Were there imposters," but "Did they know of each other?" For various reasons, that question haunts me from a novelistic standpoint.

Imagine 5 or 6 guys in a room in the weeks prior to the assassination, planning the various sightings they would orchestrate. "You be the one to go to the gun range and shoot other people's targets, just remember to drop your name as Oswald and make reference to 'thinking it was the President's motorcade. You over there: be the guy who goes to the car dealership and test drives something at 70 miles an hour even though the poor sap we're all impersonating doesn't know how to drive. I'll be the one who takes Marina and the kids into the furniture store. You in the back: you'll go to Sylvia Odio's apartment with two anti-Castro-ites, so we can pin it on Castro after the big day." And on and on. Ruby: same story. He's in the offices of the Dallas-Morning News while also standing in front of the Texas School Book Depository, then seen running up to the Grassy Knoll with everyone else who heard the shot that came from there. He's seen later at Parkland hospital later by a reputable journalist, yet claims he was never there. Why show up at the hospital and then later say you were never there? Lots of other people were, normal people, people concerned for Kennedy's survival. Ruby could've been just another one of them and nobody would've questioned it. We are told officially, however, that Seth Kantor is either lying or simply makes a human error. The only problem with that latter theory? Seth Kantor is a trained observor. It's his livliehood to get it right."

My next question is: did Oswald know he was being impersonated? Was he in on it, in order to be assured there would be so many cases of mistaken identity afterward that he could count on either a hung jury or a mistrial or a not-guilty verdict. Remember, the perpetrator only needs to raise 'reasonable doubt' in order to get off. Or did he think one of his doubles was supposed to be the real shooter, flabbergasted to find himself later blamed?

Plenty of things don't wash when considering Oswald's place in this murder, but consider this: if he knew he was going there to shoot JFK, why leave his wedding ring and the few dollars he had to his name with his wife, Marina, unless he didn't plan to get away afterwards, but instead run home after to get his pistol? He didn't expect to find himself in the assassin's seat is all that can be said, but he knew enough to realize he was going to be blamed, and that he needed to protect himself. If he was planning to get out of town via the help of others, why go home at all? If he brought his rifle to work that day, why leave the pistol at home? It could only be that he was supposed to run after making two remarkable shots for a man with "Maggie's drawers," but didn't trust the people who were supposed to help him escape. The possibility we're supposed to support as truth is that he didn't plan to make it out alive, but when he did anyway, he retrieved his pistol from his rooming house in order to shoot the cops who would inevitably be on his trail. Not so hard to swallow, unless you're aware of Tippit's sporadic behavior in the forty minutes or so after the assassination and before Oswald killed him.  

Then there's the added factor of hypnosis and what it is capable of making us do and not do. That's where "Insomniac's Anonymous" comes in, to provide our segue into the murder of JFK's brother, Bobby, five years later.

The rabbit hole, as you see, never ends, and Oswald's look-a-likes are only one aspect of all the strange "coincidences" we're expected to accept without question, lest we be labeled 'unpatriotic'. Everyone in the world is capable of lying, but in the case of government, how dare you suggest such a possibility! There is no difference between government and God! To suggest we were lied would also suggest that we're stupid for believing that all the government cares about are it's people, our issues, our concerns. To care about what we believe is not necessarily the same thing as caring about us as a society.