THE WARREN COMMISSION CULT
& THE MEME OF TRUE BELIEVERS
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”~John F. Kennedy
IN ALL LIKELIHOOD there does not exist a single American community where reside 12 men or women, good and true, who presume that Lee Harvey Oswald did not assassinate President Kennedy. No more savage comment can be made in reference to the breakdown of the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence. At the very foundation of our judicial operation lies a cornerstone which shelters the innocent and guilty alike against group hysteria, manufactured evidence, overzealous law enforcement officials, in short, against those factors which militate for an automated, prejudged, neatly packaged verdict of guilty. It is the sacred right of every citizen accused of committing a crime to the presumption of innocence.
[…]
That which intervenes between the zealous investigator and the jury is due process of law, developed at great cost in human life and liberty over the years. It is the right to have irrelevant testimony barred. It is the right to have facts, not hopes or thoughts or wishes or prejudicial opinions, presented. It is the right to test by cross-examination the veracity of every witness and the value of his testimony. It is, perhaps above all, the right to counsel of one’s own choice, so that all the other rights may be protected. In this defense, Oswald has forfeited all rights along with his life.~Mark Lane – December 19, 1963
. . . . . . . . .
Willy Whitten 3/27/2015
Hybridrogue1's Blog 
Why Jean Davison Won’t Quit: A Look Back at Oswald’s Game
Reviewed by James DiEugenio
“I’d like to once again say ‘thank you’ to Jean for an exemplary book, which offers up just about as good a biography on President Kennedy’s assassin as you’re likely to find.”~David Von Pein
Jean Davison published her book Oswald’s Game back in 1983. To date, it remains the only book she has ever written on the Kennedy assassination. Further, one will Google long and hard to find any articles or essays she has published on the JFK case.
Which is not to say that she is not an active participant in the Kennedy murder debate. She is. She has been a frequent poster at many forums since at least the early nineties. And she continues to do so to this day. As the reader can see from the above quote, Warren Commission zealot David Von Pein is a firm believer in the efficacy of her book. Von Pein, of course, was also a staunch advocate for Reclaiming History. His critical acumen and honesty were found lacking in that instance. As we shall see, his critical faculties are also found in abeyance in the case of Oswald’s Game. This retrospective review is meant to elucidate what Davison does today, but also to show how bereft of critical analysis the Krazy Kid Oswald Camp is.
Before I begin I wish to add a word to the lexicon. It will be the second addition from the JFK debates, after the word “Fetzering.” Fetzering; owing to former philosophy professor Jim Fetzer; usually means disagreeing by using rancor, name-calling and just plain arrogance i.e. “I think you’re wrong therefore you are.”
In rereading Oswald’s Game for the first time in over 20 years, I was struck by the author’s recurring pattern of making sweeping, but specious, generalizations with the utmost confidence and authority. Therefore I will use the term “davisonism” throughout this review to denote these occurrences of Davisonism: presumed certainty which, upon analysis, are almost always exposed as pretentious gas passing.
In her Introduction, Davison begins in an odd, but emblematic way. She only deals very briefly there with the assassination and the appointment of the Warren Commission. After four pages, she centers on her encounter with Mark Lane’s book Rush to Judgment. Why would she do that? Because one, of her subthemes throughout the work is to minimize and marginalize the efforts of the Warren Commission critics. As we will see, she does this through a variety of propaganda techniques. At the outset, she goes after Lane and his depiction of the testimony of Jack Ruby. Specifically, she says that Lane shortened the context of Ruby’s testimony to try and show that he was asking to leave Dallas so he could tell his whole story in Washington.
Her reply to Lane is that this is not really accurate. She says that what Lane “didn’t say however, was that the ‘tests’ Ruby wanted to take were simply a lie detector test; and the reason Ruby wanted to take one was to prove that he was not part of a conspiracy.” (Davison, p. 18, italics in original) She then continues with this: “The following month Ruby was allowed to take a polygraph test in his jail cell, and he showed no signs of deception when he denied being part of a conspiracy.” (ibid, p. 19) Thus, the kibosh is placed on Lane as representative of all critics. The message is: You can’t trust them. The subtext is: Trust me, Jean Davison. I will give you the full picture.
Thus we have the first davisonism. Since her book was written years after the House Select Committee on Assassinations published its volumes, it may be even worse than that. Because in those HSCA volumes is a report by a panel of experts on the polygraph exam given to Ruby by FBI agent Bell Herndon. That report is highly critical of Herndon and therefore impacts negatively on the credibility of Oswald’s Game. The panel concluded that Herndon’s test violated at least ten accepted practices of good polygraph technique. (James DiEugenio, Reclaiming Parkland, p. 244) These ranged from having way too many people in the room; which could lead to distractions and false readings; to actually misusing important equipment.
Another key violation by Herndon was the sheer number of questions given to Ruby. Which was over a hundred. The panel blistered the FBI agent on this point. They wrote that the number of questions “showed total disregard of basic polygraph principles.” (ibid) The problem was simple: “…the more a person is tested, the less he tends to react when lying. That is…liars become test-tired, they no longer produce significant physiological reactions when lying.” (ibid) In other words, because of the length of the test, Ruby could get away with lying without being detected. Under these circumstances, the panel said a second test should have been given as a crosscheck to the faulty technique of the first one. After all, the entire proceeding lasted over five hours. (ibid, p. 245)
The panel also said they had a real problem with how Herndon categorized the three types of questions polygraph technicians use. These are: relevant questions, control questions, and irrelevant questions. A control question is one that the operator offers up knowing the probability is high that the subject will lie about it. He does this in order to get a reading on what a lie will look like on his chart for this particular subject. Irrelevant questions are just that; questions which are not germane to the case but will give a good reading for answering honestly. The third category, relevant questions, are those asked that are germane to the case, and about which the authorities wish to know if the subject is lying about. The panel concluded that Herndon mixed up the categories for the questions. Therefore it was hard to decipher the landmarks in his chart as to what constituted deceptive criteria. (ibid, p. 245)
As I wrote about Herndon in Reclaiming Parkland:
There was a method to the madness. First, by wearing Ruby down the charted physiological responses would be less detectable. Second, by confusing the three types of questions, there would be no accurate landmarks with which to make an accurate chart.
But this was not enough for Herndon. The panel concluded that he set the Galvanic Skin Response (GSR) machine to only a quarter of its maximum reading at the beginning. This machine is sensitive to internal stimuli indicating deceptive criteria. He then actually lowered the setting. (ibid) This was the opposite of accepted practice. The setting should have never been that low at all. But it should have been raised as the test went on because of its overlong length. Because of this, the panel concluded that the GSR reading was completely useless.
All of this is quite relevant to the davisonism that Ruby showed no sign of deception when asked if he was part of a conspiracy. For instance, the panel noted that Ruby’s negative reaction to the question, “Did you assist Oswald in the assassination?” recorded the largest GSR reaction in the first test series. In other words, when Ruby was relatively fresh and the GSR was set at its highest point. To accompany that indication, there was also a suppression of breathing and a rise in blood pressure at the time. (ibid, p. 246)
Now, when one looks at the footnotes to Oswald’s Game, one will see that there are references to the HSCA volumes. But when she refers to the Ruby polygraph, she only uses the Warren Commission. (See page 304, footnotes 18 and 19) In other words, at the outset of her book, to the unsuspecting reader, it appears that 1.) Ruby was an honest person 2.) He was not a part of any plot, and 3.) The Commission was a reliable fact finding body. When, in fact, the HSCA report cited above indicates the opposite was the case for all three.
But actually, it’s worse than that. Every Warren Commission zealot, which Davison is, needs to camouflage a central part of the cover up. Namely, that the investigative agencies of the Warren Commission gave that body unreliable and incomplete information. Because, obviously, if that is so, then the Commission’s fact finding procedure can be proven to be both flawed and incomplete. Knowing what we do today about J. Edgar Hoover; through, for example, the works of Curt Gentry and Athan Theoharis; the Bureau has lost much of its reputation for honesty and objectivity. In fact, today, Hoover’s career; from the Palmer Raids to his harassment of Martin Luther King; is looked upon as a necessary aberration. It was necessary because the man was a blackmailing adder who exercised almost total control over his agency. Why is that an important point to make? Because it is not credible to assume that Herndon would have done what he did unless it was sanctioned from above. By not telling the reader about this report, or about Hoover’s character, Davison can hide that crucial point from her readers.
Which brings us to two more davisonisms. First, by beginning with this strophe, namely that the Commission was credible and its critics were not, Davison stands the revealed factual record on its head. With what we know today, in fact back in 1983 when Oswald’s Game was published, the Warren Report was a massively flawed proceeding from its inception. Actually, from before its inception. And one of its most grievous errors was relying on men like Hoover at the FBI, Richard Helms and James Angleton at CIA, and James Rowley and Elmer Moore of the Secret Service. The result was that the Commission did things like tailoring testimony, eliminating important information, and altering evidence. (Click here as to how and why)
The second davisonism that extends from this opening is her depiction of Jack Ruby. It can only be termed a whitewash. Recall, this book was written after the HSCA volumes were released and after Seth Kantor’s biography of Ruby was published. (In fact, Kantor’s book Who was Jack Ruby? is actually in Davison’s bibliography.)
Near the end of her book, she picks up Ruby again at DA Henry Wade’s infamous Friday night press conference, after Oswald had been apprehended. She admits that Ruby was in the room. (Davison, p. 246) But she leaves out two important pieces of information. First, that he camouflaged himself as a journalist. Second, that he corrected Wade as to the one-man operation Oswald was involved with in New Orleans. Wade said it was the Free Cuba Committee, and Ruby corrected him as to the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. (Kantor, 1992 edition, pgs. 101-02)
Here, Davison also adds something that is just inexplicable. In a whopper of a davisonism, she writes that Ruby was “a police buff who knew several dozen members of the local force.” This could be lifted straight from the Warren Report. (See p. 24, where they say Ruby knew maybe 50 cops) It is one reason the report has fallen into disrepute. For as Sylvia Meagher pointed out in her classic Accessories After the Fact, the Warren Report tried to “remodel Ruby” into an “antiseptic portrait.” (Meagher, p. 391) Because in the 26 volumes there was evidence that Ruby had “ties with the underworld, gamblers and hoods, [and] narcotics traffic.” (ibid) But further, Meagher asks, why was Ruby allowed to wander freely through the Dallas Police station throughout the entire assassination weekend? Once, he even got an officer’s help in paging a TV station employee. (ibid, pgs. 422, 423) Meagher also shows that Ruby had been protected in the past from being charged by the police for felonies.
The truth is that Ruby knew over half of the 75 or more cops who were in the basement when he shot Oswald. (ibid, p. 423) If we apply that ratio to the entire department, Ruby probably knew over 500 members of the force. In fact, that figure is probably too low. Ruby’s friend, Reagan Turman, told the FBI that Ruby “was acquainted with at least 75%, and probably 80% of the police officers on the Dallas Police Department.” (Commission Exhibit 1467) And as many others have written, one probable reason for this is that Ruby was a front man for organized crime when it moved into Dallas. (Meagher, pgs. 423-24) In fact, an FBI informant said that for Ruby to carry on as a courier for mob gambling, which he did, the man had to have police connections in both Dallas and Fort Worth. (FBI report of 12/6/63) This informant, William Abadie, had briefly worked for Ruby writing up gambling “tickets” as well as serving as a “slot machine and jukebox mechanic.” He went on to say he had observed policemen coming and going while acting as a bookie in Ruby’s apartment.
This could go on and on. (Click here for more on Ruby) But the point is that Davison, as with Ruby’s polygraph, is not candid with the reader about Ruby’s background and the extent of his police connections. Needless to say, she also eliminates the credible reports of Ruby being at Parkland Hospital. Which Ruby unconvincingly denied. (Meagher, pgs. 394-95)
But alas, Ruby is not the main focus of Oswald’s Game. That status belongs to Oswald. As we will now see, Davison is as biased and incomplete about him as she is about Ruby.
III
If one were going to write a biography of Oswald in 1983, one would want to make it as complete and thorough as possible. Or else, why write such a book? To make your effort as complete as you could would mean collecting as much information as possible from as many places as possible. This would mean, at a minimum, making trips to Washington, New Orleans, Dallas/Fort Worth and New York City. Washington is where the declassified record is located. Oswald had lived in the other three cities. One would also want to check up on Oswald’s military records, and interview as many former service colleagues as one could locate. And this would just be the beginning. Since, in any field investigation, leads pile up once an interview is done.
The shocking thing about Oswald’s Game is this: There is no evidence that Davison did any of the above! For instance, in her footnotes there is not one reference to either an original phone interview she did, or to an on the scene, in person interview. Which is incredible. But further, I could find no reference to any newly declassified documents she secured. The overwhelming majority of her footnotes come from four sources: the Warren Report, the Commission’s accompanying 26 volumes, Edward Epstein’s book Legend, and Priscilla Johnson’s book, Marina and Lee.
In and of itself, that tells us much about both who Davison was and is, and her book. Because, as many commentators have noted, the summary of Oswald’s life presented by the Warren Report had some serious lacunae in it. And the objectivity of Epstein and Johnson is, to put it mildly, circumspect. To be candid, they have both been credibly accused of being close to the CIA. (For Johnson, click here) In fact, Legend was written with consultation from James Angleton, who many believe today to have been Oswald’s control officer. (Click here for info on Epstein) Throughout Oswald’s Game, Davison does not say one word about any of this controversy. Why?
It’s probably the same reason she begins her book as she does. After the introduction, she spends a short chapter on Oswald’s defection. She then begins the book proper with Chapter 2. It’s titled “Marguerite’s Son.”. The chapter is an echo of Jean Stafford’s book, A Mother in History. Which most of us realize today was a laborious and demeaning exercise in which a gifted novelist was made to do a hatchet job courtesy of FBI informant Hugh Aynesworth. We must also not forget what Arlen Specter said to Jean Hill. When she resisted changing her story about hearing too many shots, Specter said words to the effect, we can do to you what we did to Marguerite Oswald. Stafford’s book; really an expanded magazine article; was an out and out hatchet job. On the cover, it showed Marguerite standing over Oswald’s grave, with the subtitle, “The Mother of the Man who killed Kennedy.”
What was Marguerite’s vice, which condemned her to brutal caricature at the hands of the Commission and Stafford/Aynesworth? They had two problems with her. She thought her son may have been innocent, and she also thought he was probably an intelligence agent. In retrospect, those two beliefs should have brought her praise for her honesty, insight, and courage. But since the politics of the JFK case are so pervasive, Marguerite had to be macheted in public. Which, no surprise, Davison has no problem with.
But there is unintentional humor to be had here. Davison is so agenda driven, so monomaniacal in her condemnation of Oswald and his mother, so obsessed with showing some kind of early personality defect Lee inherited from his mom, that she spills over into unconscious self-parody. When Oswald went to Russia, one of the things he told one of the reporters in his room at the Metropole Hotel was that he first got interested in communism when a woman handed him a pamphlet meant to save the Rosenbergs. (Destiny Betrayed, Second Edition, by Jim DiEugenio, p. 145; Davison, p. 54) Davison uses this incident throughout the book to somehow indicate that a large and latent psychic chasm was unleashed in Oswald by reading this pamphlet. For her, this is a huge milestone in Oswald’s mental evolution, one that started him down the road to murder.
Which, upon analysis, is funny. See, the Metropole was used for many state services in Moscow. As John Newman has shown, it was furnished with infrared cameras, for spying on its residents. Therefore, it’s natural to suspect it was also wired for sound. (DiEugenio, ibid) When Oswald surfaced this story about the Rosenberg pamphlet, he was trying to convince the Russian authorities to let him stay in Moscow. Clearly, by letting him hole up at the Metropole, the Russians were deciding on whether Oswald was a genuine defector, or on an espionage mission. Oswald issued many B movie platitudes trying to convince the KGB he was genuine. In one of his interviews with American journalists, he said at age 15 he became seriously interested in communism when “an old lady handed me a pamphlet about saving the Rosenbergs.” (ibid)
It was probably this statement that convinced the KGB Oswald was on a spy mission. For they then kicked him out of Moscow and sent him 450 miles away to Minsk. They set up a ring of human intel around him, and also wired his state furnished apartment for sound. (Ibid) Why? Because Oswald did not have his story straight. Oswald has to be referring here to his sojourn in the liberal New York City. Since it’s hard to believe there were Rosenberg committees in New Orleans or Dallas. But when Oswald turned 15 in 1954 he was living in New Orleans, not New York. Further, why would anyone be distributing “Save the Rosenberg” literature at that time? The couple had been executed in June of the previous year. The KGB officers watching and listening to the surveillance tapes must have been both smiling and frowning at Oswald’s performance. But Davison is so intent on indicting Oswald she presents this dead on serious. She then follows it with this davisonism:
Whether through force of example or inherited disposition, Lee Oswald had acquired an egocentricity resembling his mother Marguerite. What made the Rosenberg pamphlet memorable to him, surely was that he saw himself in it…Here he held in his hand a message that said to him: Here are allies you can identify with… (Davison, p. 56)
To the professional KGB of course, the reaction was quite different: they saw through the little playlet. But really, Davison’s five and dime story psychoanalysis based on faulty assumptions is so strained, so heavy handed, that it reminded me of Woody Allen’s hilarious mockumentary Take the Money and Run. With very few alterations, this part of Oswald’s Game could serve as a scenario for that type of film.
IV
The above points out another grave failing of Oswald’s Game. The writer’s repeated tendency to leave out important information that the reader needs in order to render an accurate judgment. As noted above, Davison is hell-bent on keeping Oswald out of the hands of the CIA. Therefore, she simply eliminates or greatly discounts key information that could lead the reader to consider that hypothesis, since it fits into a complete portrait of the man.
Consider Oswald’s acquisition of the Russian language. She says he learned it in the service on his own. I could find no reference to the executive session report of the Warren Commission in which they say Oswald was at the Defense Language Institute in Monterey, California. (Executive Session transcript of 1/27/64) That transcript was declassified through the efforts of Harold Weisberg in 1974. Ten years before Oswald’s Game was published. Some readers may think that is important information. For the simple matter that Russian is a very difficult language to learn. And it’s not credible that someone could acquire it on his own through listening to records or reading periodicals. (Davison, pgs. 73 and 76) Coinciding with this failure is the missing name of Rosaleen Quinn. In the service, a colleague of Oswald’s set up a meeting between Lee and his aunt, Ms. Quinn. Quinn had been studying for a State Department job. She had therefore been tutored in Russian for over a year. After Quinn came away from the meeting with Oswald, she said he spoke Russian at least as well as she did. Any language expert will tell you that you simply cannot become fluent in something like Russian by listening to the radio or records. You must be privately tutored or take part in classes. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 131) If one combines the instruction in Russian with the defection, with the phony platitudes uttered by Oswald at the Metropole, and the KGB cynicism about him, then one could at least suspect that maybe Oswald was being prepared by the Navy to go to Russia as a false defector. But you cannot do this if you cut out Quinn, the Defense Language Institute, the difficulty in learning Russian, and the KGB suspicion and surveillance at the Metropole.
Davison also does not explain why the KGB would be suspicious of Oswald in the first place. In other words, she does not place Oswald’s defection into its proper backdrop. Oswald left the USA for Russia in the fall of 1959. Prior to 1958, American defectors to Russia had been a rather rare occurrence. In 1958, there had been four. In 1959, prior to Oswald, there had already been two of them, Robert Webster and Nicholas Petrulli. It is stunning, but it’s true: You will not see either of those names in the index to Oswald’s Game. By the end of 1960, the number of defections had ballooned to the high teens. (Ibid, Destiny Betrayed, p. 139) The KGB noted the trend. Just as they noted that many of these defectors were from the military. Which is unusual in itself. Robert Webster had worked for Rand Corporation, which had ties to the CIA. And Rand was one of the first companies to sell products inside of Russia. It was at a trade fair that Webster had defected.
But yet, once one understands what Davison is up to in this book, one comprehends why all this is left out. For instance, although Oswald was not supposed to have known about the Webster case, before he left the USSR to return to the USA, he asked American embassy officials “about the fate of a young man named Webster who came to Russia at about the time he did.” (ibid) And by not dealing with Webster, Davison avoids something that she almost has to avoid. Webster met the 19-year-old Marina Prusakova in Moscow in 1959, before she met her future husband Lee Oswald. And Webster spoke to her in English! Which is a language Marina was not supposed to have acquired yet. After the assassination, the address of Webster’s Leningrad apartment was found in Marina’s address book. (ibid, p. 140) When any curious, interested reader is confronted with this kind of information, he or she would naturally ask: 1.) What are the odds of a 19-year-old girl meeting two of three defectors in 1959 in the huge expanse of Russia? 2.) Why would Marina have learned English and why would she later lie about it? Clearly, Davison does not want the reader to contemplate those questions. Which is why she does not tell you about Marina�s uncle, who was a high official in the Russian equivalent of the FBI. Or that Marina once confused her meeting with Webster with her meeting of Oswald. (ibid, p. 140) All of this suggests the probability of an American “false defector” program being set in place. It also suggests the KGB was on to it. And with Marina, may have been designing countermeasures for it.
The proof of this is the Otto Otepka case. Otepka was an investigator in the State Department. In late 1960 he noticed this quite discernible uptick in suspicious defections from the USA to Russia. So he sent a cable to Dick Bissell at CIA. He wanted to know which of the defectors were real and which were not. Bissell turned this request over to James Angleton and his Counter Intelligence staff. This is interesting because, as author John Newman found out, many of Oswald’s CIA documents at this time bear the label CI/OPS, which means Counter Intelligence Operations. The eighth name on Otepka’s list was Lee Oswald. When the CIA assigned the list to a researcher, he was told to work on some but not others. One of the “others” was Oswald. When CIA sent backs its reply to State, the name Oswald was marked SECRET. But Otepka was persistent. He wanted to know the truth about both Oswald and the program. For that he was harassed, persecuted and eventually thrown out of his office. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 164) A State Department intelligence analyst suspects Oswald is a false defector. He cannot get an answer to this from the CIA. He persists and eventually loses his job. Once he is out, his safe is drilled into to find what he knew about Oswald. This was on November 5, 1963. Somehow, that information about her subject did not seem important to Jean Davison.
But if that is a puzzler, the following is a complete baffler. As noted, Oswald did not defect until the fall of 1959. Otepka made his request to CIA in late 1960. It was only after this request that the CIA opened up a 201 file on Oswald, over a year after the defection. This delay was so weird to the HSCA that it inquired about it to more than one CIA official. For the 201 file is a common file at the Agency. It is an information file on any person of interest to them. Oswald had to be such since he had shown up at the American Embassy in Moscow and hinted he could give secrets of the U-2 to the Russians. (Ibid, p. 143) But neither Ann Egerter, Angleton’s assistant, nor Richard Helms, former Director of the CIA, could explain why it was not opened promptly.
Now, the combination of the Otepka persecution, with this inexplicable 201-file delay could lead one to conclude that the 201 file was not opened because Oswald was a false defector for Angleton. But again, the reader cannot even ponder this since it’s not in this book. The information about the 201 was unearthed by the HSCA. The HSCA shut down four years before Oswald’s Game was published. A good summary of the Otepka affair is in Jim Hougan’s book Spooks, which was published in 1978. The Ordeal of Otto Otepka, a book length treatment of the matter, was published a decade before that, in 1969. Therefore, as the reader can see, there was really no excuse for this fascinating and important data not to be included in Oswald’s Game. The only apparent excuse is that it did not fit in with the writer’s agenda. Considering how large and consuming that agenda was, the book’s more apt title would have been Davison’s Game.
V
As noted above, it’s pretty clear that Davison did not do any traveling to anywhere in America to investigate Oswald’s life. In fact, it’s not certain that she even made any phone calls. So it obvious that she did not try and replicate Oswald’s journey overseas for his defection to the USSR. If she had, she may have discovered at least a couple of interesting things that would have prevented her book from being a museum piece upon publication.
Oswald was never known to have any solid finances. So when his service pal Nelson Delgado was asked, he replied that he had no idea how Oswald could afford to travel across Europe. Delgado said this cost anywhere from eight hundred to a thousand dollars. (Destiny Betrayed, p. 137) Which a study of his bank records reveals he did not have. But in addition to this, Davison could have told us about the hotels he stayed in while in Helsinki. British investigator Ian Griggs actually stayed in them. The first was the Hotel Torni. Griggs described this as no less than a five star hotel. The rough equivalent of the Savoy in London or the Four Seasons in San Francisco. How and why would someone as low status as Oswald choose to stay at such a place? Someone must have alerted him to this dilemma because he soon checked out. He went to the Klaus Kurki Hotel. Griggs described this as maybe a notch below the Torni. A four and a half star hotel. Since, as I said, Davison never went anywhere for a field investigation, she cannot inform us of this dichotomy. And therefore, the reader cannot ask the obvious questions: Where did Oswald get the money to stay in the kinds of hotels that Nelson Rockefeller and Jean Sibelius booked? (ibid, p. 138) And second, why would the usually frugal Oswald become a spendthrift in Finland?
But beyond that, outside the pages of Oswald’s Game, with normal rationality, the question also arises: Why did Oswald even go to Helsinki? Davison says that he placed an educational facility destination adjacent to Helsinki on his passport application. Which does not really explain it, since Oswald wrote several places on the application. Some of which he never went to. It appears he went there because that particular Russian Embassy had close ties to Intourist, the Russian state-owned travel bureau. Oswald applied for a visa to Intourist on October 13th. He got it the next day. (ibid, p. 138) Again, this is notable for the saga of Oswald. Because the Helsinki embassy was the only one in Europe which granted these visas that fast. The US Embassy there had direct ties to their Soviet counterparts and sent people who needed expedited visas to them. Did Oswald know this? Is this why he went there? If so, who told him about it? Since Davison deals with the matter of Helsinki in about two sentences, those questions also do not arise in Oswald’s Game. (See Davison, pgs. 81, 84)
This brings us to the matter of how Oswald began his journey to Helsinki. Once he was fluent in Russian, as proven through his conversation with Quinn, Oswald did something unusual. He applied for a hardship discharge. Again, Delgado could not understand it. For these were notoriously hard to get and took a long time to process. (Second Edition, Destiny Betrayed, p. 136)
Now, let us make the mystery about this transparent, which Davison really does not do. Oswald’s actual application was submitted on August 17th. At this point, his service contract had less than four months to run. The HSCA discovered that these proceedings took as many as six months to finalize. (ibid) Therefore, under normal circumstances, Oswald would have been better off just waiting out his service contract rather than gambling with the complex process of discharge. Why do I say that? Because, usually there were thorough investigations made at both ends to make sure the application was not a bogus attempt to get out early. And if there had been normal inquiries done, Oswald’s filing would have been exposed as ersatz and he would have been busted.
But he wasn’t. One reason he was not was this: instead of taking six months, or even three, his application was approved in just ten days! The way Davison deals with this is rich. She says that Oswald’s application “was approved fairly quickly.” (Davison, p. 82) Well, that’s one way of putting it. But by not telling us about the actual time lapse, she avoids the question of what kind of inquiry could the Navy have made in just ten days. Because the main reason the application was granted was the excuse that Marguerite had a candy box at work fall on her nose. She needed to get a doctor’s affidavit to collect on workmen’s compensation since the company she worked for did not think the injury was that serious.
One of the doctors that Marguerite visited to collect information for her workman’s compensation claim was Dr. Milton Goldberg. He called the FBI on the day of the assassination and said he could not go along with her claims for injuries and referred her to other doctors. But he also told the FBI that on one of her early visits she told him her son wanted to defect to Russia. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 136) Now, her first visit to Goldberg was on January 9, 1959. Which was a full nine months before Oswald was discharged. It was six months before he reported to the Red Cross to begin the process of the dependency discharge. Of which there was no dependency. The Navy could have discovered this just by interviewing Robert Oswald, who was living in Fort Worth at the time. There is no evidence that he was helping his mother at the time. And, of course, when Oswald did get out, he spent all of three days in Texas. Clearly, something was going on behind the scenes with this hardship discharge. But you would never get any suggestion of impropriety from Oswald’s Game.
VI
One of the most bizarre things about this bizarre book is that Davison cannot bring herself to admit the obvious paradox about Oswald. Here you have a supposed Marxist who decides to join the Marines. On his return from Russia he chooses to live with first, the rightwing White Russians in Dallas/Fort Worth. These people wanted to overthrow the communists and restore the czar. In New Orleans, he had various associations with the Cuban exiles. These men wanted to overthrow Castro and make Cuba an ally of the USA again. If Oswald was a communist, he was one of the weirdest communists ever. But further, like every other inquiry into his life, Davison fails to produce one communist friend that Oswald worked with or shared time with on the ground in the USA. Does this not make his associations with the White Russians and Cuban exiles even stranger?
If you can believe it, in the 300 pages of her book she never admits to this fact. Probably because it so plainly flies in the face of her thesis about Oswald being a communist. And, in fact, Richard Snyder who worked out of the American Embassy in Moscow, and interviewed Oswald, worked for the CIA on Operation Redskin. This was a program designed to recruit Ivy League Russian speaking graduates to travel behind the Iron Curtain. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 141) Three days before Oswald showed up in his office to try and renounce his citizenship, Snyder wrote a letter to a fellow State Department employee on his experience with American “defectors.” There are quotes around that word because Snyder did the same. And he was referring to the Webster case. (ibid)
How did Oswald begin this strange masquerade as a communist Marine, false defector, FBI informant, and CIA agent provocateur? Well in any serious study of his life, which Oswald’s Game is not, the figure of David Ferrie and Oswald’s teenage years in the Civil Air Patrol under his supervision must loom large. To use one example, John Armstrong spends four oversized pages on this episode in his biography called Harvey and Lee. (See pages 122-25) Again, the way Davison handles this key episode is so rich as to be humorous. Referring to June of 1955, she writes, “That summer he joined the Civil Air Patrol and attended several meetings at which one of the leaders was an eccentric pilot named David Ferrie. Ferrie would become a central figure in many conspiracy theories.” (Davison, pgs. 62-63) I kid you not, that is it.
But even she cannot keep the lid on how important this episode is. Because, right after this, she writes that it was this time period when Oswald began to exhibit an interest in Marxism. Now, a true biographer who really wanted to be honest with the record and his reader would have to equate the two. For anyone who studies Ferrie quickly understands he was not just your usual CAP instructor. He had an inordinate interest in the lives of his cadets. And if Davison had gone to New Orleans and interviewed some of these subjects she could have written about this. But, in fact, she did not even really have to do that. Because Jim Garrison had donated many of his files to Bud Fensterwald’s AARC (which was under a different name at the time.) So all she had to do was drive down to Washington to look at these interview transcripts and affidavits. If she was too lazy for even that, then she could have interviewed the two New Orleans investigators for the HSCA, Bob Buras and Lawrence Delsa. They would have told her that Ferrie had a tremendous influence over these youths. And he also seemed to have clearance from above to do things with them that required special permission. Like camping out with them at Keesler Air Force Base in Biloxi, and having military planes fly them back form drill competitions. He also convinced a number of them to join the Marines. (Author’s interview with Delsa in New Orleans in 1994; Destiny Betrayed, p. 84) I could go on and on in this regard, but suffice it to say, many writers have deduced that David Ferrie was a powerful influence on Oswald’s life. If he was not, then why was Ferrie so obsessed with hiding his relationship with Oswald in the CAP in the days following the assassination? (Destiny Betrayed, pgs 176-77)
Sticking with New Orleans and Garrison, she spends about a page in a bare bones, less than cursory discussion of the Clinton/Jackson incident. She concludes this with a shattering davisonism. She says that if the event occurred it was certainly Guy Banister, not Clay Shaw who was the driver of the car. She then says that since the witnesses there were confused about Banister and Shaw they may have been mistaken about Oswald as well. She also adds, and they did not come forward until 1967. (Davison, pgs. 284-85)
Where does one begin to dissect this drivel? Again, it exposes Davison as the totally amateur researcher she is. For if she would have collected the primary resources on this incident; something she has a phobia against; she would not have written such foolishness. The witness statements make it clear that it was not Banister with Ferrie and Oswald, it was Clay Shaw. For instance, Henry Burnell Clark said the driver of the car was unusually tall, well over six feet. Banister was about 5′ 9,” Shaw was 6′ 4.” (William Davy, Let Justice Be Done, p. 105) If that is not enough, Sheriff John Manchester said he approached the car and asked the driver to identify himself. When asked what name he gave, Manchester said under oath, “He gave Clay Shaw, which corresponded with his driver’s license.” (ibid, p. 106) The witnesses were not confused at all. In her usual lazy way, Davison decided to accept reporters’ spin instead of using the primary sources. And if she had gotten out of her living room, she would have discovered that the witnesses did not come forward in 1967. They all talked about the event in the wake of the assassination. Reeves Morgan called the FBI. And local rightwing publisher Ned Touchstone interviewed them in 1965, and wrote about it in his publication called The Councilor. (Joan Mellen, A Farewell to Justice, pgs. 214-15, p. 234)
VII
Let us now proceed to the payoff of the book. The reason I think Davison actually wrote the thing. That is, her discussions of the Odio incident and Mexico City. Davison wants us to buy into something pretty unpalatable. She wants us to think that Oswald was both at Sylvia Odio’s apartment door and in Mexico City. That is, there was no mistaken identity and no imposters involved. She does this by employing the same trick that Vincent Bugliosi does. Before the Commission, Sylvia twice said that three men; two Cubans and Leon Oswald; visited her during the last week of September. It was on a Thursday or a Friday. (WC Volume XI, pgs. 370, 386) This means the date could be either the 26th or 27th. Even if we accept the earlier date, this contradicts the Warren Report. For they state that on that date, Oswald was on a bus headed from the Mexican border town of Nuevo Laredo to Mexico City. (WR, p. 733)
So, to avoid this serious problem; which clearly suggests the use of an imposter in one or the other place; Davison did in 1983 what Vincent Bugliosi did almost 25 years later. She moved the date back to the 25th. Even with that, there is a problem. The incident took place at around 9 PM in Dallas. The Warren Report has Oswald in Houston that night calling the socialist editor of a magazine. But the call came at nine or a bit later. There is no indication the call was long distance. The drive from Dallas to Houston is about four hours. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 352)
All of this is discounted by Davison. She says that it’s Oswald at Odio’s. But she says that it was really Oswald manipulating the Cubans there. She says “if the real Oswald was used, how did the anti-Castro plotters get their Marxist enemy to stand at Odio’s door to be introduced as a friend of the Cuban exiles.” (Davison, p. 194) Well Jean, the same way Oswald was in Guy Banister’s office and in Clinton/Jackson with Shaw and Ferrie. Because anyone who knows this case and has any objectivity realizes that Oswald was not a Marxist. Davison makes great pains to compare this incident with what she calls Oswald’s attempt to infiltrate Carlos Bringuier’s Cuban exile group, the DRE in New Orleans. But if Bringuier and his assistant Carlos Quiroga were supplying Oswald with the flyers for this Trade Mart leafleting incident, then this “infiltration” idea of hers collapses. And that is what a neutral witness, Oswald’s landlady Jesse Garner, seems to indicate. (DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, p. 162) This silly comparison of hers is further undermined by Quiroga’s polygraph test for Jim Garrison. Quiroga was asked: “You have said you tried to infiltrate Oswald’s ‘organization.’ Isn’t it a fact that you knew his Fair Play for Cuba activities were merely a cover?” Quiroga replied in the negative. That reply indicated he was lying. So did his negative reply to the following: “Is it not a fact that at that time Oswald was in reality a part of an anti-Castro operation?” (Ibid) Again, Davison’s attempt at being a researcher is a bit embarrassing.
But she carries on her concept further. She now says that Oswald was actually manipulating the Cubans he was with. Again, this is silly. On two counts. First, why would Oswald put himself forth as a possible assassin of Kennedy in advance of the murder? If you believe Davison, that is what happened here. But secondly, if Oswald was doing the manipulating, then why was it the Cubans who called Sylvia back to make the incident more indelible?
Finally, like many Commission advocates, Davison leaves out the fact that Odio belonged to JURE. This was a liberal anti-Castro group that was a favorite of Kennedy. And it was hated by Howard Hunt because he called its leadership by Manuelo Ray, “Castroism without Fidel.” In other words, the under text here is that the Cubans were trying to ingratiate Oswald with a leftist exile group in advance of the assassination. This is made manifest by the fact that the two Cubans masqueraded as JURE members but were not.
Let us conclude with what Davison now says is her proof that Oswald planned on killing Kennedy. She uses the hoary, mildewed Daniel Harker story. This was a newspaper account of an interview with Fidel Castro in which he was reported as saying that if “US leaders should think that if they are aiding terrorism plans to eliminate Cuban leaders, they themselves will not be safe.” (Davison, p. 22) The problems with this story are manifold. First, as she notes, there is not any evidence that Oswald saw the story. Second, with the evidence we have now, it’s clear that Kennedy was trying for detente with Castro at this time. The attacks on Cuba had dwindled away to almost nothing. And the declassified Inspector General report makes it clear that Kennedy never authorized any of the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Third, as she acknowledges, the evidence says that Oswald liked Kennedy. Fourth, if Oswald killed Kennedy for the Castro cause, why did he deny it afterwards?
Davison couples this with something even weaker. It’s the report from an FBI informant in the communist party that Oswald walked into the Cuban consulate and said he was going to kill Castro. These have come to be called the SOLO documents. And this part of them, the Castro threat is almost surely a forgery. As John Newman told this reviewer, this is allegedly a part of a letter from the informant to Gus Hall, leader of the communist party. Newman said, this kind of information would not be part of that letter to Hall. SOLO was too experienced to do that. (Author interview with Newman, 11/29/13) Second, why would Oswald, on the occasion of having problems with his visa blurt out in the consulate that he was going to kill Kennedy. When, in fact, it was his own fault he was having problems. He was not prepared with the proper documentation. Third, if Oswald said this, then why did not the incoming or outgoing chief counsel there hear him? And for that matter, neither did Sylvia Duran. Fourth, Oswald needed clearance for his in-transit visa from both Cuba and Russia. Why would he say something like this knowing that if the Russians call for a check, someone will tell them, “He said he was going to kill Kennedy.” Fifth, Castro did not mention this threat in either his nationally televised radio/TV appearance of November 23rd of during his speech at the University of Havana on November 27th. And since no one at the embassy heard Oswald say this, then Castro would have had to manufacture the quote. Why would he do such a thing? (ibid, Newman interview.)
Newman says that he does not think the informant manufactured the quote either. He thinks someone in the FBI did and pasted it into the letter. Quite naturally, every one of these cogent points is absent from Oswald’s Game. I mean, Davison’s Game.
Needless to say, Davison does not list the plentiful evidence that Oswald was not in Mexico City. Namely, the voice on the tapes sent to Dallas, was not his. The CIA has never been able to produce one picture of Oswald entering either embassy in over 50 years. Even though a total of five cameras covered both embassies. Four of the five embassy workers who encountered this man called Oswald, said he was short and blonde. In 1978, when consul Eusebio Azcue was interviewed by CBS news about Mexico City, he produced photos taken by the Cuban surveillance cameras of the man who identified himself as Oswald. The man was short and blonde. (Armstrong, op. cit. p. 646)
I have saved the most thundering davisonism for last. Let us luxuriate in its pure arrogance:
To argue, as some critics have, that Oswald was merely posing as a leftist from the time he was 16 until, literally the day he died, one must unravel the story of his life presented in this book and attempt to reweave it into an entirely new pattern. I can’t say that it is impossible to do so, but thus far it hasn’t been done. (Davison, p. 285)
A statement like that is literally requesting a pie in the face. That pie, a coconut/custard one, was delivered to Davison seven years later. It was by Philip Melanson and it was called Spy Saga. That book revolutionized our thinking about Oswald. And the thing to note is that no great discoveries were made between 1983 and 1990. Therefore, Jean Davison could have theoretically done what Melanson did. But her agenda would not allow it. Today, Spy Saga has been furthered by John Armstrong’s Harvey and Lee and John Newman’s Oswald and the CIA. So today we know much more about Oswald than the Commission would ever tell us. In the light of those works, Jean Davison’s book looks today like a smoking pile of rubbish. Useless to anyone except maybe David Von Pein or John McAdams.
As demonstrated above, Oswald’s Game really tells us more about the biases and obsessions of Jean Davison on the Kennedy case than it does about its ostensible subject. Which is really the worst thing one can say about a biographer.
http://www.ctka.net/2014_reviews/Davison%20review.html
\\][//
An apt phrase to characterize the Warren Commission honestly would be to call it:
the Warmonger Commission
\\][//
‘Spy Saga: Lee Harvey Oswald and U.S. Intelligence’
by Philip H. Melanson
“Whose agent was Oswald-ours or theirs? To hold that he was recruited as a Russian spy, one must posit that virtually all of the agencies of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement were so completely ineffective when it came to Oswald that they must be imagined to be not just incompetent but comatose.”~Melanson
Click to access Item%2003A.pdf
\\][//
“CE399 may seem like a “magic bullet” to the lay person, but these experts have no problem with it. Something to think about, isn’t it?”~Jean Davison
“What expertise do you have in clinical psychology?”(Question by Willy Whitten)
None. I don’t need any.”~Jean Davison – March 23, 2015 at 9:39 pm
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/review/who-was-the-only-man-to-ever-face-legal-charges-in-jfks-assassination/#comment-734958
\\][//
“Lies come out big and bold. The truth comes out in dribs and drabs.”~Barrie Zwicker
\\][//
The Flight of the Magic Bullet
1. CE 399 begins its magical journey at Parkland Hospital. A bullet rolls out from under a mat and lodges against the side of the gurney. (Mark Lane, Rush to Judgment, p. 79) Question: How did it get under the mat? Remember, the Commission will later say this bullet was in John Connally’s body last. No one has ever answered this question.
2. Even Vincent Bugliosi admits that the stretcher it originated from is under question. (Reclaiming History, End Notes, p. 426) But Bugliosi understates the problem here. The weight of the evidence says that the gurney it was found on belonged to neither President Kennedy nor Governor John Connally. (Sylvia Meagher, Accessories After the Fact, pgs. 174-176; Josiah Thompson, Six Seconds in Dallas, pgs. 154-64) It would be a physical impossibility for the bullet to somehow jump from Ron Fuller’s stretcher—where Thompson concludes it was found on- to someone else’s.
3. When hospital attendant Darrell Tomlinson notices it, the bullet has no blood or tissue on it. (Meagher, p. 173) Yet the Commission will say that this bullet went through two men and caused seven wounds.
4. But yet, it’s even worse than that. Why? Because the Commission will eventually say that the last resting place of this bullet was in the thigh of Governor Connally. How could 1.) The bullet reverse trajectory and work its way out? 2.) How could it emerge out of a wound it already made? Most pathologists will tell you that entry wounds slightly shrink afterwards. 3.) Further, how could it have no blood or tissue on it if it traversed backwards?
5. Tomlinson picks up the bullet at about 1:45 PM and takes it to security officer O. P. Wright. (Thompson, p. 156) Wright is very familiar with firearms since he was with the sheriff’s office previously. (ibid, p. 175) Wright gets a good look at the bullet, he notes it as a lead colored, pointed nosed, hunting round. (ibid) This is extremely important since this bullet will change shape and color by the end of its journey..
6. This bullet will be passed through to Secret Service officers Richard Johnsen and Jim Rowley. (Hunt, “The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet; http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html) Yet neither of them will initial the bullet. (Hunt, “Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet”; http://jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm) And later, neither positively identified it. (Aguilar, p. 282)
7. At the White House, Rowley turns a bullet over to FBI agent Elmer Todd. They sign a receipt. The time of the transfer is 8:50 PM on the 22nd. (Hunt, “The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet”)
8. Yet as John Hunt shows, agent Robert Frazier at the FBI lab enters the stretcher bullet’s arrival into his notes at 7:30! (ibid) As Hunt notes, if Frazier and Todd can both tell time, something is really wrong here. Frazier has received a bullet that Todd has not given him yet.
9. But it’s even worse. For in an FBI document it says that Todd’s initials are on the bullet. (CE 2011, at WC Vol. 24, p. 412) Yet as Hunt has amply demonstrated, they are not there. (Hunt, “Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet”) In other words, no one who carried this bullet in transit for law enforcement purposes–Johnsen, Rowley, Todd–put their initials on it. When that is what they are trained to do.
10. Later on, J. Edgar Hoover realizes he has a problem. So he writes up a document saying that agent Bardwell Odum visited Parkland, and Wright and Tomlinson did identify the bullet in June of 1964. (Aguilar, p. 282)
11. But later, when visited by Gary Aguilar and Tink Thompson, this is exposed as another in the long line of Hoover generated lies in this case. For Odum did no such thing, and he says he would have recalled doing so since he and Wright were friends. (ibid, p. 284)
12. The night of the assassination, the FBI calls Tomlinson about midnight. They tell him to be quiet about what he found that day. Since what he found that day was a lead colored, sharp nosed hunting round, they must not want him to tell anyone about the bullet. (Jim Marrs, Crossfire, p. 365; David Lifton, Best Evidence, p. 591) A natural question to ask is: Why? A natural answer is: Because they have realized that the original bullet will not match the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle now attributed to Oswald.
13. When Wright composes his affidavit for the WC, incredibly, he leaves out his co-discovery of the bullet and his giving it to the Secret Service. (Lifton, ibid) Even though Johnsen recorded this and its in the volumes. (Thompson, p. 155) Since he was a former law enforcement officer, to leave something like that out, he was probably directed to.
14. When it comes time to write the Warren Report, Wright’s name is not in it. And there is no evidence Arlen Specter interviewed him.
15. In late 1966, we find out why Specter avoided him. Thompson interviews him and he rejects CE 399 as the bullet he gave Johnsen. Twice. (Thompson, p.175) Interestingly, in Reclaiming History, Vincent Bugliosi leaves this powerful incident out of his discussion of the issue. (Bugliosi, End Notes, pgs. 426-27, 544-45)
To say that the chain of evidence rule has been violated in this case is a monumental understatement. Former Chief of Homicide in New York, attorney Bob Tanenbaum once said that it would be embarrassing to present this material to a jury for the prosecution. For me, the most incriminating elements is the evidence that the FBI knew that CE 399 was not the original bullet i.e. the call to Tomlinson, the fake Odum document, possibly the influence over Wright to leave it out of his affidavit, Specter avoiding Wright in the Commission inquiry.
http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html
\\][//
____________________________________________________________________________________________
The sneak-trick is in using that looped sequence as they come from behind the sign – if you watch what happens as the film goes on, Connally turns back around, he is yelling “My god they’re going to kill us all!”, still sitting up and THEN reacts to a shot just before the fatal head shot to Kennedy.
Connally cannot have kept a’hold of his hat, and turned back around still sitting up if he was hit when Jean and David VonP claim.
Watch the full sequence here:
\\][//
David Von Pein: Hosting Comedy Central Soon?
By James DiEugenio
Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert better be looking in their rearview mirrors. They have a rival approaching. And he is even better than Colbert at impersonating the dimwitted, obnoxious, incredibly biased host that has made him famous. Why? Because he’s not acting. His name is David Von Pein and he is now proceeding at warp speed in his attempt to go beyond even Colbert’s famous caricature.
If the reader will recall, the last time we addressed Von Pein he was trying to patch up his beloved Reclaiming History. He has to. For he had ballyhooed Vincent Bugliosi’s giant tome in almost embarrassing accolades. Even before it was published.
To digress, it should be noted that Von Pein also does this with almost any TV show supporting the Commission. Then after the show is broadcast, he issues what is essentially a press release within hours of the air date. He notes that the show was excellently done and that it just wrecked some central tenet of the Commission critics. He has done this with almost every other Discovery Channel debacle to come down the turnpike. Then, when more credible, honest, and serious observers begin to poke holes in the production, he gradually gives ground. Until finally, he will maintain perhaps one tenet of the program as valid. He did this with the horrendous Inside the Target Car. When every point he had accepted about that atrocity was effectively speared, he finally backed off to defending just one of them. This was the simulated shot from the front with the head exploding; which he maintained as showing the head shot could not have come from the grassy knoll. To do this, he ignored a central point made by Milicent Cranor and myself: that what this actually indicated was the “replica skulls” used by host Gary Mack were anything but. Associate producer Mack essentially admitted this in his online discussion of the show when he said that the bullets they used did not fragment. Therefore the “replicas” did not provide the proper resistance, since in the Kennedy case the bullets did fragment. Von Pein can’t admit this since it vitiates both the experiment and his upholding of it. (Click here for our critiques of that phony sideshow )
The above pattern was paralleled with Reclaiming History. Before the book was published, Von Pein said it would lay out and silence the people he despises most in this world i.e. those who find serious fault with the Warren Commission. When the volume was issued, with great alacrity, he issued his usual press release. He praised all aspects of the work. He could find no real fault in the volume’s nearly 2,700 pages. When certain critiques began to point out the clear and myriad problems with the book – which he somehow had overlooked – he began to give ground. Until finally, today, he has been placed almost completely on the defensive.
For example, Von Pein responded to the first part of my Reclaiming History series by questioning my analysis of whether or not Oswald could have ordered the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle that is in evidence today. I spent several paragraphs in part one of my critique showing that in view of all the evidence, it is highly unlikely that he could do so. (Click here for that review.) I also posed a serious question about the transaction: the mail order company sent him the wrong rifle. Both the length and the classification were wrong. Although Oswald ordered the 36-inch model classified as a carbine, the Commission says he received the 40-inch model classified as a short rifle. Further, the House Select Committee on Assassinations discovered that Klein’s only placed scopes on the 36-inch model. Yet the 40-inch model in evidence has a scope on it. (Click here for that discussion.)
Von Pein said he would admit all this, but he then provided a link to the mail order allegedly sent in by Oswald. Which is classic Colbert/Von Pein. Because this technique ignores all the evidence I produced in Part One to show how hard it is to believe that Oswald sent in that money order. To name just a couple of points: 1.) It does not appear the money order was ever deposited, and 2.) Why would Oswald buy the money order at the post office, yet walk over a mile out of his way to mail the envelope? All the while being unaccountably absent from work.”~DiEugenio
Read entire article here: http://www.ctka.net/2010/dvp.html
\\][//
“But as with Chaplin’s cannon, the explosion fired the shell about two feet away. For Von Pein’s “mountain of evidence” consisted of the mildewed litany of discredited Warren Commission data. Which, of course, is not a mountain. It’s more like the San Andreas Fault. He began with the above noted specious notion that Oswald owned the rifle; and he ended with the equally specious notion that Oswald could have run down from the sixth floor to the second in time to be seen by Marrion Baker and Roy Truly right after the assassination. Some of the gems in between were that Oswald definitely killed Officer Tippit and that he also attempted to kill General Edwin Walker. My favorite point was this: “the Single Bullet Theory has still not been proven to be an impossibility.” I guess he thinks that if it’s not impossible, that means it happened. (As we shall see later, with CE 399, it is impossible.) Von Pein even wrote that at Z frame 224, both Kennedy and John Connally were reacting to the same bullet. Which Milicent Cranor, in her previously posted article “Lies for the Eyes”, showed to be a howler. In reality Kennedy is reacting and Connally is not. With a straight face, at the end of this “mountainous” listing, Von Pein wrote, “For aren’t hard facts and evidence always more believable than wild speculation and conjecture?” (Posted 7/17/03)
As one respondent noted to Von Pein, with the work of Josiah Thompson, Sylvia Meagher, and Mark Lane, his list had been pretty much demolished by 1967. Yet he was reviving it as if it were new. Further, while listing it, he did not note any of the serious problems that those writers had pointed out. Von Pein was, of course, starting a classic “troll thread”. One that is deliberately meant to provoke others. “Trolling” was defined by Tim Campbell in his 2001 article on the subject as such: “An Internet troll is a person who delights in sowing discord on the Internet. He … tries to start arguments and upset people … To them, other Internet users are not quite human but are a kind of digital abstraction … Trolls are utterly impervious to criticism … .You cannot negotiate with them … you cannot reason with them … For some reason, trolls do not feel they are bound by the rules of courtesy or social responsibility.” Conway duly posted this article, seemingly to warn Von Pein.”~DiEugenio
\\][//
Bill Clarke – March 28, 2015 at 2:14 am
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/what-were-jfks-two-greatest-speeches/#comment-738212
To Alan Dale (March 27, 2015 at 12:11 am)
Bc. I find it hard to accept JFK as the darling of the third world since I know what the man did in the third world. He tried to overthrow two third world governments. One attempt failed so he continued attempting an overthrow with Operation Mongoose and assassination attempts on Castro. The tragic result of his overthrowing Ngo Dinh Diem is well known. I also note several problems with the scholarship of Mr. DiEugenio’s article.
“In April 1962, Ambassador to India John Kenneth Galbraith volunteered to get a message to North Vietnam through Indian diplomats about a possible truce in return for a phased withdrawal of American forces. Almost everyone at senior levels of the Kennedy administration opposed Galbraith’s venture. The one man who liked the idea was Kennedy, who instructed Assistant Secretary of State Averell Harriman to follow up on the proposal.”
Bc. That is strange since one of the reasons JFK approved the overthrow of Diem was because of rumors that Nhu was talking to the communist. Did JFK think it acceptable for the U.S. to chat with the communist but it wasn’t acceptable for Nhu to do likewise?
Bc. Beginning in the summer of 1963 until near the end of 1964 the communist made an offer to negotiate in hopes of preventing the Americans from escalating the war. They didn’t offer much, just a two year face saving period for the Americans before they rolled over SVN. Kennedy and Johnson both not only ran like hell from it they did all they could to prevent any talks from happening. See “Choosing War”, Fredrik Logevall. So did JFK change his mind or what?
“At a key meeting in Hawaii in May 1963, McNamara was presented with an update on the planning for the withdrawal. He deemed the plans too slow and asked them to be speeded up. (James DiEugenio, Destiny Betrayed, pgs. 366-367) But the point was that the plan was in place. Kennedy activated it in October 1963 by signing National Security Action Memorandum 263, stating that the withdrawal would begin in December of 1963 and be completed in 1965.”
Bc. This is not true. NSAM 263 does not say that. The point isn’t debatable since NSAM 263 has been in print since 1963. It won’t ever be changed although many try.
“In other words, Kennedy’s plan for a military withdrawal wasn’t just some vague notion or, as New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson recently wrote, a belief among his admirers “rooted as much in the romance of ‘what might have been’ as in the documented record.”
Bc. I believe the statement of Abramson is bang on. I believe it is this “what might have been’ oath of the Camelot crowd that makes so many people, even some of some note, dishonestly claim what NSAM 263 says.”
____________________
Bill Clarke presents himself as a “military historian”, and yet I cannot find a single article or reference to the man on searches of the Internet. He is also curiously protected from questioning on this matter on JFKfacts. I have attempted to ask Bill directly about his credentials numerous times and these questions never pass moderation.
So Bill Clarke continues to spew this nonsense that those who have a different interpretation of NSAM 263 than his are “dishonest” – despite all of the historical evidence that Kennedy was indeed determined to get the US military out of South East Asia.
I find it disgusting that Mr Clarke is able to go on with his utter bullshit unchallenged because of moderator bias on JFKfacts. It is Clarke that ultimately is dishonest in his interpretation of the overall historical record.
Bill Clarke is a voice from the War Machine itself; Orthodox hogwash.
Clarke doesn’t hold a candle to John Newman. Anyone who wants to grasp this only need listen to this:
http://www.jfklancer.com/audioconversations.html
\\][//
SENATOR JOHN KENNEDY
Imperialism – The Enemy of Freedom
July 2, 1957
Mr. KENNEDY: “Mr. President, the most powerful single force in the world today is neither communism nor capitalism, neither the H-bomb nor the guided missile it is man’s eternal desire to be free and independent. The great enemy of that tremendous force of freedom is called, for want of a more precise term, imperialism – and today that means Soviet imperialism and, whether we like it or not, and though they are not to be equated, Western imperialism.
Thus the single most important test of American foreign policy today is how we meet the challenge of imperialism, what we do to further man’s desire to be free. On this test more than any other, this Nation shall be critically judged by the uncommitted millions in Asia and Africa, and anxiously watched by the still hopeful lovers of freedom behind the Iron Curtain. If we fail to meet the challenge of either Soviet or Western imperialism, then no amount of foreign aid, no aggrandizement of armaments, no new pacts or doctrines or high-level conferences can prevent further setbacks to our course and to our security.
I am concerned today that we are failing to meet the challenge of imperialism – on both counts – and thus failing in our responsibilities to the free world. I propose, therefore, as the Senate and the Nation prepare to commemorate the 181st anniversary of man’s noblest expression against political repression, to begin a two-part series of speeches, examining America’s role in the continuing struggles for independence that strain today against the forces of imperialism within both the Soviet and Western worlds. My intention is to talk not of general principles, but of specific cases – to propose not partisan criticisms but what I hope will be constructive solutions.
There are many cases of the clash between independence and imperialism in the Soviet world that demand our attention. One, above all the rest, is critically outstanding today – Poland.
The Secretary of State, in his morning news conference, speaking on this subject, suggested that, if people want to do something about the examples of colonialism, they should consider such examples as Soviet-ruled Lithuania and the satellite countries of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and others.
I agree with him. For that reason, within 2 weeks I hope to speak upon an issue which I think stands above all the others; namely, the country of Poland.
There are many cases of the clash between independence and imperialism in the Western World that demand our attention. But again, one, above all the rest, is critically outstanding today – Algeria.
I shall speak this afternoon of our failures and of our future in Algeria and north Africa – and I shall speak of Poland in a later address to this body.”
_____________________________
You won’t understand who Kennedy was if you don’t read this speech.
If this isn’t put in perspective, we cannot understand Kennedy and his views on imperialism – he opposed it, and grasped that it was not only the USSR, but Western Imperialism.
One more quote from that visionary 1957 speech:
“If we are to secure the friendship of the Arab, the African, and the Asian – and we must, despite what Mr. Dulles says about our not being in a popularity contest – we cannot hope to accomplish it solely by means of billion-dollar foreign aid programs. We cannot win their hearts by making them dependent upon our handouts. Nor can we keep them free by selling them free enterprise, by describing the perils of communism or the prosperity of the United States, or limiting our dealings to military pacts. No, the strength of our appeal to these key populations – and it is rightfully our appeal, and not that of the Communists – lies in our traditional and deeply felt philosophy of freedom and independence for all peoples everywhere.
Perhaps it is already too late for the United States to save the West from total catastrophe in Algeria. Perhaps it is too late to abandon our negative policies on these issues, to repudiate the decades of anti-Western suspicion, to press firmly but boldly for a new generation of friendship among equal and independent states. But we dare not fail to make the effort.
Men’s hearts wait upon us–”
http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/congress/jfk020757_imperialism.html
Also listen to this discussion: http://www.jfklancer.com/audioconversations.html
\\][//
Current JFKfacts debate:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/what-were-jfks-two-greatest-speeches/#comment-738665
10/2/1963 McNamara explains in his book that at a “”very important” National Security Council meeting on Oct. 2, 1963, President Kennedy made three decisions: (1) to completely withdraw all U.S. forces from Vietnam by Dec. 31, 1965; (2) to withdraw 1,000 U.S. troops by the end of 1963 to begin the process; and (3) to make a public announcement, in order to put this decision “”in concrete.” After the Oct. 2 meeting, Kennedy asked McNamara to issue these recommendations as a “”report” from himself as secretary of defense along with Gen. Maxwell Taylor. McNamara made the announcement personally from the steps of the White House. As he headed off to face the reporters, JFK yelled after him, “”And tell them that means all of the helicopter pilots, too.”
10/4/1963 Armed Forces’ Pacific Stars and Stripes, “White House Report: U.S. Troops Seen Out of Vietnam by ’65″
10/11/1963 President Kennedy issues National Security Action Memorandum 263, making official government policy the withdrawal from Vietnam of “1 ,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963″ and ” by the end of 1965 . . . the bulk of U.S. personnel. ”
11/14/1963 JFK said in a press conference: “We do have a new situation there [in Vietnam], and a new government, we hope, an increased effort in the war” and his goal was “to bring Americans home, permit the South Vietnamese to maintain themselves as a free and independent country, and permit democratic forces within the country to operate – which they can, of course, much more freely when the assault from the inside, and which is manipulated from the north, is ended.” He talked about the upcoming Honolulu conference: “How we can bring Americans out of there. That is our object, to bring Americans home.” He said that the exact number of men to be brought home would be determined at the conference, and he added, “I don’t want the United States to have to put troops there.”
[Compliments of David Regan on JFKfacts]
\\][//
http://history-matters.com/
In the wake of the end of the Cold War and the passage of the 1992 JFK Assassination Records Collection Act, the U.S. Government has declassified an enormous number of formerly-secret documents. Among the most stunning are those pertaining to the 1963 assassination of President Kennedy and its subsequent investigations. The new records contain stark indications of conspiracy, and a great wealth of material concerning the hows and whys of the ensuing coverup. These documents also include startling “new” facts about 1960s foreign policy regarding Vietnam, Cuba, and the other frontlines of the war against Communism.
The revelations in these files remain largely unknown to the public at large. The reasons are complex, involving actual coverup activities, an unresponsive media weary of the unresolved questions, and the unwillingness of mainstream historians to come to grips with the reality of crimes and coverups by government and other institutions of American society.
The goal of this website and History Matters’ other offerings is to shed needed light on the darker aspects of post-World-War-II American politics, and in particular the tumultuous assassinations of the 1960s. The lies and myths about these assassinations have created what has been called a “black hole in history” which warps our understanding of the entire period. Ultimately, an inability to confront our real history endangers democracy and freedom.
Rex Bradford
History Matters
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
\\][//
Willy Whitten
March 29, 2015 at 10:18 am
““That looped sequence” you call a “sneak-trick” is still there showing Connally’s movements. How would you explain them? Muscle spasms? Bee sting?”~Jean Davison
I would explain Connally’s movements and expressions; as those of panic upon seeing Kennedy obviously hit after turning towards what he recognized as a rifle shot. Connally is yelling, “my god they’re going to kill us all!”
One thing about this controversy that you MUST add to your conjectures is that Connally himself says he was not shot until he had begun to turn back to his left. Don’t attempt to slip past this testimony.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/a-new-jfk-witness/#comment-739140
VIETNAM WITHDRAWAL PLANS
The 1990s saw the gaps in the declassified record on Vietnam filled in—with spring 1963 plans for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces. An initial 1000 man pullout (of the approximately 17,000 stationed in Vietnam at that time) was initiated in October 1963, though it was diluted and rendered meaningless in the aftermath of Kennedy’s death. The longer-range plans called for complete withdrawal of U. S. forces and a “Vietnamization” of the war, scheduled to happen largely after the 1964 elections.
The debate over whether withdrawal plans were underway in 1963 is now settled. What remains contentious is the “what if” scenario. What would Kennedy have done if he lived, given the worsening situation in Vietnam after the coup which resulted in the assassination of Vietnamese President Diem?
At the core of the debate is this question: Did President Kennedy really believe the rosy picture of the war effort being conveyed by his military advisors. Or was he onto the game, and instead couching his withdrawal plans in the language of optimism being fed to the White House?
The landmark book JFK and Vietnam asserted the latter, that Kennedy knew he was being deceived and played a deception game of his own, using the military’s own rosy analysis as a justification for withdrawal. Newman’s analysis, with its dark implications regarding JFK’s murder, has been attacked from both mainstream sources and even those on the left. No less than Noam Chomsky devoted an entire book to disputing the thesis.
But declassifications since Newman’s 1992 book have only served to buttress the thesis that the Vietnam withdrawal, kept under wraps to avoid a pre-election attack from the right, was Kennedy’s plan regardless of the war’s success. New releases have also brought into focus the chilling visions of the militarists of that era—four Presidents were advised to use nuclear weapons in Indochina. A recent book by David Kaiser, American Tragedy, shows a military hell bent on war in Asia.
The Vietnam war, instead of ending before it began in earnest, bloomed in the mid-1960s into a nightmare conflict that consumed 58,000 American lives and an unknown number of Vietnamese in the millions. Within America, the divide over the war existed not only in the streets but also within the halls of power, where many decided that the cost was too high.
The divide over foreign policy which smoldered during Kennedy’s Presidency was not limited to Vietnam. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, for instance, military leaders were adamant that the missiles be taken out and Cuba invaded. They were joined in their advocacy by other prominent men of the day, including former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and future Warren Commissioner Richard Russell. It was not learned until a few years ago that tactical nuclear missiles were also present on the island, and Soviet commanders had standing orders allowing their use in defending an invasion of Cuba. The less drastic blockade option which was chosen, vigorously opposed by the hawks, probably averted World War III.
One of the questions posed by the essays on this website is whether the assassination of President Kennedy was rooted in this deep foreign policy divide. Such questions are by their nature speculative and circumstantial. Nonetheless, a close reading of the history of the period, particularly in the light of long-delayed declassifications, makes that chilling possibility seem all too likely.
Rex Bradford
History Matters
http://history-matters.com/vietnam1963.htm
\\][//
Exit Strategy
In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam
James K. Galbraith
Forty years have passed since November 22, 1963, yet painful mysteries remain. What, at the moment of his death, was John F. Kennedy’s policy toward Vietnam?
It’s one of the big questions, alternately evaded and disputed over four decades of historical writing. It bears on Kennedy’s reputation, of course, though not in an unambiguous way.
And today, larger issues are at stake as the United States faces another indefinite military commitment that might have been avoided and that, perhaps, also cannot be won. The story of Vietnam in 1963 illustrates for us the struggle with policy failure. More deeply, appreciating those distant events tests our capacity as a country to look the reality of our own history in the eye.
One may usefully introduce the issue by recalling the furor over Robert McNamara’s 1995 memoir In Retrospect. Reaction then focused mainly on McNamara’s assumption of personal responsibility for the war, notably his declaration that his own actions as the Secretary of Defense responsible for it were “terribly, terribly wrong.” Reviewers paid little attention to the book’s contribution to history. In an editorial on April 12, 1995, the New York Times delivered a harsh judgment: “Perhaps the only value of “In Retrospect” is to remind us never to forget that these were men who in the full hubristic glow of their power would not listen to logical warning or ethical appeal.” And in the New York Times Book Review four days later, Max Frankel wrote that
David Halberstam, who applied that ironic phrase [The Best and the Brightest] to his rendering of the tale 23 years ago, told it better in many ways than Mr. McNamara does now. So too, did the Pentagon Papers, that huge trove of documents assembled at Mr. McNamara’s behest when he first recognized a debt to history.
In view of these criticisms, readers who actually pick up McNamara’s book may experience a shock when they scan the table of contents and sees this summary of Chapter 3, titled “The Fateful Fall of 1963: August 24–November 22, 1963”:
A pivotal period of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, punctuated by three important events: the overthrow and assassination of South Vietnam’s president Ngo Dinh Diem; President Kennedy’s decision on October 2 to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces; and his assassination fifty days later. (Emphasis added.)
Kennedy’s decision on October 2, 1963, to begin the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Vietnam? Contrary to Frankel, this is not something you will find in Halberstam. You will not find it in Leslie Gelb’s editorial summary in the Gravel edition of The Pentagon Papers, even though several documents that are important to establishing the case for a Kennedy decision to withdraw were published in that edition. Nor, with just three exceptions prior to last spring’s publication of Howard Jones’s Death of a Generation—a milestone in the search for difficult, ferociously hidden truth—will you find it elsewhere in 30 years of historical writing on Vietnam.
Did John F. Kennedy give the order to withdraw from Vietnam?
* * *
Certainly, most Vietnam historians have said “no”—or would have if they considered the question worth posing. They have asserted continuity between Kennedy’s policy and Lyndon Johnson’s, while usually claiming that neither president liked the war and also that Kennedy especially had expressed to friends his desire to get out sometime after the 1964 election.
The view that Kennedy would have done what Johnson did—stay in Vietnam and gradually escalate the war in 1964 and 1965—is held by left, center, and right, from Noam Chomsky to Kai Bird to William Gibbons. It was promoted forcefully over the years by the late Walt Rostow, beginning in 1967 with a thick compilation for Johnson himself of Kennedy’s public statements on Vietnam policy and continuing into the 1990s. Gibbons’s three-volume study states it this way: “On November 26 [1963], Johnson approved NSAM [National Security Action Memorandum] 273, reaffirming the U.S. commitment to Vietnam and the continuation of Vietnam programs and policies of the Kennedy administration.”
Equally, Stanley Karnow writes in his Vietnam: A History (1983) that Johnson’s pledge “essentially signaled a continuation of Kennedy’s policy.” Patrick Lloyd Hatcher, while writing extensively on the Saigon coup, makes no mention at all of the Washington discussions following Johnson’s accession three weeks later. Gary Hess offers summary judgment on the policy that Johnson inherited: “To Kennedy and his fellow New Frontiersmen, it was a doctrine of faith that the problems of Vietnam lent themselves to an American solution.”
Kai Bird’s 1998 biography of McGeorge and William Bundy briefly reviews the discussions of withdrawal reported to have occurred in late 1963 but accepts the general verdict that Kennedy did not intend to quit. So does Fredrik Logevall, whose substantial 1999 book steadfastly insists that the choices Kennedy faced were either escalation or negotiation and did not include withdrawal without negotiation.
All this (and more) is in spite of evidence to the contrary, advanced over the years by a tiny handful of authors. In 1972 Peter Dale Scott first made the case that Johnson’s NSAM 273—the document that Gibbons relied on in making the case for continuity—was in fact a departure from Kennedy’s policy; his essay appeared in Gravel’s edition of The Pentagon Papers. Arthur M. Schlesinger’s Robert Kennedy and His Times tells in a few tantalizing pages of the “first application” in October 1963 “of Kennedy’s phased withdrawal plan.”
A more thorough treatment appeared in 1992, with the publication of John M. Newman’s JFK and Vietnam.1 Until his retirement in 1994 Newman was a major in the U.S. Army, an intelligence officer last stationed at Fort Meade, headquarters of the National Security Agency. As an historian, his specialty is deciphering declassified records—a talent he later applied to the CIA’s long-hidden archives on Lee Harvey Oswald.
Newman’s argument was not a case of “counterfactual historical reasoning,” as Larry Berman described it in an early response.2 It was not about what might have happened had Kennedy lived. Newman’s argument was stronger: Kennedy, he claims, had decided to begin a phased withdrawal from Vietnam, that he had ordered this withdrawal to begin. Here is the chronology, according to Newman:
(1) On October 2, 1963, Kennedy received the report of a mission to Saigon by McNamara and Maxwell Taylor, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS). The main recommendations, which appear in Section I(B) of the McNamara-Taylor report, were that a phased withdrawal be completed by the end of 1965 and that the “Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1,000 out of 17,000 U.S. military personnel stationed in Vietnam by the end of 1963.” At Kennedy’s instruction, Press Secretary Pierre Salinger made a public announcement that evening of McNamara’s recommended timetable for withdrawal.
(2) On October 5, Kennedy made his formal decision. Newman quotes the minutes of the meeting that day:
The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should be carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they are no longer needed. (Emphasis added.)
The passage illustrates two points: (a) that a decision was in fact made on that day, and (b) that despite the earlier announcement of McNamara’s recommendation, the October 5 decision was not a ruse or pressure tactic to win reforms from Diem (as Richard Reeves, among others, has contended3) but a decision to begin withdrawal irrespective of Diem or his reactions.
(3) On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:
The President approved the military recommendations contained in section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.
The alternative would have been to withdraw the troops while acknowledging failure. And this, Newman argues, Kennedy was prepared to do if it became necessary. He saw no reason, however, to take this step before it became necessary. If the troops could be pulled while the South Vietnamese were still standing, so much the better.4 But from October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Newman believes this pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. It represented an effort by the CIA to undermine the ostensible rationale of withdrawal with success, and therefore to obstruct implementation of the plan for withdrawal. Kennedy, needless to say, did not share his full reasoning with the CIA.
(4) On November 1 there came the coup in Saigon and the assassination of Diem and Nhu. At a press conference on November 12, Kennedy publicly restated his Vietnam goals. They were “to intensify the struggle” and “to bring Americans out of there.” Victory, which had figured prominently in a similar statement on September 12, was no longer on the list.
(5) The Honolulu Conference of senior cabinet and military officials on November 20–21 was called to review plans in the wake of the Saigon coup. The military and the CIA, however, planned to use that meeting to pull the rug from under the false optimism which some had used to rationalize NSAM 263. However, Kennedy did not himself believe that we were withdrawing with victory. It follows that the changing image of the military situation would not have changed JFK’s decision.
(6) In Honolulu, McGeorge Bundy prepared a draft of what would eventually be NSAM 273. The plan was to present it to Kennedy after the meeting ended. Dated November 21, this draft reflected the change in military reporting. It speaks, for example, of a need to “turn the tide not only of battle but of belief.” Plans to intensify the struggle, however, do not go beyond what Kennedy would have approved: A paragraph calling for actions against the North underscores the role of Vietnamese forces:
7. With respect to action against North Vietnam, there should be a detailed plan for the development of additional Government of Vietnam resources, especially for sea-going activity, and such planning should indicate the time and investment necessary to achieve a wholly new level of effectiveness in this field of action. (Emphasis added.)
(7) At Honolulu, a preliminary plan, known as CINCPAC OPLAN 34-63 and later implemented as OPLAN 34A, was prepared for presentation. This plan called for intensified sabotage raids against the North, employing Vietnamese commandos under U.S. control—a significant escalation.5 While JCS chief Taylor had approved preparation of this plan, it had not been shown to McNamara. Tab E of the meeting’s briefing book, also approved by Taylor and also not sent in advance to McNamara, showed that the withdrawal ordered by Kennedy in October was already being gutted, by the device of substituting for the withdrawal of full units that of individual soldiers who were being rotated out of Vietnam in any event.
(8) The final version of NSAM 273, signed by Johnson on November 26, differs from the draft in several respects. Most are minor changes of wording. The main change is that the draft paragraph 7 has been struck in its entirety (there are two pencil slashes on the November 21 draft), and replaced with the following:
Planning should include different levels of possible increased activity, and in each instance there be estimates such factors as: A. Resulting damage to North Vietnam; B. The plausibility denial; C. Vietnamese retaliation; D. Other international reaction. Plans submitted promptly for approval by authority.
The new language is incomplete. It does not begin by declaring outright that the subject is attacks on the North. But the thrust is unmistakable, and the restrictive reference to “Government of Vietnam resources” is now missing. Newman concludes that this change effectively provided new authority for U.S.–directed combat actions against North Vietnam. Planning for these actions began therewith, and we now know that an OPLAN 34A raid in August 1964 provoked the North Vietnamese retaliation against the destroyer Maddox, which became the first Gulf of Tonkin incident. And this in turn led to the confused incident a few nights later aboard the Turner Joy, to reports that it too had been attacked, and to Johnson’s overnight decision to seek congressional support for “retaliation” against North Vietnam. From this, of course, the larger war then flowed.
* * *
Read whole article at:
http://new.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html
Concerning NSAM 273, Peter Dale Scott writes that Chomsky reads “Johnson’s NSAM as if it were as contextless as a Dead Sea Scroll,” dismissing its importance and ignoring “early accounts of it as a ‘major decision,’ a ‘pledge’ that determined ‘all that would follow,’ from journalists as diverse as Tom Wicker, Marvin Kalb, and I. F. Stone.” Scott writes that Chomsky also ignores Taylor’s memo to President Johnson of January 22, 1964, which cites NSAM 273 as authority to “prepare to escalate operations against North Vietnam.”~Ibid
\\][//
“McNamara then reproduces the precise wording of the military recommendations from Section I(B) of the report:
We recommend that: [1] General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas by the end of 1964, and in the Delta by the end of 1965. [2] A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time. [3] In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
The report then went on to make a number of recommendations to “impress upon Diem our disapproval of his political program.” These matters dealt with the repression of the Buddhists and related issues; the recommendation to announce plans to withdraw 1,000 soldiers is not listed under this heading.
The reason for the ambiguity over the military situation, as well as the vague “it should be possible” wording of the second recommendation, becomes clearer when McNamara describes the National Security Council meeting of October 2, 1963, which revealed a “total lack of consensus” over the battlefield situation:
One faction believed military progress had been good and training had progressed to the point where we could begin to withdraw. A second faction did not see the war as progressing well and did not see the South Vietnamese showing evidence of successful training. But they, too, agreed that we should begin to withdraw. . . . The third faction, representing the majority, considered the South Vietnamese trainable but believed our training had not been in place long enough to achieve results and, therefore, should continue at current levels.
As McNamara’s 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victory—not necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:
After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.
Before a large audience at the LBJ Library on May 1, 1995, McNamara restated his account of this meeting and stressed its importance. He confirmed that President Kennedy’s action had three elements: (1) complete withdrawal “by December 31, 1965,” (2) the first 1,000 out by the end of 1963, and (3) a public announcement, to set these decisions “in concrete,” which was made. McNamara also added the critical information that there exists a tape of this meeting, in the John F. Kennedy Library in Boston, to which he had access and on which his account is based.
The existence of a taping system in JFK’s oval office had become known over the years, particularly through the release of partial transcripts of the historic meeting of the “ExComm” during the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962. But the full extent of Kennedy’s taping was not known. And, according to McNamara, access to particular tapes was tightly controlled by representatives of the Kennedy family. When McNamara spoke in Austin, only he and his coauthor, Brian VanDeMark, had been granted the privilege of listening to the actual tape recordings of Kennedy’s White House meetings on Vietnam.”
~James K. Galbraith
\\][//
The May conference thus fills in the primary record: plans were under development for the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from Vietnam. On October 2, 1963, as we have previously seen, President Kennedy made clear his determination to implement those plans—to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end of 1965. There followed, on October 4, a memorandum titled “South Vietnam Actions” from General Maxwell Taylor to his fellow Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:
b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all essential functions visualized to be required for the projected operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the end of calendar year 1965. All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965. (Emphasis added.)
“All planning” is an unconditional phrase. There is no contingency here, or elsewhere in this memorandum. The next paragraph reads:
c. Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963 per your DTG 212201Z July, and as approved for planning by JCS DTG 062042Z September. Previous guidance on the public affairs annex is altered to the extent that the action will now be treated in low key, as the initial increment of U.S. forces whose presence is no longer required because (a) Vietnamese forces have been trained to assume the function involved; or (b) the function for which they came to Vietnam has been completed. (Emphasis added.)
This resolves the question of how the initial withdrawal was to be carried out. It was not to be a noisy or cosmetic affair, designed to please either U.S. opinion or to change policies in Saigon. It was rather to be a low-key, matter-of-fact beginning to a process that would play out over the following two years. The final paragraph of Taylor’s memorandum underlines this point by directing that “specific checkpoints will be established now against which progress can be evaluated on a quarterly basis.” There is much more in the JCS documents to show that Kennedy was well aware of the evidence that South Vietnam was, in fact, losing the war. But it hardly matters. The withdrawal decided on was unconditional, and did not depend on military progress or lack of it.
The Escalation at Kennedy’s Death
Four days after Kennedy was killed, NSAM 273 incorporated the new president’s directives into policy. It made clear that the objectives of Johnson’s policy remained the same as Kennedy’s: “to assist the people and government of South Vietnam to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy” through training support and without the application of overt U.S. military force. But Johnson had also approved intensified planning for covert action against North Vietnam by CIA-supported South Vietnamese forces.
With this, McNamara confirms one of Newman’s central claims: NSAM 273 changed policy. Yes, the “central objectives” remained the same: a Vietnamese war with no “overt U.S. military force.” But covert force is still “U.S. military force.” And that was introduced or at least first approved, as McNamara writes, by NSAM 273 within four days of Kennedy’s assassination.Moreover, McNamara effectively supports Newman on the meaning of NSAM 273’s seventh paragraph, which was inserted in the draft (as we have seen) sometime between November 21 and 26—after the Honolulu meeting had adjourned and probably after Kennedy died.
Conclusion
John F. Kennedy had formally decided to withdraw from Vietnam, whether we were winning or not. Robert McNamara, who did not believe we were winning, supported this decision. The first stage of withdrawal had been ordered. The final date, two years later, had been specified. These decisions were taken, and even placed, in an oblique and carefully limited way, before the public.”~Ibid
\\][//
NSAM 273 was essentially a reiteration of NSAM 263, seen as necessary because the situation in Vietnam had changed due to the overthrow of the Diem regime. It only became more than that when it was altered to allow for covert forces to escalate into attacks into the north. This seemingly subtle alteration happened between the first draft in Honolulu and the new Johnson White House.
It is clear that the mainstream has misinterpreted both NSAMs, as is explained by those closest to Kennedy. JFK had plainly decided to pull out of South East Asia militarily, and pursue a negotiated peace.
\\][//
On October 5, Kennedy made his formal decision. Newman quotes the minutes of the meeting that day:
The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisers by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should be carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they are no longer needed. (Emphasis added.)
The passage illustrates two points: (a) that a decision was in fact made on that day, and (b) that despite the earlier announcement of McNamara’s recommendation, the October 5 decision was not a ruse or pressure tactic to win reforms from Diem (as Richard Reeves, among others, has contended but a decision to begin withdrawal irrespective of Diem or his reactions.)
On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:
The President approved the military recommendations contained in section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.
The alternative would have been to withdraw the troops while acknowledging failure. And this, Newman argues, Kennedy was prepared to do if it became necessary. He saw no reason, however, to take this step before it became necessary. If the troops could be pulled while the South Vietnamese were still standing, so much the better. But from October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Newman believes this pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. It represented an effort by the CIA to undermine the ostensible rationale of withdrawal with success, and therefore to obstruct implementation of the plan for withdrawal. Kennedy, needless to say, did not share his full reasoning with the CIA.
http://new.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html
\\][//
I have never participated on a blog where the moderators were as biased as those at JFKfacts.
Less than half of my commentary to Bill Clarke is ever published there. There is nothing belligerent or nasty in those comments either. It is baffling and it is stupid. I might as well give up on addressing Bill Clarke entirely, it is futile. Fuck it!
\\][//
State Secret
Wiretapping in Mexico City, Double Agents, and the Framing of Lee Oswald
by Bill Simpich
Preface
This book is about the counterintelligence activity behind the JFK story and its role in the death of President Kennedy. It examines how the existence of tapes of a man in Mexico City, identifying himself as Oswald, were discovered before the Kennedy assassination and hidden after the assassination. On November 23, 1963, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover wrote President Lyndon Johnson and the Secret Service chief, telling both of them that the caller was not Lee Harvey Oswald. These tapes showed that the supposed “lone gunman” had been impersonated just weeks before the killing of JFK, tying him to Cuban and Soviet employees in a manner that would cause great consternation in the halls of power on November 22.
{Whole book begins here}:
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/State_Secret_Preface
\\][//
“Marked Cards”
“The person who ran the molehunts was James Angleton, CIA’s chief of counterintelligence and a legend in the Agency. An avid fisherman, he specialized in the use of lures. He was known as “the Angler”. Angleton’s main task was to stop spies from infiltrating the CIA itself. In 1955, he created the Special Investigations Group, known as CI-SIG. Angleton told the Church Committee that CI/SIG’s role was to prevent the penetration of spies into the CIA and the government by code clerks and others with access to sensitive files. CI-SIG would work with the CIA’s Office of Security, who provided them with access to the personnel files of all the CIA employees. No one knew more about the CIA employees than these two offices.
Angleton’s intelligence analyst Ann Egerter of CI-SIG (Counterintelligence, Special Investigations Group) opened biographical files – known as 201 files – on Oswald and Webster while they were in the Soviet Union. Egerter’s main job as an analyst was to spy on individuals inside the CIA itself. She referred to CI-SIG as the “the office that spied on spies”.
Egerter had all of the CIA’s documents available to her by working with the Office of Security, which also had sole access to CIA employee personnel files. By embedding false statements – the “marked cards” – within Oswald’s file, and then tracking those people that had access to Oswald’s file, Egerter and her molehunters could determine if this information had surfaced to unauthorized personnel.”Simpich
One of these ‘marked cards’ showed up in Dallas in the first broadcasts by the DPD dispatcher using the 5ft 10in, 165lb “Oswald” description. This means that the moles were the perpetrators running the assassination. They played the marked card.
[See below]:
\\][//
Murray Jackson DPD dispatcher: radioed ; 12:44 – 1:08 the marked card 5ft 10in, 165 lb false description of Oswald .
This indicates that the moles in Mexico were in charge of the JFK assassination.
(Info from Simpich)
\\][//
Lee Harvey Oswald’s “address book”
\\][//
Third Thoracic Vertebrae
JFK Death Certificate signed by Burkley > Backwound
The very same place as illustrated on Dr. Boswell’s autopsy face sheet, below:
\\][//
\\][//
21st Century Schizoid Planet
“The search for difficult, ferociously hidden truth”~Galbraith
The stunted epistemology of a people regimented and brainwashed from cradle to grave is difficult to counter with rational argumentation alone. They are stuck in jejune, like little children needing daddy’s approval. They are distracted by shiny things and trite toys and temporary shattered substance.
\\][//
Kennedy’s Planned Vietnam Pullout
This is a selection, pp. 124-127 of James Douglass’s JFK and the Unspeakable
Mansfield cautioned Kennedy against trying to win a war in support of an unpopular government by “a truly massive commitment of American military personnel and other resources — in short going to war fully ourselves against the guerrillas — and the establishment of some form of neocolonial rule in South Vietnam.” To continue the president’s policy, Mansfield warned, may “draw us inexorably into some variation of the unenviable position in Vietnam which was formerly occupied by the French.”
Kennedy was stunned by his friend’s critique. He was again confronted by his own first understanding of Vietnam, shared first by Edmund Gullion, repeated by John Kenneth Galbraith, and now punched back into his consciousness by Mike Mansfield.
The Senate Majority Leader’s comparison between the French rule and JFK’s policy stung the president. But the more Kennedy thought about Mansfield’s challenging words, the more they struck him as the truth — a truth he didn’t want to accept but had to. He summed up his reaction to the Mansfield report by a razor-sharp comment on himself, made to aide Kenny O’Donnell: “I got angry with Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself because I found myself agreeing with him.”
By accepting the truth of Mansfield’s critique of an increasingly disastrous policy, JFK turned a corner on Vietnam. Just as Ambassador Winthrop Brown’s honest analysis had helped turn Kennedy toward a new policy in Laos, so did Mike Mansfield’s critical report return him to an old truth on Vietnam. A little noted characteristic of John Kennedy, perhaps remarkable in a U.S. president, was his ability to listen and learn.
Isaiah Berlin, the British philosopher, once observed of Kennedy: “I’ve never known a man who listened to every single word that one uttered more attentively. And he replied always very relevantly. He didn’t obviously have ideas in his own mind which he wanted to expound, or for which he simply used one’s own talk as an occasion, as a sort of launching pad. He really listened to what one said and answered that.”
[…]
As Mansfield knew, Kennedy was in fact changing his mind in favor of a complete military withdrawal from Vietnam. However, JFK thought such a policy would never be carried out by any of his possible opponents in the 1964 election, and that its announcement now would block his own reelection. Neither of the two most likely Republican presidential candidates, New York governor Nelson Rockefeller or Arizona senator Barry Goldwater, had any tolerance whatsoever for a possible withdrawal from Vietnam. In the context of 1963 presidential Cold War politics, a Vietnam withdrawal was the unthinkable. President John F. Kennedy was not only thinking the unthinkable. He was on the verge of doing it. But he wanted to be able to do it — by being reelected president. So he lied to the public about what he was thinking.
Kennedy made all this explicit in a conversation with Mike Mansfield. It happened in the spring of 1963 after Mansfield again criticized the president on Vietnam, this time at a White House breakfast attended by the leading members of Congress. Kennedy was annoyed by the criticism before colleagues, but invited Mansfield into his office to talk about Vietnam. Kenny O’Donnell, who sat in on part of their meeting, has described it:
“The President told Mansfield that he had been having serious second thoughts about Mansfield’s argument and that he now agreed with the Senator’s thinking on the need for a complete military withdrawal from Vietnam.
”’But I can’t do it until 1965 — after I’m reelected,’ Kennedy told Mansfield.
“President Kennedy explained, and Mansfield agreed with him, that if he announced a withdrawal of American military personnel from Vietnam before the 1964 election, there would be a wild conservative outcry against returning him to the Presidency for a second term.
“After Mansfield left the office, the President said to me, ‘In 1965, I’ll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I’ll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don’t care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam, we would have another Joe McCarthy red scare on our hands, but I can do it after I’m reelected. So we had better make damned sure that I am reelected.”‘
Nevertheless, to government insiders, Kennedy began to tip his hand. In preparation for a complete military withdrawal from Vietnam by 1965, the president wanted to initiate the decision-making process in 1963. Yet he still didn’t even have the plan for withdrawal he had asked his military leaders, through McNamara, to draw up a year ago.
Finally, at the May 6, 1963, SECDEF Conference in Honolulu, the Pacific Command presented the president’s long-sought plan. However, McNamara immediately had to reject its extended time line, which was so slow that U.S. numbers would not even reach a minimum level until fiscal year 1966.164 The Defense Secretary said he wanted the pace revised “to speed up replacement of U.S. units by GVN units as fast as possible.”
The May 1963 meeting in Honolulu took place one month before Kennedy would give his American University address. It is in the context of that dawning light of peace in the spring of 1963, when Kennedy and Khrushchev were about to begin their rapprochement, that McNamara again shocked his military hierarchy on Vietnam. He ordered them to begin an actual U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam that fall. As the Pentagon Papers described this change of tide, McNamara “decided that 1,000 U.S. military personnel should be withdrawn from South Vietnam by the end of Calendar Year 63 and directed that concrete plans be so drawn Up.”
McNamara’s startling order would be met with more resistance by the Joint Chiefs. They saw where Kennedy was going, on Vietnam as on the Cold War in general. They were not going to go there with him.
The Diem government in South Vietnam was alarmed by the Mansfield report, as the U.S. government knew. Diem’s brother, Ngo Dinh Nhu, whom Mansfield had singled out for criticism, understood precisely what the report meant. As a State Department memorandum noted, “The reaction [to the Mansfield report] within the GVN [Government of Vietnam], particularly at the higher levels, has been sharp. We are informed by Saigon that the GVN, and in particular Counselor Ngo Dinh Nhu, sees the report as a possible prelude to American withdrawal.”
http://www.proudprimate.com/resources/jfk_124-7.htm
\\][//
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d227 — McNamara – 1961
. . . . . . .
The first meeting on Vietnam, and Kennedy is obviously dubious:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d3 — Landsdale Report – 1961
The President remarked that if the situation in Viet-Nam was now so serious he wondered why the recruitment of troops and the training of police, who could become effective only a year or two hence, would be of any use. He also wondered why, if there were only 10,000 guerrillas, an increase from 150 to 170,000 in the army was necessary.
. . .
Mr. Allen Dulles emphasized the need for speed and for doing those things which would increase immediately the anti-guerrilla capability in Viet-Nam. With Mr. Durbrow he also mentioned the limited efforts being made to produce South Vietnamese guerrillas capable of harassing the north Vietnamese.
. . . . .
\\][//
I consider the 1.5 centimeter entry wound to Connally’s armpit a settled point. Whether our opposition wants to go on about the ‘Operative Report’ or not. Dr.Shaw gave his testimony to the WC under oath, and corrected his operative report.
I consider Crime Scene Protocol for 1963 settled as well. It is in the record that up until the 1980’s it was standard procedure for FBI and all law enforcement to make a unique mark on all items such as bullets, and shell husks.
Thus I consider the chain of custody for ‘the Magic Bullet’ broken – that bullet is inadmissible to the case in my opinion.
This would apply to the other bullets and shells found in the TBTB as well. And it applies to the Carcano rifle itself.
I also consider Dr Dolce as an expert in ballistics at Edgewood Arsenal to be a settled matter, as per the documentation made available to HSCA. Therefore his opinion on the pristine condition of the Magic Bullet being impossible trumps the opinions of Olivier and Dziemian.
Whether our adversaries wish to waffle on the point, I consider this a legal case, to be judged by legal standards.
\\][//
At the time of the assassination, Dr Joseph Dolce had been the US Army’s most senior expert in wound ballistics. He had participated in informal discussions with members of the Warren Commission staff, but was not called to offer his opinion for the record. When the House Select Committee on Assassinations reviewed the case, Dolce wrote to his senator, offering to appear before the committee. His letter is reproduced below.
As well as questioning the Warren Commission’s decision to ignore his evidence, Dolce made several pertinent points:
The two doctors whose evidence the commission did take, Olivier and Dziemian, did not testify in accordance with their experimental findings.
Exit wounds are invariably larger than entrance wounds, as was the case with all ten of the Edgewood Arsenal experiments on human wrists. The larger wound on Connally’s wrist, however, was assumed to be the entrance wound.
The pathologists at the autopsy should have dissected the bullet’s supposed path through the president’s neck.
The CE 399 bullet could not have caused so much damage and remained virtually intact: “one bullet striking the President’s neck, the Governor’s chest and wrist, should be badly deformed, as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal proved.”
\\][//
138 – DESCRIPTION OF GOVERNOR CONNALLY’S WOUNDS
(369) Dr. Robert Shaw’s operative record characterizes the posterior
wound of entrance as follows
It was found that the wound of entrance was just lateral to
the right scapula close [to] the axilla yet had passed through
the latysmus [latissimus] dorsi muscle * * * the wound of
entrance was approximately three centimeters in its longest
diameter * * * (58)
(370) A report on a committee interview with Dr. Shaw included
the following :
The rear entrance wound was not 3 centimeters [in diameter]
as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a
puncture-type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a
slight declination [i .e ., not at a right angle] . The wound was
actually approximately 1.5 centimeters in diameter. The
ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively
enlarging it to approximately 3 centimeters. (59)
Click to access HSCA_Vol7_M53b_Connally.pdf
Débridement in the surgical context means “wound incision”. Shaw certainly may have been describing Connally’s back wound after his débridement of that wound. This would be the reason he amended what his operative record at his WC testimony.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/jfkinfo/app8.htm – Parkland ‘Operative Reports’.
The fact is, we don’t have to prove the Magic Bullet theory is not true. Those who promote the theory have to prove that it is; and this has not been done.
\\][//
Crime Scene Protocol 1963
It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
“Police Markings”
Second, an object that is inscribed with the initials or markings of a police officer or other person may be readily identifiable. In such cases, the person converts a nonunique
object into a readily identifiable one by placing distinctive markings on it. This practice is recommended in crime scene and evidence collection manuals. See
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation 79-84 (5th ed. 1980).”
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications
Also see: Bill Simpich on lack of chain of custody of all of the bullets and shell husks in the JFK case.
\\][//
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/33rd_Issue/vs_sep_connally.html
The Separate Connally Shot by Vincent J. Salandria
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/18th_Issue/connally.html
The Wounding of Governor John Connally by Ron Hepler
Mr. DODD: “So, you are still looking at the President and it is your recollection that you then heard what sounded like a second shot?
Mrs. CONNALLY: “Yes.
Mr. DODD: “Is that correct?
Mrs. CONNALLY: “Yes. What was a second shot.”
Mr. DODD: “At that point your husband, Governor Connally, slumped over in your direction?”
Mrs. CONNALLY: “No, he lunged forward and then just kind of collapsed.”
. . . . . .
Breakability: CE-399 and the Diminishing Velocity Theory by John Hunt
The Single-Bullet Theory
After a flimsy investigation, the Warren Commission told us only that the SBT was possible, not that it actually happened. Then, in their Report, the Warren Commissioners disingenuously downplayed the fact the Kennedy and Connally must have been hit by the same bullet or conspiracy is proven:
3. Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence from the experts to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds. [WCR19]
Shaw told Petty the wound was not 3 cm, then diagramed it to scale at 1.5 cm. I searched for and found the original drawing marked by Shaw for the HSCA. (See Figure 1.):
http://www.history-
Petty was correct; Shaw’s scale drawing of the entry hole was “1.5 x 0.8 cm.” That Shaw was of the opinion that the entry hole in Connally’s back was not 3 cm is also backed up by his Warren Commission testimony where he described the wound was “approximately a centimeter and a half in length.”[20] Fourteen years later, Shaw told HSCA staffer, Andrew Purdy the same thing. This is how Purdy characterized Shaw’s recollection:
“The rear entrance wound was not 3 cm as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a slight declination (i.e. not at a right angle). The wound was actually approximately 1.5 cm. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 cm. [7HSCA325] (Emphasis is original.)
Notice that in both the Petty and Purdy interviews, Shaw is reported to have been of the opinion that the Connally’s wound was created by a bullet that hit the skin on an angle and was not 3 cm in width as originally reported. The size of the entry hole as derived from Shaw’s diagram (1.5 x 0.8 cm) is backed up by the size of the holes in the shirt and coat Connally wore that day.”
\\][//
“The edge, there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where
it is are the ones who have gone over.”~Hunter S. Thompson
\\][//
Because the Magic Bullet thesis is absurd, any who defend it must resort to absurd argumentation in support of the absurd allegation.
\\][//
http://jfk.hood.edu/index.shtml?search.html
On Dr Dolce at Edgewood:
P (–L- Dr. Dolce would like to meet with us tcrielate:the
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/Dolce%20Joseph%20Dr/Item%2009.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Ballistics Testing, Edgewood Arsenal–Dr. aosep. P (–L-. I spoke with Dr. Dolce about informationhe may have about the nature of the wounds of Kennedy and.
Item 10.pdf
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/Dolce%20Joseph%20Dr/Item%2010.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
03-09-199? 04:59PM. •. JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM. IDENTIFICATION FORM. 1 504 624 3755 P:•. Date”.i1:11*Ylai,,. AGENCY : RECORD NUMBER :.
Honorable Men Chapte..
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/Honorable%20Men%20Chapter%2006.doc
File Format: Microsoft Word
… at Edgewood Arsenal; Dr. Joseph Dolce, Consultant to the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal; Dr. Charles F. Gregory and Dr. Robert Shaw of Parkland …
Item 18.pdf
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/S%20Disk/…/Item%2018.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Branch of the Biophysics Division, Dr. Olivier, Chief of the Wound. Ballistics Branch of the Biophysics Branch at Edgewood Arsenal, and Dr. Dolce, Consultant to …
Item 05.pdf
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/Dolce%20Joseph%20Dr/Item%2005.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Mar 9, 1997 … making use of Dr. Dolce’s expertise would be most’ …. should Abe badly. deformedi as our experiments at the Edgewood Arsenal o ‘%.
Item 04.pdf
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/Dolce%20Joseph%20Dr/Item%2004.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
OliVier accepts Dr. Gregory’s impression of what:was the entrances and Iglu was the exit ‘wounds ‘of … JOSEPH R. DOLCE, M.D., F.A.C.S. … should be badly deformed; as our experiments atthe’Edgewood Arsenal proVed. There never was a …
‘ ZAPRUDER CAMERA AND FILM
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/FBI%20Records%20Files/62…/72-C.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
and Chief of Wound Assessment Branch, Edgewood Arsenal. The purpwe of this … Amenal; Dr. Joseph”‘Dolce, Consultant to the Biochemistry. Division of …
Item 02.pdf
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/W%20Disk/…/Item%2002.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
Exhibit 399 is – is also that of Dr. Robert R. Shaw, one of the Connally ….. Dr. Dolce, Consultant to the Biophysics Division at Edgewood Arsenal, was not …
S-02.DOC – The Harold Weisberg Archive – Hood College
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/HW%20Manuscripts/Specter/…/S-02.DOC
File Format: Microsoft Word
… the Army’s top expert on such tragedies, Dr. Charles Dolce, told Specter that part … Melvin A. Eisenberg), Dolce returned to the Army’s Edgewood Arsenal, did …
Item 02.pdf
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/H%20Disk/…/Item%2002.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
I have the full Dolce interview ad videotape … Fort Detrick was part of the army cemponont of which Edgewood was part, … to put together a book about Edgewood Arsenal, the Army’s … Also, have you ever heard of a pathologist Dr. Richard.
Hosty Chapter 8.doc
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/Hosty/Hosty%20Chapter%208.doc
File Format: Microsoft Word
Dr. Charles Dolce said the official theorizing about that wrist wound was … work, the Edgewood arsenal of the Army’s Aberdeen, Maryland Proving Grounds, and …
Item 02.pdf
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/T%20Disk/…/Item%2002.pdf
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat
called on the telephone Dr. Malcom Perry and dis- cussed with … tests performed at Edgewood Arsenal show that ….. Light Jr. and Joseph Dolce urging even.
PREFACE Oliver Stone’s smash Hollywood success, his movie …
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/Weisberg%20File%20Adds%201-23…/Bogus.doc
File Format: Microsoft Word
For that testing, at the Army’s Proving Grounds at Edgewood Arsenal about …… who was called to testify when any VIP was wounded was Dr. Joseph Dolce.
. . . . . . . . . .
\\][//
“The truth about this was provided by the Army’s and the Commission’s top expert who when he told the truth was dropped like a hot iron. Dr. Charles Dolce said the official theorizing about that wrist wound was absolutely impossible. He was asked to return to the Army installation where he did his work, the Edgewood arsenal of the Army’s Aberdeen, Maryland Proving Grounds, and perform tests to prove his point. He did. He photographed the damaged bones and the bullets. Every one of those bullets was severely damaged, not left without a scratch as in the official mythology. The Commission then ignored him and those tests because they proved the single bullet theory’s impossible.”
Hosty Chapter 8.doc
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/Hosty/Hosty%20Chapter%208.doc
\\][//
“That press conference was the first press conference of the LBJ White House and it was the White House that had the file and the extra copies of the tapes and transcripts and which gave copies to the media. It is headed, “NEWS CONFERENCE.” It is identified as “#1.” It then is headed, “At the White House with Wayne Hayes.” It is dated November 22, 1963. It is timed at 3:16 P.M. CST, with “Friday” and “Dallas, Texas” following. The first words are:
“Mr. Hawks: Let me have your attention, please.”
He then told the assembled reporters that they had asked to speak to the doctors Perry and Clark and he had them there to respond to reporters’ questions.
The transcript is nine legal-sized pages long.
During the press conference Perry was asked three times, first “Where was the entrance wound” and he replied, “There was an entrance wound in the neck.” The full transcript is appended. (see Exhibit 63).
This is what meant the end of the preconception with which the Commission began and Specter knew it only too well.”~Harold Weisberg
\\][//
No chain of custody for the Magic Bullet
“The CE 399 we know was not found at Parkland. And that ends this argument.
Everything else—the computer simulations, the drawings etc.-is irrelevant. As Shakespeare said, it is sound and fury signifying nothing. At the time of the assassination, CE 399 as we know it today, did not exist.”~Jim DiEugenio
http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html
http://jfklancer.com/hunt/phantom.htm
http://www.opednews.com/articles/How-the-Warren-Commission-by-Bill-Simpich-Assassination_Evidence_JFK_JFK-Assassination-141119-717.html
Suppressed 1964 report detailing that neither of the Secret Service agents who handled CE 933 could later identify it:
\\][//
“The official “solution” to the assassination of the President, which I emphasize means a coup d’etat, is based on known perjury that was protected officially.”~Harold Weisberg
Harold Weisberg (April 8, 1913 – February 21, 2002)[1] served as an Office of Strategic Services officer during World War II, a U.S. Senate staff member and investigative reporter, an investigator for the Senate Committee on Civil Liberties,[2] and a U.S. State Department intelligence analyst who devoted 40 years of his life to researching and writing about the assassinations of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. He wrote ten self-published and published books and approximately thirty-five unpublished books related to the details for those assassinations, mostly with respect to Kennedy’s. He who wrote the first book critical of the Warren Commission Report.
\\][//
Gary Aguilar – April 3, 2015 at 3:48 pm
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/millicent-cantors-response-to-jean-davison/#comment-742664
“Treating surgeon, Robert Shaw, MD, reported that Governor Connally’s back wound was an “elongated entry wound, 3cm (ca. 1.2 inches) (sic) in its longest direction,” according to his op note, and so “is entirely consistent with a destabilized bullet … .” However, the testimony of FBI Examiner Robert Frazier regarding the Governor’s jacket is in conflict.
In Volume V of the Warren Commission testimony, Frazier reported a 5/8-inch (1.5-cm) elongated hole in this garment confirming a destabilized, yawing ‘magic’ bullet as the source of the governor’s upper torso wound. Thus the entrance wound in the Governor’s back supposedly measured 3-cm, about 1.2-inches, while the corresponding hole in his jacket measured but 1.5-cm, or 5/8th inches. A simple reading of Dr. Shaw’s Warren Commission testimony and evidence from the House Select Committee quickly resolves the conflict.
As researcher Milicent Cranor first pointed out, the Governor’s back wound measured 1.5 cm in its largest diameter when Dr. Shaw first examined him, exactly the size of the “entrance wound” in his jacket. In testimony to the Warren Commission and to the House Select Committee, Dr. Shaw repeatedly explained that 3-cm was the size of the wound after he had surgically debrided it. The House Select Committee offered a clear explanation. Dr. Shaw, it reported, had said, “The rear entrance wound was not 3 centimeters [in diameter] (sic) as indicated in one of the operative notes. It was a puncture-type wound, as if a bullet had struck the body at a slight declination [i.e., not at a right angle] (sic). The wound was actually approximately 1.5 centimeters in diameter. The ragged edges of the wound were surgically cut away, effectively enlarging it to approximately 3 centimeters.” The wound’s true size was further corroborated by the HSCA’s finding that the entrance defect in the back of the Governor’s shirt, much like that in his jacket, measured .8-cm by 1.3-cm.
Thus the “wounds” in the Governor’s shirt, jacket and back mutually corroborate a fairly small, “puncture-type wound,” one that resulted, as Dr. Shaw put it, as “if a bullet had struck the (Governor’s) body at a slight declination.”
It is to be expected that bullets not striking perfectly perpendicular to their targets will leave an ovoid wound, just as the wound in JFK’s scalp did. The autopsy report discloses that, like Connally’s back wound, Kennedy’s scalp wound measured 1.5 by .6 cm, and it has never been suggested that the penetrating bullet that caused JFK’s ovoid scalp wound had hit something else first.”
. . . . . . . .
\\][//
Lip Readers on Connally’s words in Z-film
Listening to the Zapruder Film – by Martin Shackelford
This month, at his home, Charbonneau introduced me to James and Kimberly Petrimoulx, both experienced lip readers, and their son Jimmy, who provided valuable rapid translation. We used a videotape copy of the Zapruder film for general context, and for facial detail we studied high-quality complete sequences of Zapruder frame slides. Even with these, there were limitations to what could be learned from the film, but three hours of close and repeated study produced some results which may be of interest to our colleagues:
225 Although Mr. and Ms. Petrimoulx had not previously studied any of these materials, they noted immediately that President Kennedy was already shot when he emerged from behind the Stemmons Freeway sign.
about 236 Gov. Connally begins to show a startled, frightened reaction, but no sign of pain; then he seems to be shot.
242 to 250 Gov. Connally is talking, saying “No, no, no, no.” turning to his right, in obvious pain.
255 to 287 Gov. Connally is screaming and talking (his face is in shadow; he may be saying, “My God, they’re going to kill us all,” based on what can be seen of his expressions); President Kennedy, meanwhile, is fainting.
302 Gov. Connally is clearly in intense pain.
312 to 320s Gov. and Mrs. Connally seem to be talking (his mouth is moving; she testified “John said nothing” after he slumped back into her lap).
320s Gov. Connally’s mouth seems to be forming the word “Go.”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/listen.htm
\\][//
In early 1967, Life released a statement that four frames of the camera original (208–211) had been accidentally destroyed, and the adjacent frames damaged, by a Life photo lab technician on November 23, 1963.
These frames are just prior to Kennedy going behind the sign. I propose that these frames show Kennedy’s first reaction to the shot to his throat. Therefore, Connally could not possibly be reacting to a hit from that bullet.
\\][//
Summation on the Magic Bullet
The Magic Bullet story is not a viable option. There is not a single bit of evidence to back it up. In fact all of the evidence at hand proves that it is false. It is as absurd as it sounds upon first reflection.
There is no legitimate chain of custody for CE#399.
There is no legitimate chain of custody for any of the bullets or shell husks said to be found in the TBDB so-called “snipers nest”
There is no proven path of a bullet passing through JFK’s shallow back wound and exiting what was clearly an entrance wound in his throat.
There is only one viable answer, CE#399 was a planted prop. The ‘snipers-nest’ was a stage created by the conspirators. Oswald was a patsy, just as he claimed. President Kennedy was killed in a coup d’etat perpetrated by the National Security State itself.
\\][//
An Interview With Duncan MacPherson By Joel Grant
G: Are you aware of the claim that CE399 was “switched” from a six-groove bullet to a four-groove bullet? If so, will you give us your professional opinion?
MacP: No knowledge about this claim. For about 30 years, I have paid almost no attention to any aspect of the Kennedy assassination not directly related to wound ballistics.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm
So MacPherson knows nothing of the total lack of chain of custody of the Magic Bullet. Even though the claim of a switch is indeed “directly related to wound ballistics.”
He knows nothing of any of the further evidence, such as Dr Shaw’s testimony that the wound on Connally’s back armpit was 1.5 cm and not the 3 cm wound noted in the operative report. That therefore Lattimer must be mistaken to claim Connally has a 3 or more inch scar on his back.
At any rate, it is out of place to make commentary on a matter that ones doesn’t comprehend the larger context in which the ballistics must fit. The likelihood that there were no Carcano bullets involved in any of these hits is almost a certainty, considering the implications in the missing initial links in the chain of custody of CE 933. This break in the chain of custody eliminates the viability of the Magic Bullet as legitimate evidence.
Combined with a penumbra of other evidence in this case, it is beyond reasonable doubt that all of the so-called evidence for the shots from behind were props for a staged set-up of the designated patsy, Lee Harvey Oswald. The most modern ballistics and trajectory analysis proves the throat shot and the head shot to Kennedy came from the front. Kinetic energy will move a body in the direction of the trajectory of the missile, after initial resistance and the telltale appearance of backspatter. Kennedy’s head was forced back ward, and his limp torso fell back with it, then he fell to his left and leaned on Jackie until she turned for the trunk of the car. That head shot was incapacitating, Kennedy was dead-limp, and he wasn’t having muscle spasms. The evidence is right before your eyes in the Zapruder film.
\\][//
Magic Bullet
“Although it is not necessary to any essential findings of the Commission to determine just which shot hit Governor Connally, there is very persuasive evidence to indicate that the same bullet which pierced the President’s throat also caused Governor Connally’s wounds” (WCR:19).
The alignment of the points of entry was only indicative and not conclusive that one bullet hit both men. The exact positions of the men could not be re-created; thus, the angle could only be approximated. (WCR: 107).
Allen Dulles, Warren Commission member, fired by JFK as CIA Director stated during the Commission Executive Session just prior to the report publication, “But nobody reads. Don’t believe people read in this country. There will be a few professors that will read the record…The public will read very little.”
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
\\][//
The Report is entirely misleading, however, when it asserts that the doctors felt that the wrist fragments were left “from the rear portion of the bullet” and that this bullet subsequently punctured the thigh. In their original testimonies, the doctors did not postulate from what part of the bullet the fragments had come. The intent of the Report is obvious, when we consider that the only possible surface from which CE 399 could have lost fragments is its rear, or base, where the lead core was naturally exposed. The thinking of the doctors, however, tended to rule out the possibility of CE 399’s having gone into the wrist at all, because they felt that this wound was the result of an irregular or fragmented missile (6H90-91, 98-99, 102). Dr. Robert Shaw, who conducted the operation on the Governor’s chest, was puzzled as to how the wrist wounds could have appeared as they did if a whole bullet had caused them (6H91).
According to Dr. Shaw, it is not exactly correct to assert that a whole bullet entered the thigh. In the portion of his original testimony cited by the Report, Dr. Shaw explained the theory of one bullet’s causing all the Governor’s wounds in this way: “I have always felt that the wounds of Governor Connally could be explained by the passage of one missile through his chest, striking his wrist and a fragment of it going on into his left thigh” (6H91; emphasis added).
What the Report does not reflect is the substantial change in Drs. Shaw’s and Gregory’s opinions when shown the bullet that allegedly produced the Governor’s wounds. The first indication of varied opinions came through this exchange between Dr. Shaw and Commissioners Cooper, Dulles, and McCloy. Dr. Shaw had been asked about the possibility that one bullet had caused the Governor’s wounds:
Dr. Shaw: . . . this is still a possibility. But I don’t feel that it is the only possibility.
Sen. Cooper: Why do you say you don’t think it is the only possibility? What causes you now to say that it is the location —
Dr. Shaw: This is again the testimony that I believe Dr. Gregory will be giving, too. It is a matter of whether the wrist wound could be caused by the same bullet, and we felt that it could but but we had not seen the bullets until today, and we still do not know which bullet actually inflicted the wound on Governor Connally.
Mr. Dulles: Or whether it was one or two rounds?
Dr. Shaw: Yes.
Mr. Dulles: Or two bullets?
Dr. Shaw: Yes; or three.
Mr. McCloy: You have no firm opinion that all these three wounds were caused by one bullet?
Dr. Shaw: I have no firm opinion. . . . Asking me now if it was true. If you had asked me a month ago I would have [had].
Mr. McCloy: Could they have been caused by one bullet, in your opinion?
Dr. Shaw: They could.
Mr. McCloy: I gather that what the witness is saying is that it is possible that they might have been caused by one bullet. But that he has no firm opinion now that they were.
Mr. Dulles: As I understand it too. Is our understanding correct?
Dr. Shaw: That is correct. (4H109; emphasis added)
It might be regarded as highly culpable that Commissioners Dulles and McCloy, who professed such a clear understanding of Dr. Shaw’s position, signed a report stating the opposite of what Dr. Shaw had testified to, with a footnote referring to prior statements withdrawn by Shaw in their presence. Dr. Shaw’s testimony is explicit that, prior to seeing the bullet in evidence, he felt that all the Governor’s wounds were caused by one bullet; when shown the bullet, CE 399, which allegedly did this damage, he retracted his original opinion. What was it about this bullet that caused such a change of judgment?
Under questioning by Arlen Specter, Dr. Shaw summed up the indications that CE 399 did not produce the Governor’s wounds. He had first been asked to comment on the possibility of a bullet’s having caused the wounds:
Mr. Specter: When you started to comment about it not being possible, was that in reference to the existing mass and shape of bullet 399?
Dr. Shaw: I thought you were referring directly to the bullet shown as Exhibit 399.
Mr. Specter: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all the wounds on the Governor then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President’s neck?
Dr. Shaw: I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. (4H114)
The bullet struck the femur,www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/PG/PGchp5.html
\\][//
Plausibility of Single Bullet Theory
Is the single bullet theory plausible?
No. And so far, my current process of corrolation of this section with the work of the 1978 House Select Committe on Assassinations’ investigation supports the reasons for this opinion I’ve laid out below.
http://kegisland.com/connolly–the-magic-bullet.html
\\][//
He [JFK] was searching for a way to relieve the ambassador [Henry Cabot Lodge] of his duties and to gradually diminish the U.S. presence in Vietnam. JFK had scheduled a White House meeting on this subject for Monday morning, November 25.”~Jackie Kennedy
http://carlanthonyonline.com/2013/11/22/a-second-jfk-term-jackie-kennedys-notes-on-what-was-planned/
. . . .
By the way, Bill Clarke can fuck-off with his accusing anyone who disagrees with his opinions on JFK’s intent to withdraw the military from Indochina as ‘dishonest’. I have had enough of his bullshit on JFKfacts, and will not respond to him directly there; because all I really want to tell this arrogant prick is, fuck off!
Concerning NSAM 273, Bill Clarke reads Johnson’s NSAM as if it were as contextless as a Dead Sea Scroll.
\\][//
Current JFKfacts thread:
Lollipop History and Bubblegum Physics…
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/millicent-cantors-response-to-jean-davison/#comment-743550
I am having problems following Bob Prudhomme’s reasoning on the Connally wounds thread. He seems to be relying on this FBI report about the distance of the head shot, as well as making the assumption that Kennedy’s back wound was caused by a Carcano bullet, and in doing so insinuating that the back wound was not actually shallow…[??]
As per the position of the limousine in the Z-film, he and I went through this in great detail on a previous thread. He is flat out wrong. That limo was directly in front of the pavilion when Kennedy was hit in the head, despite what ever distances in feet the FBI report claims it was from the TBDB – which is irrelevant as the shot came from the front. The nose of the limo was no further than 3 ft at most from the steps. This can be seen in the Muchmore film and the Nix film as well. He is also wrong about Hill dismounting the follow-up car before the head shot.
Of course the problem I have with these issues is that he confuses everything with such obvious nonsense. I don’t think it is appropriate to bring these thoughts up on the current thread because going through previous arguments has been already too lengthily.
I come away thinking that Bob knows a lot about bullets from the perspective of a hunter, but he is not top notch when it comes to critical thinking and doesn’t know anymore about ballistics in a scientific sense than any of the rest of us. In fact I think I understand ballistics very much more than he.
Be that as it may, I am disappointed he has stirred mud into the waters of the discussion again.
\\][//
Epitome Of Absurdity
Photon – April 4, 2015 at 4:28 pm:
“Part of the problem with interpreting Dr. Shaw’s testimony for the HSCA is that we have no record of it. What we have are the paraphrased comments of the interviewer, Dr. Petty. It is curious that Dr. Petty mentioned that Many of Dr. Shaw’s answers were somewhat ” stereotype(d)”- due to frequent interviews on the subject. After 14 years the 1.5 cm wound dimension became part of his memory, probably because his Warren testimony was quoted back to him when ever he was interviewed.At any rate, there is no actual record of his interview and as such we have no idea if this wound issue was ever dealt with more than a brief mention. But of course the “stereotype” comment should bring up questions about the accuracy of the interview-despite Dr. Petty’s excellent reputation.
My personal opinion is that in his Warren testimony Dr. Shaw took strides to explain as easily as possible to layman what the medical findings were. He tried to use terminology that the lawyers on the committee could understand without being confused. At that time few outside of the medical and scientific communities knew or used the metric system. Probably nobody on the committee knew exactly how large a centimeter was, or probably even how to pronounce it. As such, I believe it was Dr. Shaw’s intention to describe the wound in inches, but in the stress of the interview forgot to use the term. 3 cm is approximately 1.5 inches ( actually 1.2, but close enough for the approximation description that Dr Shaw was trying to make.). Unfortunately nobody during the interview called him on it, nor requested any clarification. Had they this entire issue may have been cleared up, instead of being a factoid floating without independent confirmation.”
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/millicent-cantors-response-to-jean-davison/#comment-743256
__________________________________________________________________________________
“Probably nobody on the committee knew exactly how large a centimeter was, or probably even how to pronounce it.” ~Photon
Seriously Photon? Or is your latest comment a form of written glossolalia?
Going to these drastic lengths in grasping at straws to rebuke the clear public record is extraordinary even for you.
The comment above by Photon is perhaps one of the most blatantly absurd propositions I have read yet of one of these Warren Commission cultists.
“Is he serious? Is he sane? Papa ooh mau mau is all he’s sayin’!”~50’s pop song
\\][//
Now Photon doubles down with his nonsense!
One gets the feeling that perhaps Photon is given computer privileges in his padded cell, as long as there is an attendant watching over him or her or whatever the fuck this maniac is.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/millicent-cantors-response-to-jean-davison/#comment-743602
\\][//
HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG
Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham – May 2003
The official White House death certificate, signed by Kennedy’s physician Admiral George Burkley, placed the back wound at “about the level of the third thoracic vertebra.” This document was not included by the Warren Commission in its tens of thousands of pages of published exhibits.
(see ARRB MD #6, p. 2)
“Boswell’s hand-written notes and diagram from the night of the autopsy, his so-called “face sheet,” are the only physician-prepared medical records that survived Kennedy’s autopsy. A single sheet, it has organ weights and both sides of a standing human figure on one side of the page. On the back of the page there is a free-hand diagram of the top of JFK’s skull. In the center of this skull diagram, one reads the notations “17” and “missing,” with an arrow pointing front-to-back. Also, one easily makes out the figure “10,” next to an arrow pointing right-to-left.” (17 cm = 6.692913 inches)
. . . . . .
This fact in itself should raise the hackles of suspicion! The ONLY surviving document from the actual autopsy, it is outrageous.~ww
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_6.htm
\\][//
CONCLUSION
“In discussing the media’s reaction to Oliver Stone’s movie, JFK, Sam Smith commented that, “It is one of contemporary journalism’s most disastrous conceits that truth can not exist in the absence of revealed evidence. By accepting the tyranny of the known, the media inevitably relies on the official version of the truth, seldom asking the government to prove its case, while demanding of critics of that official version the most exacting tests of evidence.”[382] (emphasis in original) Nowhere is this phenomenon more visible than in Kennedy’s medical/autopsy evidence. The original, official findings are accepted without serious scrutiny, as if the government was institutionally incapable of anything but impartiality. Challenges, by contrast, are run through the most withering gauntlet, perhaps for the obvious reason that it is the government that sits in judgment of the merits of the challenge.
Asking any organization to investigate itself is always a chancy endeavor. It is difficult to prevent the ‘introspectors’ from reflecting their own interests. So it is scarcely a surprise to see the pro-government inclinations of the examiners the government has commissioned to reinvestigate John F. Kennedy’s death – from the Justice Department in the mid 1960s to the House Select Committee in the late 1970s. Ironically, the House Select Committee’s criticism – “It is a reality to be regretted that the [Warren] Commission failed to live up to its promise”[383] – applies just as much to the Select Committee as it does to the Warren Commission. And just as much to the Rockefeller Commission, the Clark Panel and the Justice Department. It is a regrettable reality that none of these groups lived up to the promise.
[…]
Had JFK’s death been a simple matter of a sole, deranged act by a disgruntled loner, how likely is it that so much inconvenient evidence would have been suppressed or ignored? Evidence such as signed false affidavits arranged by the Justice Department that just happen to endorse the Justice Department’s preferred conclusions? Such as overwhelming witness testimony at odds with the “hard” photographic evidence, key portions of which all the relevant witnesses insist are missing? Such as selectively suppressed, and exculpatory, medical and autopsy evidence whose disclosure might have forced a new, official theory of the President’s death, had sanctioned experts been but allowed to see it? Such as key witnesses – like Burkley – being brushed aside?
The proven mishandling of evidence, and the discovery of so much suppressed and contrary evidence, has increased the already heavy burden of proof on the proponents of the Oswald solution to the assassination. That, intriguingly, is what the record now shows. Despite the estimable credentials of previous expert examiners, the full record has never been expertly examined with any great vigor or skepticism. Any one of the previous panels might easily have begun to unravel this medical conundrum, had a freewheeling and unhindered probe ever been officially sanctioned. But it never has been. And so what we are left with is a suspiciously inadequate Autopsy of the Century that has repeatedly undergone an inadequate post mortem of its own.” ~Gary L. Aguilar, MD
. . . . .
\\][//
Broken Chain of Custody & The Magic Bullet (A Digest of Jim DiEugenio)
Darrell Tomlinson found a lead colored, sharp nosed hunting round at about 1:45 PM, and brought it to chief of security O. P. Wright at Parkland Hospital. Wright is very familiar with firearms since he was with the sheriff’s office previously. Wright gets a good look at the bullet, he notes it as a lead colored, pointed nosed, hunting round.
This bullet will be passed through to Secret Service officers Richard Johnsen and Jim Rowley. Yet neither of them will initial the bullet. And later, neither positively identified it.
At the White House, Rowley turns a bullet over to FBI agent Elmer Todd. They sign a receipt. The time of the transfer is 8:50 PM on the 22nd.
Yet as John Hunt shows, agent Robert Frazier at the FBI lab enters the stretcher bullet’s arrival into his notes at 7:30! As Hunt notes, if Frazier and Todd can both tell time, something is really wrong here. Frazier has received a bullet that Todd has not given him yet.
But it’s even worse. For in an FBI document it says that Todd’s initials are on the bullet. (CE 2011, at WC Vol. 24, p. 412) Yet as Hunt has amply demonstrated, they are not there. (Hunt, “Phantom Identification of the Magic Bullet”) In other words, no one who carried this bullet in transit for law enforcement purposes–Johnsen, Rowley, Todd–put their initials on it. When that is what they are trained to do.
When it comes time to write the Warren Report, Wright’s name is not in it. And there is no evidence Arlen Specter interviewed him. In late 1966, we find out why Specter avoided him. Thompson interviews him and he rejects CE 399 as the bullet he gave Johnsen. Twice. (Thompson, p.175)
http://www.ctka.net/2010/journeyCE399.html
Reminder:
Crime Scene Protocol 1963
It was standard practice and mandated by FBI protocol in 1963 (up until the 1980s) to mark a shell or hull with a unique mark for chains of custody.
“Police Markings”
See:
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Handbook of Forensic Science 100 (rev. ed. 1984); C. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation 79-84 (5th ed. 1980).”
http://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1308&context=faculty_publications
\\][//
PRESS CONFERENCE PARKLAND MEMORIAL HOSPITAL DALLAS, TEXAS NOVEMBER 22, 1963 @ 2:16 P.M. CST AT THE WHITE HOUSE WITH WAYNE HAWKS
QUESTION-
Where was the entrance wound?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
There was an entrance wound in the neck. As regards the one on the head, I cannot say.
QUESTION-
Which way was the bullet coming on the neck wound? At him?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
It appeared to be coming at him.
QUESTION-
And the one behind?
DR. MALCOM PERRY-
The nature of the wound defies the ability to describe whether it went through it from either side. I cannot tell you that. Can you, Dr. Clark?
DR. KEMP CLARK-
The head wound could have been either the exit wound from the neck or it could have been a tangential wound, as it was simply a large, gaping loss of tissue.
QUESTION-
That was the immediate cause of death — the head wound?
DR. KEMP CLARK-
I assume so, yes.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/press.htm
\\][//
Mr. SPECTER. Now looking at that bullet, Exhibit 399, Doctor Humes, could that bullet have gone through or been any part of the fragment passing through President Kennedy’s head in Exhibit No. 388?
Commander HUMES. I do not believe so, sir.
Mr. SPECTER. And could that missile have made the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?
Commander HUMES. I think that that is most unlikely … The reason I believe it most unlikely that this missile could have inflicted either of these wounds is that this missile is basically intact; its jacket appears to me to be intact, and I do not understand how it could possibly have left fragments in either of these locations.
Mr. SPECTER. Dr. Humes, under your opinion which you have just given us, what effect, if any, would that have on whether this bullet, 399, could have been the one to lodge in Governor Connally’s thigh?
Commander HUMES. I think that extremely unlikely. The reports, again Exhibit 392 from Parkland, tell of an entrance wound on the lower midthigh of the Governor, and X-rays taken there are described as showing metallic fragments in the bone, which apparently by this report were not removed and are still present in Governor Connally’s thigh. I can’t conceive of where they came from this missile.
Representative FORD. The missile identified as Exhibit 399.
Commander HUMES. 399, sir.
. . . . . . . . . .
Mr. SPECTER. And could it [CE 399] have been the bullet which inflicted the wound on Governor Connally’s right wrist?
Colonel FINCK. No; for the reason that there are too many fragments described in that wrist.
. . . . . . . . . .
Mr. SPECTER. Mr. Frazier, is it possible for the fragments identified in Commission Exhibit 840 to have come from the whole bullet heretofore identified as Commission Exhibit 399?
Mr. FRAZIER. I would say that based on weight it would be highly improbable that that much weight could have come from the base of that bullet since its present weight is–its weight when I first received it was 158.6 grains.
Mr. SPECTER. Referring now to 399.
Mr. FRAZIER. Exhibit 399, and its original normal weight would be 160 to 161 grains, and those three metal fragments had a total of 2.1 grains as I recall–2.3 grains. So it is possible but not likely since there is only a very small part of the core of the bullet 399 missing.
. . . . . . . . . .
Mr. SPECTER: What is your opinion as to whether bullet 399 could have inflicted all of the wounds on the Governor, then, without respect at this point to the wound of the President’s neck?
Dr. SHAW. I feel that there would be some difficulty in explaining all of the wounds as being inflicted by bullet Exhibit 399 without causing more in the way of loss of substance to the bullet or deformation of the bullet. (Discussion off the record.)
Dr. Shaw’s testimony is interrupted at this point, and “off the record” discussions take place. Later…
Dr. SHAW: All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missle could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more that three grains of metal missing as far as the–I mean in the wrist.
Mr. SPECTOR: Does that bullet appear to you to have any of its metal flaked off?
Dr. SHAW: I have been told that the one point on the nose of this bullet that is deformed was cut off for purposes of examination. With that information, I would have to say that this bullet has lost literally none of its substance.
Dr. SHAW: All right. As far as the wounds of the chest are concerned, I feel that this bullet could have inflicted those wounds. But the examination of the wrist both by X-ray and at the time of surgery showed some fragments of metal that make it difficult to believe that the same missile could have caused these two wounds. There seems to be more that three grains of metal missing as far as the – I mean in the wrist.
[…]
Mr. SPECTOR: So, would you say in net that there may have been some tumbling occasioned by it having passed trough another body or perhaps might have been occasioned by the angle of entry.
Dr. SHAW: Yes, either would have explained the entry wound.
. . . .
http://www.jfk-info.com/fragment.htm
\\][//
From the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA),
Dr. WECHT: Commission exhibit 399…a side view…shows the copper jacket to be completely intact, unscathed with no deformity, mutilation or markings…
The small defect at the tip is where a piece of metal was properly taken by the FBI for spectographic analysis…
…the nose, the penetrating portion of the missile which is completely unmarked and without any scathing at all…
…the base of the bullet which is the only area of deformity, what I would refer to as some flattening with indentation of the metallic rim and focal extrusion of the inner lead core. That is the only deformity.
HSCA/JFK Exhibit F-294
Dr. WECHT: This exhibit, F-294, is a composite photo that I believe clearly, dramatically and most succinctly demonstrates the absurdity, the scientific untenability of the single bullet theory. This is Commission exhibit 399. I will not engage in semantical quibbling with my friend and collegue, Dr. Baden, whether you can be near pristine or fully pristine. It is a near pristine bullet, again, with the only deformity being demonstrated at the base…
Mr. PURDY: Dr. Wecht, is it your opinion that no bullet could have caused all of the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally or the Commission exhibit 399 could not have caused all of the wounds to both men?
Dr. WECHT: Based upon the findings in this case, it is my opinion that no bullet could have caused all these wounds, not only 399 but no other bullet that we know about or any fragment of any bullet that we know about in this case.
\\][//
I am curious to hear what types of songs our resident mockingbirds are going to sing when it comes to the issue of the broken chain of evidence of their Magic Bullet. They have been flitting through the treetops chirping about everything and anything else so far.
Can they out bop the buzzard and the oriole?
\\][//
There is no direct proof RFK suggested Dulles for Warren Commission.
Abe Fortas spoke to Johnson in that phone call, he had spoken with Katzenbach, and Katzenbach claimed RFK suggested Dulles. This is hearsay three times removed from RFK:
12—Abe Fortas & Johnson November 29,1963 (K6311.04)http://web2.millercenter.org/lbj/audiovisual/whrecordings/telephone/conversations/1963/lbj_k6311_04_12_fortas_truncated.mp3
Added to this is the phone call between LBJ and Hoover just after the assassination wherein LBJ himself suggests Dulles:
https://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=882
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/lbjlib/phone_calls/Nov_1963/audio/LBJ-Hoover_11-23-63.htm
\\][//
The Illegitimacy of the Magic Bullet
The Warren Commission critics have proven that there are breaks in the chain of custody for CE399, but conversely and more importantly the Warren Commission did not prove an unbroken chain of custody. Again I will reiterate that in long standing US jurisprudence, the onus of proof is on the party making the assertion, and not vise versa. The Magic Bullet does not pass the test of lawful legitimacy.
\\][//
On Conjecture: Possibility, Plausibility, Probability
All of the opinions offered on the topic of CD933 fall under one of the three categories of conjecture, or their antithesis.
The one point in all of this conversation that is not conjecture, but is lawful fact, is that under historical US jurisprudence, an assertion must be proven by those posing such an assertion and not vise versa.
The break in the chain of custody of the Magic Bullet is proven, and conversely the chain of custody of this bullet is unproven.
As such, all other issues are moot and without standing.
\\][//
Kennedy Throat Shot
Frame Z-205, Kennedy reacts to the shot to the throat just as he is going out of view behind the sign, you can see his right hand go to his throat. Both Connally and Jackie are turning to look at JFK at that moment as well. As they reemerge from behind that sign he has both hands to his throat.
Also just before this frame, there is the telltale jiggle of Zapruder reacting to the rifle shot.
At frame 223 as Connally first appears from behind the sign he is sitting straight up showing no sign of stress whatsoever.
\\][//
“And your level of legal expertise is exactly what?”~Photon
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/millicent-cantors-response-to-jean-davison/#comment-744608
What is your level of legal expertise Photon?
More importantly what is your real level of critical thinking abilities?
I will state that argument clearly for the last time Photon; the onus of proof is not on those who criticize the assertion, the onus is in fact on those who make the assertion. This is the foundation of western jurisprudence. One need not have any particular expertise in the law to recognize this simple concept.
I will add, I do not speak to this matter as though it is a court of law, I speak to it as a matter of common and rational sense, which is after all the foundation of reason in both debate, reason in law, and reason in medicine.
The bottom line fact of the matter is you have not proven your case to the standards of reason.
\\][//
“I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: ‘O Lord make my enemies ridiculous.’ And God granted it.” ~Voltaire
\\][//
Click to access cacheof-prouty-thesecretteam-via-ratical-com.pdf
‘THE SECRET TEAM: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World’
by L. FLETCHER PROUTY Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
. . . . . .
\\][//
List of evidence sent from FBI to Chief Curry, DPD
Props for a cheesy burlesque theater!
. . . . .
\\][//
Lollipop Histories & Bubblegum Physics
Yes all Presidents, all heads of state are chosen to act as puppets for the global oligarchy that was firmly established during the industrial revolution. It is standard operating procedure to take out any leaders who start to get the idea that their titular position actually holds the powers officially designated to their office. So from Lincoln to McKinley, to Mossadeq, to Nasser, to Diem, to Kennedy, to Khrushchev, to Noriega, to Qaddafi… it goes on and on. And so do the cover stories, or “official narratives” of the Public Relations Regime.
We may of course seek and find precedents going back into the mists of history, and there are many.
Of course the naïve and regimented mind will interpret this as “conspiracy theory”, when in fact it is deep systemic analysis of the architecture of political power.
\\][//
On November 22, 1963, just after the arrest of Oswald, Dallas law enforcement officials announced that they had found the murder weapon. Wade and his associates studied the rifle. It was shown to the television audience repeatedly as some enforcement official carried it high in the air, with his bare hands on the rifle. After hours of examination Wade said without hesitation that “the murder weapon was a German Mauser.”
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/OI-ALB.html
\\][//
Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone and Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman both initially identified the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository as a 7.65 Mauser. Weitzman signed an affidavit the following day describing the weapon as a “7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it”. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig claimed that he saw “7.65 Mauser” stamped on the barrel of the weapon.
Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade told the press that the weapon found in the Book Depository was a 7.65 Mauser, and this was reported by the media.
Another image of Weitzman Affidavit:
\\][//
WCH24 CE 2003 pg. 288
Warren Commission Hearings, Volume XXIV. Page 202 of 929
\\][//
No clip in Mauser found on 6th floor of TBDB
\\][//
The obvious differences besides lack of a magazine in this rifle and the one being carried outside in the other photos is:
> The thin trigger guard that attaches in a curved out manner in the rear and an curved in manner in the front of the guard.
> The scope is different in that there is no large bulb at the front matching the one in the rear of the TBDB rifle.
> The notch on the top of the stock from the narrow forward part to the wide rear portion is different.
\\][//
For more on the Mauser/Carcano discrepancies see comments:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/the-origins-of-mannlicher-carcano-bullets/
\\][//
A question has been tumbling about in the back of my mind for days…
What was the impetus that led Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman to take it upon himself to have a Notary Public take a signed affidavit of the discovery of a Mauser on the 6th floor of the Texas Book Depository Building?
Is it possible that Weitzman was suspicious of what was going on at the so-called “crime scene”?
_______________________________________________________________________________
[A Notary Public is an official of integrity appointed by state government —typically by the secretary of state — to serve the public as an impartial witness in performing a variety of official fraud-deterrent acts related to the signing of important documents.]
\\][//
\\][//
Pause at 3:10. You can see the whole scope clearly with the boxes in the background. Same scope as seen outside.
I see that scope is the same in this freeze frame, as plain as officer Day…(Lol)
I feel compelled to make a retraction of my argument on the Mauser issue.
“We’ll always have Paris.” That is we still have the broken chain of custody that destroys the Magic Bullet… we have a virtual penumbra of arguments that chop the Warren Report to pieces. But the Mauser issue isn’t one of them in my view.
\\][//
It is well-known that the rifle allegedly used as the murder weapon was identified as a 6.5 millimeter caliber, Italian-made, bolt-action, military rifle called a Mannlicher-Carcano, after its two inventors. It is largely unknown that during WWII, it was one of only two military-use rifles in the world that fed a cartridge into the chamber from a clip. The other was the M-1 Garand. The difference between the two is that the clip on the M-1 Garand ejects when the last round is fired, while on the Carcano the clip ejects when the last round is chambered. “In the clip system, the clip remains attached to the rounds on loading and forms an essential part of the magazine system, a follower forcing the rounds out of the clip and presenting them in turn to the bolt for loading.”8
According to the Warren Report, when the weapon allegedly used to kill the President was found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD), one cartridge remained, and it was in the chamber.9 Therefore, if operating properly, the rifle had automatically ejected the clip. The Warren Commission reported, however, that when the rifle was found, it contained a clip.10 Firearms experts for the HSCA explained the discrepancy. On September 8, 1978, Monty C. Lutz of the Committee’s firearms panel, was asked about this by Pennsylvania Representative Robert W. Edgar.
Mr. Edgar. The cartridge clip was removed from CE-139 by Lieutenant Day of the Dallas Police Department on November 22, 1963 at the crime laboratory for the police department. Shouldn’t a clip automatically fall out once the last cartridge has fed into the chamber?
Mr. Lutz. This rifle is designed to incorporate that feature so that the last cartridge is stripped out of the clip, then that allows the clip itself to fall or to drop from the opening that you see in the bottom of the box magazine. However, in many cases, and in this particular case, where we functioned the rifle, fed cartridges through it, we found this clip to stay in the rifle after the last round had been stripped and fed into the chamber. Because the lips or the edges of the clip many times will open up, they will spring against the walls on the inside of the box magazine and it will hang up in that areaa [sic], and even though it is supposed to drop out, many times it will hang up in the box area.11
That explanation seems reasonable enough. But it is not. It is true that the clip must be deformed to have any chance of getting as stuck as this one. But once bent, it stays bent. Commission Exhibits (CEs) 574 and 575 are photographs of the alleged clip in its normal, unbent condition. And five years after the HSCA reported the clip deformed, Life magazine photographer Michael O’Neill photographed it in normal condition for Life’s November 1983 issue.12
According to assassination researcher and author J.W. Hughes, who has tested this deformation over fifty times on each of his seven Mannlicher-Carcanos, “When deformed, it will not hold the rounds because the locking ridge is spread too wide to hold the round and the weapon jams.”13 The Warren Commission was apparently silent about whether expert riflemen from the U.S. Army and FBI had such difficulty firing the alleged murder weapon in 1964, and whether it was fired with its alleged clip. Whether or not those marksmen used the original clip, they were required to use any test clip in the original’s apparent “found” condition, i.e., deformed. Anyone could have tested the clip by duplicating its required abnormal behavior, and can still. But CBS News, which claimed to “duplicate the conditions of the actual assassination” in its filmed rifle test in 1967, did not. According to reporter Dan Rather, “Eleven volunteer marksmen took turns firing clips of three bullets each at the moving target.” They fired a total of thirty-seven three-round series, seventeen of which resulted in unfired bullets due to “trouble with the rifle.” Clip problems or not, all data from those seventeen troubled series was disregarded by CBS analysts. It was the other series of shots, however, with properly emptied and ejected clips, deemed worthy of analysis by CBS, that should have been disqualified. In the CBS film, clips can be seen flying out of the gun so fast as to be a blur.14 If a test clip is not bent, or ejects, or moves at all, Oswald’s alleged feat is not duplicated, invalidating the test. The HSCA firearms panel seemed not to be interested in this phenomenon, since it did not test the clip under firing conditions. Congressman Edgar learned about the defect from Mr. Lutz when he asked for details about their firing test:
Mr. Lutz. This was a single cartridge being inserted into the chamber and firing into a cotton waste recovery box…backing away from the box, a foot or two, and pointing the muzzle into the box and then firing into it, in order to recover the projectile.
Mr. Edgar. But you weren’t firing with clip — using the clip, were you?
Mr. Lutz. No sir; I did not.
Mr. Edgar. Did anyone on the panel fire with the clip in?
Mr. Lutz. I do not believe so; no, sir.
Mr. Edgar. What was the reason for that?
Mr. Lutz. There were no particular markings that we were able to identify as having come from the clip, nor were we checking for time firing or sequential firing in any way in that respect.15
Under the heading “Findings and Conclusions of the Firearms Panel Concerning the Kennedy Assassination,” we learn that, “Two bullets were test-fired into a horizontal water recovery tank. Further tests were conducted by loading four cartridges into the CE 375 [sic] cartridge clip and inserting it into the magazine of the rifle. The cartridges were worked through the rifle’s mechanism and ejected without being fired. When the last cartridge was chambered, the cartridge clip remained in the magazine instead of falling out as it is designed to do.”16 Given Mr. Lutz’s “the clip many times will open up” statement, this result demands further explanation.
“Many times will” also means “many times won’t.” Metal expands when heated and can alter its shape. But during the HSCA tests of the loading mechanism, the rifle should have been cool. In addition, CE 541 (3), a photograph of the clip stuck in the magazine reproduced on page 83 of the Warren Report, shows it in a cool rifle. Surely the rifle had not been fired for some time before that photography session. Is Lutz suggesting that the clip’s sides spring out when cool and then return to a normal shape in the heat of firing? If such a violation of the laws of physics occurs with this rifle and clip, how then could the rifle have “contained a clip” when found?
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/gtds.html
\\][//
Also, the HSCA’s explanation does not explain what happened after the rifle was found. Over at least the next twenty-four hours, the Dallas Police Department reported, and left uncorrected, descriptions that remain a paradox to this day. Early news reports seemed to identify the murder weapon as anything but a 6.5 mm. Mannlicher-Carcano. NBC and WBAP radio identified it as a British Enfield .303. KLIF radio said it was a 7.65 German Mauser. KRLD radio announced that the rifle was “presumed to be a .25 caliber high powered Army or Japanese rifle.” Radio station KBOX reported a German Mauser or a Japanese rifle. Dallas television station WFAA described it as three different kinds of Mauser: a “German Mauser,” a 6.5 “Argentine Mauser” with a four-power scope, and a 7.65 “Mauser.” Dallas NBC-affiliate television station WBAP’s continuous coverage between 12:56 p.m. and 5:26 p.m. Central Standard Time (C.S.T.) reveals that the “conflicting reports” of the rifle’s make evolved from the first (British .303) to the last (7.65 Mauser) in a very short time frame between 2:14 and 2:24.17
Despite the fact that the alleged murder weapon that allegedly belonged to Oswald reportedly was clearly stamped “Made Italy” and “Cal. 6.5,” local authorities and the media seemed to finally agree that it was a 7.65 German-made Mauser. Had as few as two different descriptions continued to dominate news reports the rest of the day, one of them being an Italian, or a clip-fed weapon, an argument could be made for confusion. But that is not what happened. The supposed murder weapon was not “called…most everything,” as Captain Will Fritz testified.18 Initial descriptions quickly gave way to a short-lived consensus for a 7.65 German Mauser, not further confusion. Probably due to the earlier conflicting reports, reporters remained skeptical. But they asked if it was a Mauser, and were told, tacitly at least, that it was. As different as these early descriptions seemed from each other and from the weapon the Warren Commission finally chose, there is one difference they all have in common. It is the one difference from the Mannlicher-Carcano they all share. It is the key to the conspiracy. None of them can use an ammunition clip.
The early critics of the Warren Commission who dealt directly with the rifle descriptions and clip problems, including Mark Lane, Harold Weisberg and Sylvia Meagher, missed this particular paradox. Since the mid-seventies, most of the clip and rifle problems have been recognized by gun experts and many researchers, including Gary Shaw, Mary Ferrell, Jack White and George Michael Evica. But the fact that there is only one other clip system with which the Mannlicher-Carcano’s can be confused (the significance of which is explained below), and the absolute impossibility of confusing a Mannlicher-Carcano for any rifle but that one, seem to have been completely overlooked.
In the case of Meagher, it was a near miss. She was aware of a lack of direct evidence that a clip was found at the crime scene. The Texas Department of Public Safety official “Evidence Sheet” lists the incriminating evidence against Lee Harvey Oswald in detail. The number of spent shells found at the crime scene even changed from “(2)” to an obviously distorted “(3)” by the time the Warren Commission published the list, but no clip was ever accounted for.
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/gtds.html
\\][//
We need constant reminders that this mail order rifle has extreme logistical problems as to actually getting into Oswald’s possession. He was clearly on the time clock at his job when he is supposed to have mailed that coupon in; from a post office too far to walk to and back from. His check was never cashed. There are no original physical records of the transactions in existence. Just a few examples.
\\][//
The JFK Assassination: Defending the Gangster State
by Dr. Michael Parenti
(originally published in 1996)
http://www.whale.to/b/parenti4.html
\\][//
Warren Commission Testimony vol. VI – TESTIMONY OF DARRELL C. TOMLINSON
The testimony of Darrell C. Tomlinson was taken on March 20, 1964, at Parkland Memorial Hospital, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Arlen Specter, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.
Not once during this questioning did Mr Specter ask Tomlinson to describe the bullet he found on the stretcher, nor did he show Tomlinson a photograph of a bullet to identify.
http://www.jfklancer.com/docs.maps/tomlinson.html
. . . . . . . . . . . .
O.P. Wright was not called to testify before the Warren Commission.
. . . . . .. . . . . .
A suppressed memo from the FBI reveals that not only could neither Darrell Tomlinson nor O.P. Wright, the Parkland Hospital employees who found the bullet, identify the one currently in evidence as the one they found. Neither could Secret Service agent Richard Johnsen or the chief of the Secret Service, James Rowley, the next two men in the bullet’s chain of possession.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998Aguilar.html
\\][//
Recap:
Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone and Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman both initially identified the rifle found in the Texas School Book Depository as a 7.65 Mauser. Weitzman signed an affidavit the following day describing the weapon as a “7.65 Mauser bolt action equipped with a 4/18 scope, a thick leather brownish-black sling on it”. Deputy Sheriff Roger Craig claimed that he saw “7.65 Mauser” stamped on the barrel of the weapon.
Dallas District Attorney Henry Wade told the press that the weapon found in the Book Depository was a 7.65 Mauser, and this was reported by the media. But investigators later identified the rifle as a 6.5 Italian Mannlicher Carcano.
According to Mark Lane:”The strongest element in the case against Lee Harvey Oswald was the Warren Commission’s conclusion that his rifle had been found on the 6th floor of the Book Depository building. Yet Oswald never owned a 7.65 Mauser. When the FBI later reported that Oswald had purchased only a 6.5 Italian Mannlicher-Carcano, the weapon at police headquarters in Dallas miraculously changed its size, its make and its nationality. The Warren Commission concluded that a 6.5 Mannlicher-Carcano, not a 7.65 German Mauser, had been discovered by the Dallas deputies.”
The terms “clip” and “magazine” are used interchangeably, when, in fact, they refer to two different things. Day was not talking about a clip. The clip holds the cartridges. The magazine is an integral part of the rifle which, in this instance, holds both the cartridges and the clip. The clip goes into the magazine.
. . . . .
This is rather the same sorts of shenanigans we find in the official narrative concerning the Magic Bullet.
\\][//
“Likewise, the work of Lattimer and Fackler is simply a very sound, complete, and careful examination and reconstruction of that facts that should be the standard in all cases, but isn’t.
[…]
Some argument can be made in the typical investigation that the talent and resources just are not available to meet a first class standard, but one can hardly argue that this situation is applicable to the Warren report. The Warren commission should have used all of the best talent available to make the most complete analysis possible, but they didn’t.”~Duncan MacPherson
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/macpher.htm
\\][//
“We don’t have any proof that Oswald fired the rifle, and never did.
Nobody’s yet been able to put him in that building with a gun in his hand.”~Jesse Curry
retired police chief of Dallas, Texas, “JFK Assassination File.”
\\][//
“This man in Dallas. We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. … The case as it stands now isn’t strong enough to be able to get a conviction.”
(Johnson to Hoover, White House Telephone Transcripts, 23 November 1963, LBJ Library, Austin, Texas)
\\][//
“The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. … We need something to head off public speculation or Congressional hearings of the wrong sort.”
(FBI HQ JFK Assassination File, 62–109060–18)
The priority in Washington was the preservation of public trust in political institutions. Finding out who had actually killed President Kennedy was very much a secondary consideration. President Johnson set up the Warren Commission on 29 November, by which time the Commission’s conclusion was already in place: Oswald alone was guilty.
\\][//
A Lawyer’s Notes on the Warren Commission Report*
Alfredda Scobey
[Editor’s note: Ms. Scobey, who was a member of the staff of the President’s
Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, reviews
the testimony amassed by the Commission from the standpoint of the lawyer
who might undertake the defense of Lee Harvey Oswald, had he lived.
In spite of her effusive prologue and epilogue, many of her assertions of
findings represent false claims from The Warren Report, and what she
discovers establishes a prima facie case that the alleged assassin could
never have been convicted in a court of law.]
Click to access v1n1scobey.pdf
\\][//
President Eisenhower approved NSC 5412 on March 15, 1954, reaffirming the Central Intelligence Agency’s responsibility for conducting covert actions abroad.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v12/actionsstatement
\\][//
194. National Security Action Memorandum No. 263
Washington, October 11, 1963.
TO
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
SUBJECT
South Vietnam
At a meeting on October 5, 1963,2 the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved an instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.3
McGeorge Bundy
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d194
\\][//
Historical documents:
FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1961–1963, VOLUME IV, VIETNAM, AUGUST–DECEMBER 1963
III. The Coup Against the Diem Government, October 23-November 2, 1963: Differing Interpretations of U.S. Policy Toward Coup Plotting, Efforts To Obtain Information on a Potential Coup, Lodge-Diem Discussions, U.S. Assessments of a Coup, The Coup, The Deaths of Nhu and Diem
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/ch3
\\][//
I will assume that both Mr Prudhomme and Mr Kornbluth are sincere in their attempts to make sense of the bullet trajectories and types of ammunition used. I have no problem with their continuing to argue their various theories.
However for myself, I come to the conclusion that the proven breaks in the chains of evidence make such theorizing moot. I am as tired of those carousels as I am of Photon and Jean’s continuing looping and spinning.
I think, but do not promise, that as far as the current thread goes, I will not be partaking in any further speculation on those issues.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/millicent-cantors-response-to-jean-davison/
\\][//
The JFK assassination case is solved – it has been for going on half a century – it was a coup d’etat.
\\][//
“lacuna”; an empty space or a missing part; a gap.
There is no missing part, gap, or lacuna in the JFK assassination but the blind spots of the researchers. It is as clear as a bloody head wound that the event was a coup d’etat.
\\][//
In “The Kennedy Detail,” Blaine quotes a number Secret Service agents who witnessed JFK’s assassination from the follow-up car. All said that the president and Texas Governor John Connally were hit in the back by two different gun shots. This testimony buttresses the recollections of Connally and his wife who said the same thing.
Their eyewitness testimony was discounted by the Warren Commission, which concluded that the two men had been wounded by the same shot, as explained by the famous “single bullet theory.”
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/kennedy-detail-movie-has-a-conspiracy-problem/
\\][//
“I believe that there is no country in the world including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation were worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my country’s policies during the Batista regime…. I will even go further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries.” ~John F. Kennedy, October 24, 1963
Tom Alyea 5:55pm Sep 2
Tom Rossley. “What ever happened to the 400 feet of film I took of the TSBD Search?”
Good question. Nobody has ever asked me this before.
I had filmed the search to the roof on 200 ft. of film. I took several shot from this location. The shots I took of the Sniper’s Nest were recorded on the second reel. Capt. Fritz decided to have a conference with the Search Team about a continued search for the “ Sniper” by searching the floors again, back down. The suggestion was submitted about obtaining some Flashlights to aid us in seeing into the dark areas. The nearest source was at the Sheriff’s Office a block away. Two men were dispatched to The Sheriff’s Office to obtain them, and Capt. Fritz said he and the group would wait on the roof until they returned. I thought this would be a good time for me to get my footage to one of our reporters waiting outside. I took the elevator down with the officers. They had badges, and were allowed to exit the building, but I stepped to the porch and gave my footage to WFAA-TV reporter Art Sinclair, who raced this first 200 ft. to the newsroom. The world saw the sniper’s nest for the first time. It was all silent film, with no copy attached. I turned and went back onto the building with no challenge from the guards. I rejoined Capt Fritz and the search group again on the roof. Capt Fritz became impatient waiting on the flashlights and led us to the 7th floor and 6th to start our downward search. Within a few minutes the flashlights arrived and were distributed to some of the officers. Within minutes, one of the officers spotted about four inches of the end of the rifle stock. The officer was on the North side of a small circular enclosure of book cartons, but the Rifle was hidden on the inside. The Rifle could be seen only by looking over the North side, over the overhanging boxes. I took a shot of the officer who found the Rifle as he singled to Capt. Fritz. When Fritz saw it, he stopped the search and directed one of the officers to go below and call the Crime Lab. It took Lt. Day and Officer Studebaker from 12 to 15 minutes to arrive. During this wait, we were informed that the President was dead. Finally the two Crime Lab men stepped from the elevator, just 20 ft. from where we had gathered at the Rifle Site. I had filmed the partial vision of the Rifle within seconds after it was found. I still have this footage. I also filmed the questionable activities of Lt. Day and Studebaker in their efforts to record this evidence. I still have this footage. When Lt. Day started dusting the Rifle, Capt. Fritz reached into the pocket and retrieved the three shell casing he had taken from the Sniper’s Nest and handed them to Studebaker, with the instruction to include them in his photos he would be taking of the Shooting Site at the Southeast window, while Lt. Day dusted the Rifle where it was found. We all watched Lt. Day dust the Rifle as I filmed it. I still have photos of this. Studebaker was alone at the Shooting Site. He had not seen the original location of the casings, so he tossed them on the floor, and this is the photo that is recorded for history.
I was not able to cover both activities. Footage containing the finding of the Rifle, Photographing it, Dusting it, Fritz ejecting round #4, Fritz and Ly. Day examining the dusted rifle, etc, consumed most of my 3rd reel. Fritz handed the Rifle back to Lt. Day and told him to take it directly to his office at Police Headquarters. When Capt. Fritz and a few officers decided to leave, Capt. Fritz was waiting for the elevator, just a few feet from the Rifle Crime Scene. When the elevator arrived, Mgr. Truly stepped out and give Fritz the information about Oswald not returning from lunch and could be a suspect. Unknown to researchers, Fritz did not go directly to his office. The two detectives accompanying Fritz reported that the Captain ordered his driver to go the Sheriff’s Office. The officers reported that Fritz talked to Sheriff Bill Decker for about 15 minutes before he got back into the car and resumed his trip back to Police Headquarters. The officers stated that they stayed in the car during the time Fritz visited with the Sheriff. They did not relate the content of the conversation.
NOTE: Lt. Day never saw the Snipers Nest until he returned with Studebaker about 3:30 to shoot more photos and look for additional evidence. But when he arrived on the 6th floor, he found he was surrounded by the press who had been escorted to the 6th floor by the police to record the crime scenes. I have photos of him aiding the press in the location of the Rifle Crime Scene. However in his testimony he reported that the Press had entered the 6th floor Saturday and disrupted much of the evidence. The Press was soon asked to leave. This was the only time the Press was in the building. To my knowledge, the 6th floor was empty Saturday and Sunday.
After Lt. Day left with the Rifle, I filmed several scenes of activity by the Police, including Studebaker dusting the Dr. Pepper bottle. Shortly after 2:30, I left the floor to get my footage to the station and televised. I had no police badge and wasn’t allowed to leave.
I taped reel #3 and #4 together, and was able to toss it to News Editor, A. J. L’Hoste who was standing near the door. He raced it to the News Room where it was processed and a few minutes later it was shown to the world. The Rifle was seen for the first time, plus scenes of Lt. Day dusting it where it was found. However, years later, when I had an opportunity to watch a re-run of these news shots, I didn’t see much of the activity that was involved in processing the bits of information regarding this important find.
I was still in the building when my footage was televised. I had no idea what was used in WFAA-TV’s televised news report. It was weeks later that I learned how little of my footage was used. I have learned since, many more disturbing facts. I have listed them in my Report, but they are too lengthy to list here.
To answer your question, let me list the following facts:
1). I don’t know for certain, who edited my film that was televised while I was still in the TSBD. Some of the footage was used in the make-up of a News Reel, and televised. The same reel was sent to ABC in New York. It is my understanding that the FBI acquired a copy of the same small bit of News Footage that hit the air.
2). Saturday, Nov. 23, 1963 I was concerned about the discarded film on the editing room floor. I checked it, and found much of my footage had been discarded along with footage from other newsmen. I asked the News Director to save it; he said we didn’t have time. I located some empty reels and searched the 4-inch pile of footage. When I found a strip of film I had shot, I spun it onto an empty reel, and crammed it in my pocket. I didn’t have time to locate all of my discarded footage before the custodian returned and filled the trash container with the remaining footage from the floor. I grabbed my camera and recorded it. It can be seen in my report. The footage I have is a collection of filmstrips I salvaged from the Editing Room floor.
3). Many key scenes went out the door in a trash barrel, such as the long film strip of the Sniper’s Nest, the Shooting Support boxes, the Casings on the floor, and Capt. Fritz holding the three casings in his hand. I have wondered these many years if this was deliberate, or an accident or bad editing; but it does not interest the modern researcher, nor do the many other facts that are unknown.
Best regards, Tom Alyea
\\][//
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 13, 2015 at 3:15 pm
I would like to point out that this idea of the FED being at the heart of the darkness in US policy is hardly limited to the views of Ron Paul. This debate goes all the way back historically to the debates between Thomas Jefferson and James Hamilton on the propriety and constitutionality of a central bank.
This debate began at the beginning of the constitutional republic.
The conspiracy at Jekyll Island in 1910, seems to be part of the hidden history that most Americans remain ignorant of. It appears that it is much too late to resolve now that the US has become simply the garrison state of the Global Empire of the Central Banking Elites.
That Kennedy the intellectual that he was, grasped this issue is hard to rationally deny. That he made the effort to circumvent the FED is public record. That this could be part of the consensus of the elites running the military industrial complex that threw their lots behind a coup d’etat is in no way an unreasonable conclusion to come to.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/obama-completes-the-journey-that-jfk-began/#comment-746981
As trial jurors are reminded daily, evidence tampering can be inferred from an absence of evidence which is reasonably expected to exist, and, conversely, from the existence of evidence which is reasonably expected to be absent. Inference is the essence of circumstantial evidence, one of three major classifications of evidence. The other two major classifications are direct evidence and real evidence. The essence of direct evidence is that it directly establishes a main fact or element of the crime. It may be an actual object or an immediate experience on the part of a witness. Items of real evidence, the focus of our discussion here, are tangible objects which prove or disprove the facts at issue. Real evidence is self-explanatory. It may be either direct (e.g., an actual gun seen and collected) or circumstantial (e.g., a gun not seen or collected but inferred from established facts such as its visual and auditory effects). But real evidence needs only to be identified in court, not explained. Fingerprints and blood stains are other examples of real evidence. The most important real evidence is corpus delicti evidence. It consists of objects and substances which are an essential part of the body of a crime, such as a gun used to commit a murder. Investigators at a crime scene are therefore chiefly responsible for the discovery and preservation of corpus delicti evidence.
Those rules of evidence are among the most basic concepts used in criminal investigation. Like the basic procedures described below, they were known and used around the world at the time of Kennedy’s assassination. They were studied worldwide in textbooks. One of those books, by criminologist and educator Charles E. O’Hara, Fundamentals of Criminal Investigation, first published in 1956, was in its third printing with 14,000 copies by 1963. Prescribed fundamentals like those in textbooks like O’Hara’s were known to Dallas Police Lieutenant John Carl Day. On the day of the assassination, Day was fifty years old, had twenty-three years of experience with the Dallas Police Department, and had been the immediate supervisor of the crime-scene search section of its identification bureau for seven years.26
Despite those long established, most important, most fundamental procedures used throughout the world in searches of the most important of all crime-scenes — those where murders occurred — on November 22nd, 1963, extremely unorthodox methods and extreme neglect by experienced investigators apparently prevailed during the search of the crime scene of the murder of the President of the United States.
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/gtds.html
The Third Decade, Volume 6, Issue 2
Current Section: The Rifle: Was It A Mauser or Mannlicher-Carcano?, by Michael Wiseberg
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=48752&relPageId=11
\\][//
Curry retired from the Dallas Police Department in 1966 on the advice of his doctor due to health issues. In 1969, he wrote a book on the subject of JFK’s assassination entitled, Retired Dallas Police Chief, Jesse Curry Reveals His Personal JFK Assassination File.[2][7] On November 5, 1969, Curry held a press conference to announce the release of his book said to contain his “personal file” of the assassination.[8] During the interview, Curry expressed his doubts about the Warren Commission’s single bullet theory and their finding of a lone assassin.[8] Curry stated: “I’m not sure about it. No one has ever been able to put him (Oswald) in the Texas School Book Depository with a rifle in his hand.”[8] Curry reasoned in another interview: “I think there’s a possibility that one [shot] could have come from in front [of the limousine]. We’ve never, we’ve never been able to prove that, but just in my mind and by the direction of his blood and brain from the president from one of the shots, it would just seem that it would have to been fired from the front rather than behind. I can’t say that I could swear that I believe that it was one man and one man alone. I think there’s a possibility there could have been another man.”[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesse_Curry
\\][//
The Warren Report Is Fable
The official JFK Assassination narrative is asinine. But you know, there are true believers!!! And they will not accept reason…and it turns into a carousel of bullshit. A redux of the Warren Report. It becomes like a tent revival full of speaking-in-tongues and snake charming. A Kafkaesque burlesque of psychedelia.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 15, 2015 at 1:07 am
“However, Mr. Von Pein makes a great argument when he says that a cover-up would have to be so massive in size as to be unmanageable.”
~Steve Sirlen
. . . . .
This is a standard and bogus argument that ignores “compartmentalization”, and “need to know” basis which is applicable to not only military, but law enforcement, and even corporate guidelines.
Many participants in such operations are only aware of their particular aspect, and have no idea of the larger plan afoot – which is only known to the inner circle of planners and operatives.
Such containment is standard procedure in black ops.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/millicent-cantors-response-to-jean-davison/#comment-747568
It should be understood as well that many of the lower tier operators doing menial chores are working by rote, are ofttimes disinterested in their jobs, are barely competent and are simply going along to get along in a boring routine. it would be rare for any such as these to take notice of anything outside of their immediate purview
Then there are those such as Mr Weitzman, who are alert and curious, and can recognize when things are strange that should be standard procedure. A man who can think for himself is most dangerous to corrupt authority.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 15, 2015 at 8:32 am
No matter what evidence is produced to support the known fact that John Kennedy was determined to pull the military out of Indochina, there is a contingent of alleged “experts” on ‘military history’ who have some scurrilous argument to apply against it.
We are NOT speaking to the narrow topic of “military history” here, we are speaking to the larger topic of history in general. And that history shows that everyone close to Kennedy insists that he was in fact serious and determined to pull back militarily from not just Indochina, but on more general terms in an effort to bring peace before the planet was consumed in nuclear flames.
Half truths are no less lies, and the full picture is not simply in the military record, although it has clues that if properly interpreted in light of the civilian history of this matter will show the Whole Truth.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/response-to-shenon-some-evidence-of-cia-or-us-military-intelligence-participation-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/#comment-747678
Assassin – David Sanchez Morales
“Well, we took care of that son of a bitch [JFK], didn’t we?”~ David Sanchez Morales
[actual quote to his lawyer Robert Walton]
While researching a documentary, Shane O’Sullivan discovered a news film of the Ambassador Hotel on the day Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated. Bradley Ayers and other people who knew them, identified David Sanchez Morales, Gordon Campbell and George Joannides as being three men in the hotel that day. An article about this story appeared in The Guardian and on BBC Newsnight on 20th November, 2006.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmorales.htm
\\][//
Edward Lansdale Master of Coup D’Etat
http://spartacus-educational.com/COLDlansdale.htm
\\][//
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
April 15, 2015 at 4:50 pm
“Last time I looked NSAM 263 was NOT a military record. Did you miss that?”
~Bill Clarke
Oh dear, excuse me Bill, what was I thinking? You are absolutely right!
NSAM 263 has nothing whatsoever to do with military history! It was a memo about catering services for banquets at the White House.
I am going to point out one more time, with the graces of our moderators, that your characterizing those who disagree with your interpretation of NSAM 263 as “dishonest” is as insulting as any other form of ad hominem.
It is scurrilous and a slur. I am sure that all who disagree with your interpretations would agree to that.
Your argumentation such as the last comment about NSAM not being a “military record”, is a form of parsing language in a disingenuous manner. You seem to pretend here that “National Security” ie; “NS” in “NSAM”; in this instance referring to military affairs as “NOT a military record”, when in fact it would plainly be part of the military history of the Vietnam War.
I think you are going to great lengths to win your argument, stretching it to the breaking point, with what I can only call insincere rhetoric.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/response-to-shenon-some-evidence-of-cia-or-us-military-intelligence-participation-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/#comment-747904
\\][//
Also see: http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/USO/appB.html
“Nice diversionary attempt here Willy. What we ARE speaking to is you making a false statement about what NSAM 263 says. If you are going to reference NSAM 263 you should do so accurately. You don’t get to reference it and then plug in your own disinformation. Not and remain credible.”~Bill Clarke
Did Mr Clarke NOT just call me a liar? “making a false statement” … isn’t that the same thing as claiming I lied? Let’s not fuck around with language here like this son-of-a-bitch does.
This is the kind of bullshit we get from these Warren Commission cultists. Aggressive, scandalous, and abusive slurs against our character.
And yet we are supposed to treat this motherfucker with kid gloves according to my experience with the moderators on JFKfacts. Such biased moderation is infuriating and incomprehensible.
\\][//
Bill Clarke
April 15, 2015 at 6:26 pm
Willy Whitten
April 15, 2015 at 9:26 am
He was coordinating a coup d’etat, which was his specialty.
“Some evidence please.”~Bill Clarke
Are you seriously asserting that Landsdale was not a master at perpetrating coup d’etat?
No.
If so, his biography is clear enough on the matter.
Or are you suggesting that it is not Landsdale in the photos from Dealey Plaza?
If so, the pictures speak for themselves.
Perhaps. But you have no evidence that he was there coordinating the coup d’etat.
Can you handle this one for me? bc. I have heard Prouty make the claim but I have never heard Krulak make the claim. You have a reference for that?
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/response-to-shenon-some-evidence-of-cia-or-us-military-intelligence-participation-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/#comment-747933
. . . . . . . .
So here we have it. My comment in reply to Clarke’s last comment on April 15, 2015 at 4:50 pm, is still not published an hour and a half later – but Bill gets another shot at me.
“Can you handle this one for me? bc. I have heard Prouty make the claim but I have never heard Krulak make the claim. You have a reference for that?”~Bill Clarke
Yes, Prouty who was very close to Krulak quoted what Krulak had answered back, that he agreed it was Lansdale in Dealey Plaza. But as Bill says about anyone who he disagrees with, he says that Prouty is a liar. Just like Bill called me a liar. Bill Clarke’s arguments are founded on scurrilous rhetoric and ad hominem. That is how he settles any dispute made to him. And if JFKfacts won’t allow me to out Bill Clarke as a punk and a fraud on their site – by God I will do it here!
\\][//
Index Vol. 5 No. 6 September-October, 1998- PROBE MAGAZINE
http://www.lasthurrahbookshop.net/
Today, due to people like Raymond Gallagher, (Probe Vol. 5 No. 6, p.
10) and especially John Armstrong, we can show that it is highly
doubtful that Oswald ever ordered that rifle. Evidence from the
official records suggests that the sixth floor rifle was not the rifle
delivered to Lee Oswald in March of 1963
Raymond Gallagher, new to PROBE, delves into the unique sales history
of Oswald’s Mannlicher-Carcano. How did the bank deposit Oswald’s
money order for the weapon before Oswald wrote it ?
Louis Feldsott of Crescent Arms told the FBI that C 2766 was sold to
Klein’s on June 18,1962, yet Waldman , at Klein’s, did not order the
rifles until January 24, 1963. (SEE Waldman Testimony Warren
Commission Hearings: Vol. VII – Page 362 )
To my knowledge, no one has explained the difference. But there is an
even further discrepancy. Waldman testified that Klein’s received
Oswald’s money order of $21.45 on March 13, 1963 and it was deposited,
along with other money orders and checks, into a company account at
the First National Bank of Chicago. Waldman testified to the
Commission attorney David Belin that the postmark date of the money
order leaving Dallas was March 12 ( WC Vol,7, p. 366.) Waldman further
testified that the deposit was made on the 13th. and it was part of a
total deposit of $13,827.98.
( Belin did not ask him to explain how, before the advent of computers, an
order could be shipped 700 miles, received, processed and deposited in 24
hours) But yet, the bank deposit slip, the extra copy provided by the
bank at the time of the transfer, reads FEBRUARY 15, 1963, not March 13
th.This is about one month before Oswald sent the coupon for the rifle by
air mail to Chicago .
( See Waldman Exhibit no. 10 p. 706 ) Of course, if the February date is
correct, and there is no reason to doubt it, then C 2766 could not be the
correct serial number on the rifle in the so-called back yard photographs.
See deposit slip deposited with The First National Bank of Chicago Date
2/15/63
Total deposit: $13,827.98 deposit made by Klein’s Sporting Goods
Inc. ( 50 91144 ) 4540 W. MADISON ST. CHGO 24 ILL
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0…
SEE Feldsott Affadavit The following affidavit was executed by Louis
Feldsott on July 23. 1964.
PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION
ON THE ASSASSINATION OF AFFIDAVIT
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY
STATE OF NEW YORK,
Country of Rockland, ss:
I, Louis Feldsott, being duly sworn say:
1. I am the President of Crescent Firearms, Inc., 2 West 37th Street,
New York 18, New York.
2. On November 22, 1963, the F.B.I. contacted me and asked if
Crescent Firearms, Inc., had any records concerning .the sale of an
Italian made 6.5 m/m rifle with the serial number C 2766.
3. I was able to find a record of the sale of this rifle which
indicated that the weapon had been sold to Kleins’ Sporting Goods,
Inc., Chicago, Illinois on June 18, 1962. I conveyed this information
to the F.B.I. during the evening of November 22, 1963.
4. Further records involving the purchase, sale, and transportation
of the weapon have been turned over to the F.B.I.
Signed the 23d day of July 1964.
(S) Louis Feldsott,
LOUIS FELDSOTT.
Waldman:
Mr. Waldman.
Yes; on the same form we show a record of the receipt of the rifles
in question, specifically this extreme right-hand column which is
filled in, indicating that on February 22, delivery was made to us by
Lifschultz Trucking Co. I might explain the difference in the two
dates here.
Mr. Belin.
Go ahead.
Mr. Waldman.
The February 21 date is the date in which the merchandise came to our
premises whereas the date of February 22, is the date in which they
were officially received by our receiving department.
This is a delivery receipt from the Lifschultz Fast Freight covering
10 cases of guns delivered to Klein’s on February 21, 1963, from
Crescent Firearms.
As indicated on Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 7.
Now, we CANNOT SPECIFICALLY SAY when this money order was deposited,
but on our deposit of March 13, 1963, we show AN ITEM of $21.45, as
indicated on the Xerox copy of our deposit slip marked, or identified
by–as Waldman Deposition Exhibit No. 10.
Mr. Belin.
And I have just marked as a document what you are reading from, which
appears to be a deposit with the First National Bank of Chicago by
your company; is that correct?
Mr. Waldman.
That’s correct.
Mr. Belin.
And on that deposit, one of the items is $21.45, out of a total
deposit that day of $13,827.98; is that correct?
Mr. Waldman.
That’s correct.
However, the date on that deposit slip was 2/15/63
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0…
THE RIFLE
The Fourth Decade, Volume 7, Issue 3
Current Section: The Rifle, by R.F. Gallagher
http://www.maryferrell.org/mffweb/archive/viewer/showDoc.do?docId=487…
THE SECOND CARCANO
http://jfkresearch.freehomepage.com/c2766.html
(Klein’s and Seaport Traders) were under investigation by the Dodd
Committee at the time of the orders.Despite considerable evidence to
the contrary, some critics have questioned whether Lee Harvey Oswald
really owned the revolver used to shoot Officer J.D. Tippit. Recently,
allegations have been made based on a 1974 unpublished manuscript by
Fred T. Newcomb and Perry Adams titled, Murder From Within.
According to Newcomb and Adams, a 1964 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee
looking into mail-order firearms trafficking published a chart which
showed that Seaport Traders, the firm Oswald ordered his .38 caliber
Smith and Wesson revolver from, never shipped any .38 revolvers to
Dallas, Texas in March 1963 – the month of Oswald’s order. Newcomb and
Adams concluded that “Oswald’s gun, in effect, did not exist.”
Although critics have clung to Newcomb and Adams’ assertions as proof
positive of forged documents, cover-ups, and the alleged framing of
Oswald, little has been done to substantiate Newcomb and Adams’
claims. In fact, a review of the record shows Newcomb and Adam’s
allegations to be false and misleading.
Was Oswald a Dodd Committee Investigator?
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.htm
Orering the Rifle
by Martha Moyer
Click to access moyer.pdf
John F. Kennedy assassination rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle
See Extra Copy deposit slip
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh21/html/WH_Vol21_0365b.htm
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/QEwZ2kQkulI
\\][//
“Oswald’s Rifle”
The WC needed to prove there was only one Mannlicher-Carcano with serial
number C2766 and questioned Klein’s Vice-President William Waldman. When
Waldman told Commission Atty David Belin that Mannlicher-Carcano’s were
made by a number of ***different manufacturers*** Belin responded by
asking, “Does the ***same manufacturer*** give different serial numbers
for each weapon?” Waldman answered, “The gun manufacturers imprint a
different number on each gun. It’s stamped into the frame of the gun and
serves as a unique identification for each gun.”
*David Belin obviously asked William Waldman the wrong question. He
should have asked if ***different manufacturers could have used indentical
serial numbers.*** When the FBI interviewed William Suchet, the owner of
International Firearms Ltd. of Montreal, he said that different
manufacturers in Italy sometimes used the same serial numbers on
Mannlicher-Carcano rifles.
The Commission, using the testimony they received from Waldman, wrote in
their final report, “..the number C2766 is the serial number.” The
Commission concluded, “The number ‘C2766’ is the serial number of the
rifle, and the rifle in question is the only one of its type bearing that
serial number.”
NOTE: **The fact that David Belin failed to ask Waldman if different
manufacturers could have used identical serial numbers clearly
demonstrates the Commission’s willingness to manipulate testimony in order
to frame Oswald.**
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/QEwZ2kQkulI
\\][//
“Finally, as we all know today, the evidence which the HSCA used as the “lynchpin” in its case against Oswald has now been thoroughly discredited. That would be the Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis, sometimes called Neutron Activation Analysis for bullet lead traces. That FBI procedure always had questions surrounding it. In fact, the first time it had been used was in the JFK case. Today, after the painstaking reviews by two professional teams of metallurgists and statisticians, it has been so vitiated that the FBI will never use it again in court. (ibid, pgs. 72-73) Unfortunately, that verdict came a bit late for Oswald.
When approaching CE 399 today, the so-called Magic Bullet, one wonders how Warren Commission defenders can keep a straight face discussing it. All the desperate schemes used in the past decade on cable TV shows with their preposterous computer simulations and numerous trajectories all avoid the main point. And it is the similar problem that we have with CE 543. Today, the adduced evidence trail indicates that CE 399 was never fired in Dealey Plaza. The work of people like Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson, John Hunt, and Robert Harris, clearly indicates that CE 399 is, and always was, a plant.”~ James DiEugenio
http://www.ctka.net/2014/state_of_case.html
\\][//
“There are actually several conflicting single bullet theories, a good reason, among many, to reject them. Rejecting them means there was more than one shooter. It also means there are problems with the ballistics evidence. This article endeavors to end assumptions about the suppression of that evidence. Notwithstanding the failure of the single bullet theories, and actually precluding them, we argue that the existence of a conspiracy is sufficiently proved by exposing two unreliable claims of the Warren Commission; by exhausting all conceivable innocent explanations for those claims; by arguing that they were instead “damage control” attempts to deflect honest inquiry; and by calling into question long-accepted theories about the alleged murder weapon and its alleged misidentification.
We demonstrate how the planting of specific evidence — a part of the weapon — was based on an error. The perpetrators quickly realized the mistake but not soon enough to correct it or hide it. All they could do was deflect attention from it. It was an error so obvious that it would have exposed, within hours of Lee Harvey Oswald’s arrest, the conspiracy to frame him. In fact, the error has never been hidden, just confused. We therefore show that damage control was the motive for the unanticipated, but criminally necessary and deliberate, prolonged misidentification of the weapon.”~Walter F. Graf and Richard R. Bartholomew
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/19th_Issue/gtds.html
\\][//
Editor’s note:
After publication, I modified this piece on the suggestion of Mark Zaid, Anthony Summers, and John McAdams. Originally I included Col. Fletcher Prouty as one of the Washington insiders who suspected a JFK plot. Nothing I wrote about Prouty was inaccurate but these readers advised me of other things Prouty had done and said that called into question his veracity. So he’s not the best example to cite. I replaced him with another Washington insider, Joseph Califano.
For the record, here’s what I wrote about Prouty.
5) Col. L. Fletcher Prouty: This career military man served as chief of Pentagon special operations in 1963. He believed that there had been a plot against JFK among enemies of his policies in the national security agencies. Prouty was the basis for the character “Colonel X” in Oliver Stone’s “JFK.”
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/insiders-who-suspected-a-jfk-plot/#more-6460
Why is Morley taking the advice of John McAdams? McAdams is a raving Warren Commission cultist and disingenuous prevaricator! Perhaps because JFKfacts is a modified limited hangout.
\\][//
Photographer who captured funeral salute by JFK’s son passes
April 16, 2015 – jeffmorley
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/photographer-who-captured-funeral-salute-by-jfks-son-passes/
What the fuck??? This is insignificant trivia more appropriate to People Magazine than a serious site for discussing the JFK assassination.
This is junk journalism by Jefferson Morley. Filler to an already too full banquet.
\\][//
Bill Moyers was part of the JFK assassination cover-up.
http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/771-much-too-late-public-learns-of-bill-moyers-conflicts-over-pbs-lbj
\\][//
Why Bother?
Why bother countering the nonsense propagated by the Warren Commission Cult?
The point in countering propaganda is not to change the propagandist’s mind, but to lay his techniques and dissembling bare to a candid world.~Willy Whitten
\\][//
Some standard techniques used in propaganda and persuasion:
> Ad hominem
A Latin phrase that has come to mean attacking one’s opponent, as opposed to attacking their arguments.
> Ad nauseam
This argument approach uses tireless repetition of an idea. An idea, especially a simple slogan, that is repeated enough times, may begin to be taken as the truth. This approach works best when media sources are limited or controlled by the propagator.
> Appeal to authority
Appeals to authority cite prominent figures to support a position, idea, argument, or course of action.
\\][//
Difference Between Carbine and Rifle
1.A rifle comes with a longer barrel than a carbine.
2.The barrel of a rifle has grooves in it producing a “spin” on the bullet.
3.Carbines are lighter due to the shorter design.
4.The difference in accuracy between the rifle and the carbine is minimal and would usually depend on the skill of the handler.
http://www.differencebetween.net/technology/difference-between-carbine-and-rifle/
\\][//
Did Lee Harvey Oswald Shoot at General Edwin Walker?
The Walker bullet had been fired from a rifle powerful enough to send it through brickwork, which the Mannlicher–Carcano rifle was not. There is no evidence that Oswald ever had access to such a rifle.
Not only did the bullet and rifle have no association with Lee Harvey Oswald, but Edwin Walker was adamant that Commission Exhibit 573, the bullet offered in evidence, was not the one he had examined at the time of the shooting; see Justice Department Criminal Division File 62–117290–1473 for Walker’s correspondence with the Justice Department on this matter.
http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-oswald-shoot-general-edwin-walker
\\][//
Questions About JFKfacts
“After publication, I modified this piece on the suggestion of Mark Zaid, Anthony Summers, and John McAdams. Originally I included Col. Fletcher Prouty as one of the Washington insiders who suspected a JFK plot. Nothing I wrote about Prouty was inaccurate but these readers advised me of other things Prouty had done and said that called into question his veracity. So he’s not the best example to cite. I replaced him with another Washington insider, Joseph Califano.
For the record, here’s what I wrote about Prouty.
5) Col. L. Fletcher Prouty: This career military man served as chief of Pentagon special operations in 1963. He believed that there had been a plot against JFK among enemies of his policies in the national security agencies. Prouty was the basis for the character “Colonel X” in Oliver Stone’s “JFK.”~Jeff Morley
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Len Osanic
February 8, 2014 at 9:02 pm
“I’m wondering now what kind of journalist reporter that Morely is ?
First who asks mcadams for advice on anything?
Mark Zaid. seriously…
Second, you would someone who knew the man, or check his official website. The Col. L. Fletcher Prouty Reference Site. http://www.prouty.org
To even consider asking mcadams for advice, is why morley is on the outside looking in. Prouty’s, The Secret Team book published by Balentine books first printing 1974. JFK by Birch Lane Press /Carol Publishing 1992. And now both on Skyhorse Publishing. Oliver Stone hired Fletcher for the making of JFK, and thought highly of him, and echoed that in my interview with him on Black Op Radio in January. To obfuscate what Prouty writes about, with a one time licence deal to re-print a limited run for the IHR publisher is saying, “don’t look behind the curtain”.
Morely has my phone number and email but doesn’t have the guts to call me or Dave Ratcliffe. I leave it up to you to decides if he even knows anything about Fletcher Prouty, or further has the journalistic skills to write about this topic, which his website claims as “FACTS”. When you have to ask a mcadams, what the facts are, that means you really don’t have any idea at all.
Makes me regret even having morley take part in my
50 Reasons For 50 Years series.”
jfkfacts- “making non-sense of JFK’s assassination after 50 years”
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/insiders-who-suspected-a-jfk-plot/#comment-311365
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/did-jfks-limousine-come-to-a-stop-amid-the-gunfire/
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Acoustics_Overview_and_History
http://jfkproject.org/mathematical-synchronization-of-the-zapruder-film-and-the-dallas-police-department-dictabelt/
“Warren Caster, on Wednesday the 20th, in fact brought TWO rifles into the depository building, one of which was a sporterized Mauser. Where is the proof other than his own testimony that he took those rifles from the building?”~Leslie Sharp
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/#comment-749202
\\][//
HSCA testimony of Warren Caster
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/caster.htm
\\][//
THE TEXAS SCHOOL BOOK DEPOSITORY
It should be emphasized that school books in particular are PROPAGANDA from inception to publishing and distribution.
Spook business from top to bottom.
\\][//
Acoustics Evidence
The House Select Committee on Assassinations stunned many people with its finding that Kennedy was “probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy.” The HSCA’s finding was based in large part, though not solely, on its analysis of acoustics evidence.
Mary Ferrell and others brought to the attention of the HSCA the existence of a police dictabelt which might contain sounds of the shooting in Dealey Plaza. One channel of police transmissions had been open during this time due to a stuck microphone switch. The HSCA hired two outside laboratories to analyze the dictabelt. While the roar of motorcycle engine noise drowned out much of the audio from a human listener’s perspective, distinct spikes in volume could be analyzed statistically, based on comparison between the pattern of such spikes and the echo patterns which the buildings in the Plaza would create. The experts found 6 impulses on the dictabelt whose echo patterns matched what one would expect from gunfire in the plaza. The HSCA then conducted a field study, placing microphones in Dealey Plaza and firing rifles fired from the Book Depository’s “sniper’s nest” and from spots behind the fence on the grassy knoll.
In the end, the scientists found a solid match for a shot from the grassy knoll. Due to its medical conclusions that all shots which struck the motorcade came from the rear, a finding which has long been questioned, the Committee determined that the grassy knoll shot missed. This strange juxtaposition of the existence a shot from the knoll, but calling it a missed shot, opened the Committee to disbelief and ridicule from all sides.
The HSCA’s analysis was later called into question by a panel of scientists headed by Norman Ramsey. But that “debunking” has itself been called into serious question by the re-analysis of scientist D.B. Thomas, described most thoroughly in his book Hear No Evil.
https://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Acoustics_Evidence
\\][//
Current debate on JFKfacts:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/millicent-cantors-response-to-jean-davison/#comment-749453
VICTOR H. KRULAK
15 March 1985
Mr. Fletcher Prouty
Alexandria, Virginia
Dear Fletch:
As I read your interesting letter it is plain that you have not wanted for interest or achievement in your life. It has to have been exciting and rewarding too.
Mine has been a lively existence too. I had much to do with Vietnam from ’64 to ’68, and was loudly disenchanted with what went on and how. I recorded it as part of my book First to Fight that came out a few months ago.
I’ve also spent ten years in the newspaper business (a most useful education) and now write a syndicated weekly column. I wrote another book, Organization for National Security that resulted in my testifying before a Senate committee.
All taken together, a stirring life.
As to your chronicle concerning the JFK assassination period, I remember your going to Antarctica. I was in the Pentagon at the time of the tragedy but have no recollection of where Lansdale was.
The pictures.– The two policemen are carrying shotguns, not rifles. Their caps are different (one a white chinstrap, one black). One has a Dallas police shoulder patch, one does not and their caps differ from that of another police officer in photo 4. Reasonable conclusion — they are either reservists or phonys. And, as you know, city cops don’t have anything to do with Sheriff’s offices.
As to photo no. 1. That is indeed a picture of Ed Lansdale. The haircut, the stoop, the twisted left hand, the large class ring. It’s Lansdale. What in the world was he doing there? Has anyone ever asked him and who was the photographer? Why did he take the pictures? What did he do with them?
I have examined my own records and find no clue that would help. Suffice to say, it is a fascinating proposition.
I am returning your pictures.
Best regards always.
Sincerely,
[signed, Brute Krulak]
http://www.ratical.com/ratville/JFK/USO/appD.html
\\][//
A Rebuttal to Ramsey
Under contract by the HSCA, the firm of Bolt, Beranek, & Newman(BBN) analyzed a tape recording of the JFK motorcade in Dealey Plaza and found 4 possible shots The most controversial was the shot from the grassy knoll, which would imply that a conspiracy was involved. Because BB&N could only state the probability for that shot was 50%, HSCA asked acoustics experts Weiss and Aschkenasy (W&A) to refine the data on that shot in order to reduce the uncertainty either way. W&A stated with a 95% confidence that the impulse on the DPD tape recording was a gunshot fired from the grassy knoll. The HSCA relied quite heavily on that conclusion in issuing its finding of a conspiracy.
The U.S. Justice Department (DOJ), instead of then investigating the conspiracy, attempted to discredit the HSCA findings. Its first attempt using the FBI bugging experts failed due to the lack of competence in the necessary disciplines. DOJ then had to assign the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) the task of discrediting the HSCA’s acoustical findings. To be sure of the outcome, only government connected scientists, most with ties to the intelligence community, were selected and they worked in total secrecy without any challenge from independent researchers. It was hoped that their prestige would end the debate and their mandate was only to discredit the acoustical analysis of the HSCA, not to find the truth. The budget they were given was so limited that they could not do the necessary tests beyond those needed to discredit the HSCA. The DOJ was highly successful. It’s been over a year since the issuance of the NAS Report and not one scientist has dared challenge it. It’s a national disgrace for a country Which prides itself on freedom of thought that the challenge has to come from an ordinary blue-collar worker, rather than the scientific community.
Note: Bolt,Beranek and Newman is an important defense contractor, especially to the Navy. If their basic understanding of science is as flawed as Ramsey suggests the implications are frightening. In that case, they couldn’t tell a Russian sub from a whale by sonar. No intercepted code could be decrypted, because the noise reducing or filtering algorithms would be suspect.
http://www.jfk-assassinat.com/index.php?module=pages&type=user&func=display&pageid=180
\\][//
Complete timeline of November 22, 1963 – Dallas, Texas
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13233-Deep-Politics-Timeline/page8#.VTbM3SFViko
\\][//
“There is already too much truth in the world – an overproduction which apparently cannot be consumed!” – Otto Rank
“For centuries man lived in the belief that truth was slim and elusive and that once he found it the troubles of mankind would be over. And here we are in the closing decades of the 20th century, choking on truth…the mind is silent as the world spins on its age-old demonic career.” – Ernest Becker
12:32 PM The telephone system in Washington DC went dead either completely or intermittently 2.5 minutes after the assassination; it was not restored for an hour. The explanation was that the breakdown was caused by overloaded phone wires. (Cover Up 199; Death of a President 198-99). “Telephone service in the nation’s capital collapsed temporarily. The sudden load of telephone calls swamped central stations and it was impossible to get dial tone to make calls.” (Los Angeles Times 11/23/1963)
Dr. Ronald Coy Jones testifies: “There was a large defect in the back side of the head as the President lay on the cart with what appeared to be some brain hanging out of this wound with multiple pieces of skull noted next with the brain and with a tremendous amount of clot and blood.”
“Dr. Gene Akin, an Anesthesiologist at Parkland, testifies that “the back of the right occipital-parietal portion of JFK’s head was shattered, with brain substance extruding.”
“Dr. Charles Baxter testifies that there is “a large gaping wound in the back of the skull.” Baxter will also insist that the wound in the throat was “no more than a pinpoint. It was made by a small caliber weapon. And it was an entry wound.””
“The Texas Theater begins showing newsreels and cartoons prior to the main feature, “War Is Hell.” Concession attendant Butch Burroughs will tell British film producer Nigel Turner, “Oswald slipped into the theater between 1:00 and 1:07 PM.” Butch Burroughs, an employee of the Texas Theater, hears someone enter the Texas Theater shortly after 1:00 PM and go to the balcony. About 1:15 PM LHO comes down from the balcony and buys popcorn from Burroughs. Burroughs watches him walk down the aisle and take a seat on the main floor. He sits next to Jack Davis during the opening credits of the first movie, several minutes before 1:20 PM. LHO then moves across the aisle and sits next to another man. A few minutes later Davis notices he moves again and sits next to a pregnant woman. Just before the police arrive, the pregnant woman goes to the balcony and is never seen again. In addition to Oswald there are seven people watching the movie on the main level (six after the pregnant woman left). Within 10 minutes, LHO will sit next to half of them. Note that at this time, J.D. Tippit has not yet been shot.”~Timeline
\\][//
Weisberg: “The police were at least consistent. The boxes in the area, especially those allegedly stacked up by the assassin to serve as a gun rest (7H149), were treated with equal carelessness. They were moved before they were photographed. Some had been moved before the police identification people arrived. Yet these were the pictures used to re-enact and reconstruct the crime!” (Whitewash)
1:12 PM DPD Lt. John Carl Day and Det. Studebaker arrive at the TSBD. (CE3145 26H829) Day takes a photograph which appears to show only two empty cartridges and one round of live ammunition laying on the floor. H&L Tomorrow, FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover will sign a report that is sent to DPD Chief Jesse Curry which will identify two cartridge casings and one live cartridge that have been turned over to SA Vince Drain. The cartridges will be tested for latent fingerprints with negative results. Five days from now Captain Fritz will produce a third empty shell that he allegedly found on the sixth floor. This will conveniently back up the “official” story of three shots. The question is why Capt. Fritz picked up an empty casing on the sixth floor and failed to follow police procedure by immediately turning it over to the identification bureau. Additionally, the third empty casing has the initials “GD” scratched on it when it was allegedly picked up by Captain Fritz. “GD” would have most probably represented Captain George Doughty. However, Captain Doughty will not remember handling the third empty cartridge.
Weisberg: “The story of the empty rifle shells is just as bad and does not require complete tracing. They were photographed in place. Detective Sims carefully picked them up and Day sought fingerprints. There were none. They were put into an unsealed envelope which Day signed and returned to Sims. Although Day had earlier informed the Commission he had marked all three shells at the scene, he admitted that was incorrect. At about 10 o’clock that night he had marked two of the shells. Although the third shell was missing, Day said, “I didn’t examine it too close at that time.” The third shell bears the identification of Captain George Doughty, Day’s superior. Why the shells did not all bear Day’s mark is unexplained. How Doughty’s mark constitutes any kind of an identification at all is a mystery. There was much conflicting and contradictory testimony about these empty cases and a number of affidavits of further explanation were filed. There is this additional mystery: Day was asked by the examiner of one of these shells, “It appears to be flattened out here. Do you know or have you any independent recollection as to whether or not is was flattened out on the small end when you saw it?” Day’s response was, “No, sir; I don’t.” What needs explaining is how a deformed shell fit into a precisely machined rifle breach (4H253-5).” (Whitewash)
At this point, there are no photographs or any mention that an ammunition clip has been found in or near the sniper’s nest. Only when the Warren Report is issued in September 1964 will the public learn that “when the rifle was found in the Texas School Book Depository Building it contained a clip.” This assertion is unsupported by direct evidence and testimony. No fingerprints will be found on the clip – which holds six shells. One additional shell can also be loaded in the chamber of the rifle. Three spent shells are found on the sixth floor of the TSBD. One live shell will be ejected from the rifle now. This indicates that the clip was not fully loaded at the time of the assassination – which means that LHO set out to murder the President with only four shells – his last and only shells at that. No other rifle ammunition is ever found. Marina Oswald will later initially testify on December 16, 1963, that “Oswald did not have any ammunition for the rifle to her knowledge in either Dallas or New Orleans, and he did not speak of buying ammunition.” However, Marina’s story will change when she is questioned by the Commission on February 3, 1964. At that time, she will remember seeing ammunition in a box “in New Orleans and on Neely Street.”
The Warren Report will also eventually state that “when the rifle was found in the Texas School book Depository Building it contained a clip.” No witness who gave testimony about the search of the TSBD or the discovery of the rifle mentions an ammunition clip, either in the rifle or elsewhere on the sixth floor — assuming this was the floor the rifle was actually found on.
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/showthread.php?13233-Deep-Politics-Timeline/page8#.VTbM3SFViko
\\][//
Douglas Horne disregards the two premier experts in film and special effects cinematography. Instead he has chosen to run with a pack of howling jackals led by the proven liar and charlatan James Fetzer.
\\][//
“Really Willy? You really want to speak of “disingenuous” after your false claim about NSAM 263?” ~Bill Clarke
I am really sick of this bullshit of Bill Clarke calling my opinion about NSAM 263 a “false claim”, essentially saying that I am a liar. In this instance he must include people such as Ted Sorenson, Daniel Ellsberg, Roger Hilsman, Mike Mansfield, Arthur Schlesinger Jr.,etc. as liars as well. (as noted by David Regan on the same thread)
More than being pissed off at Bill Clarke himself however, I am totally pissed off at the moderators of JFKfacts who will not allow a single answer from me to be made to Clarke. This moderator’s bias is unjust and infuriating.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/response-to-shenon-some-evidence-of-cia-or-us-military-intelligence-participation-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/#comment-750464
Amerikans with kill appeal…praying to dead gods.
\\][//
The next confrontation with the defense and intelligence establishments had already begun as JFK resisted pressure from Eisenhower, the Joint Chiefs and the CIA to prop up the CIA’s puppet government in Laos against the communist Pathet Lao guerrillas. The military wanted 140,000 ground troops, with some officials advocating for nuclear weapons. “If it hadn’t been for Cuba,” JFK told Schlesinger, “we might be about to intervene in Laos. I might have taken this advice seriously.” JFK instead signed a neutrality agreement the following year and was joined by 13 nations, including the Soviet Union.
As JFK’s relationship with his military-intelligence apparatus deteriorated, a remarkable relationship with Khrushchev began. Both were battle-hardened war veterans seeking a path to rapprochement and disarmament, encircled by militarists clamoring for war. In Kennedy’s case, both the Pentagon and the CIA believed war with the Soviets was inevitable and therefore desirable in the short term while we still had the nuclear advantage. In the autumn of 1961, as retired Gen. Lucius Clay, who had taken a civilian post in Berlin, launched a series of unauthorized provocations against the Soviets, Khrushchev began an extraordinary secret correspondence with JFK. With the Berlin crisis moving toward nuclear Armageddon, Khrushchev turned to KGB agent Georgi Bolshakov, a top Soviet spy in Washington, to communicate directly with JFK. Bolshakov, to the horror of the U.S. State Department, was a friend of my parents and a frequent guest at our home. Bolshakov smuggled a letter, the first of 21 declassified in 1993, to JFK’s press secretary, Pierre Salinger, in a folded newspaper. In it, Khrushchev expressed regret about Vienna and embraced JFK’s proposal for a path to peace and disarmament.
https://nominay.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/the-trouble-with-henry-cabot-lodge/
In the late afternoon of Thursday, November 21, Forrestal spoke with the president in the Oval Office, just hours before his departure for Texas . Looking to the near future, the president asserted, “I want you to come and see me because we have to start to plan for what we are going to do now in South Vietnam . I want to start a complete and very profound review of how we got into this country, and what we thought we were doing, and what we now think we can do. I even want to think about whether or not we should be there.” The election campaign precluded any “drastic changes of policy, quickly,” but I want to consider “how some kind of a gradual shift in our presence in South Vietnam [could] occur.”
Just as the withdrawal plan moved to implementation, President Kennedy was assassinated, bringing the process to a close. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, followed the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to revise NSAM 273 by shifting the focus from the Vietcong to covert actions against Hanoi . The proposal, code-named OPLAN 34A, became what the Pentagon Papers later termed “an elaborate program of covert military operations against the state of North Vietnam,” which led to the establishment of a “black” sabotage organization code-named the Studies and Observations Group (SOG) that engineered more than 2000 covert assaults on the north and its military installations in Laos and Cambodia.
– See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/3446#sthash.B6fdGxmO.dpuf
On June 10th, 1963, at American University, Kennedy gave his greatest speech ever, calling for an end to the Cold War, painting the heretical vision of America living and competing peacefully with Soviet Communists. World peace, he proposed, would not be “a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war.” He challenged Cold War fundamentalists who cast the world as a clash of civilizations in which one side must win and the other annihilated. He suggested instead that peaceful coexistence with the Soviets might be the most expedient path to ending totalitarianism.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/john-f-kennedys-vision-of-peace-20131120#ixzz3YFmcgTbE
Henry Cabot Lodge deserves further scrutiny as a character in this saga of assassination and conspiracy. He was detrimental to JFK’s safety by putting him on disastrous terms with the Central Intelligence Agency, over Cuba. Lodge’s role was unique in providing the CIA with the impetus to kill the President. Kennedy’s adversaries within the government, chiefly at the CIA and Pentagon, had a commitment to win the cold war at all costs. This is not just the view of conspiracy theorists, but also of multiple, government insiders, including JFK’s very own pick to represent him at brokering a peace deal with Castro – William Atwood. In Anthony Summer’s book, “Not In Your Lifetime”, he quotes the former UN Ambassador, Atwood, as saying:
“If the CIA did find out what we were doing [talks toward normalizing relations with Cuba] … they might have been impelled to take violent action. Such as assassinating the President.”
What we’ve since learned from Summer’s interview with Atwood however is that the CIA did find out what they were doing … and we know how the agency found out, and from whom.
https://nominay.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/the-trouble-with-henry-cabot-lodge/
\\][//
“I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against sending combat troops, except one man and that was the President. The President just didn’t want to be convinced that this was the right thing to do….It was really the President’s personal conviction that U.S. ground troops shouldn’t go in.” Maxwell Taylor, in recorded interview by L.J. Hackman, 11/13/69
[See: Robert Kennedy and His Times By Arthur M. Schlesinger]
“That is our objective to bring Americans home…permit the South Vietnamese to maintain themselves as a free and independent country…”~JFK, November 14, 1963
\\][//
Is maintaining and intensifying negotiation and political pressure “withdrawal”? This is something no one seems to willing to parse here in these discussions.
Remaining engaged diplomatically would not be “withdrawal” and it wouldn’t mean military escalation either.
I think it is more than obvious that Kennedy was on the path of negotiation, and would never have introduced ground forces, nor carpet bombing North Vietnam.
Remember he had been successful earlier in Laos with that exact strategy of negotiating a settlement.
\\][//
Ted Sorensen: JFK Wouldn’t Have Sent Combat Troops to Vietnam
\\][//
In accordance with Rusk’s earlier argument, the administration used the coup’s success to justify withdrawal. Before a press conference on November 14, President Kennedy asserted that at the scheduled Honolulu Conference in six days, his advisers would develop detailed plans for the initial troop withdrawal. Presidential adviser McGeorge Bundy afterward drafted a National Security Action Memorandum that he expected President Kennedy to sign as the precursor to withdrawal. According to NSAM 273, the White House remained committed to “the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel.”
In the late afternoon of Thursday, November 21, Forrestal spoke with the president in the Oval Office, just hours before his departure for Texas . Looking to the near future, the president asserted, “I want you to come and see me because we have to start to plan for what we are going to do now in South Vietnam . I want to start a complete and very profound review of how we got into this country, and what we thought we were doing, and what we now think we can do. I even want to think about whether or not we should be there.” The election campaign precluded any “drastic changes of policy, quickly,” but I want to consider “how some kind of a gradual shift in our presence in South Vietnam [could] occur.”
Just as the withdrawal plan moved to implementation, President Kennedy was assassinated, bringing the process to a close. His successor, Lyndon B. Johnson, followed the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to revise NSAM 273 by shifting the focus from the Vietcong to covert actions against Hanoi . The proposal, code-named OPLAN 34A, became what the Pentagon Papers later termed “an elaborate program of covert military operations against the state of North Vietnam,” which led to the establishment of a “black” sabotage organization code-named the Studies and Observations Group (SOG) that engineered more than 2000 covert assaults on the north and its military installations in Laos and Cambodia.
– See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/3446#sthash.B6fdGxmO.dpuf
“Once, at that time, you reported in a small front-page box that some American major general was visiting Vietnam. The President called me at home and in decidedly purple language took me to task for letting an American general visit Vietnam. “Remember Laos,” he said on this and other occasions; the United States, he said, must keep a low profile in Vietnam so we can negotiate its neutralization as we had in Laos.
When he paused for breath, I pointed out that I had no authority to deny a general permission to visit Vietnam — in fact, I had not even known about the trip. “Oh,” said the President and slammed down the phone without even saying goodbye. That afternoon a National Security Action Memorandum came out saying that no officer of flag or general rank could visit Vietnam without the written permission of the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs.”~ROGER HILSMAN – Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, the officer responsible for Vietnam
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/20/opinion/l-how-kennedy-viewed-the-vietnam-conflict-892092.html?smid=tw-share
\\][//
A good friend of my made these prescient remarks in an email to me tonight. I want to share them here:
“I am really not convinced that presidents have the power or the ability to effect foreign policy that much, if any. Especially in the case of JFK and Vietnam, which is a conflict he had inherited as he took office.
That said, it does seem like JFK himself believed that he could reverse the course on not just Vietnam, but on almost all aspects of the shadow government. I believe he had the brains, the guts and the power to try to do that, or die trying. Alas, “die trying” is essentially what he ended up doing.
Where the JFK Vietnam argument is falling short in terms of being the reason for the assasination is that it can not sufficiently describe or explain the Dealey coup… Same thing applies to the mafia, and the federal reserve and its bankers… None of them by themselves can be an explanation, or an arrow pointing to the perps.
It is only and only when one accepts the fact that these are all parts of a single beast called “the power structure” that symbiotically work together under a stealth and highly organized transnational governing system, that one can begin to comprehend how deep the coup actually went, and how many different parties were involved in it.
I believe JFK was determined to go against the status quo of this power structure, speaking of peace, sovereignty, right to print money, eradicating the mafia, disassembling the CIA, conspiracy of secret societies and god knows what else behind closed doors that I am not aware of.
He had caught the winds of public support, and the peace&social justice driven naive hope of the younger generation in his sail, and had he stayed in office for two terms, he would have done quite a bit of damage by hacking at the main columns of the temple of money and war. So, it was not, and could not have been any one facet that caused discontent with the powers, it was just that, in their eyes, he had become a rogue president who had to be not only eliminated, but made an example of to any future leaders who might consider following in his footsteps… RFK was going to try… And then, BOOM! In that sense, RFK’s death was almost equally tragic as JFK’s… That was the end of hope for a brighter future as far as I am concerned…. When the only capable heir to fill JFK’s shoes was eliminated, the coup was finally complete…. We all know how the rest went down… They also killed jr. who seemed destined for greatness.
When the biased and narrow minded argue about these issues, they fall victim to their own anger or pride or nationalism or ignorance or the brainwashing propaganda they have been subjected to, which prevents them from seeing the big picture. Are those the ones you speak of when you say “no one seems to willing to parse here in these discussions”?”
. . . . . . .
\\][//
“Are those the ones you speak of when you say “no one seems to willing to parse here in these discussions”?”
Those are the very ones I speak to indeed.
\\][//
Willy,’I think it is more than obvious that Kennedy was on the path of negotiation, and would never have introduced ground forces, nor carpet bombing North Vietnam.
Remember he had been successful earlier in Laos with that exact strategy.’
. . . . . .
“Is there some pre-assassination document showing that JFK was on a path of negotiation?” ~Jean Davison
. . . . .
What do you mean a “document” singular? Kennedy’s entire history as a diplomat and politician speak to this. You have just as much access to his speeches and private talks and transcripts thereof as anyone else with an Internet connection.
We have already gone through the back-channel efforts Kennedy was making to negotiate peaceful settlements with Khrushchev, and Castro. We have his successes with such negotiated settlements I already listed.
It is you and your comrades here Jean, who are arguing against history.
. . . . . .
“Thanks, I’ll take that as a “no.”~Jean Davison
. . . . . .
No, you should rather take it as I put it; ‘many’, too many to list. Many on video from Kennedy’s own mouth. Transcripts of those talks and speeches.
Kennedy is very clear on his preference for negotiated settlements of political issues, and is always in favor of that rather than military hostilities.
Don’t forget Jean, Kennedy inherited the situation in Indochina. The CIA had been involved in machinations there since WWII, they were pushing their agenda and access to heroin. They had Air America, a small air force of their own, that evolved out of Chennault’s flying tigers’s.
[See; Alfred W McCoy, The Politics of Heroin in South East Asia]
Escalation was on autopilot, there were many financial interests vying for a stake in this region of the world. Changing that imperial dynamic was Kennedy’s goal.
These facts are in the open record, not locked away in CIA vaults. Read the history of Imperial France in Indochina. The French had been there since the 16th century. This history sets the real context for Kennedy’s eventual part in this.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/response-to-shenon-some-evidence-of-cia-or-us-military-intelligence-participation-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/#comment-752637
\\][//
Imperialism – The Enemy of Freedom – John F Kennedy
July 2, 1957 – speech to congress:
Mr. KENNEDY. “Mr. President, the most powerful single force in the world today is neither communism nor capitalism, neither the H-bomb nor the guided missile it is man’s eternal desire to be free and independent. The great enemy of that tremendous force of freedom is called, for want of a more precise term, imperialism – and today that means Soviet imperialism and, whether we like it or not, and though they are not to be equated, Western imperialism.
Thus the single most important test of American foreign policy today is how we meet the challenge of imperialism, what we do to further man’s desire to be free. On this test more than any other, this Nation shall be critically judged by the uncommitted millions in Asia and Africa, and anxiously watched by the still hopeful lovers of freedom behind the Iron Curtain. If we fail to meet the challenge of either Soviet or Western imperialism, then no amount of foreign aid, no aggrandizement of armaments, no new pacts or doctrines or high-level conferences can prevent further setbacks to our course and to our security.
I am concerned today that we are failing to meet the challenge of imperialism – on both counts – and thus failing in our responsibilities to the free world. I propose, therefore, as the Senate and the Nation prepare to commemorate the 181st anniversary of man’s noblest expression against political repression, to begin a two-part series of speeches, examining America’s role in the continuing struggles for independence that strain today against the forces of imperialism within both the Soviet and Western worlds. My intention is to talk not of general principles, but of specific cases – to propose not partisan criticisms but what I hope will be constructive solutions.”
http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/congress/jfk020757_imperialism.html
\\][//
Generally speaking, Amerikans are dreadfully naïve, jejune and ignorant.
\\][//
There is no grasping the JFK Assassination without an understanding of Skull & Bones
It all began at Yale. In 1832, General William Huntington Russell and Alphonso Taft put together a super secret society for the elite children of the Anglo- American Wall Street banking establishment. William Huntington Russell’s step-brother Samuel Russell ran “Russell & Co.”, the world’s largest OPIUM
smuggling operation in the world at the time. Alphonso Taft is the Grandfather of our ex-president Howard Taft, the creator of the Forerunner to the United Nations.
The society’s assets are managed by the society’s alumni organization, the Russell Trust Association, incorporated in 1856 and named after the Bones co-founder. The association was founded by Russell and Daniel Coit Gilman, a Skull and Bones member, and later president of the University of California, first president of Johns Hopkins University, and the founding president of the Carnegie Institution.
http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/skull_and_bones.htm
\\][//
Of all her later recollections about what President Kennedy intended to do, the most upsetting to her was what she curiously characterized as a “secret meeting,” with U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam Henry Cabot Lodge.
Her account suggests that he went into uncharacteristic detail with her about the reasons for this, briefing her fully on the current and unfolding situation.
He would have had two strong reasons for doing this.
First, he was meeting with the Ambassador not at the White House but at their private weekend home “Wexford,” thus intruding on what was supposed to be set aside as time alone with her and their children.
Second, since the time they had first begun dating, while he was a freshman U.S. Senator and she was a newspaper columnist and photographer, he had known of her particular depth of knowledge and nuanced understanding of the delicate situation in Vietnam which, along with Laos and Cambodia, formed the former French colony of “Indochina.” She had begun studying the situation since 1949 while enrolled at the Sorbonne and she also translated French military policy reports for him on the matter in 1953.
As the former First Lady specifically amplified my original manuscript account:
“He [JFK] was searching for a way to relieve the ambassador of his duties and to gradually diminish the U.S. presence in Vietnam. JFK had scheduled a White House meeting on this subject for Monday morning, November 25.”
http://carlanthonyonline.com/2013/11/22/a-second-jfk-term-jackie-kennedys-notes-on-what-was-planned
\\][//
words that piss me off:
compulsory; required; obligatory; mandatory; required by a law or rule; mandatory; enforced; coercive; compelled, forced…against ones will; imperative; incumbent; involuntary; necessary; nonelective; peremptory.
\\][//
“Compulsory Education”
It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effective.
Blame it on the early indoctrination in the imperial system.
The results of this indoctrination campaign are already evident.
. . . . .
Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
1) To make good people.
2) To make good citizens.
3) To make each person his or her personal best.
These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education’s mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling’s true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not
to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.
Because of Mencken’s reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern.
The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch’s 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann’s “Seventh Annual Report” to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German- speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens – all in order to render the populace “manageable.”
http://www.wesjones.com/gatto1.htm
Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance.~ww
\\][//
“I now no longer believe anything the Agency [CIA] told the committee any further than I can obtain substantial corroboration for it from outside the Agency for its veracity…. “
— G. Robert Blakey, former Chief Counsel to the House Select Committee on Assassinations, in an addendum to the web page for the Frontline episode “Who Was Lee Harvey Oswald?”.
Blakey wrote this after learning that CIA liaison George Joannides had been case officer for an anti-Castro group whose members had contact with accused assassin Lee Oswald in 1963.
Blakey explained:
“We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency. Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.”
\\][//
James Angleton sums up his career in the CIA in a 1985 interview with author Joseph Trento
[Joseph Trento, “The Secret History of the CIA,” (2001) pp. 478-479]
“You know how I got to be in charge of counterintelligence? I agreed not to polygraph or require detailed background checks on Allen Dulles and 60 of his closest friends.” His monologue would stop only for a sip of tea or a violent fit of coughing. “They were too arrogant to believe that the Russians would discover it all.” The real problem Angleton concluded, was that “there was no accountability. And without real accountability everything turned to shit.”
All the trappings of Angleton’s legend were gone by this time, except for his love of exotic tea. But now, this man who had struck fear into most of his colleagues- this man who had been able to end a CIA career with a nod or a phone call- unassuming house in Arlington seemed empty. “You know, the CIA got tens of thousands of brave people killed… We played with lives as if we owned them. We gave false hope. We – I – so misjudged what happened.”
I asked the dying old man how it all went so wrong.
With no emotion in his voice, but with his hand trembling, Angleton replied: “Fundamentally, the founding fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied and the more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. These people attracted and promoted each other. Outside of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret. But I was part of it and loved being in it …. Allen Dulles, Richard Helms, Carmel Offie, and Frank Wisner were the grand masters. If you were in a room with them you were in a room full of people that you had to believe would deservedly end up in hell.” Angleton slowly sippled his tea and then said, “I guess I will see them there soon.”
[Joseph Trento, “The Secret History of the CIA,” (2001) pp. 478-479]
\\][//
“And all the Kennedy team was finally got to openly to giving to the Vice President to the back of their hands,
and it was rather embarrassing for the country around Washington because it was so apparent. Then bang, all at once he is President.”~Curtis LeMay
\\][//
Vincent Bugliosi’s Misnamed Reclaiming History
by David R. Wrone , 28 Sep 2007
In the forty four years of sustained discussion about the official findings of the federal government’s investigation into the assassination of President John F. Kennedy no author can equal the failure Vincent Bugliosi has achieved in his misnamed Reclaiming History.
http://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Essay_-_Vincent_Bugliosis_Misnamed_Reclaiming_History.html
\\][//
Lee Harvey Oswald was linked to the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle alleged to have been used to shoot President Kennedy by the hair and fiber analysis of FBI expert Paul Stombaugh. The Warren Commission’s final report drew conclusions from Stombaugh’s testimony that buttressed assertions about Oswald’s guilt, particularly the association between hair and fiber evidence allegedly tying Oswald to the rifle.
The Commission considered Stombaugh’s testimony of “probative value,” the report stated.
But a devastating recent study by the Justice Department and the FBI shows that close analysis of cases involving hair and fiber testing raises grave concerns about the role of similar scientific testimony by law enforcement experts in criminal convictions.
“Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000,” the Washington Post reported on April 18.
“The review confirmed that FBI experts systematically testified to the near-certainty of ‘matches’ of crime-scene hairs to defendants, backing their claims by citing incomplete or misleading statistics drawn from their case work,” the Post’s Spencer Hsu reported.
“In reality, there is no accepted research on how often hair from different people may appear the same. Since 2000, the lab has used visual hair comparison to rule out someone as a possible source of hair or in combination with more accurate DNA testing.”
One University of Virginia law professor quoted by the Post described the results of the study as a “mass disaster.” The unfounded science has remained uncorrected because courts rely on outdated precedents that admitted scientifically invalid testimony at trial.
A 96 percent error rate
The Post report stated that the results of the first 268 cases examined showed that FBI testimony was fundamentally flawed in 257 of those cases — a “stunning” 96 percent of the total.
. . . . . .
In addition to the FBI’s discredited hair and fiber analysis, they also falsely relied on neutron activation analysis to claim that the bullet fragments and the “magic bullet” came from 2, and only 2, MC rounds. The HSCA doubled down on these findings, relying on analysis by Dr. Vincent Guinn of UC Irvine, in 1979, to support the SBT.
Subsequent studies have shown that the chemical composition of bullets from the same box may be identical, or may vary considerably. Randich, E. and Grant, P., “Journal of Forensic Sciences”, vol.51, no.4 (July, 2006); Spiegleman, C., et. al., “Annals of Applied Statistics,” vol.1, no.1 (2007).
Neutron Activation Analysis has been proven to be useless in determining the origin of bullet fragments, and the FBI has stopped using it for that purpose. But it is still useful in other areas, such as detecting gunpowder elements on human skin. LHO’s hands tested positive; his cheek tested negative, indicating that he fired a handgun, but not a rifle, on 11/22/63.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/new-fbi-study-hair-analysis-warren-commission/
\\][//
Argument with Bill Clarke on the legality of the Vietnam War:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/response-to-shenon-some-evidence-of-cia-or-us-military-intelligence-participation-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/
A limited grasp of and biased interpretation of history, because of a kaleidoscopic moral compass. This is the deep seated problem of people like Bill Clarke. And it is a rather general malaise .
Whether “the Communists” were friend or foe depends on the fickle and ever morphing “Practical Politics Du Jour”
\\][//
Jean Davison -May 4, 2015 at 5:45 pm
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/response-to-shenon-some-evidence-of-cia-or-us-military-intelligence-participation-in-the-assassination-of-jfk/#comment-756789
“I think you’re the one doing the hand waving, Willie.
My point is that some people in JFK’s administration were saying one thing about Vietnam up until 1966 or so and something quite different later on. Speaking of Orwell, it’s as if their earlier statements (and some of JFK’s) went down a Memory Hole.
For instance, take a look at this October 1963 Roger Hilsman memo that talks about U.S. policy on two issues: troop withdrawals and the neutralization of Vietnam. Hilsman wrote it, I didn’t, so don’t attack the messenger, Willie.”
http://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v04/d164
___________________________________________________________________________________
164. Memorandum From the Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs (Hilsman) to the Acting Secretary of State1
Washington, October 1, 1963.
SUBJECT
Possible Political Proposals at the United Nations General Assembly re Viet-Nam
It is possible that during the UNGA consideration of the Ceylonese resolution on human rights in South Viet-Nam2 certain political suggestions regarding Viet-Nam may be made by other delegations. If any formal proposals are made they would, of course, be referred to the Department by USUN for instructions.
It may well be, however, that political suggestions or comments regarding Viet-Nam may be made as obiter dicta in speeches to the General Assembly or during corridor conversations. It would seem desirable that we have approved lines of reply for U.S. representatives to use at their discretion to insure that U.S. views are clearly known before ideas and positions of other delegations crystallize.
The anticipated suggestions from other delegations and proposed U.S. lines of reply are as follows:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Willy Whitten
May 4, 2015 at 10:01 pm
“It may well be, however, that political suggestions or comments regarding Viet-Nam may be made as obiter dicta in speeches to the General Assembly or during corridor conversations.”
— DOCUMENT 164
Do you know what “obiter dicta” is Jean?
It is a nonbinding aside…
1: an incidental and collateral opinion that is uttered by a judge but is not binding.
2: an incidental remark or observation.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/obiter%20dictum
\\][//
“He took a face from the ancient gallery and he walked on down the hall…”
~This is the End – The Doors
\\][//
The Commission considered Stombaugh’s testimony of “probative value,” the report stated.
Stombaugh was careful to qualify some of his key opinions. He said he was “unable to render an opinion that the fibers which he found in the bag had probably come from the blanket.” At other times he said, “All I would say here is that it is possible;” and “the possibility exists, these fibers could have come from this blanket.”~Article above
What we have here is the distinction between “Probative” and “Positive” evidence. As was too often the case the Warren Commission asserted ‘positive’ value to what was actually only ‘probative’ value to evidence and testimonies.
This is the difference between “reasonable doubt” and “unreasonable certainty”, between ‘supposition’ and proven fact. And this is yet another instance of the WC failing to actually prove what they claim to have proven.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-warren-commission/#comment-757999
9 Things you may not know about the Warren Commission:
http://www.history.com/news/history-lists/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-warren-commission
http://www.oocities.org/whiskey99a/dbt2002.html
https://www.maryferrell.org/pages/Acoustics_Evidence.html
Click to access Thomas.pdf
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/is-there-an-audio-recording-of-the-jfk-assassination/
\\][//
CROSSTALK
Synchronization of Putative Gunshots with Events in Dealey Plaza
The point I wish to make in conclusion is that the NRC panel’s reliance on a single instance of crosstalk, the Double Decker, does not establish asynchrony between the sounds identified as gunshots and the time of the assassination. As a consequence, the acoustical identification of the assassination gunfire on the Dallas Police recordings has yet to suffer a substantial challenge.~ Dr. Donald B. Thomas
http://www.oocities.org/whiskey99a/dbt2002.html
\\][//
THE ACOUSTICAL EVIDENCE IN THE KENNEDY ASSASSINATION
Presented by Dr. Donald B. Thomas
November 17, 2001 – Dallas, Texas
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/hear_no_evil.htm
\\][//
“In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations was presented with acoustical evidence that multiple shooters had been involved in the murder of President John F. Kennedy. During the hearing, staff members played a tape recording for the Committee with the explanation that they were about to hear a rifle shot fired from the Grassy Knoll. After listening to this tape the ranking Republican member of the Committee, Representative Samuel Devine of Ohio, rose in the chamber to declare that he had a great deal of experience with firearms and familiarity with rifle fire. He knew a gunshot when he heard one, he said, and the sound alleged to be from the Grassy Knoll could be many things, but it was clearly not a rifle shot. The staff then explained to Mr. Devine that the tape recording was of a test shot fired from the Grassy Knoll that summer; not the Dallas Police tape from 1963. The incident suggests two things. First, that one cannot determine that a recorded sound is or is not gunfire merely by listening with the naked ear. Secondly, it suggests that Congressman Devine may not have been completely open-minded to the concept under investigation by his Committee.
[…]
When the House Select Committee on Assassinations was first confronted with this evidence, they asked the Acoustical Society of America for a short list of the top acoustics laboratories in this country. At the top of the list was the expert consulting firm of Bolt, Baranek & Newman (BBN)of Cambridge, Massachusettes. They had done the Watergate tapes for the Ervin Committee and the acoustics study of the Kent State shooting for the Department of Justice. These experts determined that the assassination gunfire was on the Dallas police tapes and they were the experts who found the “fingerprint” of a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll.
Because that finding was politically incorrect, and because there was an element of uncertainty with regard to the alleged grassy knoll shot, a second expert opinion was sought. Back to the short list, the next laboratory was the Computer Science Department of Queens College, New York, where Professor Mark Weiss and his assistant Arnold Aschkenasy wrote computer programs with sonar applications for the military. They had also published on methods for detecting and separating real sounds from noisy backgrounds. Using the principles of sonar analysis (echo location) they eliminated the cause of the uncertainty and concurred that there was scientific evidence of a shot from the Grassy Knoll on the police tapes.
So, if expertise is what one requires, the top acoustic experts agree that there was scientifically valid evidence for a shot from the Grassy Knoll. Moreover, there has never been a direct challenge to the acoustical evidence, or its analysis, or the methods which were used to determine that shots were present on the police tapes.”.~Dr. Donald B. Thomas
http://www.whokilledjfk.net/hear_no_evil.htm
\\][//
“It is wiser, I believe, to arrive at a theory by way of the evidence rather than the other way around.”~Barbara W. Tuchman
\\][//
Silencers, Sniper Rifles & the CIA
By Carol Hewett
“It’s curious that no one seems to have mentioned this characteristic in connection with the John F. Kennedy assassination, in which both the number and direction of shots fired are still debated. If a silencer was used in combination with another, unsilenced rifle, witnesses located in different parts of the caravan and Dealey Plaza would have heard the shots coming from different directions. Unanimity would have been impossible on the subject of the gunfire’s origin.” Jim Hougan, Spooks (New York: William Morrow and Company, 1978.)
There has been no consideration given by the research community over the past 30 years regarding the possible use of silencers in the JFK assassination. This article hopes to remedy that intriguing possibility. Both conspiracy theorists and lone gun proponents at least agree on one point: that there are differing opinions amongst Dealey Plaza witnesses as to just how many shots were fired on November 22, 1963. All witnesses presumed that having “heard” a given number of shots, then there must have been an equal number of actual shots so as to coincide with what they heard, whether it be 2, 3 or 4 sounds or even more than 4 as some witnesses have claimed.
If there were 4 or more shots, then it follows that there was more than one gun for even the lone assassin proponents agree that Oswald could not have fired off 4 shots within the given time frame generally accepted. Consequently, a great deal of effort has been expended pinpointing the location of the witnesses in order to determine which ones may have had a better vantage point for discerning the “real” number of shots. For a brief time it was hoped that the dictabelt evidence would settle the matter once and for all. The HSCA spent a significant amount of time and money grappling with this acoustical evidence but to no avail.
Silencers, Sniper Rifles & the CIA, by Carol Hewitt.www.ctka.net/pr1195-hewett.html
\\][//
The Mystery of the 7:30 Bullet
by John Hunt
http://www.jfklancer.com/hunt/mystery.html
\\][//
Dr. John M. Newman, has chosen America’s actions in relation to the ascendency to power of Castro as the focus of the first in his multi-volume work, The Assassination of President Kennedy: Where Angels Tread Lightly.
More information on Where Angel’s Tread Lightly may be found here:
http://aarclibrary.org/publication-spotlight-where-angels-tread-lightly/
\\][//
William (Rip) Robertson was born in Texas. He joined the United States Marines and served in the Pacific during the Second World War.
After the war Robertson joined the Central Intelligence Agency. He was employed as a counter-intelligence agent and was involved in what became known as Executive Action (a plan to remove unfriendly foreign leaders from power). This including a coup d’état that overthrew the Guatemalan government of Jacobo Arbenz in 1954 after he introduced land reforms and nationalized the United Fruit Company.
Robertson became a CIA outcast after he was found responsible for ordering the bombing of a British ship which he had mistakenly identified as Russian. He moved to Nicaragua where he worked as an adviser to the government of Anastasio Somoza.
Robertson returned to the CIA before the Bay of Pigs operation. He commanded the supply ship Barbara J and disobeyed orders by landing in Cuba with Brigade 2506. Afterwards Roberson became a member of staff at CIA’s JM WAVE station in Miami.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKrobertsonW.htm
Rip Robertson Signals Kellerman and Greer
\\][//
JFK #17: Daniel Sheehan and Alternative Theories of the JFK Assassination Nov. 21, 2013
\\][//
Alan Dale’s 2 hour conversation with Dr. John Newman may be heard here:
http://www.jfklancer.com/audioconversations.html
\\][//
Documents in the Truman Library show that nine days after Kennedy was assassinated, Truman sketched out in handwritten notes what he wanted to say in the op-ed. He noted, among other things, that the CIA had worked as he intended only “when I had control.”
In Truman’s view, misuse of the CIA began in February 1953, when his successor, Dwight Eisenhower, named Allen Dulles CIA Director. Dulles’ forte was overthrowing governments (in current parlance, “regime change”), and he was quite good at it. With coups in Iran (1953) and Guatemala (1954) under his belt, Dulles was riding high in the late Fifties and moved Cuba to the top of his to-do list.
Accustomed to the carte blanche given him by Eisenhower, Dulles was offended when young President Kennedy came on the scene and had the temerity to ask questions about the Bay of Pigs adventure, which had been set in motion under Eisenhower. When Kennedy made it clear he would NOT approve the use of U.S. combat forces, Dulles reacted with disdain and set out to mousetrap the new President.
Coffee-stained notes handwritten by Allen Dulles were discovered after his death and reported by historian Lucien S. Vandenbroucke. They show how Dulles drew Kennedy into a plan that was virtually certain to require the use of U.S. combat forces. In his notes Dulles explains that, “when the chips were down,” the new President would be forced by “the realities of the situation” to give whatever military support was necessary “rather than permit the enterprise to fail.”
Additional detail came from a March 2001 conference on the Bay of Pigs, which included CIA operatives, retired military commanders, scholars, and journalists. Daniel Schorr told National Public Radio that he had gained one new perception as a result of the “many hours of talk and heaps of declassified secret documents:
“It was that the CIA overlords of the invasion, Director Allen Dulles and Deputy Richard Bissell had their own plan on how to bring the United States into the conflict…What they expected was that the invaders would establish a beachhead…and appeal for aid from the United States…
“The assumption was that President Kennedy, who had emphatically banned direct American involvement, would be forced by public opinion to come to the aid of the returning patriots. American forces, probably Marines, would come in to expand the beachhead.
“In fact, President Kennedy was the target of a CIA covert operation that collapsed when the invasion collapsed,” added Schorr.
The “enterprise” which Dulles said could not fail was, of course, the overthrow of Fidel Castro. After mounting several failed operations to assassinate him, this time Dulles meant to get his man, with little or no attention to what the Russians might do in reaction. Kennedy stuck to his guns, so to speak; fired Dulles and his co-conspirators a few months after the abortive invasion in April 1961; and told a friend that he wanted to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it into the winds.”
The outrage was mutual, and when Kennedy himself was assassinated on November 22, 1963, it must have occurred to Truman that the disgraced Dulles and his outraged associates might not be above conspiring to get rid of a President they felt was soft on Communism—and, incidentally, get even.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15170
. . . . . .
Willy Whitten
May 9, 2015 at 9:07 am
Sure Mr Morrow, I agree the war criminal Truman was accusing the CIA of killing Kennedy. And I agree that Ray McGovern makes very good points in his article that back that up. But these are both limited perspectives. Not necessarily to say intentional ‘Limited Hangouts’ but to that effect at any rate.
Dulles was not a power unto himself, the CIA is not a power unto itself, although it is connected to the Money Power – the financial elite, it is not simply symbiotic. The relationship is hierarchical and the Money Power is on top, the “Wall Street Lawyers” (Dulles) work for them, and if they dare do anything without approval their heads will roll.
There was a larger consensus behind the Kennedy assassination. It was a systemic wide one, and it was okay’d from the very top of the foodchain… In my most humble opinion.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/dec-22-1963-truman-calls-for-abolition-of-cia/#comment-758805
\\][//
American Military Leaders Urged President Truman not to Drop the Atomic Bomb
The Joint Chiefs of Staff never formally studied the decision and never made an official recommendation to the President. Brief informal discussions may have occurred, but no record even of these exists. There is no record whatsoever of the usual extensive staff work and evaluation of alternative options by the Joint Chiefs, nor did the Chiefs ever claim to be involved. (See p. 322, Chapter 26)
In official internal military interviews, diaries and other private as well as public materials, literally every top U.S. military leader involved subsequently stated that the use of the bomb was not dictated by military necessity.
http://www.colorado.edu/AmStudies/lewis/2010/atomicdec.htm
\\][//
Request for errata from Mr Clarke:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/dec-22-1963-truman-calls-for-abolition-of-cia/#comment-760040
Bill Clarke
May 12, 2015 at 7:51 pm
Willy Whitten
May 12, 2015 at 11:25 am
Roger that Willy, I here fore acknowledge that you have indeed posted an impressive set of senior military leaders that said the bombings were not necessary or had no military purpose.
Were they necessary? Of course not. I agree here.
Did they have a military purpose? Judging from the way the Joint Chiefs seem to have been left out of this decision loop I’d say the bombing came more from Truman than from the military. This in it’s self would indicate a lack of military purpose I think.
However, I don’t think you can argue that the bombings didn’t speed up the end of the war. And more important this canceled our plans of invading Japan, which would have been probably a bigger tragedy than the bombs. “A study done for Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s staff by William Shockley estimated that conquering Japan would cost 1.7–4 million American casualties, including 400,000–800,000 fatalities, and five to ten million Japanese fatalities. The key assumption was large-scale participation by civilians in the defense of Japan.[2]”
Now when something speeds up the end of a war and drops a bloody invasion plan I don’t see how this can be called “not military”. It served this military purpose even if it wasn’t the original intent.
Eye to eye Willy, I wish they hadn’t dropped those bombs. Had I been a American soldier waiting to invade Japan I’d want them to drop every thing they had. So we have different views.
Reply
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 13, 2015 at 12:58 pm
“However, I don’t think you can argue that the bombings didn’t speed up the end of the war…”~Bill Clarke
By a couple of weeks at most. As the top Military chiefs have already noted, the Japanese were ready to surrender. That would mean that no ground invasion would have been necessary.
You can be wrong and remain “right” in your own mind Bill, as usual.
\\][//
This reply from Bill is absolutely schizophrenic! He admits there was not military purpose to dropping the A-bombs on Japan, but then argues that it sped up the end of the war – which is EXACTLY what the chief military officers disputed AFTER the bombs were dropped and AFTER the end of the war. WTF?
\\][//
The Evidence is the Conspiracy By David Josephs — Posted August 21, 2014
Given what we now know about what Oswald could have known, and that we agree that he must have had a plan, even if only created three days before on Tuesday once he learns JFK is coming to Dallas and passing under his place of employment… It stretches the bounds of credibility to accept that this plan includes not knowing when the limo is to pass by and in turn having to be in a position to use the rifle he took such pains to bring to as well as hide in the TSBD. None of Oswald’s necessary activities are offered by the WCR to support such a plan. It’s all tautological: He must have been there because he had to be in order to fire the shots.
The Evidence is the Conspiracy…
when I originally offered the concept in August of 2010 on the Spartacus Education Forum it was well received and completely blows the WCR scenario out of the water… it remains impossible for the events to have happened the way they were described and not even possible to be considered by any thinking person.
As Vince Bugliosi says, although he wishes you conclude the opposite, this is indeed the most complicated murder of all time, and the WCR proves it to be so. Talking about the “evidence” as if it indicates anything related to the assassination is a hoax and a cruel joke on anyone who continues to play the game… The magician’s trick of getting you to look here while the deception is happening over there…
http://www.ctka.net/2014/The%20evidence%20is%20the%20conspiracy.html
\\][//
Torus V aka Boris Proektov
borisproektov@yandex.ru … 3:41 PM (1 hour ago)
Photon is an Oswald doppelganger I have seen proof of this in his FBI files! “Photon” was the code name of an agent who looked almost exactly like Oswald.
I am following several leads at the moment, hoping to find out the actual name and identity of the agent ‘Photon’, and whether he was the one killed in the Dallas PD garage, or if he was the one who was spirited away from the theater.
-Torus V
The Century of the Self
This 4-part BBC mini-series aired in 2002, tracing the development of Freudian psychology and its exploitation by advertising to manipulate people into wanting things they don’t need. The documentary describes the impact of Freud’s theories on the perception of the human mind, and the ways public relations agencies and politicians have used this during the last 100 years for their engineering of consent. Among the central characters are Freud himself and his nephew Edward Bernays, who was the first to use psychological techniques in advertising. He is widely regarded as the father of the modern public relations industry.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/05/11/outside-the-box-video-series-the-century-of-the-self-3/
\\][//
Jim Braden aka Eugene Hale Brading
Jim Braden was taken into custody as a suspicous person at Dealey Plaza shortly after the assassination.
A suspicious elevator operator in the Dal Tex building called him to the attention of Sheriff Deputy Lummie Lewis, who took Braden in and took a statement from him before releasing him.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=5983
\\][//
Tippit was shot at a little after 1pm and TF Bowley said he arrived at 1.10 and officer Tippit was shot . cab driver Scoggins placed the
Warren Burroughs was assistant manager of the Texas Theater in Oak Cliff. … “The police cars were racing up and down Jefferson with their sirens blasting and … When the police arrived Brewer accompanied the officers into the cinema … He also testified that Oswald came downstairs and purchased some popcorn at 1.15.
http://22november1963.org.uk/did-lee-harvey-oswald-kill-officer-jd-tippit
\\][//
I didn’t shoot John Kennedy. … I didn’t even know Gov. John Connally had been shot. … I don’t own a rifle. … I didn’t tell Buell Wesley Frazier anything about bringing back some curtain rods. … I did carry a package to the Texas School Book Depository. I carried my lunch, a sandwich and fruit … I had nothing personal against John Kennedy.”~Lee Harvey Oswald
(Interrogation in Will Fritz’s office, 10:30am–1:10pm, 23 November 1963; corroborated by FBI agent James Bookhout [Warren Report, pp.621–24] and Thomas Kelley of the Secret Service [ibid., p.627])
http://22november1963.org.uk/why-did-oswald-deny-shooting-jfk
\\][//
12:11.3 pm 15-531 Are you having them contain the block surrounding the building. 531-15 Yes, we are sealing the building until it can be searched. 15-531 Extend it out to include two or three block area. 9-531 The wanted person in this is a slender white male about thirty, five feet ten, one sixty five, carrying what looked to be a 30-30 or some type of Winchester. 531-9 It was a rifle? 9-531 Yes, a rifle. .
Click to access Item%2001.pdf
\\][//
Where New JFK Evidence Points
November 19, 2013
By Jim DiEugenio
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/11/19/where-new-jfk-evidence-points/
\\][//
Testimony Of Miss Victoria Elizabeth Adams
The testimony of Miss Victoria Elizabeth ADAMS was taken at 2:15 p.m., on April 7, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. David W. BELIN, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/testimony/adams_v.htm
Alphabetical list of witnesses and testimony
http://jfkassassination.net/russ/wit.htm
\\][//
FBI Agent Bardwell Odum
“In the summary memo, the FBI agent who supposedly showed the exhibit to Wright was identified as Bardwell Odum. In November 2001, Aguilar and Thompson visited the retired agent who told his interviewers that he never took any bullet around to show to any Parkland witnesses – and since he knew Wright well, he would have recalled the interview.
Further, if that event had happened, Odum would have had to file a 302. Aguilar had studied the report file in sequential order and none were missing, indicating that Odum never filed a 302 presumably because he never showed the bullet to Wright.
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/11/19/where-new-jfk-evidence-points/
“His [Odum] name is seldom mentioned by researchers, yet he was probably the most assiduous investigator involved in the 1963- 1964 investigation. However, despite his deep involvement, he did not testify before the Warren Commission.”
“It was between 1:45 pm and 2:00 pm that Odum and Day made the rifle delivery to Lt. Day’s office at Main and Harwood Streets in downtown Dallas. At the very same time, according to SA Hosty, Bardwell was at the Texas Theater witnessing the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. Hosty describes the scene “When the officers escorted Oswald out of the theater, a mob had already formed. Word had spread that a killer had been arrested. …in addition to Barrett (SA Bob Barrett), Agents Bardwell Odum and Jim Swinford were standing in the back of the theater at the time of the arrest..”
Click to access Item%2001.pdf
\\][//
metanoia
noun: change in one’s way of life resulting from penitence or spiritual conversion.
October 26, 1962 – John Kennedy’s metanoia
\\][//
COWELL 103
THE ALTERNATIVE THEORIES1
OF
THE ASSASSINATION OF
PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY2
&
THE IMPLICATIONS OF EACH
FOR OUR AMERICAN SOCIAL, LEGAL & POLITICAL ORDER
THE IN-DEPTH SYLLABUS
1 INTRODUCTION
(19 page syllabus)
Click to access Cowell+103+-+19+page+syllabus.pdf
(146 page syllabus)
Click to access Cowell+103+-+146+page+syllabus.pdf
\\][//
Evidence as a Multidisciplinary Subject
Click to access Evidence+as+a+Multidisciplinary+Subject.pdf
\\][//
See: Larry Hancock – [690 witnesses to Kennedy assassination]
>>Temporary post…\\][//…stopped at 32:50 -watch again from there…
Oswald Did NOT Purchase a Rifle from Kleins
by John Armstrong
http://harveyandlee.net/Guns/Guns.html
\\][//
Keep an eye out for this guy: Jeffrey Sundberg, saying that the Bell and Howell camera, by his calculations, should not have been able to reproduce this degree of image penetration on the film.
What is meant by the Bell and Howell camera? Has Sundberg been given access to the actual camera that Zapruder used? Zavada gives a detailed discription of the claw mechanism that caused the ‘ghost images’, but there are no calculations showing how off-pull this mechanism was, other than the actual results on the film. So where is Sundberg getting the integers for his calculations from but the film itself, and the analysis by Zavada? I have the suspicion that Sundberg’s hypothesis is flawed out of the gate (no pun intended – but perhaps applicable).
\\][//
Willy Whitten May 17, 2015 at 9:38 pm
Because of the standard of western jurisprudence that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, I will not accept as viable anything anyone claims Oswald said without double corroboration by others present.
Especially concerning those in law enforcement who have shown themselves either utterly incompetent or suspect of involvement in setting up Oswald as the patsy he claimed he was.
Too many instances of planting, destroying or defacing evidence has surfaced in this case to take authority’s word for anything.
I think an overall assessment of this case exonerates Oswald as a shooter, let alone THE shooter.
The evidence indicates that Oswald was involved in Intelligence himself, and that he was infiltrating the Cuban Exile community.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-warren-commission/#comment-761851
\\][//
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 21, 2015 at 11:59 am
“So you don’t know who killed Abraham Lincoln?”~Photon
Don’t you know who killed Able? Who instigated his murder?
Who instigated Lincoln’s murder?
Were those who pulled the triggers in Dealey Plaza the only ones to bear responsibility? Or were those who planned and facilitated the murder the more responsible?
You are a Jesuit, are you not Photon? You should understand your cult’s own theology. It was the Demiurge, knowing predestination who instigated within Cain the enraged jealousy of his brother; by refusing Cain’s well intended offering. You should have realized by now that “the devil” is just a stagehand in your god’s stage production.
\\][//
“The ends justify the means” is a Jesuit maxim. Loyola was just another of the legions of history’s mad men. It is claimed that the quote is misattributed, but the secrecy of the Jesuits is too profound to take that idea seriously when their MO historically has consistently been the application of the maxim, ‘the ends justify the means’.
\\][//
ALL WARS ARE BANKERS WARS.
\\][//
NOT GUILTY
It has been proven again and again on so many aspects of the case that Lee Harvey Oswald is not guilty of shooting anybody on November 22, 1963.
We have gone through the fraudulent chains of custody for the evidence, including the Magic Bullet, the “snipers nest” bullets, the lack of evidence on the mail ordered guns, the lack of chains of custody for the Tippet shells. The fact that Oswald was down on the 2nd floor of the TBDB at the time the shots were fired. The fact that Oswald was buying popcorn in the Texas Theater at the time Tippit was killed.
But Oswald suffers double jeopardy, triple jeopardy, quadruple jeopardy, perpetual jeopardy; tried endlessly, time and again with each new thread on this forum. Each time, resetting the scales as if nothing has ever been settled before.
The prosecutors rely on compartmentalization. They rely on the jury forgetting that Oswald has been exonerated countless times before. Everything goes down the Memory Hole and the ‘process’ begins again, just like the ‘Peace Process’ in Palestine, it is endless on purpose so there is never a resolution; and the historical map of that land from 1946 to the present, shows the truth of my assertion.
It seems that it has come to the point that there is no longer a Sense of Justice in the western world, just like there is no Sense for Liberty here in the land of Full Spectrum Dominance.
I warn you: Create a dog eat dog world and you are bound to be eaten by dogs.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/9-things-you-may-not-know-about-the-warren-commission/#comment-762196
\\][//
Jean Davison
May 19, 2015 at 6:30 pm
Willy,
“Dr Burkley simply signed what the committee prepared for him. That was all they wanted on the record.”
You know this how? Mind reading?
“>>The 3rd thoracic level, Jean, should make it clear that the entry wound was lower by some 6 inches than you have previously argued.”
I have “previously argued” that the back wound was where the autopsy photo shows it to be. You think it was 6 inches lower than that??
Reply
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 19, 2015 at 9:29 pm
“You know this how? Mind reading?”~Jean Davison
It says right at the top of the page “HSCA affidavit prepared for”
Jean you argued that the wound was in the back of the neck 6 inches below the Mastoid Process. You point to that “autopsy photo” where the skin has been pushed up to claim that this and the technical term are the same.
I and others argued that the wound was exactly in the spot shown on Boswell’s face sheet from the autopsy; ie; the third thoracic vertebrae.
Put another way you were arguing that the back wound was where Ford and Specter claimed: “C7/T1″ (the base of the neck)
That is about 6 inches higher than T3.
Are you now revising your opinion?
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/how-much-jfk-assassination-information-is-still-secret/#comment-762371
Reply
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
May 19, 2015 at 9:39 pm
Jean, I will quote you directly here:
“But the section on wounds’ description was more specific: c. 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. Measure that on yourself. Upper back, right?”~Jean Davison – February 15, 2015 at 11:38 am
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/the-core-logic-of-the-warren-commission/#comment-712432
\\][//
” 5 1/2 inches below the mastoid process. Measure that on yourself. Upper back, right?”~Jean Davison
Hell no, it is the neck, right where the collar of a shirt is!
\\][//
The placement of the wound is crucial for the Magic Bullet theory. Just like the denial of the entry wound to the throat is crucial to the Magic Bullet theory. This is why Jean clings to both false propositions. The Magic Bullet theory proposes that the bullet entered JFK’s back and exited the throat, then continued forward and struck John Connally in the back came out of his right nipple continuing on to strike Connally’s wrist, and then ending in his left thigh.
The physical evidence goes against the theory. The ballistic evidence goes against the theory. The lack of chain of custody ruins the theory. The testimony of the witnesses goes against the theory. The photographic evidence goes against the theory. The failure to track the wounds by dissection destroys the the theory.
\\][//
Meet Jack Crichton, JFK Murderer
Jack Crichton (1916-2007) is not exactly a household name, but when you travel with the Family of Secrets, your profile lies low. Crichton is one of the fine upstanding pillars of the Military Industrial Complex who played a pivotal role in the Murder of John F Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza.
Crichton made his money in the Texas oil business where he developed a strong relationship with George Herbert Walker Bush – the very same George Bush of the CIA referenced in J Edgar Hoover’s damning letter concerning the future president’s involvement in the Kennedy murder.
Earle Cabell (1906-1975), another key player in the Kennedy murder while he was mayor of Dallas, went to school with Crichton who subsequently joined the OSS during World War 2. Afterwards, he had many relationships with America’s leading MIC elements such as DuPont, General Dynamics, Kuhn Loeb, Clint Murchison, and other luminaries of the far right.
His most significant relationship in connection to the Kennedy murder was with George Bush’s Operation 40 team which planned a fake attack on Guantanamo Bay as a cover for its covert plans against the President. Both men were in Dealey Plaza at the time of the murder, with Crichton having walked from the Adolphus Hotel to Elm Street.
In addition to his business interests and role as mentor and confidante of Bush, Sr, Crichton also commanded the US Army Reserve 488th Military Intelligence unit stationed in Texas at the time of the Kennedy assassination….
http://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2013/07/meet-jack-crichton-jfk-murderer.html
\\][//
The Hidden Government Group
by Peter Dale Scott
“In the case of the JFK assassination, I wish to focus on two men who functioned as part of the communications network of the Office of Emergency Planning (OEP), the agency renamed in 1968 as the Office of Emergency Preparedness (to which McCord was attached), and renamed again in 1982 as the National Program Office (for which Oliver North was the action officer). [11]
These two men (there are others) are Winston Lawson, the Secret Service advance man who from the lead car of the motorcade was in charge of the Secret Service radio channels operating in the motorcade; and Jack Crichton, the army intelligence reserve officer who with Deputy Dallas Police Chief George Lumpkin selected the Russian interpreter for Marina Oswald’s first (and falsified) FBI interview. [12]
Lawson has drawn the critical attention of JFK researchers, both for dubious actions he took before and during the assassination, and also for false statements he made after it (some of them under oath). For example, Lawson reported after the assassination that motorcycles were deployed on “the right and left flanks of the President’s car” (17 WH 605). On the morning of November 22, however, the orders had been changed (3 WH 244), so that the motorcycles rode instead, as Lawson himself testified to the Warren Commission, “just back of the President’s car” (4 WH 338; cf. 21 WH 768-70). Captain Lawrence of the Dallas Police testified that that the proposed side escorts were redeployed to the rear on Lawson’s own instructions (7 WH 580-81; cf. 18 WH 809, 21 WH 571). This would appear to have left the President more vulnerable to a possible crossfire.
Early on November 22, at Love Field, Lawson installed, in what would become the lead car, the base radio whose frequencies were used by all Secret Service agents on the motorcade. This radio channel, operated by the White House Communications Agency (WHCA), was used for some key decisions before and after the assassination, yet its records, unlike those of the Dallas Police Department (DPD) Channels One and Two, were never made available to the Warren Commission, or any subsequent investigation. The tape was not withheld because it was irrelevant; on the contrary, it contained very significant information.
The WHCA actually reports to this day on its website that the agency was “a key player in documenting the assassination of President Kennedy.” [13] However it is not clear for whom this documentation was conducted, or why it was not made available to the Warren Commission, the House Select Committee on Assassinations, or the Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB). [14] It should have been.
[…]
Jack Crichton is of interest because he, along with DPD Deputy Chief George Lumpkin of the 488th Army Intelligence Reserve unit, was responsible for choosing a Russian interpreter for Marina Oswald from the right-wing Russian community. This man was Ilya Mamantov, who translated for Marina Oswald at her first DPD interview on November 22. What she allegedly said in Russian at this interview was later used to bolster what I have called the “phase one” story, still promoted from some CIA sources, that Russia and/or Cuba were behind the assassination.
As summarized by the FBI, Mamantov’s account of Marina’s Russian testimony was as follows:
MARINA OSWALD advised that LEE HARVEY OSWALD owned a rifle which he used in Russia about two years ago. She observed what she presumed to be the same rifle in a blanket in the garage at [Ruth Paine’s residence]…. MARINA OSWALD stated that on November 22, she had been shown a rifle in the Dallas Police Department…. She stated that it was a dark color like the one that she had seen, but she did not recall the sight. [20]
These specific details – that Marina said she had seen a rifle that was dark and scopeless – were confirmed in an affidavit (signed by Marina and Mamantov, 24 WH 219) that was taken by DPD officer B.L. Senkel (24 WH 249). They were confirmed again by Ruth Paine, who witnessed the Mamantov interview, (3 WH 82). They were confirmed again the next night in an interview of Marina by the Secret Service, translated by Mamantov’s close friend Peter Gregory. But a Secret Service transcript of the interview reveals that the source of these details was Gregory, not Marina:”~Scott
http://www.voltairenet.org/article187504.html
\\][//
‘The Loan Gunman Theory’ of the JFK Assassination turns out to be the least viable of the major themes that can develop from the evidence and data that has been discovered and revealed. It cannot withstand the slightest scrutiny.
Taken together the evidence strongly indicates that the assassination was a coup d’etat by the military industrial complex.
\\][//
THE TAKING OF AMERICA, 1-2-3 by Richard E. Sprague
“This book is not about assassinations, at least not solely about assassinations. It is not just another book about who murdered President Kennedy or how or why. It is a book about power, about who really controls the United States policies, especially foreign policies. It is a book about the process of control through the manipulation of the American presidency and the presidential election process. The objective of the book is to expose the clandestine, secret, tricky methods and weapons used for this manipulation, and to reveal the degree to which these have been hidden from the American public. Assassinations are only one of many techniques used in this control process. They have been important only in the sense that they are the ultimate method used in the control of the election process. Viewed in this way, an understanding of what happened to John or Robert Kennedy becomes more important because it leads to a total understanding of what has happened to our country, and to us, since 1960. But the important thing to understand is the control and the power and all of the clandestine methods put together. Much of the information in the book has been published before in the magazines Computer and Automation and People and the Pursuit of Truth, both edited and published by Edmund C. Berkeley, Newtonville, Mass. The material on assassination and other events covered is based on evidence collected by the author individually or through the Committee to Investigate Assassinations. References to documentation of this evidence are given throughout the book.”~Richard E. Sprague
Click to access ToA.pdf
I get the distinct impression this Richard E. Sprague is a nom de plume for Richard A. Sprague, who was forced to sign, The Secrecy Oath the author signed after Robert Blakey took over the HSCA, and correspondence between the author and various committee members.
(see: Appendix)
\\][//
“Permit me at this moment an instructive digression. It is by now well established that Kennedy in 1963 was concerned enough by “the threat of far-right treason” that he urgently persuaded Hollywood director John Frankenheimer “to turn [the novel] Seven Days in May into a movie.” [28] In this book, a charismatic superior officer, Air Force General James Mattoon Scott, intend[s] to stage a coup d’état …. According to the plan, an undisclosed Army combat unit known as ECOMCON (Emergency COMmunications CONtrol) will seize control of the country’s telephone, radio, and television networks, while the conspiracy directs the military and its allies in Congress and the media from “Mount Thunder” (a continuity of government base based on Mount Weather).
It is no secret also that in 1963 Kennedy had aroused major right-wing dissatisfaction, largely because of signs of his increasing rapprochement with the Soviet Union. The plot of the book and movie reflects the concern of liberals at the time about generals like General Edwin Walker, who had resigned in 1961 after Kennedy criticized his political activities in the Army. (Walker had given his troops John Birch Society literature, along with the names of right-wing candidates to vote for.) [29] We can assume however that Kennedy had no firm evidence of a Mount Weather conspiracy: if he had, it is unlikely his response would have just been to sponsor a fictionalized movie.”~Peter Dale Scott
http://www.voltairenet.org/article187504.html
\\][//
Jean Davison – May 20, 2015 at 3:13 pm
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/how-much-jfk-assassination-information-is-still-secret/#comment-762568
“Are you now revising your opinion?”
No, Willy, you did. I have never in my life said the wound was “in the back of the neck.”
“Put another way you were arguing that the back wound was where Ford and Specter claimed: “C7/T1″ (the base of the neck)”
No again, I don’t care what Ford or Specter claimed. I can see the wound in the photo, and I agree with the HSCA medical panel, which put it at c. T1. If the wound had been as low as the worksheet has it, “it would probably have penetrated and collapsed the right lung”:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=82&relPageId=99&search=lung
There was also an apparent fracture at T1:
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95&relPageId=203&search=T3_vertebra
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=95&relPageId=321&search=T3_vertebra
“You point to that “autopsy photo” where the skin has been pushed up…”
Those are normal folds at the back of the neck with smooth skin below:
____________
Willy Whitten May 21, 2015 at 1:21 am
“No, Willy, you did. I have never in my life said the wound was “in the back of the neck.”~Jean Davison
But T1 IS the back of the neck, it is right at the collar.
So you are now saying that Burkley lied on the JFK Death certificate when he placed the back wound at T3?
“Those are normal folds at the back of the neck with smooth skin below”~Jean
Balderdash! Those are “normal folds” only if the head is pulled back (as in this shot) or if looking straight up while standing in life.
You are not going to get this past this me Jean, as an artist I know anatomy in movement very well. Not only has the head been pulled back in that photograph, but the skin of the back has been pushed up towards the neck.
Any but biased eyes can see that clearly.
So the “experts” on the HSCA medical panel, know better than Dr. Burkley himself who had the body of John Kennedy right before him.
Amazing.
\\][//
The simplest and perhaps most elegant proof of conspiracy which demolishes the Warren Report involves a correlation of what the Warren Commission claimed was the path of Commission exhibit #399, the “magic bullet,” with the holes in the back of the President’s jacket and shirt. Contradicting the Commission’s claim that a bullet entered the back of the President’s neck are the positions of two overlapping bullet holes, one five and three-eighths inches down from the collar line of the back of the President’s suit jacket, the evidence, reproduced below, appeared in the FBI’s Supplemental Report to the Warren Commission of January 13, 1964. This Supplemental Report, as well as the initial FBI Summary Report of December 9, 1963, did not appear in the 26 volumes of Warren Commission exhibits.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/HWNAU/EMSappIII.html
\\][//
HSCA Report Vol I pg. 196 – Testimony of Dr. Micheal Baden
Click to access HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf
Dr. Baden: “This is the clothing worn by President Kennedy at the time of the assassination and does show various perforations in the fabric that were of importance to the medical panel to evaluate.
Mr, Klein: “And with respect to the wounds to the President’s back, what did the panel learn from the clothing?
Dr. Baden: “In the jacket and underlying shirt there is a perforation of the fabric that corresponds directly with the location of the perforation of the skin of the right upper back that the panel concluded was an entrance gunshot perforation that entered the back of the president. This is correspondingly seen in the shirt beneath.”
__________
At this point Mr Klein inexplicably drops the line of questioning, and rather than ask what the locations were of these perforations in fabric and the skin of the president, and changes course by introducing X-rays of the front of Kennedy’s throat and chest!
__________
The locations of these perforations in fabric and the skin of the president were five and three-eighths inches down from the collar line of the back of the President’s suit jacket. ( FBI’s Supplemental Report to the Warren Commission of January 13, 1964.)
This corresponds with Dr. Burkley’s Death certificate notation of the back wound at T3, and Boswell’s face sheet showing the back wound at T3.
I will note as well that all of the discussion that follows in Baden’s testimony involving T1, has to do with the throat wound – NOT the back wound. So whatever damage described in the X-rays to T1 are concerned with the throat wound. The medical panel may have decided this wound was an exit wound but they in fact never saw the throat wound in its original condition. Those who did described it as an entry wound.
One will notice the way that even Dr. Baden expresses uncertainty, pointing out that “The Track wasn’t dissected out. We have to speculate from other sources” … “It might have struck the transverse process of the first thoracic vertebra but we cannot prove this.”
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/how-much-jfk-assassination-information-is-still-secret/#comment-762688
\\][//
Mr. KLEIN: What is forensic pathology?
Dr. BADEN: Pathology is that area of medicine concerned with the investigation and evaluation of natural disease and other abnormalities in the human body; and forensic pathology specifically refers and relates to investigation of unnatural death and to areas of pathology and medicine that are concerned with legal aspects of death and injury, and ability to present these materials in courts and other jurisdictions . (pg 180-185)
Dr. BADEN. President Kennedy died as a result of two gunshot wounds of the head, brain, back and neck areas of the body. (pg 185)
Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, do you recognize that drawing?
Dr. BADEN. Yes, I do.
Mr. KLEIN. What is that drawing of?
Dr. BADEN. This a drawing done by Miss Dox of one of the
autopsy photographs taken just prior to the autopsy of President
Kennedy.
Mr. KLEIN. What does that particular drawing portray?
Dr. BADEN. This particular drawing shows the back of the President and the head where I am pointing to, and a perforation of the skin of the right upper back with a centimeter ruler alongside .
Mr. KLEIN. Doctor, does this diagram fairly and accurately represent the location of the wound in the President’s upper right back?
Dr. BADEN. *Yes, it does.* (pg 187)
*This is disingenuous to the point of a lie. As Baden testifies later, the backwound aligned with the holes in Kennedy’s jacket and shirt, that wound was 5 3/8ths inches from the collar. This drawing gives the impression that it is no more than an inch and a half from the collar. This is the deception this drawing and photograph are meant to maintain.
Click to access HSCA_Vol1_0907_5_Baden.pdf
\\][//
Poses, Posture, & Distance in Human Anatomy
Q. How far away from the face is the human hand on a normal physique?
The answer to this question is of course, dependent on the pose and posture of the human in consideration. On a male human standing some 5′ 10″ to 6′, the hand would be approximately 30 to 35 inches away from the face if the person were standing erect with the arms relaxed at the side.
As the arms, neck, shoulders, and elbows are articulated; depending on the pose and posture, a hand can be any distance from the face as well as literally touching it.
This may seem absurdly jejune to point out these most obvious facts, but in light of the photograph & drawing of President Kennedy’s back wound with the rubber gloved hands holding a ruler, it is apparently necessary to start from such a elementary discussion.
It is obvious from viewing this picture, that the body is not in a pose that represents the one Kennedy was in while sitting in the limousine when the bullet hit him; his head was not leaning back as if he were looking into the clouds, his shoulders were not raised with his elbows above his head – as depicted in this post mortem photograph. Kenned was sitting straight up, his shoulders relaxed and his right elbow leaning on the door of the car when he was shot. Even after he was shot he never assumed a pose even remotely like the one in this “autopsy photo” his neck was extended forward, his hands grasping at his throat and his elbows slightly lower than has shoulders. His whole upper body was leaning slightly forward until he slumped to his left towards his wife.
This is why it is disingenuous for Dr. Baden to casually answer “yes it does” to Mr Klein’s question about the autopsy drawing/photo. It in fact is NOT a fair and accurate representation of where the back wound was located, despite the fact that the drawing is true to a real and actual photograph.
Dr Baden had to have been aware that this answer of his being unqualified as to the pose and posture was disingenuous, because later in his testimony he says that the wound on the back lined up with the holes in the jacket and the shirt – five and three-eighths inches below the collar line.
The distance in the autopsy photo gives the impression of not more than an inch from the collar line.
It is also disingenuous for Jean Davison, to claim that this image is a fair and accurate representation of where the back wound was on these pages.
\\][//
Back wound location as per JFK jacket
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSN1cKbWMrOPnjL5ZtoooxP1l6moOmWHQh3-5E6u2lBL0nV5a9WKQ
\\][//
Back wound JFK jacket
\\][//
Willy Whitten – May 28, 2015 at 12:48 pm
“CTs point to anomalies (oddities, things that “look funny”) in the record as though they are clues, but clues lead to a story that makes sense. These don’t. That indicates, imo, that they are meaningless “noise” or simply coincidences.”~Jean Davison – May 28, 2015 at 10:17 am
. . . . .
“but clues lead to a story that makes sense”~Jean
That’s right Jean, but you spin this backwards because the “things that look funny” are facts that don’t make sense as far as the official story, that is why they are called “anomalies” because they do not make sense with the official narrative. This is the reason apologists for the official narrative try to hand-wave these facts that don’t add up to the story told by the official narrative. This is why you fall back to Coincidence Theory and call it meaningless noise.
And this is where your side runs into the hard wall of the science of statistics, wherein it is simply statistically impossible for so many coincidences to be true. This is why the Lone-Nut Theory is magical thinking; because it rejects the majority of data, or turns it backwards as you do with this very general concept of investigative philosophy. This is also why it is so overwhelmingly aggravating to read your rhetorical jitterbug nonsense.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/whats-the-most-important-piece-of-jfk-assassination-evidence-to-surface-in-the-past-5-years/#comment-764986
\\][//
THE HSCA AND THE CIA: THE VIEW FROM THE TOP
G. Robert Blakey © 2014
In the fall of 1962, the CIA had a problem. The Cuban missile crisis had ended with a peaceful resolution. Most Americans had been greatly relieved. But the organization that the CIA considered to be the single most popular Cuban exile organization was very upset with the American government.
That organization was the Revolutionary Student Directorate, usually referred to by the initials
“DRE” representing its name in Spanish. The DRE was the direct descendent of a Cuban student group founded in Cuba with the help of CIA agent David Phillips.
The week after the missile crisis ended the DRE provided information to the Washington Evening Star newspaper that there were still missiles hidden in Cuba.
The story ran with a front page head line. Twelve days later the Secretary-General of the DRE appeared on NBC’s “Today Show” where he once again claimed to have seen, with his own eyes, nuclear missiles hidden in caves and hills in Cuba.
[…]
Joannides and the CIA effectively frustrated the HSCA investigation into whether the Agency had any involvement with those who may have had a hand in bringing about the death of John Kennedy.
Had the Agency told the truth about George Joannides, he would have been called as a critical witness. He would have been deposed and would have likely testified in Executive Session. If they had not delivered the records, the records would have been subpoenaed. I know that Dan and Eddie believe that he ended any effective investigation that they were undertaking. They complained bitterly about it at the time. I should have listened to them.
I can no longer say with confidence, as the HSCA Final Report did, that Oswald had no significant relationship with DRE.
At this point what we know is that the CIA has hidden this information from every investigation into the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination. Indeed, they have not just hidden the information, they have lied to, at least, both the HSCA and the ARRB. I believe that this rises to the level of probable violation of the law that prohibits impeding the due and proper inquiry of a committee of Congress.
I no longer trust anything that the Agency has told us in regard to the assassination. It lied to the Warren Commission. It lied to the ARRB. It lied to
the HSCA. In admitting that Joannides was employed in a covert capacity as liaison with the HSCA, it has admitted that it violated its charter and ran a domestic covert operation aimed at subverting the HSCA and its investigation.
I do not believe for a minute that records did not exist. They may not now, but they did at one time. Money was involved and money had to be internally documented, even at the Agency. That the Agency would put a material witness in a covert capacity as a filter between the committee staff and the Agency was an outrageous breach of our understanding with the Agency, the Agency’s charter and the laws of this country. As a result, I now believe that we were not able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the CIA.
What the Agency did not give us, none but those involved in the Agency can know for sure. I do not believe any denial offered by the Agency on any point. The law has long followed the rule that if a person lies to you on one point, you may reject all his testimony. The CIA not only lied, it actively subverted the investigation.
It is time that either Congress, or the Justice Department, conduct a real investigation of the CIA. Indeed, in my opinion, it is long past time.
~G. Robert Blakey
Click to access The-HSCA-and-the-CIA-by-Blakey.pdf
\\][//
Oswald’s Movements During the Assassination
If Carolyn Arnold’s revised account, with its detailed and forceful identification of Oswald, is accurate, Oswald’s movements at the time of the assassination would have been as follows:
Shortly after mid–day, Oswald went from the first floor to the second–floor lunch room.
Oswald was there at about 12:15, when he was seen by Carolyn Arnold.
Shortly afterwards, he went downstairs to the domino room, and saw James Jarman and Harold Norman at around 12:25.
At about 12:31 he went back up to the second–floor lunch room to obtain a soft drink. At the entrance to the lunch room, Oswald encountered a police officer, Marrion Baker, and the building supervisor, Roy Truly.
http://22november1963.org.uk/carolyn-arnold-witness-oswald
\\][//
“It wasn’t Fritz’s policy to take notes because he tried to get suspects to relax and talk freely.”~Jean Davison
What utter bullshit, the “investigation” was nothing but the setting up of the patsy Lee Harvey Oswald.
Jean, Bill C, and new Bill all have the mindset of pre-Magna Carter Inquisition interrogators. They are the types of personalities that call forth the new dark ages.
\\][//
Homer McMahon is one of Doug Horne’s prime witnesses for his Alteration Hypothesis of the Z-film. Get a load of this:
More McMahon testimony, this time Jeremy Gun asks some questions:
JG: Let me try a question?…You are acquainted with the Zapruder film, the film called the Zapruder film? Is this the Zapruder film or a different film?
HM: I haven’t seen it for 35 years. Ah, I never heard Dalcruder at the time. I heard that much, much later.
DH: Do you mean Dalcruder? Did you say Dalcruder?
HM: He did. The man who took the most famous film was Abraham Zapruder.
HM: Abraham Zapruder. I never heard that name, or if I did I don’t remember it.
JG: But right now, you’re not certain whether the film you processed or that you were involved in working with was the Zapruder film…?
HM: Well, I’m told it was the only coverage they had. That that was it. No one else photographed it. They said it was the only film, and I don’t know if it was or if it was the historic film.
[…]
HM: I have senile dementia…I can’t remember really anything. Most of my reflections are what I have recalled and remembered after the fact. In other words, I did it once, and then I recalled it, and remembered it. I don’t know how the mind works, but I do know I am not. I am a recovering drug addict and alcoholic. Do you know what a wet brain is? Well, you’re looking at one. I damn near died. And I’m not a competent witness because I don’t have accurate recall. I don’t have absolute recall.
JG: With regards to the other events that you talked about, what is your sense of how accurate your memory is of that?
HM: I just told you, I don’t have a full deck. I don’t know how (ha) I figured I am presenting anything here. This is not…at the time I did it I was not, I was not impaired, but I later became impaired. So whether you are talking to a reliable witness or not, that’s up for you to decide. (ha)
____________________________________________________________
“Ha” … No shit Sherlock!!
\\][//
The new normal is weird.
\\][//
The Essence of the Situation is one of General Delusion
Mass confusion, a grand contusion of mind and brain on a massive scale. An unhinged pathological society, mass hallucinating a false reality via the electronic voodoo ritual of watching television.
\\][//
Paul Ostermayr aka Paul May was a film producer with Universum Film AG, and his wife Olga, née Wernhard.
After secondary school in Feldkirch, he entered to film industry and trained in film laboratory work. He became a film editor in 1930 and assistant director in 1935. His first film as director was Edelweißkönig, in 1938.
After the Second World War, he adopted the pseudonym Paul May. His greatest successes were Und ewig singen die Wälder (1959), Via Mala (1961) from the book by John Knittel, and Scotland Yard vs. Dr. Mabuse (1963) with Peter van Eyck. He also directed for television.
He directed more than forty films between 1935 and 1972.
The Waters of Knowledge versus the Waters of Uncertainty:
Mass Denial in the Assassination of President Kennedy
By E. Martin Schotz
Introduction
My task this afternoon is to explore with you the reasons the American people do not know who killed President Kennedy and why. In order to do this we will have to deal with three interdependent conspiracies which developed in the course of the assassination and its aftermath. These are:
the criminal conspiracy to murder the President by a cabal of militarists at the highest echelons of power in the United States;
the conspiracy which aided and abetted these murderers after the fact, by covering for the assassins, also a true criminal conspiracy involving an extremely wide circle of government officials across the entire political spectrum and at all levels of government; and
a conspiracy of ignorance, denial, confusion, and silence which has pervaded our entire public.
The major focus of my talk today is this third conspiracy on the part of the public, which includes our so-called “critical community.” I want to show you that our failure to know is not based on any lack of data or because the data is ambiguous. It is all extremely simple and obvious.[1] Rather we don’t know because we are deeply emotionally resistant to what such knowledge tells us about ourselves and our society. Furthermore the powers-that-be do not reward people for such knowledge. Indeed if a person is willing to acknowledge the truth, is in a position to share such knowledge with the public, and wishes to do so, then the organized institutions of our society will turn sharply against such a person.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/COPA1998EMS.html#s1
\\][//
A Cruel and Shocking Twist
A Cruel and Shocking Twist
Phillip Shenon’s book A Cruel and Shocking Act (2013 Macmillan)
Audio version by Robert Petkoff.
Review by Bill Kelly
As a serious and respected journalist Phillip Shenon deserves a listen when he says the whole truth about the assassination of President Kennedy has yet to be told, that much of the evidence and many of the official records have been destroyed, and there are still some unquestioned witnesses who have been ignored or intimidated into silence.
Among the destroyed evidence, some incinerated, some flushed down toilets, others simply gone missing, include original autopsy notes and photos, Oswald’s note to the FBI, backyard pictures, JFK’s brain, Jackie’s pink pill box hat – all gone. And Shenon doesn’t mention the missing Air Force One radio tapes, the Secret Service radio tapes, “Mary’s box” of evidence lost by the Dallas PD, the ONI investigative reports on Oswald, the USMC report that concluded Oswald was not capable of committing the assassination alone, and private interviews with Oswald’s USMC buddies – all gone missing.
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-cruel-and-shocking-twist.html
\\][//
in the early 2000’s I met a woman/banker with BNY (now Deutch BNY) who was telling me about her bank’s funding of the digitization of documents at the Kennedy Library. I went digging to find a Sr. board member of the bank who happened to be her boss, and who happened to share a number of corporate and social connections with Richard Egan, cofounder of EMC (mega data storage company in MA); and EMC provided the actual services (that BNY was funding perhaps, perhaps it was their own private donation, I’m not sure) for the digitization. Richard Egan was GWBush Pioneer fund raiser and rewarded with Ambassador to Ireland. He was in Dublin as 9/11 unfolded; Shannon Airport was then used for military transport and rendition flights. Egan resigned his post in 2002 – get in, get out. The point being, I think the library has invited the fox into the hen house. (check out the list of corporate sponsors) And who’s to say that Kennedy documents aren’t being toyed with. That’s why I was curious about the 16k figure on the lead page on Vietnam on their website … the suggestion being that Kennedy was responsible for the build up.
I’m going to write this up and post it when the opportunity presents itself. There’s more context (Bank of New York has a long history with Empire Trust, Jack Crichton and John McCloy’s brother in law as well as the Bronfmans), but this is the synopsis.
John McAdams and the Siege of Chicago
By Jim DiEugenio with Brian Hunt
“McAdams did indeed make comments that were intended to imply that Gary Aguilar was a drug addict. IMO, they were deliberate, malicious and intended to smear the doctor.”
Robert Harris on John McAdams
Several months ago I received a phone call from a couple of people who lived in the Chicago area. They were associated with a play that was going to be staged at a venue called the Glen Ellyn Village Theater. Glen Ellyn is a suburb of nearly 30,000 people which lies about 25 miles west of the Windy City. The play was called Oswald: The Actual Interrogation.
Dennis Richard is the playwright. And he personally appeared and did a little talk on opening night. This was the Midwest premiere of his play, which had already been produced in Los Angles and New York. The director was William Burghardt, who was one of the men who was in contact with me. Bill was interested in the play since he was interested in the topic. As he told the Glen Ellyn Daily Herald, the subject of Kennedy’s assassination had fascinated him since he was in seventh grade. He therefore read scores of books on the subject. He came to the conclusion that he “thought this couldn’t have happened the way the official inquiry decided.” So Burghardt decided to contact Richard to produce the play for the 50th anniversary of the Village Theater Guild.
[…]
In the summer of 1994, there was a meeting in Washington between CIA officer Ted Shackley, former CIA Director, the late Bill Colby, CIA affiliated journalist Joe Goulden, writer Gus Russo, and Dr. Robert Artwohl. (Probe Vol. 6 No. 2, p. 30) One of the subjects under discussion was the upcoming fall conference in Washington of the newly formed Coalition on Political Assassinations, or COPA. At the time, the Assassination Records Review Board was being formed and some interesting things had already begun flowing out of the National Archives. When word about this meeting got out, Russo tried to pass it off as a research meeting for his book Live By the Sword.This did not remotely explain what Goulden and Artwohl were doing there. When author John Newman called Colby, he said the CIA was worried about what the research community was going to say about David Phillips and Mexico City. Since they thought Phillips had gotten a bum rap from the HSCA. (ibid) It was later revealed that one of the topics of the meeting was if they should use one of their friendly media assets to attack COPA. (ibid)
It looks like they did. But the conduit for the attack was not Gus Russo. Russo was already unwelcome in the critical community because of his work on the wildly skewed 1993 Frontline documentary about Oswald. He had actually been attacked in public at a Dallas Conference the previous year by Cyril Wecht and this author. So what apparently happened is that the strategy was to use someone with a lower public profile. And then to lower that even further by having him attend the conference under a false name. We might have never learned about this operation if the perpetrator had used the name of say ‘Jack Smith’. But he didn’t. He used the name of ‘Paul Nolan’. One day, the real Paul Nolan was surfing the Internet when he found out what had happened. He then posted the following message: “I was just doing some research over the ‘net. I wanted to see if anything came up that had my name in it. Guess what? My REAL name is Paul Nolan! Apparently, some asshole wants to use my name as an alias.”
The “asshole” Nolan was referring to was John McAdams. McAdams attended a COPA Conference in Washington under Nolan’s name. He just happened to meet up with a reporter named Matt Labash. Labash wrote a rather long article for Washington’s City Paper ridiculing the conference. The only attendee given any long quotes in the piece was McAdams, under the name of Nolan.
Was the fact that McAdams managed to get noticed under a phony name and get interviewed by Labash a coincidence? Not likely. When Gary Aguilar called Labash and asked him about the negative spin of the article, the writer replied that he had his marching orders for the piece. Milicent Cranor did some research on Labash and discovered he had an interesting history. At the time, he was employed by Rupert Murdoch’s The Weekly Standard. But he had been formerly employed by the Richard Mellon Scaife funded American Spectator. And one of his previous assignments had been infiltrating the liberal Institute for Policy Studies and doing a lengthy hit piece on them in the Unification Church owned Washington Times. As we will see, the political orbits of the two perpetrators-Labash and McAdams– have much in common. Some would say, too much. Whatever the auspices, the meeting appears to have achieved the objective that Colby and Shackley had in mind. As did the overall counter attack against Stone’s film. The goal was the familiar one of 1.) polarize and 2.) then marginalize.
http://www.ctka.net/2013/mcadams.html
\\][//
AIA Collusion with the Perps of 9/11
“Francis (Frank) Murdock Pitts is the founding partner and President of architecture+. He has earned a national reputation for his work with psychiatric hospital design and planning as well as design for special populations, long term care, and secure institutions.”
He is also a liar and a toadyboy for the mainstream psychopathic society.
– See more at: http://www.aplususa.com/Firm/Leadership/Francis_Murdock_Pitts.aspx#sthash.M8r4myAe.dpuf
\\][//
RAILROADED
1. force something through quickly without discussion: to push something through a legislature, committee, or other decision-making body quickly so that there is not enough time for objections to be considered (informal)
2. force somebody to act hastily: to force a person or group to make a decision or take action quickly, without time for consideration or discussion (informal)
3. convict somebody too quickly: to convict somebody on the basis of flimsy or false evidence (informal)
[The implication is of limited thinking.]
\\][//
The surveillance industrial complex is just as financially entrenched as the military industrial complex, it is the domestic side of the Permanent Warfare State.~ww
_______________________________________________
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 1, 2015 at 8:56 am
It is a “legal thing” J.D.,
Those who are running things behind the scenes need cooperation, simple things like the willingness to sign orders, to sign legislation. Also to give the correct appearances in public, to not give the generals guff in meetings…
A President has what is termed, “the power of the pulpit”; to stand in public and say things that give the impression of the power of his office. The public, and more importantly the apparatus responds to the President’s will if he dares to use it.
Isn’t this rather elementary?
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/poll-conspiracy-theory-morrow-shennon/#comment-766050
\\][//
The Assassination Tapes by Max Holland
The Atlantic Monthly | June 2004
“One barometer was especially telling in Johnson’s eyes: polls pitting the President against Senator Robert Kennedy, the only person considered a serious obstacle to Johnson’s renomination in 1968. The idea that Johnson might face a challenge from his own party was extraordinarily disheartening. That his putative challenger was Robert Kennedy was infuriating. The most painful presidential transition in American history was bound to have had difficulties. But JFK’s brother had been a unique problem for Johnson since the day of the assassination, when RFK had acted as if Johnson were an undeserving pretender rather than the legitimate successor to the presidency
[…]
Garrison, then forty-five, was considered a responsible, reform-minded prosecutor, albeit one with a decided flair for publicity. Like most district attorneys, he was politically ambitious. There was little on the record to suggest that he was, as it turned out, a cunning demagogue the likes of which had not been seen since the days of Senator Joseph McCarthy. Thus the almost universal response to Garrison’s action was He must have something. By the time the President called Clark, New Orleans was at the center of a media maelstrom.”
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/holland_atlantic.htm
See also: http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/max-holland-reinterprets-the-zapruder-film/
\\][//
“Anyway, I’ll try to think of the other names and give ’em to you. He’s the only one I can remember now, and I don’t credit it … I credit it ninety-nine [and] ninety-nine one-hundredths percent untrue. But that’s somethin’ I think we oughta know has been reported, and y’all oughta do what you think oughta be done to protect yourself.”
~LBJ to Acting Attny Gen Ramsey Clark – White House Tape, February 20, 1967 – 9:40 AM
. . . . . . . .
Now, what the hell would Clark have to protect himself from, if these rumors that Johnson was involved in the JFK Assassination that were being spread were true?
Also think about it, this is 1967 and Johnson is pretending just then that he had just heard of the ‘CIA plots to kill Castro’.
These White House tapes are recorded by Johnson on purpose, he could turn them on and off himself – he had control of them, unlike Nixon who was being monitored himself.
These tapes seem to me to be laying out ‘The Script’ as it was to be officially handled. And I think that most parties to these conversations understood that.
\\][//
Perhaps the truth of the matter is that the general public is incapable of distinguishing between bullshit and truth. Perhaps it is time to admit that the classification “Homo Sapiens” is the biggest joke of them all.
\\][//
How the Warren Commission and the House Select Committee on Assassinations
manipulated evidence to dismiss witness accounts of the assassination.
Over six hundred people witnessed the assassination of President Kennedy. The FBI acting on behalf of the Warren Commission interviewed at least two hundred of them. Regrettably, the Commission seemed unconcerned that the FBI reports on seventy of these interviews did not reveal if the witness had an opinion on the source of the shots. Nor did the Commission conduct an analysis of witness accounts or give any credence to those accounts of witnesses who thought the shots came from the grassy knoll.
Analysis of 178 Witnesses
In 1978 the House Select Committee on Assassinations analyzed the accounts of the witnesses taken by the Warren Commmission and from FBI reports published in the 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits that accompanied the Warren Report. In analyzing witness accounts, a diligent investigator would consider various issues that the House Committee failed to address.
[…]
Jesse Curry, the Dallas chief of police, told reporters on November 23 that although he was driving the lead car of the motorcade, he “could tell from the sound of the three shots that they had come from the book company’s building near downtown Dallas.” (The New York Times, 11/24/63) However, when confronted with the transcript of the police radio transmissions, Curry admitted that just after the shots were fired, he broadcast over his car radio: “Get a man on top of that triple underpass and see what happened up there.” (23H913; 4H161)
Bill Decker, the Dallas Sheriff, was riding with Curry in the lead car, and according to the police transcript, Decker called over Curry’s radio: “Have my office move all available men out of my office into the railroad yard to try to determine what happened in there and hold everything secure until Homicide and other investigators should get there.” (23H913) When Decker testified to the Warren Commission, he did not reveal, nor was he asked, where he thought the shots came from.
House Speaker Tip O’Neill revealed in his autobiography that five years after the assassination:
“I was surprised to hear [Presidential aide Kenneth] O’Donnell say that he was sure he had heard two shots that came from behind the fence.
“That’s not what you told the Warren Commission,” I said.
“You’re right,” he replied. “I told the FBI what I had heard, but they said it couldn’t have happened that way and that I must have been imagining things. So I testified the way they wanted me to. I just didn’t want to stir up any more pain and trouble for the family.”
“Dave Powers [another Kennedy aide] was with us at dinner that night, and his recollection of the shots was the same as O’Donnell’s.” (Man of the House,178)
Read more at:
http://www.maryferrell.org/DealeyPlazaWitnessDB.html#page=artScience
\\][//
http://www.corbettreport.com/mp4/grtvint051-chosso.mp4?_=1
WHAT JANE ROMAN SAID
A Retired CIA Officer Speaks Candidly About Lee Harvey Oswald
By Jefferson Morley
Introduction
In the summer of 1994 I became curious if a retired employee of the Central Intelligence Agency named Jane Roman was still alive and living in Washington.
I was curious because I had just seen Jane Roman’s name and handwriting on routing slips attached to newly declassified CIA documents about Lee Harvey Oswald, the accused assassin of President John F. Kennedy. This is what I found significant: these documents were dated before November 22, 1963. If this Jane Roman person at CIA headquarters had read the documents that she signed for on the routing slips, then she knew something of Oswald’s existence and activities before the itinerant, 24 year-old ex-Marine became world famous for allegedly shooting President John F. Kennedy in Dallas. In other words, Jane Roman was a CIA official in good standing who knew about the alleged assassin in advance of Kennedy’s violent death.
What self-respecting Washington journalist wouldn’t be interested?
Of course, I knew enough about the Kennedy assassination to know that many, many, many people knew something of Lee Oswald before he arrived in Dealey Plaza with a gun—a small family, an assortment of far-flung buddies from the Marines, family and acquaintances in New Orleans and Dallas, some attentive FBI agents, not to mention the occasional anti-Castro Cuban, and even some CIA officials.
But Jane Roman was not just any CIA official. In 1963 she was the senior liaison officer on the Counterintelligence Staff of the Central Intelligence Agency in Langley, Virginia. That set her apart. At the height of the Cold War, the counterintelligence staff was a very select operation within the agency, charged with detecting threats to the integrity of CIA operations and personnel from the Soviet Union and its allies. The CI staff, as it was known in bureaucratic lingo, was headed by James Jesus Angleton, a legendary Yale-educated spy, who was either a patriotic genius or a paranoid drunk or perhaps both. Jane Roman’s responsibilities in the fall of 1963 included handling communications between the CI staff and other federal agencies.
http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/whatjaneromansaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_1.htm
http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/whatjaneromansaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_2.htm
http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/whatjaneromansaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_3.htm
http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/whatjaneromansaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_4.htm
http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/whatjaneromansaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_5.htm
http://history-matters.com/essays/frameup/whatjaneromansaid/WhatJaneRomanSaid_6.htm
\\][//
“What is lacking in this article is the fact that on September 20, 1967, the CIA held its first “Garrison Group Meeting” (No 1 – 20 September 1967). This high level, classified meeting was attended by the “Executive Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, Deputy Director for Plans, Mr. Raymond Rocca of CI Staff, Director of Security and Mr. Goodwin.”
“The Minutes of the Meeting read as follows:
[https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=6515#relPageId=2&tab=page]
“1) “Executive Director said that the Director has asked him to convene a group to consider the possible implications for the Agency emanating from New Orleans before, during, and after the trial of Clay Shaw.”
“2) “General Counsel discussed his dealings with Justice and the desire of Shaw’s lawyers to make contact with the Agency.”
“3) “[Raymond] Rocca [who was Jim Angleton’s chief lieutenant] felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.”
“4) Executive Director said the group should level on two objectives: (a) what kind of action, if any, is available to the Agency, and (b) what actions should be taken inside the Agency to reassure the Director that we have the problem in focus. The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial and what might be feasible during and after the trial. It was agreed that OGC and Rocca would make a detailed study of all the facts and consult with Justice as appropriate prior to the next meeting.”
“The meeting was chaired by my father – “F.W.M. Janney”
“So, as early as 1967, we learn here that ‘Rocca felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.’ If this isn’t prima facie evidence that Clay Shaw was not only an asset of the CIA but was part of the conspiracy “to assassinate President Kennedy,” then I don’t know what else to say . . .
“Here, we have a high-level internal CIA meeting where the No. 2 main on the Counter Intelligence staff (Ray Rocca) tells everyone that Garrison ‘would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw,’ only because Rocca knew what had taken place. Game, set, and Match! The CIA is guilty, and always has been !?’
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/the-garrison-group-what-one-top-cia-official-said-about-clay-shaw/
\\][//
Holland’s Deflection: Ballistics and the Truth
by DALE K. MYERS and TODD W. VAUGHAN
During a recent speech at The Sixth Floor Museum at Dealey Plaza, author Max Holland said that he feared “that someday I’m going to turn into one of those people in Dealey Plaza who has laminated photographs trying to persuade everyone of my view of what happened.”
It would appear that his “nightmare” has come true, albeit minus the laminated photographs.
At the invitation of the museum, Holland presented his belief that Oswald’s first shot struck a traffic light mast pole and was deflected down toward the Triple Overpass where it wounded bystander James Tague – a belief that has no basis in fact as shown again and again on the pages of this blog.
See these previous articles for all the scoop:
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/06/max-hollands-11-seconds-in-dallas.html
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2007/12/holland-dj-vu_27.html
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2008/12/cherry-picking-evidence-of-first-shot.html
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2012/01/mr-hollands-opus-max-holland-and.html
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2014/12/ignoring-evidence-fifty-one-years-of.html
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/05/the-shot-that-missed-jfk-new-forensic.html
After showing his audience the evidence that supposedly supports his thesis – evidence that has been thoroughly dismantled – Holland insists that you don’t have to believe his conclusions, although from his perspective, if you don’t you’re clearly an idiot.
http://jfkfiles.blogspot.com/2015/06/hollands-deflection-ballistics-and-truth.html
\\][//
President Kennedy’s speech to the graduating class of American University in Washington DC 51 years ago today represented the high point of his efforts to wind down the Cold War. His vigorous style and clear mind never had a more important goal — or more powerful enemies.
\\][//
“So often we hear the claim that: “Because he was assassinated, we will never know what JFK’s true opinion about Vietnam was. Therefore, we can’t know what potential actions he would have taken with regards to Vietnam.” Those who make this type of claim have either not studied the official record within the context of the political climate of the day or already have their minds made up. JFK made his position clear from the time he was a member of the House and again as a Senator. Then, as President, he signed the order to withdraw all US personnel by the end of 1965, NSAM 263. The only area of equivocation comes from press interviews. These are “political minefields” and, as such, he could not allow himself to be painted as “soft on communism” just before an election year. However, he was unequivocal as to his intent to withdraw from Vietnam in his official capacity as POTUS.”~Greg Burnham
http://assassinationofjfk.net/jfk-opposed-the-vietnam-war/
\\][//
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
June 13, 2015 at 6:00 pm
John Kirsch has posted a short commentary on JFKfacts’ current situation.
I was wondering if Jeff Morley has read it yet … ?
http://jfkresearch.me/2015/06/11/whoa/
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/where-the-hell-is-the-moderation/#comment-769520
Kennedy assassination aborted U.S. reconciliation with Cuba
Sierra Leone Times Wednesday 13th May, 2015
“Kennedy encouraged the development of the talks and was seen by those close to him as very enthusiastic about coming to an accommodation with Castro which would have seen an end to the embargo while still in its infancy.
In October 1963 Kennedy met with the editor of the Socialist newsweekly L’Observateur, Jean Daniel, knowing he was visiting Cuba in early November 1963 and was hoping to interview Castro. “I believe there is no country in the world, including all the African regions, including any and all the countries under colonial domination, where economic colonization, humiliation and exploitation are worse than in Cuba, in part owing to my own country’s policies during the Batista regime,” Kennedy told an amazed Daniel.
“I believe that we created, built and manufactured the Castro movement out of whole cloth and without realizing it I believe that the accumulation of these mistakes has jeopardized all of Latin America.”
“I can assure you that I have understood the Cubans. I approved the proclamation which Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra when he justifiably called for justice and specially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption,” Kennedy said. “I will go even further to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States. Now we shall have to pay for those sins. In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries. That is perfectly clear,” Kennedy told the reporter.
The president outlined the role of Castro in promoting communism to other Latin American countries and laid the blame on him for the Cuban missile crisis which had brought the world to the brink of nuclear war just a year earlier. However he dangled a carrot, knowing Daniel would repeat his comments to Castro. “The United States now has the possibility of doing as much good in Latin America as it has done in the past. I would even say that we alone (not the Soviets) have this power, on the essential condition that communism does not take over there,” Kennedy said.”
http://www.sierraleonetimes.com/index.php/sid/232820795
\\][//
“I’m just a patsy.”~Lee Harvey Oswald, November 22, 1963
\\][//
Dallas Through the Looking Glass
The plot to link JFK’s death and Watergate.
SLATE Magazine
“In late 1973 theories like Scott’s were proliferating. From that historical vantage point, the twin traumas of Dallas and Watergate seemed to bracket a decade of disorientation and dashed promise. Many Americans, wondering how an era ripe with hope could devolve so fast into turmoil and crisis, began to reach for conspiracy theories to explain where “the ’60s” had gone awry. This was the moment, with dreams of revolution (or merely reform) now dead, when outlandish notions about Kennedy’s death—and, more important, a cynicism about the workings of American democracy—took root.”~David Greenberg
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history_lesson/2003/11/dallas_through_the_looking_glass.html
This article by Greenberg is transparently cheesy spin for those who know the real facts of modern political power.
\\][//
“This finding is worth repeating on the 48th anniversary of JFK’s death: Jackie and Bobby Kennedy “believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents.”
No doubt inadvertently, the National Geographic JFK special fostered a reassuring yet false view of American history: that there is little reason to doubt the official story blaming a “lone nut.” In fact, Bobby and Jackie were not alone in suspecting conspiracy in Dallas. At the time, 60 percent of Dallas residents suspected a plot. JFK’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, privately suspected a plot emanating from JFK enemies in Cuba or Vietnam. In Havana, Fidel Castro, a man whose peaceful dotage is proof positive he knows something about detecting CIA conspiracies, concluded JFK had been killed by a right-wing faction within his own government. More recently, University of Virginia professor Larry Sabato, a mainstream political pundit and author of a forthcoming book on the legacy of Kennedy’s assassination, has joined critics of the official JFK story.
“Critical documents that could explain more about what happened are being hidden, and aggressively so,” Sabato told me in an email. “It’s no wonder a large majority of Americans believe in various conspiracy theories. There’s plenty to be suspicious about.
The newly declassified CIA’s records show that Angleton’s CI staff kept track of Oswald constantly from October 1959 to November 1963. At Angleton’s direction, more than 40 reports about Oswald’s travels in the communist world, his family life and his political views were funneled to a secretive office in the Counterintelligence Staff known as the Special Investigations Group. The SIG was headed by Birch O’Neal, a loyal aide who had served as CIA station chief in Guatemala during the CIA-sponsored coup d’etat in 1954.
The CIA files show that the pace of intelligence gathering around Oswald quickened in mid-1963. In August 1963, Joannides’ assets started reporting on Oswald’s antics in New Orleans. When Oswald visited the Cuban consulate in Mexico City a few weeks later, he was surveilled by Phillips. When CIA and FBI reports on Oswald were sent to the SIG, they were signed for, and read by Angleton’s staff. No, this isn’t Internet fable: The routing sheets with their signatures can be found in the National Archives, and Roman and Hood confirmed their authenticity in separate interviews.
Six weeks after Angleton’s aides reviewed the Oswald file, JFK was shot dead and Oswald was arrested for the crime. These CIA officers did not investigate and conclude that Oswald had acted alone. Some, including Phillips and Joannides, took actions to insure that blame for the crime of Dallas would fall on Cuba. Others, like Scott, scrambled to learn more about Oswald. Angleton blandly disavowed his long-standing interest in Kennedy’s accused killer and concealed the paper trail that proved it.
In the upper echelons of the CIA, Lee Harvey Oswald was not regarded as a “lone nut.” At the level of Jim Angleton, Win Scott and David Phillips, Oswald was regarded as an extremely sensitive operational matter. It is inevitable that historians will view him the same way.”~Jefferson Morley (NOV 22, 2011)
http://www.salon.com/2011/11/22/the_holy_grail_of_the_jfk_story/
\\][//
HOW FIVE INVESTIGATIONS INTO JFK’S MEDICAL/AUTOPSY EVIDENCE GOT IT WRONG
Gary L. Aguilar, MD and Kathy Cunningham, May 2003
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_5.htm
\\][//
Miles Copeland – CIA
Copeland joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1947 and for the next three years was a political attaché at the United States Embassy in Damascus. Copeland was one of only 200 agents at the time and “likened his comrades-in-stealth to innocent kids given a new toy and a license to steal.”
http://spartacus-educational.com/Miles_Copeland.htm
Lisa Pease on James Angleton, counterintelligence chief
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/lisa-pease-on-james-angleton-counterintelligence-chief/
James Jesus Angleton and the Kennedy Assassination
By Lisa Pease
http://www.ctka.net/pr700-ang.html
Pat Speer – The Single-Bullet Theory, Voodoo Science, and Zombie Lies
Lee Oswald’s attempt to make a telephone call from the Dallas jail to John Hurt, a former military counterintelligence agent in Raleigh, N.C.
http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk80.html
\\][//
“We don’t know what happened, but we do know Oswald had intelligence connections.
Everywhere you look with him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence.”~Sen. Richard S. Schweiker (R-PA)
. . .
Senator Richard Schweiker, who in the mid-1970s chaired a Senate subcommittee charged with investigating the role of U.S. Intelligence (specifically the CIA) at the time of the Kennedy assassination. Schweiker came to thoroughly distrust the conclusions of the Warren Commission, the Presidential panel chaired by Chief Justice Earl Warren and tasked by newly sworn in President Lyndon Johnson with reporting the truth to the American people about who killed JFK. Said Schweiker, “I think the Warren Commission is like a house of cards. It’s going to collapse.” After months of intensive study and research, Schweiker without hesitation asserted on the CBS News program Face the Nation in 1976: “We don’t know what happened, but we do know Oswald had intelligence connections. Everywhere you look with him, there are the fingerprints of intelligence.”
\\][//
INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW
Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History
By Victor Marchetti
“In the eyes of posterity it will inevitably seem that, in safeguarding our freedom, we destroyed it. The vast clandestine apparatus we built up to prove our enemies’ resources and intentions only served in the end to confuse our own purposes; that practice of deceiving others for the good of the state led infallibly to our deceiving ourselves; and that vast army of clandestine personnel built up to execute these purposes were soon caught up in the web of their own sick fantasies, with disastrous consequences for them and us.”
~Malcom Muggeridge, May 1966
“That, in a nutshell, sums up what the CIA has accomplished over the years through its various clandestine propaganda and disinformation programs. It has unwittingly and, often, deliberately decieved itself — and the American taxpayer. The CIA is a master at distorting history — even creating its own version of history to suit its institutional and operational purposes. It can do this largely because of two great advantages it possesses. One is the excessively secret environment in which it operates, and the other is that it is essentially a private instrument of the presidency.
The real reason for the official secrecy, in most instances, is not to keep the opposition (the CIA’s euphemistic term for the enemy) from knowing what is going on; the enemy usually does know. The basic reason for governmental secrecy is to keep you, the American public, from knowing — for you, too, are considered the opposition, or enemy — so that you cannot interfere. When the public does not know what the government or the CIA is doing, it cannot voice its approval or disapproval of their actions. In fact, they can even lie to your about what they are doing or have done, and you will not know it.”~Marchetti
[From The Journal of Historical Review, Fall 1989 (Vol. 9, No. 3), pages 305- 320.
This paper was first presented at the Ninth IHR Conference, Feb. 1989, in Huntington Beach, California.]
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v09/v09p305_Marchetti.html
\\][//
“As for the second advantage, despite frequent suggestion that the CIA is a rogue elephant, the truth is that the agency functions at the direction of and in response to the office of the president. All of its major clandestine operations are carried out with the direct approval of or on direct orders from the White House. The CIA is a secret tool of the president — every president. And every president since Truman has lied to the American people in order to protect the agency. When lies have failed, it has been the duty of the CIA to take the blame for the president, thus protecting him. This is known in the business as “plausible denial.” ~Victor Marchetti
As much as I respect Mr Marchetti for his inside knowledge and revelations about the CIA, I strongly disagree with the quote by him above. It is my view that the President and the CIA all work for the same Criminal Syndicate, and that the activities of the Executive and the Intelligence Services are coordinated at a higher level that the “national government”.
Marchetti is in fact presenting a ‘Revetment” , a ‘modified limited hangout’. Whether he is doing so willfully, or is simply ignorant of the larger aspects of the architecture of political power is not certain.
“All these techniques have one thing in common, and depend on one thing: secrecy. Secrecy is maintained not to keep the opposition – the CIA’s euphemistic term for the enemy — from knowing what’s going on, because the enemy usually does know. Secrecy exists to keep you, the American public, from knowing what is going on, because in many ways you are the real enemy.”~Ibid
The above is true enough, but the following indicates to me, the main reason Marchetti’s work was published after some burlesque to make it appear he was going against the grain. Marchetti reveals his prime agenda with the following; meant to take the “motive” for the coup against Kennedy out of the picture:
“There was a fairly widespread belief that one reason Kennedy was assassinated was because he was going to get us out of Vietnam. Don’t you believe it He was the CIA’s kind of president, rough, tough, and gung-ho. Under Kennedy we became involved in Vietnam in a serious way, not so much militarily as through covert action. It is a fact that the United States engineered the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem, South Vietnam’s premier, and Ngo Dinh Nhu, his powerful brother. A cable was sent out to the ambassador which said, “If Lou Conein goofs up [Lucien Conein was a key CIA operative in Saigon], it’s his responsibility.” So when E. Howard Hunt faked these memos and cables when he was working for the “plumbers” on behalf of President Nixon (and against the Democrats), he knew what he was doing. That was his defense, that he wasn’t really forging or inventing anything. “Stuff like that really existed, but I couldn’t find it,” he said. Of course Hunt couldn’t find it by that time the original documents were gone. But Hunt knew what he was doing.”~Marchetti
. . . .
Yea, Hunt knew what he was doing, but the story about Kennedy being behind the assassination of Diem is disinformation. Hunt was actually involved in the assassination of Kennedy, and soiling Kennedy’s reputation puts that in a more positive light.
\\][//
James Jesus Angleton, “Mother” – THE GOOD SHEPHERD
\\][//
An odd message was supposedly received from the situation room in the afternoon just after JFK’s death: “Joint Chiefs of Staff are now President”.~Stephen Vincent O’Rourke
\\][//
JFK PRIMARY SOURCES
http://primarysources.wix.com/home#!additional-resources-/c21f0
\\][//
HSCA on ZRRIFLE and Bill Harvey
“Should have phoney 201 in RI [Records Integration] to backstop this, all documents therein forged & backdated. Should look like a CE file …. Cover: planning should include provision for blaming Sovs or Czechs in case of blow.”
— Excerpt from “Project ZRRIFLE” notes, created in December 1960, by Bill Harvey, the CIA officer in charge of this assassinations project.
A 201 file, also known as a “personality” file, is a standard CIA record. So Harvey is proposing that the agency’s own internal records be doctored.
Harvey’s comment also shows that falsely implicating communists in assassinations perpetrated by the CIA was not a conspiracy theorist’s delusion. It was a tactic recommended by one of the CIA’s most formidable operators.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=109661#relPageId=2&tab=page
\\][//
COVERS & LEGENDS
A spy must live a life of lies.
Adopt a cover identity and learn why an agent needs one.
Proceed directly to the Briefing Film where you’ll come face to face with the real world of spying.
Spies are motivated for very different reasons. What might motivate you? Patriotism? Money? A compromising situation? Your own ego?
http://www.spymuseum.org/exhibition-experiences/in-the-exhibition/covers-legends/
Are we safeguarding Amerika’s health by checking their cavities?
\\][//
THE SECRET TEAM
The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World
By L. FLETCHER PROUTY, Col., U.S. Air Force (Ret.)
Click to access cacheof-prouty-thesecretteam-via-ratical-com.pdf
\\][//
Willy Whitten
July 23, 2015 at 10:39 am
“BC. I don’t have the omniscience of a god but I do understand the security classification used by DOD better than you it appears. But I now see why you take Prouty to your breast so strongly. You both are very big on imagination. Imagination is what has caused much of this mess, Willy.”~Bill Clarke
. . . . .
“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.”~Albert Einstein
I know why you are jealous of Fletcher Prouty, it is because his experience and knowledge of the DOD is far superior of yours, plus he grasps the importance of imagination, and that the trite interpretation of the term as “just making stuff up” or “being juvenile” is not at the core of it. All discovery and invention is dependent on human imagination. There would be no civilization, no science, no technology; no empathy for one another without the imagination to identify with the pain of others.
Your list of three major categories of security clearances may be correct as far as it goes, but it is silly and ridiculous to conclude that there are no subheadings for specialty clearances.
The core issue here is whether or not Oswald was a double agent for the US. And this is what you are arguing against, while all of the facts revealed thus far indicate that Oswald was an agent.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/#comment-779889
\\][//
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh8/html/WC_Vol8_0164b.htm
http://history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcvols/wh8/html/WC_Vol8_0165a.htm
“I, Henry J. Roussel, Jr., 2172 Elissalde Street, Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
being first duly sworn, depose and say:
That while in the United States Marine Corps I served for approximately
three or four months with Lee Harvey Oswald in MACS-9 in Santa Ana,
California. On one occasion I arranged a date for Oswald with my aunt,
Rosaleen Quinn, an airline stewardess who, because she was interested in
working for the American Embassy in Russia, had taken a leave from her job
in order to study Russian. I arranged the date because I knew of Oswald’s
study of the Russian language. I also arranged a date for my aunt with
Lieutenant John E. Donovan. I am under the impression that prior to
studying Russian, Oswald had studied German.
I recall no serious political remarks on the part of Oswald. On occasion,
however, Oswald, when addressing other Marines, would refer to them as
“Comrade.” It seemed to me and, as far as I know, to my fellow
Marines–that Oswald used this term in fun. At times some of us responded
by calling him “Comrade.” Oswald also enjoyed listening to recordings of
Russian songs.
My recollection of Oswald is to the effect that he was personally quite
neat, and that he stayed to himself. Oswald complained about orders that
he was given, but no more than did the average Marine. I regarded Oswald
as quite intelligent, in view of the fact that he had taught himself two
foreign languages. I do not recall Oswald’s having any dates other than
the one which I arranged for him with my aunt.
I do not remember Oswald’s getting into any fights. I have no recollection
concerning Oswald’s reading habits, religious beliefs, or trips off the
post. I do not remember his reading a Russian newspaper, and do not recall
his having any nicknames. (I was nicknamed “Beezer.”) I do not remember
Oswalds having his name written in Russian on his jacket, and have no
recollection of any visitors received by Oswald.
Signed this 25th day of May, 1964, at Baton Rouge, La.
(S) Henry J. Roussel, Jr.,
HENRY J. ROUSSEL, Jr.”
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.assassination.jfk/6l7frzbrHIw
“..one thing that a radar operator might have access to which could affect
National Defense would be the codes which allow airplanes to enter US
airspace and land at military bases here and overseas. If the Russians had
that, they could launch a surprise attack by using US planes and knowing
the right codes to get into US airspace unchallenged.
According to the testimony of his Marine crew commander at El Toro, Lt. John Donovan, WC testimony:
http://www.russianbooks.org/oswald/kgb.htm
“Oswald had access to the location of all bases in the west coast
areas, all radio frequencies for all squadrons, all tactical call signs,
and the relative strength of all squadrons, number and type of aircraft in
a squadron, who was the commanding officer, the authentication code of
entering and exiting the ADIZ, which stand for Air Defense Identification
Zone. He knew the range of our radar. He knew the range of our radio. And
he knew the range of surrounding units’ radio and radar… There are some
things which he knew on which he received instructions that there is no
way of changing, such as the MPS 16 height-finder radar gear… He had
also been schooled on a piece of machinery call a TPX-1, which is used to
transfer radio–radar and radio signals over a great distance. Radar is
very susceptible to homing missiles, and this piece of equipment is used
to put your radar antenna several miles away, and relay the information
back to your site which you hope is relatively safe. He had been schooled
on this.”
[WC Vol. 8 p.298]
\\][//
Security clearances can be issued by many United States of America government agencies, including the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy (DoE), the Department of Justice (DoJ), the National Security Agency (NSA), and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The USA’s DoE clearances include the “L” and “Q” levels. DoD issues more than 80% of all clearances. There are three levels of DoD security clearances:[1]
> Confidential
> Secret
> Top Secret
. . . .
Note these are “levels”, not necessarily the job designated clearance, which would be a sub-category, and more specific. Anthony Marsh claims his father, at NSA had a “Crypto” top secret clearance having to do with Cryptology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._security_clearance_terms
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 24, 2015 at 1:54 am
Harold Weisberg served as an Office of Strategic Services officer during World War II, a U.S. Senate staff member and investigative reporter, an investigator for the Senate Committee on Civil Liberties.
Jean Davison claims; “The “crypto” claim comes from a 1966 radio talk show featuring Harold Weisberg. An unidentified person who called in claimed he’d served with Oswald and that Oswald had both “crypto” and “top secret” clearances.”
But Jean gives no source to check up on whether this assertion she just made is valid.
She goes on to say that she thinks, “..this was first mentioned in Weisberg’s “Oswald in New Orleans.”
Well, how about something solid we can go on here Jean? Where in Weisberg’s book does he say that this info of “Crypto” clearance as from this anonymous source on the radio show. Weisberg has a rather solid track record as having great integrity and has renown for his research skills.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/#comment-780192
What is a security clearance?
A security clearance is a determination by the United States Government that a person or company is eligible for access to classified information. The term “eligibility for access” means the same thing as security clearance and appears in some Government record systems. There are two types of clearances: Personnel Security Clearances (PCLs) and Facility Security Clearances (FCLs).
What are the security clearance levels?
Security clearances can be issued by many United States Government agencies, including the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Energy (DoE), the Department of Justice, and the Central Intelligence Agency. DoD, which issues more than 80% of all clearances, and most other agencies have three levels of security clearances:
• Confidential
• Secret
• Top Secret
What is a “special access authorization?”
Access to classified defense information is based on an appropriate level of security clearance (Confidential, Secret or Top Secret) and a “need-to-know.” Need-to-know can be either a formal or an informal determination. All classified defense information exists within one of these two “need-to-know” domains—formal or informal. Information that exists within the domain of informal
need-to-know determinations is referred to as “collateral classified” information. Information that requires a formal need-to-know determination (also known as a special access authorization) exists within Special Access Programs (SAP), including Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) and Restricted Data (RD).
Acronyms such as ATOMAL, CNWDI, COMSEC, COSMIC, CRYPTO, NOFORN, ORCON, SAP, SCI, RD, SIOP-ESI, SPECAT, SIOP-ESI, etc., are not clearances. They are categories of classified information, some of which have extra need-to-know restrictions or require special access authorizations. For example, COSMIC stands for “Control of Secret Material in an International Command.” COSMIC Top Secret is the term used for NATO Top Secret Information. There are many such markings (caveats) stamped or printed on classified material, but
most are only acronyms denoting special administrative handling procedures
Click to access security_clearance_faq.pdf
\\][//
Warren Commission counsel David Belin wrote: “The Rosetta Stone [the key to Egyptian hieroglyphics] to the solution of President Kennedy’s murder is the murder of Officer J. D. Tippit.”[391] From the Warren Commission’s standpoint, the killing of Tippit, who presumably challenged the assassin’s flight after he killed Kennedy, was said to prove “that Oswald had the capacity to kill.”[392]
Warren Commission critic Harold Weisberg saw Tippit’s murder instead as the government’s way of poisoning the public mind against Lee Harvey Oswald: “Immediately the [flimsy] police case [against Oswald] required a willingness to believe. This was provided by affixing to Oswald the opprobrious epithet of ‘cop-killer.’”[393]
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html
\\][//
\\][//
It seems curious to me that the opposition is attempting to prove a negative; that there is no such thing as a “Crypto” security clearance. For myself I find it a non-issue. It is just a name in a system of ever changing twisting covert nomenclature. Remember what Dulles said in that “off the record” discussion of the WC January 22,1964. To paraphrase, it was something about the fact that some agents are only known by their direct handler, and note of it is in a code that that handler is sole person to know.
Some people do not have the imagination to grasp how secret covert operations are. Spies attempt to avoid all oversight, they don’t even want their superiors to know what they are up to! It comes down to Spy v Spy – almost as absurd as the stuff in the old Mad Magazine series.
The Mysterious Deletions of the Warren Commission’s “TOP SECRET” Transcript of January 22, 1964
by Hal Verb
“I think this record should be destroyed.”~Warren Commission member & former head of the CIA, Allen Dulles
For over thirty years a transcript of one of those “top secret” executive session meetings (January 22, 1964) has been in existence. This particular transcript dealt principally with an alleged “dirty rumor” that Oswald had been an agent of some federal agency, notably the FBI. It was at the January 22nd executive meeting that Allen Dulles opined: “I think this record ought to be destroyed.” Another Commission member, Hale Boggs, nervously restated the case when he said plaintively, “I don’t even like to see this taken down.”
Click to access solved.pdf
\\][//
Testimony of Hal Verb
Dallas, Texas — November 18, 1994 Hearing (ARRB)
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=15140
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/arrb/index75.htm
Lee Harvey Oswald—a U.S. Intelligence Agent: The Evidence
Presentation by Hal Verb
Oswald and the CIA
Presentation by John Newman, Ph.D.
The Candy Box “Fabrication” and the Hardship Discharge of Lee Harvey Oswald
by Martin Shackelford
Lee Harvey Oswalds: Dual Identity Cover-Up
by John Armstrong
Banister, Oswald and V.T. Lee: A Position Paper
by Frank DeBenedictis
“Razbitoye Karito”: The Ten-Minute Commentary Norman Mailer’s “Oswald’s Tale” Demands—and Deserves – by Walt Brown, Ph.D., COPA Governing Board, 1995 Program Chair
http://spot.acorn.net/JFKplace/09/fp.back_issues/07th_Issue/copa_lho.html
\\][//
JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters
By Prof. Edward Curtin – Global Research, November 16, 2013
“If Lee Harvey Oswald was connected to the intelligence community, the FBI and the CIA, then we can logically conclude that he was not “a lone-nut” assassin. Douglass marshals a wealth of evidence to show how from the very start Oswald was moved around the globe like a pawn in a game, and when the game was done, the pawn was eliminated in the Dallas police headquarters. As he begins to trace Oswald’s path, Douglass asks this question: “Why was Lee Harvey Oswald so tolerated and supported by the government he betrayed?” After serving as a U.S. Marine at the CIA’s U-2 spy plane operating base in Japan with a Crypto clearance (higher than top secret but a fact suppressed by the Warren Commission), Oswald left the Marines and defected to the Soviet Union. After denouncing the U.S., working at a Soviet factory in Minsk , and taking a Russian wife – during which time Gary Powers’ U-2 spy plane is shot down over the Soviet Union – he returned to the U.S. with a loan from the American Embassy in Moscow, only to be met at the dock in Hoboken, New Jersey by a man, Spas T. Raikin, a prominent anti-communist with extensive intelligence connections, recommended by the State Department. He passed through immigration with no trouble, was not prosecuted, moved to Fort Worth, Texas where , at the suggestion of the Dallas CIA Domestic Contacts Service chief, he was met and befriended by George de Mohrenschildt, an anti-communist Russian, who was a CIA asset. De Mohrenschildt got him a job four days later at a graphic arts company that worked on maps for the U.S. Army Map Service related to U-2 spy missions over Cuba. Oswald was then shepherded around the Dallas area by de Mohrenschildt who, in 1977, on the day he revealed he had contacted Oswald for the CIA and was to meet with the House Select Committee on Assasinations’ Gaeton Fonzi, allegedly committed suicide. Oswald then moved to New Orleans in April 1963 where got a job at the Reilly Coffee Company owned by CIA-affiliated William Reilly. The Reilly Coffee Company was located in close vicinity to the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and Office of Naval Intelligence offices and a stone’s throw from the office of Guy Bannister, a former Special Agent in Charge of the FBI’s Chicago Bureau, who worked as a covert action coordinator for the intelligence services, supplying and training anti-Castro paramilitaries meant to ensnare Kennedy. Oswald then went to work with Bannister and the CIA paramilitaries.
During this time up until the assassination Oswald engaged in all sorts of contradictory activities, one day portraying himself as pro-Castro, the next day as anti-Castro, many of these theatrical performances being directed from Bannister’s office. It was as though Oswald, on the orders of his puppet masters, was enacting multiple and antithetical roles in order to confound anyone intent on deciphering the purposes behind his actions and to set him up as a future “assassin.” Douglass persuasively argues that Oswald “seems to have been working with both the CIA and FBI,” as a provocateur for the former and an informant for the latter. Jim and Elsie Wilcott, who worked at the CIA Tokyo Station from 1960-64, in a 1978 interview with the San Francisco Chronicle, said, “It was common knowledge in the Tokyo CIA station that Oswald worked for the agency.”
http://www.globalresearch.ca/jfk-and-the-unspeakable-why-he-died-and-why-it-matters/16273?print=1
\\][//
Chapter 3
A Totally Irrational Book … Not A Thing With Any Source In it.
Twelve years after Inquest appeared, there came Epstein’s sixth book. When it appeared it was titled Legend: The Secret World of lee Harvey Oswald. Supposedly this was Epstein’s third book on the JFK assassination but it was not that at all.
His second book was titled Counterplot: The Garrison Case. It was competent criticism of the case New Orleans district attorney Jim Garrison had brought against Clay Shaw in 1969, in which the jury found Shaw not guilty in less than an hour. It served a major propaganda purpose of opposing Garrison who, in charging Shaw with the assassination, was also charging the government by alleging Shaw was a government agent. It also served a major government propaganda interest in refuting Garrison’s allegations that the Warren Report did not do the job expected of it. Counterplot, as a book, was an expanded version of the long article Epstein wrote for The New Yorker magazine. It appeared the summer before the book was published. In effect it was a condensation of the book. It received the major media attention that, just about all the media, had supported the Warren Report. It got attention that was even more supportive because just about all criticism of the Warren Report went unpublished and when, rarely, it was published, it was ignored by the major media. The prepublication publicity for Legend was also extensive because The New Yorker article was written about by many if not most of the reporters who were in New Orleans to cover the Garrison case. Garrison had begun with major attention and continued with major criticisms of him and of his alleged case.
Epstein has what is not usual in book, an extra page where the dedication usually appears. It is followed by the dedication page with dedication to his parents. Epstein’s inability to be seriously critical of the official account of the assassination is reflected by the lack of an obvious criticism of what he has on that extra page, which has no heading..”
jfk.hood.edu/Collection/…/HW%20Manuscripts/…/Epstein%2003.doc
\\][//
PRISCILLA JOHNSON: Witness for the Prosecution
by Hal Verb
Article originally appeared in The Third Decade, Volume 8, No. 2-3 (January-March, 1992). Reprinted here with permission of the author.
http://www.jfk-info.com/verb-4.htm
\\][//
Click to access security_clearance_faq.pdf
Willy Whitten
July 26, 2015 at 10:17 am
“Acronyms such as ATOMAL, CNWDI, COMSEC, COSMIC, CRYPTO, NOFORN, ORCON, SAP, SCI, RD, SIOP-ESI, SPECAT, SIOP-ESI, etc., are not clearances. They are categories of classified information, some of which have extra need-to-know restrictions.”~Bill Clarke
You are playing with words Bill, making a spurious rhetorical argument now after you yourself prove right there that, “CRYPTO” is a category of classified information, which has extra need-to-know restrictions.”
So again, you are wrong, but claim you were right. And you call Prouty a liar! You have called a lot of people liars Bill. I think that is very hypocritical under the obvious circumstances.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/april-10-1963-oswald-tries-to-shoot-gen-walker/#comment-781020
In his usual disingenuous manner Bill Clarke prevaricates, minces words, and plays rhetorical games on JFKfacts. Clarke’s distinction between “Classification” and “Clearance” is not only meaningless, but irrational. He slurs Fletcher Prouty, making claims that he can only backup with bullshit accusations. Bill is the one who is a liar and arrogant know-nothing when it comes to deep knowledge of covert affairs. He reminds me of Maxitwat from T&S in many ways.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
July 28, 2015 at 11:49 am
“Galbraith and the video carry on the lie about NSAM 263 and I honestly don’t know how they do that with a straight face.”~Bill Clarke
Mr Clarke has made it a habit to frame those he disagrees with as liars on this blog. Mr Clarke relies on spurious rhetorical semantics to frame his own interpretations as “factual” while accusing the larger more encompassing framing of all of the data by others as “fictional”.
He relies on his own quaint anecdotes from his limited perspective to insinuate they have a more universal relevance – more weight than they actually have. His arrogance argues with those with much more inside experience and expertise than his own.
I propose that Mr Clarke pretends to a greater perspective than his experience would actually provide. And I honestly do not see how he can do this with a straight face.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/president-betrayed-documentary-on-jfk-foreign-policy/#comment-781585
CIA documents show US never believed Gary Powers was shot down
~Giles Whittell, Washington Correspondent
U-2 pilot Gary Powers, a few weeks before his suspicious death in a helicopter crash in LA, revealed that he did not believe his plane was shot down by the Soviets and indicated sabotage on the part of the CIA instead, in order to undermine the possibility of detente between Eisenhower and Kruschev. It is not a “conspiracy theory” that Lee Harvey Oswald, one of nine Office of Naval Intelligence fake defectors who went to the USSR in the same month, told ONI’s Richard Snyder at the American Embassy in Moscow that he was going to reveal the U-2 secrets to the Soviets. Oswald had been stationed, as a Marine, at every base the U-2 operated from, including Atsugi, Japan and tracked it by radar. He had a Crypto clearance. Those things are in the historical record. It is not likely that he gave up any such information or would have been allowed to. Snyder kept Oswald’s proffered passport and did not act on his renunciation of US citizenship. Snyder returned the passport to Oswald on his way out of Russia with his new bride Marina, transportation paid by the State Department. Nice treatment for a defector who gave secrets to the Soviets. Marina even got Oswald’s story confused with another ONI defector, Robert Webster, when she testified to the Warren Commission about how her husband got to the Soviet Union and where he lived in Moscow. However if sabotage of the detente was in the planning, it would have been useful to use the Oswald deception to explain how the Soviets could track and shoot down the U-2. This article suggests that Powers himself might have been a false defector as well. What is clear is that Powers did not buy the official story. ~John Judge
The London Times – May 1, 2010
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article711351
\\][//
The Parkland bullet was not CE399. It matters not where this pointed tipped hunting bullet came from. What matters is that it is not the bullet on exhibit as #399. The chain of custody is broken and nonexistent, the whole thing was a farce. CE399 was never fired in Dealey Plaza.
The Magic Bullet: Even More Magical Than We Knew?
Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson
Introduction
Among the myriad JFK assassination controversies, none more cleanly divides Warren Commission supporter from skeptic than the “Single Bullet Theory.” The brainchild of a former Warren Commission lawyer, Mr. Arlen Specter, now the senior Senator from Pennsylvania, the theory is the sine qua non of the Warren Commission’s case that with but three shots, including one that missed, Lee Harvey Oswald had single handedly altered the course of history. [Fig. 1]
Mr. Specter’s hypothesis was not one that immediately leapt to mind from the original evidence and the circumstances of the shooting. It was, rather, born of necessity, if one sees as a necessity the keeping of Oswald standing alone in the dock. The theory had to contend with the considerable evidence there was suggesting that more than one shooter was involved.
For example, because the two victims in Dealey Plaza, President Kennedy and Governor John Connally, had suffered so many wounds – eight in all, it had originally seemed as if more than two slugs from the supposed “sniper’s nest” would have been necessary to explain all the damage. In addition, a home movie taken by a bystander, Abraham Zapruder, showed that too little time had elapsed between the apparent shots that hit both men in the back for Oswald to have fired, reacquired his target, and fired again. The Single Bullet Theory neatly solved both problems. It posited that a single, nearly whole bullet that was later recovered had caused all seven of the non-fatal wounds sustained by both men.[1]
Figure 1. CE #399. Warren Commission Exhibit #399, said to have caused both of JFK’s non-fatal wounds and all five of the Governor Connally’s wounds, is shown in two views, above left. Arlen Specter theorized the bullet had followed a path much like the one shown at right. (National Archives photo)
But the bullet that was recovered had one strikingly peculiar feature: it had survived all the damage it had apparently caused virtually unscathed itself. The shell’s near-pristine appearance, which prompted some to call it the “magic bullet,” left many skeptics wondering whether the bullet in evidence had really done what the Commission had said it had done. Additional skepticism was generated by the fact the bullet was not found in or around either victim. It was found instead on a stretcher at the hospital where the victims were treated.
Mr. Specter’s idea was that, after passing completely through JFK and Governor Connally, the bullet had fallen out of the Governor’s clothes and onto a stretcher at Parkland Hospital. But it was never unequivocally established that either victim had ever lain on the stretcher where the bullet was discovered.[2] Nevertheless, studies done at the FBI Laboratory seemed to unquestionably link the missile to Oswald’s rifle, and the FBI sent the Warren Commission a memo on July 7, 1964 detailing how it had run down the bullet’s chain of possession, which looked pretty solid. According to the FBI, the two hospital employees who discovered the bullet originally identified it as the same bullet six months later in an FBI interview
That a bullet, fired from Oswald’s weapon and later identified by hospital witnesses, had immediately turned up on a stretcher in the hospital where the victims were treated struck some as perhaps a little too convenient. Suspicions it had been planted ensued. But apart from its peculiar provenance, there was little reason in 1964 to doubt the bullet’s bona fides. But then in 1967, one of the authors reported that one of the two hospital employees who had found the bullet, Parkland personnel director O.P. Wright, had told him that the bullet he saw and held on the day of the assassination did not look like the bullet that later turned up in FBI evidence. That claim was in direct conflict with an FBI memo of July 7, 1964, which said that Wright had told an FBI agent that the bullet did look like the shell he’d held on the day of the murder.
For thirty years, the conflict lay undisturbed and unresolved. Finally, in the mid 1990s, the authors brought this conflict to the attention of the Assassinations Records Review Board, a federal body charged with opening the abundant, still-secret files concerning the Kennedy assassination. A search through newly declassified files led to the discovery of new information on this question. It turns out that the FBI’s own, once-secret files tend to undermine the position the FBI took publicly in its July, 1964 memo to the Warren Commission, and they tend to support co-author Josiah Thompson. Thompson got a further boost when a retired FBI agent, in a recorded telephone interview and in a face-to-face meeting, flatly denied what the FBI had written about him to the Warren Commission in 1964.
A Bullet is Found at Parkland Hospital
The story begins in a ground floor elevator lobby at the Dallas hospital where JFK and John Connelly were taken immediately after being shot. According to the Warren Commission, Parkland Hospital senior engineer, Mr. Darrell C. Tomlinson, was moving some wheeled stretchers when he bumped a stretcher “against the wall and a bullet rolled out.”[3] He called for help and was joined by Mr. O.P. Wright, Parkland’s personnel director. After examining the bullet together, Mr. Wright passed it along to one of the U.S. Secret Service agents who were prowling the hospital, Special Agent Richard Johnsen.[4]
Johnsen then carried the bullet back to Washington, D. C. and handed it to James Rowley, the chief of the Secret Service. Rowley, in turn, gave the bullet to FBI agent Elmer Lee Todd,[5] who carried it to agent Robert Frazier in the FBI’s Crime Lab.[6] Without exploring the fact that the HSCA discovered that there may have been another witness who was apparently with Tomlinson when the bullet was found, what concerns us here is whether the bullet currently in evidence, Commission Exhibit #399, is the same bullet Tomlinson found originally.
The early history of the bullet, Commission Exhibit #399, is laid out in Warren Commission Exhibit #2011. This exhibit consists of a 3-page, July 7, 1964 FBI letterhead memorandum that was written to the Warren Commission in response to a Commission request that the Bureau trace “various items of physical evidence,” among them #399 [Fig. 2]. #2011 relates that, in chasing down the bullet’s chain of possession, FBI agent Bardwell Odum took #399 to Darrell Tomlinson and O.P. Wright on June 12, 1964. The memo asserts that both men told Agent Odum that the bullet “appears to be the same one” they found on the day of the assassination, but that neither could “positively identify” it. [Figs. 2, 3]
Figure 2. C.E. 2011. Chain of possession of #399(FBI Letterhead Memo Dallas 7/7/64)
Positive identification” of a piece of evidence by a witness means that the witness is certain that an object later presented in evidence is the same one that was originally found. The most common way to establish positive identification is for a witness to place his initials on a piece of evidence upon first finding it. The presence of such initials is of great help later when investigators try to prove a link through an unbroken chain of possession between the object in evidence and a crime.
Understandably, neither Tomlinson nor Wright inscribed his initials on the stretcher bullet. But that both witnesses told FBI Agent Odum, so soon after the murder, that CE 399 looked like the bullet they had found on a stretcher was compelling reason to suppose that it was indeed the same one.
However, CE #2011 included other information that raised questions about the bullet. As first noted by author Ray Marcus,[7] it also states that on June 24, 1964, FBI agent Todd, who received the bullet from Rowley, the head of the Secret Service, returned with presumably the same bullet to get Secret Service agents Johnsen and Rowley to identify it. #2011 reports that both Johnsen and Rowley advised Todd that they “could not identify this bullet as the one” they saw on the day of the assassination. # 2011 contains no comment about the failure being merely one of not “positively identifying” the shell that, otherwise, “appeared to be the same” bullet they had originally handled. [Figs. 2, 3]
Thus, in #2011 the FBI reported that both Tomlinson and Wright said #399 resembled the Parkland bullet, but that neither of the Secret Service Agents could identify it. FBI Agent Todd originally received the bullet from Rowley on 11/22/63 and it was he who then returned on 6/24/64 with supposedly the same bullet for Rowley and Johnsen to identify. Given the importance of this case, one imagines that by the time Todd returned, they would have had at least a passing acquaintance. Had it truly been the same bullet, one might have expected one or both agents to tell Todd it looked like the same bullet, even if neither could “positively identify” it by an inscribed initial. After all, neither Tomlinson nor Wright had inscribed their initials on the bullet, and yet #2011 says that they said they saw a resemblance.
Figure 3. Last two pages of 7/7/64 FBI memo to Warren Commission, as published in C.E. #2011. Note that FBI states that both Dallas witnesses said #399 looked like the bullet they found on 11/22/63.
And there the conflicted story sat, until one of the current authors published a book in 1967.
Two Different Accounts from One Witness
Six Seconds in Dallas reported on an interview with O.P. Wright in November 1966. Before any photos were shown or he was asked for any description of #399, Wright said: “That bullet had a pointed tip.”
“Pointed tip?” Thompson asked.
“Yeah, I’ll show you. It was like this one here,” he said, reaching into his desk and pulling out the .30 caliber bullet pictured in Six Seconds.”[8]
As Thompson described it in 1967, “I then showed him photographs of CE’s 399, 572 (the two ballistics comparison rounds from Oswald’s rifle) (sic), and 606 (revolver bullets) (sic), and he rejected all of these as resembling the bullet Tomlinson found on the stretcher. Half an hour later in the presence of two witnesses, he once again rejected the picture of 399 as resembling the bullet found on the stretcher.”[9]
[Fig. 4]
Figure 4. In an interview in 1966, Parkland Hospital witness O.P. Wright told author Thompson that the bullet he handled on 11/22/63 did not look like C.E. # 399.
Thus in 1964 the Warren Commission, or rather the FBI, claimed that Wright believed the original bullet resembled #399. In 1967, Wright denied there was a resemblance. Recent FBI releases prompted by the JFK Review Board support author Thompson’s 1967 report.
A declassified 6/20/64 FBI AIRTEL memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas (“SAC, Dallas” – i.e., Special Agent in Charge, Gordon Shanklin) to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “For information WFO (FBI Washington Field Office), neither DARRELL C. TOMLINSON [sic], who found bullet at Parkland Hospital, Dallas, nor O. P. WRIGHT, Personnel Officer, Parkland Hospital, who obtained bullet from TOMLINSON and gave to Special Service, at Dallas 11/22/63, can identify bullet … .” [Fig. 5 – Page 1, Page 2]
Whereas the FBI had claimed in CE #2011 that Tomlinson and Wright had told Agent Odum on June 12, 1964 that CE #399 “appears to be the same” bullet they found on the day of the assassination, nowhere in this previously classified memo, which was written before CE #2011, is there any corroboration that either of the Parkland employees saw a resemblance. Nor is FBI agent Odum’s name mentioned anywhere in the once-secret file, whether in connection with #399, or with Tomlinson or with Wright.
Figure 5. Declassified FBI memo reporting neither Tomlinson nor Wright could identify “C1” [#399] as the bullet they handled on 11/22/63.
[Page 1, Page 2]
A declassified record, however, offers some corroboration for what CE 2011 reported about Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley. A memo from the FBI’s Dallas field office dated 6/24/64 reported that, “ON JUNE TWENTYFOUR INSTANT RICHARD E. JOHNSEN, AND JAMES ROWLEY, CHIEF … ADVISED SA ELMER LEE TODD, WFO, THAT THEY WERE UNABLE TO INDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in original). [Fig. 6]
Convinced that we had overlooked some relevant files, we cast about for additional corroboration of what was in CE # 2011. There should, for example, have been some original “302s ” – the raw FBI field reports from the Agent Odum’s interviews with Tomlinson and Wright on June 12, 1964. There should also have been one from Agent Todd’s interviews with Secret Service Agents Johnsen and Rowley on June 24, 1964. Perhaps somewhere in those, we thought, we would find Agent Odum reporting that Wright had detected a resemblance between the bullets. And perhaps we’d also find out whether Tomlinson, Wright, Johnsen or Rowley had supplied the Bureau with any additional descriptive details about the bullet.
Figure 6. Suppressed 1964 FBI report detailing that neither of the Secret Service agents who handled “#399” on 11/22/63 could later identify it.
In early 1998, we asked a research associate, Ms. Cathy Cunningham, to scour the National Archives for any additional files that might shed light on this story. She looked but found none. We contacted the JFK Review Board’s T. Jeremy Gunn for help. [Fig. 7] On May 18, 1998, the Review Board’s Eileen Sullivan, writing on Gunn’s behalf, answered, saying: “[W]e have attempted, unsuccessfully, to find any additional records that would account for the problem you suggest.”[10] [Fig. 8] Undaunted, one of us wrote the FBI directly, and was referred to the National Archives, and so then wrote Mr. Steve Tilley at the National Archives. [Fig. 9]
On Mr. Tilley’s behalf, Mr. Stuart Culy, an archivist at the National Archives, made a search. On July 16, 1999, Mr. Culy wrote that he searched for the FBI records within the HSCA files as well as in the FBI records, all without success. He was able to determine, however, that the serial numbers on the FBI documents ran “concurrently, with no gaps, which indicated that no material is missing from these files.”[11] [Fig. 10] In other words, the earliest and apparently the only FBI report said nothing about either Tomlinson or Wright seeing a similarity between the bullet found at the hospital and the bullet later in evidence, CE #399. Nor did agent Bardwell Odum’s name show up in any of the files.
Figure 7. Letter to Assassinations Records Review Board requesting a search for records that might support FBI’s claim that hospital witnesses identified #399.
Figure 8. ARRB reports that it is unable to find records supporting FBI claim Parkland Hospital witnesses identified #399.
Figure 9. Letter to National Archives requesting search for additional files on C.E. #399.
Figure 10. Letter from National Archives disclosing no additional files exist on C.E. #399.
[editor’s note: Dr. Aguilar followed up in 2005 with the National Archives, asking them in letters dated March 2 and March 7 to search for any FBI “302” reports that would have been generated from CE399 being shown to those who handled it. On March 17, 2005 David Mengel of NARA wrote back reporting that additional searches had not uncovered any such reports.]
Stymied, author Aguilar turned to his co-author. “What does Odum have to say about it?” Thompson asked.
“Odum? How the hell do I know? Is he still alive?”
“I’ll find out,” he promised.
Less than an hour later, Thompson had located Mr. Bardwell Odum’s home address and phone number. Aguilar phoned him on September 12, 2002. He was still alive and well and living in a suburb of Dallas. The 82-year old was alert and quick-witted on the phone and he regaled Aguilar with fond memories of his service in the Bureau. Finally, the Kennedy case came up and Odum agreed to help interpret some of the conflicts in the records. Two weeks after mailing Odum the relevant files – CE # 2011, the three-page FBI memo dated July 7, 1964, and the “FBI AIRTEL” memo dated June 12, 1964, Aguilar called him back.
Mr. Odum told Aguilar, “I didn’t show it [#399] to anybody at Parkland. I didn’t have any bullet … I don’t think I ever saw it even.” [Fig. 11] Unwilling to leave it at that, both authors paid Mr. Odum a visit in his Dallas home on November 21, 2002. The same alert, friendly man on the phone greeted us warmly and led us to a comfortable family room. To ensure no misunderstanding, we laid out before Mr. Odum all the relevant documents and read aloud from them.
Again, Mr. Odum said that he had never had any bullet related to the Kennedy assassination in his possession, whether during the FBI’s investigation in 1964 or at any other time. Asked whether he might have forgotten the episode, Mr. Odum remarked that he doubted he would have ever forgotten investigating so important a piece of evidence. But even if he had done the work, and later forgotten about it, he said he would certainly have turned in a “302” report covering something that important. Odum’s sensible comment had the ring of truth. For not only was Odum’s name absent from the FBI’s once secret files, it was also it difficult to imagine a motive for him to besmirch the reputation of the agency he had worked for and admired.
Figure 11. Recorded interview with FBI Agent Bardwell Odum, in which he denies he ever had C.E. #399 in his possession.
Thus, the July 1964 FBI memo that became Commission Exhibit #2011 claims that Tomlinson and Wright said they saw a resemblance between #399 and the bullet they picked up on the day JFK died. However, the FBI agent who is supposed to have gotten that admission, Bardwell Odum, and the Bureau’s own once-secret records, don’t back up #2011. Those records say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question, a comment that leaves the impression they saw no resemblance. That impression is strengthened by the fact that Wright told one of the authors in 1966 the bullets were dissimilar. Thus, Thompson’s surprising discovery about Wright, which might have been dismissed in favor of the earlier FBI evidence in #2011, now finds at least some support in an even earlier, suppressed FBI memo, and the living memory of a key, former FBI agent provides further, indirect corroboration.
Missing 302s?
But the newly declassified FBI memos from June 1964 lead to another unexplained mystery. Neither are the 302 reports that would have been written by the agents who investigated #399’s chain of possession in both Dallas and Washington. The authors were tempted to wonder if the June memos were but expedient fabrications, with absolutely no 302s whatsoever backing them up.
But a declassified routing slip turned up by John Hunt seems to prove that the FBI did in fact act on the Commission’s formal request, as outlined in # 2011, to run down #399s chain of possession. The routing slip discloses that the bullet was sent from Washington to Dallas on 6/2/64 and returned to Washington on 6/22/64. Then on 6/24/64, it was checked out to FBI Agent Todd. [Fig. 12] What transpired during these episodes? If the Bureau went to these lengths, it seems quite likely that Bardwell Odum, or some other agent in Dallas, would have submitted one or more 302s on what was found, and so would Agent Elmer Todd in Washington. But there are none in the files. The trail ends here with an unexplained, and perhaps important, gap left in the record.
Figure 12. FBI routing slip. Note that #399 was sent from Washington to Dallas and back again, and that FBI agent Todd checked out the bullet on 6/24/64, the day it was reported the Secret Service Agents told Todd they could not identify #399. [See Fig. 5 (page 1, page 2) and Fig. 6.] (Courtesy of John Hunt)
Besides this unexplained gap, another interesting question remains: If the FBI did in fact adjust Tomlinson and Wright’s testimonies with a bogus claim of bullet similarity, why didn’t it also adjust Johnsen and Rowley’s? While it is unlikely a certain answer to this question will ever be found, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the FBI authors of #2011 would have been more reluctant to embroider the official statements of the head of the Secret Service in Washington than they would the comments of a couple of hospital employees in Dallas.
Summary
“In a memo to the Warren Commission [C. E. #2011] concerning its investigation of the chain of possession of C.E. #399, the FBI reported that two Parkland Hospital eyewitnesses, Darrell Tomlinson and O. P. Wright, said C.E. #399 resembled the bullet they discovered on the day JFK died. But the FBI agent who is supposed to have interviewed both men and the Bureau’s own suppressed records contradict the FBI’s public memo. Agent Odum denied his role, and the FBI’s earliest, suppressed files say only that neither Tomlinson nor Wright was able to identify the bullet in question. This suppressed file implies the hospital witnesses saw no resemblance, which is precisely what Wright told one of the authors in 1967.
What we are left with is the FBI having reported a solid chain of possession for #399 to the Warren Commission. But the links in the FBI’s chain appear to be anything but solid. Bardwell Odum, one of the key links, says he was never in the chain at all and the FBI’s own, suppressed records tend to back him up. Inexplicably, the chain also lacks other important links: FBI 302s, reports from the agents in the field who, there is ample reason to suppose, did actually trace #399 in Dallas and in Washington. Suppressed FBI records and recent investigations thus suggest that not only is the FBI’s file incomplete, but also that one of the authors may have been right when he reported in 1967 that the bullet found in Dallas did not look like a bullet that could have come from Oswald’s rifle.”~Gary Aguilar and Josiah Thompson
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
\\][//
The Nag Hammadi Library
A Valentinian Exposition
Translated by John D. Turner
http://gnosis.org/naghamm/valex.html
How does this relate to JFK? Look into Dr John Newman; ‘Where Angels Tread Lightly’.
Newman is of course an experienced and expert intelligence professional dealing with, linguistics, cryptology, and deep analysis. His books on Oswald and the CIA & JFK and Vietnam are renowned for their excellence and critical prescience.
. . . . .
Exit Strategy: In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam
James K. Galbraith – September 01, 2003
http://bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam
\\][//
National Security Action Memorandum 263 – Intro
Prior to the declassification of various formerly TOP SECRET documents there was a widely held misconception that JFK was responsible for having involved the United States in the Vietnam war—not responsible so much for beginning the war, but responsible for having escalated it.
One document that clearly refutes such a claim, NSAM 263, appears on the left.
However, there is considerable “built in” mystery surrounding this document, as well. The document is itself more “cover letter”[1] than anything else because it does not delineate the contents of the reference contained therein, namely, the McNamara-Taylor Report (Section I B [1-3])*.
That section of the McNamara-Taylor Report, to which NSAM 263 refers and therefore incorporates by reference, [particularly items 2 and 3] goes to the heart JFK’s policy to withdraw from Vietnam and is crucial to appreciating its significance.
Note that there is nothing ambiguous in the wording: JFK was withdrawing from Vietnam by adopting a policy and implementing a strategy to transfer the US military’s mission in Vietnam to the Government of South Vietnam by the end of 1965.
NSAM 263
\\][//
Mrs Judge worked as an analyst and accounting for the military. She did ‘projection studies’ for the numbers of US troops that would be necessary for projected conflicts. This was a high level position that took many years of experience and expertise. The relevant information she revealed to her son John, was that there were orders given by the Kennedy adm. in 1963 to radically reduce the numbers of military personnel from the current numbers she was projecting, that was for the most part for the buildup of the military in Southeast Asia. There is a hint here as to how these projections were normally a Pentagon product.
John Newman is very detailed and precise on what was happening on that topic. The top brass was simply lying to Kennedy.
In 62 Kennedy was first aware of and remarked that – “So Vietnam, is the real agenda, not Laos”, when he read a memo from Landsdale defining what a mess Vietnam had become, and the large geopolitical ramifications of what was going on there.
Kenedy had not been briefed at all on Vietnam! Eisenhower had not warned him of the debacle rising up there… the military industrial complex has been playing the presidents since at least Woodrow Wilson. Kennedy was too smart for that game. He figured out fairly quickly after checking around about this Landsdale report, that the military brass was conning him. Of course this is a dangerous political game from the get-go. Kennedy knew he was playing with fire, and that to get foreign policy back in the hand of the civilian government was going to be a treacherous challenge.
\\][//
“Mary Cooley Judge, was instructed just three days after Kennedy assassination to revise upward the Pentagon’s personnel needs for the Vietnam War-era draft under incoming President Lyndon Johnson.
Judge’s late mother had been a Pentagon specialist in planning to fulfill the nation’s personnel needs via the draft. One of Judge’s disclosures was that his mother, Mary Cooley Judge, was instructed just three days after Kennedy assassination to revise upward the Pentagon’s personnel needs for the Vietnam War-era draft under incoming President Lyndon Johnson.”
“They [the Joint Chiefs of Staff] told her on Nov. 25, 1963 that the war in Vietnam would last for 10 years and that 57,000 Americans would die, and to figure that in.”~John Judge
http://www.justice-integrity.org/faq/683-memorial-for-civic-activist-john-judge-revives-legacy
\\][//
Judge’s best estimate, he has told interviewers, was the Joint Chiefs of Staff played a role in organizing the JFK killing and a cover-up. “I don’t think this is an insoluble parlor mystery,” he once told the Dallas Morning News.
\\][//
From Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition 1998 p. 638-639]:
“The Role of deep-cover CIA officer, Trenton Parker, has been described in earlier pages, and his function in the CIA’s counter-intelligence unit, Pegasus. Parker had stated to me earlier that a CIA faction was responsible for the murder of JFK … During an August 21, 1993, conversation, in response to my questions, Parker said that his Pegasus group had tape recordings of plans to assassinate Kennedy. I asked him, “What group were these tapes identifying?” Parker replied: “Rockefeller, Allen Dulles, Johnson of Texas, George Bush, and J. Edgar Hoover.” I asked, “What was the nature of the conversation on these tapes?”
I don’t have the tapes now, because all the tape recordings were turned over to [Congressman] Larry McDonald. But I listened to the tape recordings and there were conversations between Rockefeller, [J. Edgar] Hoover, where [Nelson] Rockefeller asks, “Are we going to have any problems?” And he said, “No, we aren’t going to have any problems. I checked with Dulles. If they do their job we’ll do our job.” There are a whole bunch of tapes, because Hoover didn’t realize that his phone has been tapped. [Defrauding America, Rodney Stich, 3rd edition p. 638-639]
http://lyndonjohnsonmurderedjfk.blogspot.com/2011_12_01_archive.html
\\][//
THE DEVIL’S CHESSBOARD
Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government
by David Talbot
KIRKUS REVIEW
Former Salon founding editor-in-chief Talbot (Season of the Witch: Enchantment, Terror and Deliverance in the City of Love, 2012, etc.) shares his extensive knowledge and intense investigations of American politics with a frightening biography of power, manipulation, and outright treason.
The story of Allen Dulles (1893-1969), his brother John Foster, and the power elite that ran Washington, D.C., following World War II is the stuff of spy fiction, but it reaches even further beyond to an underworld of unaccountable authority. Dulles’ career began in the New York law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, where he built a powerful client list. During wartime in Switzerland, he worked to protect his clients’ corporations and build his own organization. In direct opposition to Franklin Roosevelt’s policy, he sought a separate peace with the Germans to use them to fight communism. Talbot delivers a variety of thrilling stories about Dulles that boggle the mind, from skimming funds from the Marshall Plan to using Richard Nixon as his mouthpiece in Congress. It is really about the power elite, the corporate executives, government leaders, and top military officials who controlled the world. They protected corporate interests in Iran, Guatemala, and elsewhere, and they fomented revolutions, experimented in mind control, and assassinated those who got in their way. With John Foster as secretary of state, this “fraternity of the successful” enforced a Pax Americana by terror and intimidation, always invoking national security and often blatantly disobeying policy guidelines. The author asserts that the Bay of Pigs was an intentional failure, meant to force John F. Kennedy to invade Cuba and retrieve corporate properties. Even out of office, Dulles’ conspiracies continued. Talbot also delves into CIA involvement in Kennedy’s assassination. Ultimately, the blatant manipulative activities of the Dulles brothers will shock most readers.
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/david-talbot/the-devils-chessboard/
\\][//
Destiny Betrayed: JFK, Cuba, and the Garrison Case
by James DiEugenio
Editorial Review From Library Journal
In this book, DiEugenio, who has been investigating the Kennedy assassination for ten years, expands on the major points brought out in JFK , the Oliver Stone movie. Both Stone and DiEugenio agree with Jim Garrison’s findings that the assassination was the result of a conspiracy, that members of the U.S. intelligence community were involved, that Kennedy was assassinated to allow U.S. foreign policy to be changed, and that the assassination amounted to a coup d’etat. While DiEugenio discusses Kennedy’s rocky relationship with the CIA, he focuses on the Clay Shaw trial and the media’s unfair depiction of Garrison as a crank. DiEugenio also points out that in 1975, both the Church Committee and the House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded, as had Garrison, that Lee Harvey Oswald was linked with the CIA and Cuban exiles. The book is thoroughly documented with endnotes, appendixes, and a bibliography of over 200 items. While no new revelations are offered, DiEugenio’s impeccable research and clearly written analysis makes this a good choice for most libraries. Photos not seen. Other recent books on the Kennedy assassination are Mark North’s Act of Treason and Mark Lane’s Plausible Denial , both LJ 11/1/91.–Ed.
– Gary D. Barber, SUNY at Fredonia Lib.
http://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Betrayed-Cuba-Garrison-Case/dp/1620870568
Any logic minded person needs to ask themselves, “Why would the CIA have a ‘Garrison Group’ complete with a four pronged approach to dismember Garrison’s case that included illegal maneuverings if an unattached lone nut killed JFK?”
\\][//
A Preface to Mexico City
Two essays by Jim DiEugenio
“But I will tell you this, that when the record comes out, we will find that there was never a photograph taken of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico City. We will find out that Lee Harvey Oswald never visited, let me put it, that is a categorical statement, there, there, we will find out there is no evidence, first of all no proof of that. Second there is no evidence to show that Lee Harvey Oswald visited the Soviet embassy.”
– David Phillips, as quoted by Mark Lane
http://www.ctka.net/2015/JimDMexicoCity/Introduction.html
Mexico City and Langley
“One reason for the Commission’s ignorance about the Oswald file— and the subsequent importance of Mexico City— is that Helms actually appointed Angleton to be the main liaison to the Commission. Unlike his predecessor in that spot, John Whitten, Angleton tried to accent Oswald’s Russian period for the Commission. Whitten wanted to highlight the Cuban connection. It appears Helms did not wish that dangerous ground to be explored.10 He therefore brought in Angleton to be the CIA’s chief interface for the Commission.11 Since Angleton and Dulles were close colleagues from the 1940s, Dulles tipped off his friend as to what queries they would get about Oswald from the Commission. Since there had been a rumor that Oswald was an FBI agent, Dulles informed Angleton in advance as to what the Commission queries would likely be about Oswald’s possible intelligence ties. Then Angleton and William Sullivan of the FBI rehearsed and unified their responses to deny any intelligence connection to the alleged assassin.12 This was an important part of the cover up since it curtailed any inquiry into the question of whether or not agent Oswald was completing a mission in Mexico that he began in New Orleans. That is, was he further discrediting the FPCC by associating with communist foreign consulates and trying to gain transport to Cuba? What made this even more crucial is the fact that there was an “operational interest” in Oswald held by a handful of officers in the Special Affairs Staff (SAS) of the CIA just weeks before the Kennedy assassination.13 This group was involved with what was left of the Kennedy campaign against Cuba, which was not very much. But as far as the Warren Commission inquiry into Mexico City goes, we have established two key points: 1.) Slawson was much too trusting of the Agency, and 2.) Angleton and Dulles were determined to keep clues about any preexisting relationship between Oswald and the CIA concealed.”
http://www.ctka.net/2015/JimDMexicoCity/DestinyBetrayed16.html
\\][//
“Because of all these problems, the Commission decided that Odio’s story could not be accepted. At any cost. So in addition to having Hoover concoct a jerry rigged cover story about William Seymour, Loran Hall, and Lawrence Howard being the three men at her door— which they were not— the Commission did something else. After Wesley Liebeler took her testimony in Dallas, he invited her out to dinner with an acquaintance of his. He kept on threatening her with a polygraph test.45 He then stated something that Odio found unforgettable. He said, “Well, you know if we do find out that this is a conspiracy you know that we have orders from Chief Justice Warren to cover this thing up.”46 When Gaeton Fonzi heard this from her his eyebrows arched. He asked, “Liebeler said that?” To which Odio said, “Yes sir, I could swear on that.” Liebeler then invited her up to his room at the hotel on the pretense of looking at some pictures. Odio described what happened next to Fonzi and the Church Committee:
Not only that, he invited me to his room upstairs to see some pictures. I did go, I went to his room. I wanted to see how far a government investigator would go and what they were trying to do to a witness …. He showed me pictures, he made advances, yes, but I told him he was crazy.47
Liebeler wasn’t through. To show her what kind of operation the Commission really was, he told her that they had seen her picture and joked about it at the Warren Commission. They said things like what a pretty girl you are going to see Jim. Besides the professional ethics involved in such a thing, this points to a tactic used by the Commission to discount Odio. For HSCA staff lawyer Bill Triplett told this author that the reason that chairman Earl Warren did not believe Sylvia Odio is that she was some kind of a “loose woman.”48 As the reader can see, this was not the case. Yet this was the tactic Liebeler was going to use. This is how desperate the Commission was to discredit a dangerous witness like Odio.
[…]
This seems to have been part of the Helms-Angleton agenda. For Lopez and Hardway did put together a chart of the phone calls attributed to Oswald. One look at the chart, which lists the languages spoken, and it immediately raises questions about who made them. For it has Oswald speaking fluent Spanish,57 which no one has ever said Oswald did. Further, the HSCA report says that Oswald spoke poor, broken Russian.58 Yet both Marina Oswald and George DeMohresnchildt said Oswald spoke Russian quite well upon his return to the United States. Further, professional translator Peter Gregory thought Oswald was fluent enough to give him a letter certifying Oswald’s ability to serve as a translator.59 But if that were not enough, there is a serious problem that Garrison spoke about in his Playboy interview. The CIA had multiple still cameras set up outside the Cuban embassy in Mexico City to catch everyone coming out of and going inside in order to secure a visa to Cuba. When, at the request of the Commission, the FBI asked the CIA for a photo of Oswald entering the consulate, they got Commission Exhibit 237. This is a picture of a husky six footer with a crew-cut. Obviously not Oswald. He is not identified in the photo so he came to be known as the “Mystery Man.”60 The Commission just printed the picture as “Photograph of an Unidentified Man” in Volume 16. In other words, we are supposed to believe the following: In Oswald’s combined five visits to the Cuban consulate and Soviet consulate, the battery of CIA cameras failed to get even one picture of him entering or leaving. In other words, they went zero for ten. And the camera right outside the Cuban consulate was pulse activated. That is it was, “A camera with a shutter that is automatically tripped by a triggering device activated by changes in light density.”61 How could a camera that sensitive miss Oswald six times?”~Jim DiEugenio
http://www.ctka.net/2015/JimDMexicoCity/DestinyBetrayed16.html
\\][//
To say this deception about Oswald in Mexico worked well does not begin to do it justice. For at the first meeting of the Warren Commission the former DA of Alameda County California, Earl Warren, came out as meek as a lamb:
He did not want the Commission to employ any of their own investigators.
He did not want the Commission to gather evidence. Instead he wished for them to rely on reports made by other agencies like the FBI and Secret Service.
He did not want their hearings to be public. He did not want to employ the power of subpoena.
Incredibly, he did not even want to call any witnesses. He wanted to rely on interviews done by other agencies.
He then made a very curious comment, “Meetings where witnesses would be brought in would retard rather than help our investigation.” -Executive Session transcript of the Warren Commission, December 5, 1963, pp. 1– 3.
~Jim DiEugenio
Anne Goodpasture told Jeremy Gunn of the ARRB that she had worked at one point during her CIA career for James Angleton as a counterintelligence officer, and that it was the CI group that sent her to Mexico City in 1957.8 Asked to explain the difference between CE (counterespionage) and CI (counterintelligence), Goodpasture replied, “Counterespionage was the activity and Counterintelligence was the product.”
http://www.ctka.net/pr900-ang.html
\\][//
Hahahaha! I got this reply on a YouTube forum today:
Jim Marrs
+Willy Whitten Does she know your picture is 40 years old and you are really an old diaper wearing pisser……….
YouTube comments on – Josiah Thompson The Untrue Fact About The JFK Assassination
\\][//
Edward Epstein: Warren Commission Critic?
By Jim DiEugenio
Lane’s book showed that the Commission could not have been working in good faith. He did this in two related ways. First, he brought into the gravest doubt every major conclusion of the Commission. Second, he showed that the Commission had in its hands evidence that contradicted their conclusions. (Sylvia Meagher did the same in her wonderful Accessories After the Fact, published in 1967.) And Meagher was quite disappointed in Epstein’s performance when it came to debating the opposition. In a letter she circulated in 1966, Meagher expressed her chagrin over a debate televised in New York between Epstein and Commission counsel Wesley Liebeler. She wrote privately that “Epstein was absolutely disastrous. I really let him have it the next morning and haven’t heard from him since. I learned later that at least three other people afterwards gave him a tongue-lashing for his extremely weak position, his capitulating and almost apologizing to Liebeler. (Letter of 8/30/66) On the other hand, when Lane debated Liebeler at UCLA on January 25, 1967, by most accounts he obliterated him.
The questions about Epstein deepened around the time of the Garrison investigation. First, Epstein’s voice appeared on a record album that accompanied the book The Scavengers and Critics of the Warren Report. This should not be passed over lightly, for this 1967 book was the first one to go after the critics on a personal and demeaning level, making them out to be a bunch of kooks and eccentrics who did what they did out of some psychological or other weirdness. Schiller was later exposed by declassified documents as being a chronic FBI informant on the Kennedy case. On the album, entitled The Controversy, Epstein joins in the ridicule of the critics. Around this same time period, Epstein appeared in a debate with Salandria, arguing the case against Oswald. Salandria was so outraged that after the debate, he asked if Epstein had gone over to the other side.
http://www.ctka.net/pr1199-epstein.html
\\][//
Imperialism – The Enemy of Freedom
Senator John F Kennedy July 2, 1957
Mr. KENNEDY: “Mr. President, the most powerful single force in the world today is neither communism nor capitalism, neither the H-bomb nor the guided missile it is man’s eternal desire to be free and independent. The great enemy of that tremendous force of freedom is called, for want of a more precise term, imperialism – and today that means Soviet imperialism and, whether we like it or not, and though they are not to be equated, Western imperialism.
Thus the single most important test of American foreign policy today is how we meet the challenge of imperialism, what we do to further man’s desire to be free. On this test more than any other, this Nation shall be critically judged by the uncommitted millions in Asia and Africa, and anxiously watched by the still hopeful lovers of freedom behind the Iron Curtain. If we fail to meet the challenge of either Soviet or Western imperialism, then no amount of foreign aid, no aggrandizement of armaments, no new pacts or doctrines or high-level conferences can prevent further setbacks to our course and to our security.
I am concerned today that we are failing to meet the challenge of imperialism – on both counts – and thus failing in our responsibilities to the free world. I propose, therefore, as the Senate and the Nation prepare to commemorate the 181st anniversary of man’s noblest expression against political repression, to begin a two-part series of speeches, examining America’s role in the continuing struggles for independence that strain today against the forces of imperialism within both the Soviet and Western worlds. My intention is to talk not of general principles, but of specific cases – to propose not partisan criticisms but what I hope will be constructive solutions.
There are many cases of the clash between independence and imperialism in the Soviet world that demand our attention. One, above all the rest, is critically outstanding today – Poland.
The Secretary of State, in his morning news conference, speaking on this subject, suggested that, if people want to do something about the examples of colonialism, they should consider such examples as Soviet-ruled Lithuania and the satellite countries of Czechoslovakia, Poland, and others.
I agree with him. For that reason, within 2 weeks I hope to speak upon an issue which I think stands above all the others; namely, the country of Poland.
There are many cases of the clash between independence and imperialism in the Western World that demand our attention. But again, one, above all the rest, is critically outstanding today – Algeria.
I shall speak this afternoon of our failures and of our future in Algeria and north Africa – and I shall speak of Poland in a later address to this body.”
http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/congress/jfk020757_imperialism.html
. . . . .
In 1957 Kennedy was already the “radical” visionary that became president in 1960.
\\][//
JFK: ORDEAL IN AFRICA
By Richard D. Mahoney
In July 1960, John F. Kennedy received a letter from Africa congratulating
him on winning the Democratic Party’s nomination for the upcoming American
presidential election. A plea for help accompanied the congratulation.
“Everywhere there are more and more [unintelligible word] Communists! Everywhere
Western prestige has slipped. So for heaven’s sake change the image of America
before its too late!”1 The Democratic nominee had already established a
reputation across Africa as a sympathetic supporter of African nationalism, who
if elected would realign Washington’s priorities toward the continent. Once in
office, Kennedy indeed made changing the image of America in the Third World a
top priority of his administration.
-Introduction by Philip E. Muehlenbeck
Click to access 2004_-_1_Philip_E._Muehlenbeck.pdf
\\][//
By 1958 Kennedy had become the chairman of the Senate’s Foreign Relations
African subcommittee and continually pressed the White House with the importance
of initiating contact with African nationalist leaders. “Call it nationalism,
call it anti-colonialism, call it what you will, the word is out and spreading
like wildfire in nearly a thousand languages and dialects – that it is no longer
necessary to remain forever in bondage.”15 “After all,” Kennedy mused, “it was in
our schools that some of the most renowned African leaders learned…the virtues of
representative government, widespread education, and economic opportunity. These
are the ideas and ideals that have caused a revolution.”
–JFK: ORDEAL IN AFRICA
\\][//
JFK’s Embrace of Third World Nationalists
November 25, 2013
Exclusive: The intensive media coverage of the half-century anniversary of John F. Kennedy’s murder was long on hype and emotion but short on explaining how revolutionary JFK’s foreign policy was in his extraordinary support for Third World nationalists, as Jim DiEugenio explains.
[…]
Who Was Gullion?
The man Kennedy chose to be his ambassador to Congo was Edmund Gullion, who was the one who had altered Kennedy’s consciousness about Third World nationalism. There are some writers who would maintain that perhaps no other person had as much influence on the evolution of Kennedy’s foreign policy thinking as did Gullion. Yet, Gullion’s name is not in the index to either of Dallek’s books on Kennedy.
Edmund Gullion entered the State Department in the late 1930s. His first assignment was to Marseilles, France, where he became fluent in the French language and was then transferred to French Indochina during France’s struggle to re-colonize the area after World War II.
Kennedy briefly met Gullion in Washington in the late 1940s when the aspiring young politician needed some information for a speech on foreign policy. In 1951, when the 34-year-old congressman flew into Saigon, he decided to look up Gullion. In the midst of France’s long and bloody war to take back Indochina, one that then had been going on for five years, Gullion’s point of view was unique among American diplomats and jarringly candid.
As Thurston Clarke described the rooftop restaurant meeting, Gullion told Kennedy that France could never win the war. Ho Chi Minh had inspired tens of thousands of Viet Minh to the point they would rather die than return to a state of French colonialism. France could never win a war of attrition like that, because the home front would not support it.
This meeting had an immediate impact on young Kennedy. When he returned home, he began making speeches that highlighted these thoughts which were underscored by the Viet Minh’s eventual defeat of the French colonial forces in 1954. In criticizing the U.S. Establishment’s view of these anti-colonial struggles, Kennedy did not play favorites. He criticized Democrats as well as Republicans who failed to see that the United States had to have a positive appeal to the Third World. There had to be something more than just anti-communism.
For instance, in a speech Kennedy gave during the 1956 presidential campaign for Adlai Stevenson, the then-Massachusetts senator said: “The Afro-Asian revolution of nationalism, the revolt against colonialism, the determination of people to control their national destinies. … In my opinion, the tragic failure of both Republican and Democratic administrations since World War II to comprehend the nature of this revolution, and its potentialities for good and evil, had reaped a bitter harvest today — and it is by rights and by necessity a major foreign policy campaign issue that has nothing to do with anti-communism.”
By Jim DiEugenio
https://consortiumnews.com/2013/11/25/jfks-embrace-of-third-world-nationalists/
\\][//
With his ambassadors in place and building from the recommendations of his
African task force, President Kennedy implemented a four-pronged approach to
court African nationalism. His policy was to oppose European colonialism, accept
African non-alignment, initiate economic programs to help aid in Africa’s
development, and launch personal diplomacy to build a working relationship
between himself and the leaders of Africa’s independence movement.
The Kennedy administration made a concerted effort to disengage itself from
the African policies of its European allies. Making a huge departure in U.S.
foreign policy, the young President resolutely declared that America was on the
side of those seeking independence in the Third World. “Their revolution is the
greatest in human history. They seek an end to injustice, tyranny, and
exploitation.”41
Within a month of taking office, President Kennedy had met with the National
Security Council to revise the operating procedures for U.S. policy toward
Africa. Kennedy argued that it was imperative for Washington to discard the
Eisenhower policy of deferring U.S. African policy to its European allies. On
February 13 1961, Kennedy signed National Security Action Memorandum No. 16,
which provided “flexibility for the United States to supplement Western support
to newly-independent areas whenever such action constitutes a revision of State
interest.”42 Writing to the President two days later, Secretary of State Dean
Rusk noted that the new policy would allow the White House the elasticity to
pursue its own African policy.43
. . . . .
39 William Attwood, The Twilight Struggle: : Tales of the Cold War (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1987), p. 225. 40 Sorensen, Kennedy, p. 279 and Attwood, The Twilight Struggle, p. 231. 41 Public Papers of the President’s of the United States: John F. Kennedy, 1961 (Washington D.C.: United States Governmental
Printing Office, 1962), p. 397.
42 National Security Action Memorandum No. 16, 13 February 1961. General Records of the Department of State, Box 1 “National
Security Action Memo Files, 1961-1968”, Record Group 59, NA.
43 Memorandum from Secretary of State Dean Rusk to President John F. Kennedy, 15 February 1961., ibid.
Click to access 2004_-_1_Philip_E._Muehlenbeck.pdf
\\][//
Since the end of the Cold War, the American foreign policy establishment has
increasingly shown less desire to court the Third World. In fact, contemporary
U.S. foreign policy is very condescending towards the developing world.
Washington may be making a mistake by seemingly dismissing the growing strength
of anti-Americanism throughout the world. The importance of courting Third World
nationalism is as important today as Kennedy believed it to have been in the
early 1960s. Perhaps future American policy makers can learn a lesson from John
F. Kennedy’s policy of courting African nationalism. The goodwill that was
created by his strategy of befriending nationalists has proven to be more
effective and long lasting than trying to curry favor through the use of economic
or military aid. If Third World nationalists turn bitter against the “New World
Order” currently being constructed by Washington, “then the reason will be that
the Western powers, by indifference or lack of imagination, have failed to see
that it is their own future that is at stake.”~JFK quoted by William Attwood (ibid)
\\][//
“It is particularly important, inasmuch as Hungary will be a primary issue at the United Nations meeting this fall, that the United States clear the air and take a clear position on this issue, on which we have been vulnerable in the past. And we must make it abundantly clear to the French as well as the North Africans that we seek no economic advantages for ourselves in that area, no opportunities to replace French economic ties or exploit African resources.
If we are to secure the friendship of the Arab, the African, and the Asian – and we must, despite what Mr. Dulles says about our not being in a popularity contest – we cannot hope to accomplish it solely by means of billion-dollar foreign aid programs. We cannot win their hearts by making them dependent upon our handouts. Nor can we keep them free by selling them free enterprise, by describing the perils of communism or the prosperity of the United States, or limiting our dealings to military pacts. No, the strength of our appeal to these key populations – and it is rightfully our appeal, and not that of the Communists – lies in our traditional and deeply felt philosophy of freedom and independence for all peoples everywhere.
Perhaps it is already too late for the United States to save the West from total catastrophe in Algeria. Perhaps it is too late to abandon our negative policies on these issues, to repudiate the decades of anti-Western suspicion, to press firmly but boldly for a new generation of friendship among equal and independent states. But we dare not fail to make the effort.”~Senator John F. Kennedy, 1957
\\][//
I must say that these mediocre hacks like Bill Clarke and Jean Davison need to be dispensed with, or Morley needs to give us the space and publish the harshest criticisms of them.
I get sick of Morley’s pussyfooting!
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/president-betrayed-documentary-on-jfk-foreign-policy/#comment-782650
“We know the CIA was involved, and the Mafia. We all know that.”
— Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs Richard Goodwin, quoted in David Talbot’s “Brothers: The Hidden History of the Kennedy Years,” [p. 303].
\\][//
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
August 3, 2015 at 9:55 pm
Seriously, Bill Clarke critiquing John Newman is like a five year old critiquing the works of Shakespeare.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/review/david-talbots-top-7-jfk-books/#comment-783355
Bill Clarke has been stuck in a delirium since he was brainwashed in basic training.
I know and have known dozens of Vietnam Vets, many friends from HS. To a person, every one of them is as constipated as Bill Clarke. They still haven’t passed that shit out of their psychological systems. They are in effect still in Vietnam emotionally.
Their shame and guilt is submerged. Anything that tugs on those pushes their panic buttons. That these slow burn emotions can be masked by learned rhetorical constructs that appear to be rational does not mitigate the fact that it is a form of psychic hysteria to refuse to open their eyes to what is clear and obvious to a rational mind.
The simple truth is that the war in southeast Asia was a war of aggression by primarily the United States. To deny this simple context of that war is pathological.
\\][//
“If you read Mr. Gaeton Fonzi’s fine book, The Last Investigation, you will learn that he traced the assassination to the CIA from which Mr. Dulles had been fired by President Kennedy. Must we not conclude therefore that Mr. Dulles, in seeking to cover up the possibility of Soviet involvement, had certain knowledge that Oswald was a patsy, and that the CIA had carried out the assassination? The CIA was the agency over which he had presided and from which he had been fired by President Kennedy for his betrayal of the President in the Bay of Pigs venture. Did not Allen Dulles have an interest in protecting the agency which had been so dear to him? Did he not have cause to hate the President for having fired him from the CIA and for the President’s courageous opposition to the military and intelligence services on Cold War policy? In appointing Allen Dulles to the Warren Commission, did not President Johnson demonstrate judgment that was so bad as to amount to misfeasance in office and to obstruction of justice?”
~Salandria
\\][//
This is from John le Carre’s introduction to a Pocket Books edition of “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy.”
Le Carre is writing about the damage done by double agents such as Kim Philby and George Blake, both KGB agents who were buried deep inside the British Secret Intelligence Service after World War II.”
This is what le Carre wrote: “Such an abject state of affairs was certainly reached by SIS in the high days of Blake and Philby, just as it was inflicted on the CIA by the paranoid influence of (James) Angleton himself, who, in the aftermath of discovering that he had been eating out of the hand of the KGB’s most successful double agent, spent the rest of his life trying to prove that the Agency, like the SIS, was being controlled by Moscow; and that its occasional successes were consequently no more than sweeteners tossed to it by the fiendish manipulators of the KGB. Angleton was wrong, but his effect on the CIA was as disastrous as if he had been right. Both services would have done much less damage to their countries, moral and financial, if they had simply been disbanded.”
~John Kirsch
\\][//
A new edition of Oswald and the CIA was published in 2008. Newman argues that James Angleton was probably the key figure in the assassination of John F. Kennedy: “In my view, whoever Oswald’s direct handler or handlers were, we must now seriously consider the possibility that Angleton was probably their general manager. No one else in the Agency had the access, the authority, and the diabolically ingenious mind to manage this sophisticated plot. No one else had the means necessary to plant the WWIII virus in Oswald’s files and keep it dormant for six weeks until the president’s assassination. Whoever those who were ultimately responsible for the decision to kill Kennedy were, their reach extended into the national intelligence apparatus to such a degree that they could call upon a person who knew its inner secrets and workings so well that he could design a failsafe mechanism into the fabric of the plot. The only person who could ensure that a national security cover-up of an apparent counterintelligence nightmare was the head of counterintelligence.”
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKnewmanJ.htm
\\][//
Carlyle Group’s Latest Acquisition: the JFK Library (!)
from Who What Why:
Some things you truly cannot make up. Like this: the museum and archives celebrating and exploring the life (if not really wanting to investigate the death) of John F. Kennedy is getting a facelift—courtesy of….the Carlyle Group.
This development was noted, without much fanfare, in a variety of major media. If there was a smidgen of irony, I missed it.
In June 2014, the Carlyle Group acquired the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston.
Yet, consider this: The ultimate globe-girdling corporation is playing a major role in preserving the memory of a president who at the time of his death was engaged in what may be described as mortal combat with outfits not unlike Carlyle—if smaller and less global. (I write about this in my book Family of Secrets but you can learn a lot more about JFK versus the corporations in Donald Gibson’s Battling Wall Street: The Kennedy Presidency.)
Read More @ WhoWhatWhy.com or @ https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Carlyle_Group
\\][//
Remember the fire at the JFK Library the same day as the Boston Bombing? Them ol’ coincidences just keep comin’ don’t they? Just two months later the Carlyle Group acquired it.
\\][//
The JFK Assassination: A False Mystery Concealing State Crimes
by Vincent J. Salandria – November 20, 1998.
“Armed with this historical perspective, on November 22, 1963, I began to examine the post-assassination events as they unfolded. I took note of the reports coming in about the alleged assassin. I wondered whether his alleged left-wing credentials were bona fide. Very early in my work in the peace movement, I learned that some ostensible peace activists were infiltrating government agent provocateurs who were not what they at first blush appeared to be. May I suggest that some of our critics of the Warren Report are government agents. Can we honestly expect that the powerful elements in our society who dispatched our President with that deadly Dealey Plaza fusillade and then sought to cover up the reasons why he was killed would leave to ordinary citizens to inform the public about the real meaning of the assassination of President Kennedy?
On November 23, 1963 I discussed the assassination with my then brother-in-law, Harold Feldman. I told him that we should keep our eyes focused on what if anything would happen to the suspected assassin that weekend. I said that if the suspect was killed during the weekend, then we would have to consider Oswald’s role to be that of a possible intelligence agent nd patsy. I told him if such happened, the assassination would have to be considered as the work of the very center of U.S. power.
I sensed that there was a need to be quick in formulating conclusions from the killing of Oswald. A successful political assassination is carried out to produce policy changes. Those policy changes generally take effect quickly. Consequently, it behooves a democratic citizenry to come promptly to their own reasoned conclusions about the killing of their head of state. Citizens cannot leave to their government, which under republican principals is their mere servant, to shape their thinking on such a vital subject. Nor can the citizenry await the work of the academic establishment before formulating its conclusions.
When Oswald was served up on camera as disposable Dealey Plaza flotsam and jetsam and was killed by Jack Ruby I saw a subtle signal of a high level conspiracy. There is every reason to think that intelligence agencies, when they choose a killer to dispose of a patsy, make that choice by exercising the same degree of care that they employ in selecting the patsy. Their choice of Jack Ruby much later would — by providing a fall-back position for the government — serve the interests of the assassins. As the Warren Report would unravel, a deceased Ruby’s past connections to the Mafia produced a false candidate for governmental apologists to designate as the power behind the killing.
Immediately following the assassination I began to collect news items about Lee Harvey Oswald. A pattern began to emerge. Oswald’s alleged defection to the Soviets, his alleged Castro leanings as the sole membe of a Fair Play for Cuba chapter in New Orleans, his posing with a rifle and a Trotskyist newspaper, his writings to the Communist Party USA, his study of the Russian language while in the Marine Corps, told me that he was not a genuine leftist, but rather was a U.S. intelligence agent.”
~Salandria
http://spot.acorn.net/jfkplace/09/fp.back_issues/27th_Issue/vs_text.html
\\][//
I think the JFK assassination is solved beyond reasonable doubt to have been a systemic hit by the National Security State. Whatever details one wants to quibble over beyond that finding is rather trivial in the larger picture.
The ‘who’ have been pretty well revealed as far as the action men are concerned. I think what needs to be grasped beyond that, as Prouty points out; the National Security State is a euphemismm in that it is not actually “national”, it is in fact global. There is a global military-industrial-intelligence apparatus, and has been for more than a century.
This is where we launch from Prouty’s pad into Antony Sutton and Carroll Quigley et,al.
\\][//
“On October 23, 1964, Arlen Specter was quoted in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin regarding what he had told a Bar Association meeting at which I had questioned him. He was quoted as stating: “The people are going to have to rely on the conclusions and the stature of the men of the Commission.”
I replied to him in my November 2, 1964 article in The Legal Intelliaencer: ‘We know that Mr. Specter did not mean by the above statement that the Warren Commission was ever meant to be construed as a “ministry of truth.” Nor would the members of the Commission, as public servants in a democracy, ever consider that their “stature” insulated their interpretations and findings from public criticism.’
In fact Specter was telling us that evidence had to give way to stature. He was instructing us that he and the Commission were in reality a ministry of truth and could and would criminally conceal the truth with impunity.
But let us posit arguendo that the Warren Commission and its staff had considered themselves a benevolent ministry of truth. Let us assume that they had conceived of themselves as having spared us from a thermonuclear war. Although there was no evidence when the Warren Report was issued, that such a war was imminent. But with the demise of the Soviet Union, that is no longer a legitimate concern. Can we not now ask why Senator Specter should not come clean and finally tell us why the Warren Commission had concealed the truth? But to ask the question is to answer it. Senator Spector must in a criminal fashion continue to serve the national interest as he sees it by obstructing justice in order to conceal that we are in the same banana-republic status that we were as of November 22, 1963.”~Salandria
\\][//
“In my January, 1965 article in Liberation I reported that when Jacqueline Kennedy testified before the Commission she had spoken of the wounds inflicted on her husband. She above all was qualified to speak of these wounds, since she had been the first to see up close the terrible work of the butchers who had cut down her husband. But in the transcript of her testimony presented to the Commission, we were provided only with the comment: “Reference to the wounds deleted.”
J. Lee Rankin, the Commissions General Counsel, was reported in the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin of November 23rd, 1964, to have declared that Classified material involving national security was withheld from the volumes of transcript.” Does that not tell us in plain language that we were denied the testimony of the deposed first lady in order to protect the killers of her husband, our national security state? Had not J. Lee Rankin in assenting to such a crucial deletion committed the crime of obstruction of justice?”
~ibid (the question mark at the end is Salandria’s — I would have used a period.)
\\][//
“There is no rational manner in which we can strip away the guilt of the highest levels of our national security state. The government’s consistent criminal pattern of ignoring a whole series of data indicating conspiracy and consistently twisting the meaning of evidence to support a single assassin killing compels the conclusion that the U.S. national security state killed President Kennedy. President Kennedy himself had posited that he might be killed by the national security state, as reported in Paul B. Fay, Jr.’s book, The Pleasure of his Company. Given the simplicity of the above analysis, the conclusion is inescapable that the American civilian media failed in its First Amendment task of seriously examining the killing of President Kennedy by the military-intelligence community. The U.S. media chose instead to serve the interests of state. That rightfully earns them the title of accessories after the fact.”~Salandria
. . . . .
About the illustration: Diego Rivera, 1954, Gloriosa Victoria (Glorious Victory)
tempera on canvas, 2.6 x 4.5 m, Pushkin Museum. At the center of the painting, Secretary of State Foster Dulles shaking hands with Carlos Castillo Armas. CIA director, Allen Dulles, and the American Ambassador to Guatemala, John Peurifoy are giving away money among Guatemalan Army officers, while natives work as slaves filling up UFCO ships with bananas. At the Ambassador’s feet lies an anthropomorfed bomb with a smiling Eisenhower’s face. In the background archbishop Rossell y Arellano gives mass over the dead bodies of massacred workers.
\\][//
“The effect of the government’s deceit has been to create a confused and extremely protracted debate designed to hide the simple truth of a high level warfare-state conspiracy. The government has served on us, the people, who have always by a large majority disbelieved the Warren Report, a notice that we are powerless. President Kennedy, a popular, beloved world leader of independent wealth, was dispatched without a common-law inquest. Enormous evidence was released that he was killed by a conspiracy. Yet the government persisted in contending that the killing was accomplished either by a lone nut or by some Italian gangsters.
In providing us with a commitment to a sole assassin killing or an assassination by the Mafia, Castro, Soviet or low-level rogue U.S. group, while providing us with extensive evidence of a high-level conspiracy, the national security state seeks to paralyze our thinking processes. Through Orwellian doublethink the government successfully involved us in years of fruitless debate as to the microanalytic details of how the assassination was executed and what obscure meaning the assassination had on our lives. Through this Orwellian doublethink the government sends us clear signals. It instructs us that if bullets could remove a constitutionally-elected president, and the murderers go unpunished, then we should not take seriously U.S. politics. It instructs us that we should not entertain hopes of accomplishing a truthful explanation of the meaning of the killing.
[…]
For years, not satisfied with having merely killed President Kennedy, the U.S. media have been busy endeavoring to assassinate his character by publishing a series of books designed to demonstrate that he was a flawed and perverse person so that we might conclude that he deserved his fate. A man who had sacrificed his life for world peace was shot down and then pilloried with defamation for years by a contemptuous and arrogant U.S. establishment.
The assassination of President Kennedy and its handling by the government and its compliant media were designed to accomplish not only the firing by gunshots of a President, but also were aimed at mind-manipulation and paralysis of our people. The fact that we have been debating this assassination for thirty-five years demonstrates that the national security state has enjoyed considerable success in accomplishing its goal. By debating the meaning of the assassination of President Kennedy we have served the purpose of our military-intelligence complex to mystify the obvious.
What are we to do? We must accept as no mystery the question of why the assassination occurred. President Kennedy was killed for seeking to reduce the planet-threatening tensions of the Cold War. He was killed for accomplishing the test-ban treaty. He was killed for his eloquence in espousing peace. In his 1963 American University speech he urged:
…my fellow Americans, let us examine our attitude toward peace… And is not peace, in the last analysis, basically a matter of human rights — the right to live out our lives without fear of devastation — the right to breathe air as nature provided it — the right of future generations to a healthy existence? While we proceed to safeguard our national interests, let us also safeguard human interests. And the elimination of war and arms is clearly in the interest of both.”
President Kennedy was killed because he had refused to bomb and to invade Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, although the Joint Chiefs and the CIA were much for this course of action. Later he had refused, when opposed by the Joint Chiefs and the CIA, to consent to invading Cuba during the missile crisis. Instead of invading Cuba, against the expressed wishes of the Joint Chiefs and the CIA, he had chosen to negotiate with the Soviets over a commitment not to invade Cuba. He had then moved for the normalization of relations with Cuba. Those relations have still to be normalized. He had established a back-channel communication system with the Soviets. Because of his quest for world peace and his struggle to preserve the human race from a devastating thermonuclear war, President John F. Kennedy was killed by the highest levels of our national security state.
Was President Kennedy’s Vietnam policy one of the reasons why he was killed? There has been much speculation and debate on what President Kennedy would or would not have done in Vietnam had he not been killed. If I were to engage in speculation, I would tend to believe that the man who twice refused to submit to the Joint Chiefs and the CIA on bombing and invading Cuba a mere ninety miles from our shore would not have consented to sending hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops half way around the world to slaughter Vietnamese peasants.
But there is no need to speculate on the issue of whether President Kennedy’s policy towards Vietnam was changed immediately following his death. It was. The historical record is clear. President Kennedy did order the beginning of a withdrawal of all U.S. personnel which withdrawal would be completed in two years. To undermine that policy, just two days after his assassination the CIA produced, as per assassination agnostic Professor Noam Chomsky in his book, Rethinking Camelot, “radically revised assumptions on which the withdrawal plans has been conditioned.”
Yes, Dealey Plaza’s crackling rifle fire was directly connected to the scorching of Vietnam flesh by napalm and the millions of deaths our invasion caused. For more on Vietnam and President Kennedy, my friend, Dr. Michael Morrissey, will have more to say in his future writings.
[…]
We can no longer afford to shield ourselves by asserting that the murder of President Kennedy is a mystery. There is no mystery regarding how, by whom, and why President Kennedy was killed. Only when we strip away our privileged cloak of denial about the truth of the killing will we be able to free ourselves for the hard global work of changing our unfair and brutal society to one that is more equitable and less violent.
Thank you.”~Vincent J. Salandria
\\][//
The blatantly obvious and tragic fact is that the vast majority of people simply don’t give a shit about anything but ‘bread & circuses’.
~The Testament of Damual
\\][//
Spirituality is a personal quest. The church is crowd control.
\\][//
“What is lacking in this article is the fact that on September 20, 1967, the CIA held its first “Garrison Group Meeting” (No 1 – 20 September 1967). This high level, classified meeting was attended by the “Executive Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, Deputy Director for Plans, Mr. Raymond Rocca of CI Staff, Director of Security and Mr. Goodwin.”
“The Minutes of the Meeting read as follows:
“1) “Executive Director said that the Director has asked him to convene a group to consider the possible implications for the Agency emanating from New Orleans before, during, and after the trial of Clay Shaw.”
“2) “General Counsel discussed his dealings with Justice and the desire of Shaw’s lawyers to make contact with the Agency.”
“3) “[Raymond] Rocca [who was Jim Angleton’s chief lieutenant] felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.”
“4) Executive Director said the group should level on two objectives: (a) what kind of action, if any, is available to the Agency, and (b) what actions should be taken inside the Agency to reassure the Director that we have the problem in focus. The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial and what might be feasible during and after the trial. It was agreed that OGC and Rocca would make a detailed study of all the facts and consult with Justice as appropriate prior to the next meeting.”
“The meeting was chaired by my father – “F.W.M. Janney”
“So, as early as 1967, we learn here that ‘Rocca felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.’ If this isn’t prima facie evidence that Clay Shaw was not only an asset of the CIA but was part of the conspiracy “to assassinate President Kennedy,” then I don’t know what else to say . . .
“Here, we have a high-level internal CIA meeting where the No. 2 main on the Counter Intelligence staff (Ray Rocca) tells everyone that Garrison ‘would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw,’ only because Rocca knew what had taken place. Game, set, and Match! The CIA is guilty, and always has been.’
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/the-garrison-group-what-one-top-cia-official-said-about-clay-shaw/
Mary’s Mosaic, Part 2: Entering Peter Janney’s World of Fantasy
Part Two by James DiEugenio
This critique of Peter Janney can be found here: http://www.ctka.net/reviews/DiEugenio_Janney_Mary's_Mosaic.html
\\][//
“When the Meyers were married and Cord worked for the CIA, their family became friends with the Janney family. Peter Janney’s father was a CIA analyst. The Janney children therefore knew the children of Cord and Mary Meyer. It is fairly clear from his description of her that young Peter Janney became enamored with Mary Meyer early in life. While playing baseball at her house he raced around to retrieve the ball and discovered her sunbathing nude. This is how he describes the scene: “She lay completely naked, her backside to the sun. I was breathless… and I stood there for what seemed to me a very long time, gawking. At the time, I had no words for the vision that I beheld….” (Janney, p. 12) If this is not enough, he then adds to it by saying this experience had left him “somehow irrevocably altered, even blessed.” (ibid) So, for Janney, seeing Mary Meyer’s nude backside was a quasi-religious experience that altered him permanently. To make this point even more clear, it is echoed when Janney learns that Mary Meyer is dead. He says he crawled up into bed in a fetal position. He adds that his sleep was fitful that night as he wrestled with the fact of her death. (p. 14) The problem with this early infatuation is that Janney kept and nurtured it his entire life. Anyone can see that by the way he approaches her. He doesn’t write about the woman. He caresses her in print. This is not a good attribute for an author. For it causes the loss of critical distance. As Dwight MacDonald once wrote about James Agee, a far superior writer to Janney, “The lover sees many interesting aspects of his love that others do not. But he also sees many interesting ones that aren’t there.” This is clearly the case here. For the aggrandizement of Mary Meyer in this book is both unprecedented and stupefying. If Janney could back it up with credible evidence, it would be one thing. He doesn’t. Therefore it gets to be offensive since it says more about Janney’s childhood wish fulfillment than it does about Mary Meyer.”~James DiEugenio
\\][//
Fire in the Lake: The Vietnamese and the Americans in Vietnam
by Frances FitzGerald
This landmark work, based on Frances FitzGerald’s own research and travels, takes us inside Vietnam-into the traditional, ancestor-worshiping villages and the corrupt crowded cities, into the conflicts between Communists and anti-Communists, Catholics and Buddhists, generals More…
and monks -and reveals the country as seen through Vietnamese eyes. With a clarity and authority unrivaled by any book before it or since, Fire in the Lake shows how America utterly and tragically misinterpreted the realities of Vietnam.
Frances Fitzgerald explains that the title ‘Fire in the Lake’ comes from the I Ching, the Chinese Book of Changes, and means the image of revolution.
http://www.amazon.com/Fire-Lake-Vietnamese-Americans-Vietnam/dp/0316159190/ref=pd_sim_14_4?ie=UTF8&refRID=0CKQQSZSSXPRHH0VV1R4
\\][//
Notes on Lunch with Arlen Specter on January 4, 2012
by Vincent Salandria
The comments following the article are interesting and smart as well. Especially the last one by Ralph Adamo
March 11, 2014 at 6:21 pm/
http://archive.politicalassassinations.net/2012/11/1560/
\\][//
But we should not ignore Emiliano Zapata’s appeal:
“It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.”
\\][//
There are varied forms of showing submission in the hierarchies of animal species on this planet. For example in canine societies [packs], a dog will lie on it’s back and pee on itself as the accepted form of submission to another dog with superior power and rank.
While I would in no sense compare Vincent Salandria to a dog, noting that I have the greatest respect for him as a gentleman and a scholar of high esteem. But it is my opinion that Mr Salandria took his apologetic rhetoric to an uncomely extreme in his verbal submission to Specter’s station and position in the ranks of political power. Salandria was too gushing, and it was needless. He didn’t need to make such an embarrassing display to keep the conversation cordial
Frankly I don’t find Specter’s position at all admirable. I see him as a great villain, and a criminal accessory after the fact. Salandria had previously made the same charges himself. To imply that he was withdrawing such charges is rationally inexplicable, in my view.
\\][//
Kill Anything That Moves: The Real American War in Vietnam
Based on classified documents and first-person interviews, a startling history of the American war on Vietnamese civilians
The American Empire Project
Winner of the Ridenhour Prize for Reportorial Distinction
Americans have long been taught that events such as the notorious My Lai massacre were isolated incidents in the Vietnam War, carried out by just a few “bad apples.” But as award-winning journalist and historian Nick Turse demonstrates in this groundbreaking investigation, violence against Vietnamese noncombatants was not at all exceptional during the conflict. Rather, it was pervasive and systematic, the predictable consequence of official orders to “kill anything that moves.”
Drawing on more than a decade of research into secret Pentagon archives and extensive interviews with American veterans and Vietnamese survivors, Turse reveals for the first time the workings of a military machine that resulted in millions of innocent civilians killed and wounded–what one soldier called “a My Lai a month.” Devastating and definitive, Kill Anything That Moves finally brings us face-to-face with the truth of a war that haunts America to this day.
http://www.amazon.com/Kill-Anything-That-Moves-American/dp/1250045061/ref=pd_rhf_dp_s_cp_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=0WGBJJPNP8QEKNWRA992
\\][//
An important note concerning the above: ALL modern wars are wars on civilians.
\\][//
“I think that the report, to those who have studied it closely, has collapsed like a house of cards, and I think the people who read it in the long-run future will see that. I frankly believe that we have shown that the [investigation of the] John F. Kennedy assassination was snuffed out before it even began, and that the fatal mistake the Warren Commission made was not to use its own investigators, but instead to rely on the CIA and FBI personnel, which played directly into the hands of senior intelligence officials who directed the cover-up.”~Senator Richard Schweiker (R-Pennsylvania) on Face the Nation in 1976.
. . . . .
White House Efforts to Blunt 1975 Church Committee Investigation into CIA Abuses Foreshadowed Executive-Congressional Battles after 9/11
Members of the “Church Committee” meet in Washington, D.C., February 6, 1975. (Source: Henry Griffin / AP)
Advisers to President Ford Sought to Protect CIA’s Image Abroad by Having Its Capabilities “Cloaked in Mystery and Held in Awe”
Ford Administration Stratagem of Withholding Sensitive Intelligence, Spearheaded by Dick Cheney, Set Tone for Future Clashes between Claims of Secrecy and Public’s Right to Know
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 522
Posted – July 20, 2015 – Edited by John Prados and Arturo Jimenez-Bacardi
Washington, D.C., July 20, 2015 – Forty years ago this year, Congress’s first serious inquiry into CIA abuses faced many of the same political and bureaucratic obstructions as Senate investigators have confronted in assessing Intelligence Community performance since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Records posted today for the first time by the National Security Archive document the often rough-and-tumble, behind-the-scenes dynamics between Congress and the Executive Branch during the “Year of Intelligence” – highlighted by the investigations of the congressional Church and Pike committees.
Among White House and Intelligence Community stated concerns during the period of the Church and Pike inquiries were preserving the effectiveness of the CIA and reassuring future operatives who might fear their “heads may be on the block” for their actions, no matter how well-intentioned. But intelligence officials also worried that disclosures of agency operations would be “disastrous” for CIA’s standing in the world: “We are a great power and it is important that we be perceived as such,” a memo to the president warned, urging that “our intelligence capability to a certain extent be cloaked in mystery and held in awe.”
In 1975, it was then-Deputy Chief of Staff Dick Cheney who spearheaded the Ford White House’s hostile approach to Congress, which required the CIA to submit all proposed responses to Capitol Hill for prior presidential approval and featured the explicit intent to keep investigators away from the most sensitive records. Those events presaged the battles between the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) and the U.S. Intelligence Community since 2012 over plans to publish the former’s 6,000-page report on the CIA’s rendition, detention and interrogation program.
Related to today’s posting, a much larger compilation of 1,000 documents, many of them previously classified, was published in June 2015 in the online collection CIA Covert Operations II: The Year of Intelligence, 1975, the second in a series on the CIA through the Digital National Security Archive, a joint project with the scholarly publisher ProQuest.
[…]
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB522-Church-Committee-Faced-White-House-Attempts-to-Curb-CIA-Probe/
\\][//
Letters Between McCone & Eisenhower
The Director of Central Intelligence
November 7, 1963
Dear General:
Thank you so very, very much for autographing my deluxe copy of your book, “Mandate for Change.” I appreciate your doing this.
The book is excellent. Although I confess that because of the pressures of South Vietnam and other matters, I have not read it all. I plan to complete it within day or two. It will occupy an important place in my library ……
In addition, I hope you are getting a royalty from sales of the book because I am a pretty good customer of yours, having now bought three copies …..
Warm personal regards and all good wishes.
Sincerely,
John A. McCone
General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
followed by this:
JOHN ALEX MCCONE
3025 WHITEHAVEN STREET, N.W.
WASHINGTON 8, D.C.
23 December, 1963
Dear General,
I have just returned from Saigon and found some things there which I would like to discuss with you. Theiline and I plan to be at our house in San Marino from December 28 to January 2nd. I know your obligations will have you enormously busy when you are in Pasadena but perhaps there will be an opportunity for an hour together. It might even be possible for you and Mamie to slip away from the hotel and come to the house, as I am very anxious to have both of you see it.
I will call you when I arrive in Los Angeles. In the meantime, the warmest regards and my very best to you and Mamie in which Theiline joins me.
Sincerely,
John A. McCone
General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Eldorado Country Club
Palm Desert, California
Two years later McCone would rejoin the board of his engineering firm, military contractor Bechtel-McCone (which would merge with Haliburton decades later) along with CB Thornton, CEO of Litton Industries. Thornton and Robert McNamara were members of the Whiz Kids – the small elite clique of WWII Army Air Force veterans who went to work at Ford Motor Co. to pursue management science. Thornton helped persuade Brown Bros. Harriman partner Robert A. Lovett to propose McNamara to the post of Secretary of Defence at the time that John McCone served as the Director of Intelligence. .
. . . .
\\][//
NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVES
Memo’s sent to Church Committee
Click to access Document%2011%20-%2000203.pdf
\\][//
Dallas police chief Jesse Curry on the origin of the shots
\\][//
JFK in Trauma Room One: The Missing Piece: Last Moments Before Death
Chief of Anesthesiology Dr. M. T. Pepper Jenkins led the team to resuscitate President Kennedy at Parkland Hospital, Nov. 22, 1963. THIS RARE FOOTAGE reveals many private moments with Mrs. Kennedy, and second-by-second efforts done to save the President – excerpts are from a formal presentation to an invited audience in Beverly Hills in 1993.
\\][//
This answers one question definitively, Jackie retrieved a portion of her husband’s brain when she crawled out on the trunk of the limo.
The description of the head-wound as “along the right side of the head is verified, and the fact that it did not show until the the hair and scalp was pulled aside. Add to this the fact that this portion of JFK’s brain was blown back onto the trunk, not forward, and we have an indication of the trajectory of the bullet; a shot from the front.
\\][//
INTERVIEW WITH ROGER HILSMAN
INT:It’s June the eighth and I’m interviewing Roger Hilsman, for the Cold War series, first of all the program about Vietnam. So, if we can start off, can I ask you first, what was President Kennedy’s attitude to Vietnam? Why did he choose Vietnam as a place to make a stand?
ROGER HILSMAN: “He did not choose to make Vietnam a stand, that’s the whole point. The long answer is that Kennedy was a Catholic, Ngu Dinh Diem was a Catholic, the President of Vietnam and when Ngu Dinh Diem became President of Vietnam, American Catholics generally thought that this was a wonderful hero and should be backed. He came out there… Kennedy went out to Vietnam as a young Foreign Service officer and met as a young congressman, I should say, and met a young Foreign Service officer who was the head of their action section in the embassy. And this guy said that he didn’t believe that a Catholic, surrounded by Catholics in a country that was ninety five per cent Bhuddist was going to make it, and this shook Kennedy, as a very young congressman, a great deal. And many years later when he had decided… I mean, he used to say to me – I was Assistant Secretary for the Far East, so I was in charge of Vietnam – and he used to say to me, we’ll do everything we can to help them, but we will not fight, we will not send an American soldier to fight. And I said, well, you know, I said, I agree with you, but why did you reach this conclusion, ‘cos he knew nothing about (unintelligible), he told me this story that he’d been out in Vietnam as a young congressman and the man who influenced him became a great friend, but he said, I’ve thought about that very deeply and we’ll give ’em all the help we can, all the aid, all the arms, but we won’t fight there.” [Bolding mine – ww]
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/coldwar/interviews/episode-11/hilsman1.html
\\][//
“approved plan for removing the rest within a matter of two or three months.”~Hilsman
“This is a new one I’ve never seen before and I thought I’d seen it all by now. The last “approved” plan of Kennedy on Vietnam was NSAM 263 and it most certainly does not say what Hilsman is claiming here.~Clarke
“he would not send troops. But then after …you remember the Buddhist crisis in the spring of ’63, this convinced Kennedy that Ngu Dinh Diem had no chance of winning and that we best we get out.”~Hilsman
I think Hilsman is playing loose with the facts here. JFK did send troops to SVN and sent the planes, helicopters and other equipment to fight the war. Again, if all the troops would be out in a few months as Hilsman claims why did JFK bother to approve the removal of Ngo Dinh Diem?”~Bill Clarke
If one reads the entire interview with Hilsman, this is all explained in detail. Detail that Bill Clarke refuses to acknowledge. It is in fact Bill Clarke that is “playing loose with the facts”, and has a delusional bias. Why Morley continues to allow and publish the scurrilous commentary by Clarke is beyond me.~ww
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/on-this-date/roger-hilsman-on-jfks-vietnam-plans/#comment-790550
\\][//
What was the motive for the assassination of John F. Kennedy?
As far as the Warren Commission Cult, Oswald did it alone, because he was a deranged nut looking for a place in history.
Those who think JFK was killed by a conspiracy perpetrated from the highest levels of the Military Industrial Complex, argue that Kennedy was going to pull out of Southeast Asia militarily, and this provides the motive for the military industrial complex to get Kennedy out of the way with a violent coup d’etat.
That is why those who argue the lone-nut bullshit need to take that motive out of the picture.
That is the nitty-gritty of the whole game the WC side is playing.
It is a loosing battle for them however. As has been shown from the longer historical perspective, John Kennedy was a radical for his entire adult life, and this is reflected in his own words, the Senate speech in 1957, his voting record, his speeches and confidential conversations during his presidency. Whatever “epiphany” John had occurred long before the Bay of Pigs, or the Missile Crisis – although they were certainly reinforcing events.
This is exactly why the narrow focus of the WC cult, to only talk about Dealey Plaza, to focus attention on Oswald, and to ignore who Kennedy the man actually was.
\\][//
History Will Not Absolve Us
Concerning the Facts and Consequences of the Tragic Death of President John F. Kennedy
November 23rd, 1963
by Fidel Castro
Always, when something very important has happened, national or international, we have
thought it desirable to speak to the people, to express our opinions. And in every such case to
express the orientation of the Government, the orientation of our Party, so that each one of us all
know the attitude we should adopt in each one of these situations.
It is true that we are somewhat accustomed to various types of unexpected events, important,
serious events, because since the victory of the Revolution our country has had to face a series of
problems, a series of situations that have prepared the people to carry forward their victorious
revolution.
Therefore, because of the events of yesterday in the United States in which the President was
murdered, because of the repercussion these events can have, because of the role that the United
States plays in the problems of international policy, because of this, we believe that we should make
a specially objective and calm analysis of these events and of their possible consequences.
The government of the United States, the former administration of Eisenhower and the
Kennedy administration, did not practice precisely a policy of friendship toward us. The policy of
both administrations was characterized by its aggressive, hostile, and implacable spirit toward our
country.
Our country was the victim of economic aggressions intended to cause the ruin of our
economy and the starvation of our people; it was the victim of all kinds of attacks that caused
bloodshed; hundreds of our compatriots have lost their lives, defending themselves from attacks of
U.S. imperialism, and not only this. The hostility and the aggressiveness of U.S. imperialism toward
our country took us to the brink of war which was fortunately avoided, took the world to the brink of
thermonuclear war…
Click to access Castro-on-JFK-112363.pdf
\\][//
In 1963 Kennedy asked Lansdale to concentrate on the situation in Vietnam. However, it was not long before Lansdale was in conflict with General Maxwell Taylor, who was the military representative to the president. Taylor took the view that the war could be won by military power. He argued in the summer of 1963 that 40,000 US troops could clean up the Vietminh threat in Vietnam and another 120,000 would be sufficient to cope with any possible North Vietnamese or Chinese intervention.
Lansdale disagreed with this viewpoint. He had spent years studying the way Mao Zedong had taken power in China. He often quoted Mao of telling his guerrillas: “Buy and sell fairly. Return everything borrowed. Indemnify everything damaged. Do not bathe in view of women. Do not rob personal belongings of captives.” The purpose of such rules, according to Mao, was to create a good relationship between the army and its people. This was a strategy that had been adopted by the National Liberation Front. Lansdale believed that the US Army should adopt a similar approach. As Cecil B. Currey, the author of Edward Lansdale: The Unquiet American pointed out: “Lansdale was a dedicated anticommunist, conservative in his thoughts. Many people of like persuasion were neither as willing to study their enemy nor as open to adopting communist ideas to use a countervailing force. If for no other reason, the fact makes Lansdale stand out in bold relief to the majority of fellow military men who struggled on behalf of America in those intense years of the cold war.”
[…]
Lansdale continued to argue against Lyndon Johnson’s decision to try and use military power to win the Vietnam War. When General William Westmoreland argued that: “We’re going to out-guerrilla the guerrilla and out-ambush the ambush… because we’re smarter, we have greater mobility and fire-power, we have more endurance and more to fight for… And we’ve got more guts.” Lansdale replied: “All actions in the war should be devised to attract and then make firm the allegiance of the people.” He added “we label our fight as helping the Vietnamese maintain their freedom” but when “we bomb their villages, with horrendous collateral damage in terms of both civilian property and lives… it might well provoke a man of good will to ask, just what freedom of what Vietnamese are we helping to maintain?”
http://spartacus-educational.com/COLDlansdale.htm
. . . .
Soon after taking office, Kennedy received a briefing by Edward Lansdale, who had been sent by the Defense Department to evaluate the situation in Vietnam. Lansdale reported to Kennedy that Vietnam was in critical condition and needed emergency treatment. Kennedy inherited a commitment of 600 American military advisers stationed in Vietnam. Kennedy authorized funding for additional training and maintenance of South Vietnamese troops. He created a task force for Vietnam. When asked if he was willing to send combat troops to stop the spread of Communism in Vietnam, Kennedy avoided answering the question. He sent Vice President Johnson to the region to ” show the flag” and demonstrate US support for the South Vietnamese government.
By summer, after the failed summit in Vienna and the fiasco of the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy felt he could not walk away from Vietnam. But he remained very reluctant to commit US troops. An April 28th memo by Ted Sorenson, said to reflect Kennedy’s thinking on Vietnam stated, ” There is no clearer example of a country that cannot be saved unless it saves itself “through increased popular support; governmental, economic and military reforms and reorganizations; and the encouragement of new political leaders” .
[…]
Opposing the military’s recommendations were Senate Majority leader Mike Mansfield, Kenneth Galbraith, George Ball and Averell Harriman. Kennedy refused to approve deployment of combat troops, but stepped up aid to the Diem regime and ordered a substantial increase in the number of advisers in Vietnam. In return, Kennedy demanded from Diem that the US advisers have a role in making all the important decisions. He also ordered the military to prepare contingency plans for the deployment of military combat forces.
By February 1962, there were 3,500 US combat advisers in Vietnam. They accompanied Vietnamese troops on missions which were to inexorably lead to US troops being drawn into combat. But, in early 1962 when the President was asked at a press conference if US troops were involved in combat, Kennedy gave a one word answer: ” No. ” The President, ambivalent about US involvement in Vietnam, feared an increased commitment.
[…]
In early 1963, Kennedy sent the head of the Intelligence Division of the State Department, Roger Hilsman, to assess the situation in Vietnam. Hilsman returned with a sobering report, that although things were going better than they had been a year earlier, winning the war was going to take longer and be much harder than the military had been reporting. By this time, there were 16,000 US advisors in Vietnam. Kennedy seemed to become even more skeptical of the US ability to obtain its objective in Vietnam and wanted to begin planning for a withdrawal. This withdrawal would come only after the November 1964 elections, for Kennedy feared the political fallout of a precipitous withdrawal from Vietnam. In the spring of 1963…
…Meanwhile, a new plan had been developed to oust Diem. Kennedy gave his reluctant approval, and in the early morning hours of November 1, Vietnamese Army forces staged the coup. When Diem asked for US help it was denied, as was his request for transport to leave the country. Diem and his wife were killed while in custody of the Vietnamese troops. Kennedy was genuinely upset at the deaths. In a recording he made for posterity on November 4, he took personal responsibility for their deaths. The day he left for Texas, November 21, 1963, President Kennedy told Senator Mike Mansfield that in early 1964 he ” wanted to organize an in-depth study of every possible option we’ve got in Vietnam, including how to get out of there. ”
Sadly, two days later, President Kennedy was assassinated. The vexing question of how to handle the situation in Vietnam would never be solved by Kennedy.
http://www.historycentral.com/JFK/bio/Vietnam.html
\\][//
Vietnam Timeline with US involvement. This timeline begins in 1945. However I have a link to the page during the Kennedy administration to do with that context here:
http://www.vietnamgear.com/war1961.aspx
\\][//
NSAM 263
[SECTION] 1: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
B. Recommendations.
We recommend that:
1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965. This review would consider the need for such changes as:
a. A further shift of military emphasis and strength to the Delta (IV Corps).
b. An increase in the military tempo in all corps areas, so that all combat troops are in the field an average of 20 days out of 30 and static missions are ended.
c. Emphasis on “clear and hold operations” instead of terrain sweeps which have little permanent value.
d. The expansion of personnel in combat units to full authorized strength.
e. The training and arming of hamlet militia to an accelerated rate, especially in the Delta.
f. A consolidation of the strategic hamlet program, especially in the Delta, and action to insure that future strategic hamlets are not built until they can be protected, and until civic action programs can be introduced.
2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.
3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.
http://www.jfklancer.com/NSAM263.html
\\][//
Taylor/McNamara Report (document 167)
This is the complete “Report of McNamara-Taylor Mission to South Vietnam”. It was fundamental to National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263, approved by JFK on October 5, 1963. Kennedy approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3), below. NSAM #263 was the the culmination of many months of seeking a solution to the yawning quagmire of Vietnam that Kennedy had concluded must not be solved militarily by committing U.S. combat troops.
Kennedy had a great deal to do with the creation of this report. There had been many months of work already completed before he ever even sent McNamara and Taylor to Vietnam in late September to bring back the “report” which had already been created from the visit Major General Victor H. Krulak and a senior Foreign Service officer, Joseph Mendenhall, made to Vietnam in early September under Kennedy’s direction. JFK knew exactly what he wanted it to say, and dispatched Krulak knowing that he would come home with all the current data essential for final decision-making. But Kennedy wanted to move the decision level up to the top and so sent McNamara and Taylor. With the McNamara/Taylor report–which Krulak’s office wrote–that they publically gave to JFK upon their return, Kennedy had effectively laid the groundwork for the enunciation of his intended plans, formalized three days later in NSAM #263.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FRUSno167.html
\\][//
An excerpt from the book JFK The CIA, Vietnam, and the Plot to Assassinate John F. Kennedy
by L. Fletcher Prouty
Birch Lane Press, 1992 – hard cover, 1st edition
from pages 272 – 283
As mentioned earlier, Diem had made it quite clear what his goals with the Strategic Hamlet program were. His position did not jibe with those who wanted to escalate the war in Indochina and who were not at all interested in the introduction of an ancient form of self-government into the battle-scarred countryside.
On top of this came Kennedy’s desire to get the United States out of Indochina by the end of 1965, as evidenced by his orchestration of a series of events such as the Krulak-Mendenhall visit to Vietnam in September 1963. By late summer, and certainly by the time of the McNamara-Taylor trip, closely held plans had progressed for the removal of the Diems from Saigon. President Kennedy had reached the decision that the United States should do all it could to train, equip, and finance the government of South Vietnam to fight its own war, but that this would be done for someone other than Ngo Dinh Diem.
On the same day that the President received this McNamara-Taylor report, Gen. Tran Van Don had his first “accidental” (it had been carefully planned) meeting with the CIA’s Lt. Col. Lucien Conein at Tan Son Nhut airport in Saigon. This was a meeting of great significance, and one that to this day has never been properly explained. General Don was the commander of the South Vietnamese army. He had been born and educated in France and had served in the French army during World War II. He and Conein were well acquainted.
Nearly twenty years later, in 1963, the CIA designated Conein, one of its most valuable agents in the Far East, to meet with his old friend of eighteen years, Cen. Tran Van Don, to arrange for the ouster of President Diem. Only ten years earlier, Gen. Edward G. Lansdale and Conein had worked hard to get Ngo Dinh Diem started as the newly assigned president of South Vietnam.
Conein’s task was to stay close enough to key Vietnamese to assure them that the United States would not interfere with their plan to move in as soon as President Diem had left Saigon, and to keep Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge and Conein’s own CIA associates informed.
The plan prepared by the United States had been carefully drawn to leave Diem no alternative except to leave on this scheduled trip. There was much discussion and argument among members of the Kennedy administration, who knew of the President’s intention to oust Diem once he had left the country. With Madame Nhu and Archbishop Thuc already in Europe, Diem and his brother were to follow to attend a meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.
The evacuation plan, carefully orchestrated under Kennedy’s direction, broke down, and Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother were murdered. There have been many accounts of this coup d’etat. They do not tell the role that Kennedy played in the story, and many were created to cover the real plan and to protect those Vietnamese who had worked closely with the administration.
I was on duty in the Joint Chiefs of Staff section of the Pentagon on the day of the coup d’etat. My immediate boss, General Krulak, knew the full details of the plan to remove Diem from the scene by flying him and his brother out of Saigon. Krulak remained in contact with the White House as developments in Saigon were relayed. I can recall clearly the absolute shock in our offices when it was learned that Diem had not left on the proffered aircraft for Europe.
One of the most important narratives of this event was written by Edward G. Lansdale in his autobiography In the Midst of Wars. Few Americans, if any, knew Ngo Dinh Diem and the situation in Vietnam from 1954-68 better than Ed Lansdale. He wrote:
“As the prisons filled up with political opponents, as the older nationalist parties went underground, with the body politics fractured, Communist political cadre became active throughout South Vietnam, recruiting followers for action against a government held together mainly by the Can Lao elite rather than by popular support. The reaped whirlwind finally arrived in November 1963, when the nationalist opposition erupted violently, imprisoning many of the Can Loa and killing Diem, Nhu, and others. It was heartbreaking to be an onlooker to this tragic bit of history.”
JFK’s Exit Strategy from S.E. Asia
On October 5, Kennedy made his formal decision. Newman quotes the minutes of the meeting that day:
The President also said that our decision to remove 1,000 U.S. advisors by December of this year should not be raised formally with Diem. Instead the action should be carried out routinely as part of our general posture of withdrawing people when they are no longer needed. (Emphasis added.)
The passage illustrates two points: (a) that a decision was in fact made on that day, and (b) that despite the earlier announcement of McNamara’s recommendation, the October 5 decision was not a ruse or pressure tactic to win reforms from Diem (as Richard Reeves, among others, has contended3) but a decision to begin withdrawal irrespective of Diem or his reactions.
(3) On October 11, the White House issued NSAM 263, which states:
The President approved the military recommendations contained in section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
In other words, the withdrawal recommended by McNamara on October 2 was embraced in secret by Kennedy on October 5 and implemented by his order on October 11, also in secret. Newman argues that the secrecy after October 2 can be explained by a diplomatic reason. Kennedy did not want Diem or anyone else to interpret the withdrawal as part of any pressure tactic (other steps that were pressure tactics had also been approved). There was also a political reason: JFK had not decided whether he could get away with claiming that the withdrawal was a result of progress toward the goal of a self-sufficient South Vietnam.
The alternative would have been to withdraw the troops while acknowledging failure. And this, Newman argues, Kennedy was prepared to do if it became necessary. He saw no reason, however, to take this step before it became necessary. If the troops could be pulled while the South Vietnamese were still standing, so much the better.4 But from October 11 onward the CIA’s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Newman believes this pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. It represented an effort by the CIA to undermine the ostensible rationale of withdrawal with success, and therefore to obstruct implementation of the plan for withdrawal. Kennedy, needless to say, did not share his full reasoning with the CIA.
(4) On November 1 there came the coup in Saigon and the assassination of Diem and Nhu. At a press conference on November 12, Kennedy publicly restated his Vietnam goals. They were “to intensify the struggle” and “to bring Americans out of there.” Victory, which had figured prominently in a similar statement on September 12, was no longer on the list.
http://bostonreview.net/us/galbraith-exit-strategy-vietnam
\\][//
“..the fiercely anti-Communist Joseph Alsop, who in late 1954 visited a Communist-controlled area in Vietnam as the French were disengaging after fighting nine years to retain their colony—a struggle 80 percent paid for by the US in its last phase—and Washington was creating its chosen regime under Ngo Dinh Diem in Saigon:
“It was difficult for me, as it is for any Westerner, to…imagine a Communist government that was also a popular government and almost a democratic government…. The Viet Minh [Ho Chi Minh’s forces] could not possibly have carried on the resistance for one year, let alone nine years, without the people’s strong, united support.”
\\][//
Episode 307 – Meet Allen Dulles: Fascist Spymaster – Corbett Report
\\][//
The Kennedy Assassination: 47 Years Later, What Do We Really Know?
1. Let’s take stock of five common myths about the state of the debate itself.
The belief that secret plotters killed Kennedy was first made popular by Oliver Stone’s 1992 movie, JFK.
Popular belief in a conspiracy was widespread within a week of Kennedy’s murder. Between November 25 and 29, 1963, University of Chicago pollsters asked more than 1,000 Americans whom they thought was responsible for the president’s death. By then, the chief suspect, Oswald — a leftist who had lived for a time in Soviet Union — had been shot dead while in police custody by Jack Ruby, a local hoodlum with organized crime connections.
While the White House, the FBI, and the Dallas Police Department all affirmed that Oswald had acted alone, 62 percent of respondents said they believed that more than one person was involved in the assassination. Only 24 percent thought Oswald had acted alone. Another poll taken in Dallas during the same week found 66 percent of respondents believing that there had been a plot. There were no JFK conspiracy theories in print at that time. Oliver Stone was in high school.
2. All serious historians believe that Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy, alone and unaided.
Since 2000, five tenured academic historians have published books on JFK’s assassination. Four of the five concluded that a conspiracy was behind the 35th president’s murder.
David Kaiser, a diplomatic historian at the Naval War College, and the author of a 2008 book, The Road to Dallas: The Assassination of John F. Kennedy, concluded that Kennedy was killed in plot involving disgruntled CIA operatives and organized crime figures. Michael Kurtz of Southeastern Louisiana University came to the same conclusion in his 2006 book, The JFK Assassination Debates: Lone Gunman Versus Conspiracy.
In a 2005 book, Breach of Trust: How the Warren Commission Failed the Nation and Why, Gerald McKnight of Hood College suggested that a high-level plot involving senior U.S. intelligence officials was probably responsible for the president’s death. In his 2003 book about photographic evidence, The Zapruder Film: Reframing JFK’s Assassination, David Wrone of the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point argued that the famous amateur film footage of the assassination proves that Kennedy was hit by gunfire from two different directions. Wrone did not advocate a theory of who was responsible.
A fifth historian, Robert Dallek of UCLA, wrote a 2003 biography of Kennedy, An Unfinished Life: John F. Kennedy, 1917-1963. While not about the assassination as such, An Unfinished Life embraced the Warren Commission’s lone-gunman finding, relying squarely on Gerald Posner’s 1994 anti-conspiratorial best-seller Case Closed: Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK.
3. No one high-up in the U.S. government ever thought there was a conspiracy behind JFK’s murder.
In fact, many senior U.S. officials concluded that there had been a plot but rarely talked about it openly.
Kennedy’s successor, Lyndon Johnson, publicly endorsed the Warren Commissions conclusion that Oswald acted alone. Privately, LBJ told many people, ranging from Atlantic contributor Leo Janos to CIA director Richard Helms, that he did not believe the lone-gunman explanation.
The president’s brother Robert and widow Jacqueline also believed that he had been killed by political enemies, according to historians Aleksandr Fursenko and Tim Naftali. In their 1999 book on the Cuban missile crisis, One Hell of a Gamble: Khrushchev, Castro, and Kennedy, 1958-1964, they reported that William Walton — a friend of the First Lady — went to Moscow on a previously scheduled trip a week after JFK’s murder. Walton carried a message from RFK and Jackie for their friend, Georgi Bolshakov, a Russian diplomat who had served as a back-channel link between the White House and the Kremlin during the October 1962 crisis: RFK and Jackie wanted the Soviet leadership to know that “despite Oswald’s connections to the communist world, the Kennedys believed that the president was felled by domestic opponents.”
In the Senate, Democrats Richard Russell of Georgia and Russell Long of Louisiana both rejected official accounts of the assassination. In the executive branch, Joseph Califano, the General Counsel of Army in 1963 and later Secretary of Health Education and Welfare, concluded that Kennedy had been killed by a conspiracy.* In the White House, H.R. Haldeman, chief of staff to President Richard Nixon, wanted to reopen the JFK investigation in 1969. Nixon wasn’t interested.
Suspicion persisted in the upper echelons of the U.S. national security agencies, as well. Col. L. Fletcher Prouty, chief of Pentagon special operations in 1963 (and later an adviser to Stone), believed that there had been a plot.
Winston Scott, chief of the CIA’s station in Mexico City at the time of Kennedy’s murder and an ultra-conservative Agency loyalist, rejected the Warren Commission’s findings about a trip that Oswald had taken to Mexico six weeks before the assassination. Scott concluded in an unpublished memoir that Oswald had, indeed, been just a patsy.
None of these figures was a paranoid fantasist. To the contrary, they constituted a cross section of the American power elite in 1963. Neither did they talk about a JFK conspiracy for public consumption; they talked about it only reservedly, in confined circles.
4. Former Los Angeles County prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi refuted all JFK conspiracy theories in Reclaiming History.
In the course of 1,600 pages Bugliosi effectively refuted many unfounded conspiracy scenarios and reasserted the lone gunman conclusions of the Warren Commission. But he has never engaged the extensive scholarship of Commission skeptics such as journalist David Talbot, historian Kaiser, historian John Newman, or biographer Anthony Summers, or analyzed the innovative research of attorney William Simpich.
Kaiser, author of seven books on U.S. history, notes that Bugliosi’s prosecutorial approach limits the scope of his historical analysis: “He falls back on the old argument ‘no one could have ever used Ruby and Oswald in a conspiracy’ which relieves him of the necessity of addressing any of the conspiracy evidence seriously.”
5. All the CIA’s records related to the Kennedy assassination have been made public.
The agency acknowledges that it currently holds thousands of pages on Kennedy’s murder that the public has never seen. The CIA disclosed the existence of the still-secret JFK files while responding to a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, filed as it happens by me, seeking the release of other records related to the assassination.
In a sworn affidavit, Delores Nelson, the CIA’s chief information officer, stated that the Agency has approximately 1,100 assassination-related documents that it plans to keep under wraps until 2017, if not longer. These files — containing more than 2,000 pages of material — cannot be made public for reasons, Nelson says, of national security.
In other words, somewhere in the Washington metropolitan area there is a collection of CIA documents related to JFK’s murder that, if collated, would stand about ten inches tall. None of those documents has ever been seen by the U.S. Congress or the National Archives, let alone by journalists, historians, bloggers, Oliver Stone, Tom Hanks, or the general public.
That’s not a conspiracy theory or a myth. It’s a fact.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2010/11/the-kennedy-assassination-47-years-later-what-do-we-really-know/66722/
\\][//
INTO THE WIND: THE KENNEDY ADMINISTRATION AND THE USE OF HERBICIDES IN SOUTH VIETNAM by Evelyn Frances Krache Morris, AM
This study investigates the origins of Operation Ranch Hand, the United States’
aerial defoliation and crop destruction program in South Vietnam. Although Agent
Orange is the best-known of the formulas employed, the decision to use chemicals in
South Vietnam preceded Agent Orange’s 1965 debut by several years. President John
F. Kennedy authorized defoliation missions in November 1961. At the behest of the
United States military, the Ambassador to South Vietnam, and South Vietnamese
President Ngô Đình Diệm, Ranch Hand expanded in 1962 to include crop destruction.
The purpose of this research is to explore why the administration chose to use an
untried and possibly illegal weapon in an undeclared war. The need for certainties in an
increasingly ambiguous and frustrating conflict contributed to the belief that Ranch
Hand was more practical and effective than it was. Even as Ranch Hand’s shortfalls
became apparent, the administration adhered more and more closely to the agendas of
the military and of Diệm who, for different reasons, promoted Ranch Hand as
reassuringly successful
https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/557621/KracheMorris_georgetown_0076D_11888.pdf?sequence=1
\\][//
DCI John McCone and the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy
David Robarge
“(U) McCone returned to Headquarters
at around 1530, summoned the
CIA Executive Committee, asked the
‘Intelligence Community’s Wau:h
Committee to convene at the Pentagon,
issued orders for all stations and
bases to report any signs of a conspiracy
and to ~hall Soviet personnel,
especially intelligence officers,
for indications that the Soviet Union
was trying to take advantage of the
dismay in Washington.
(U) The immediate reaction at
Langley, as elsewhere in the US government,
was to sUspect that a foreign.
probably communist-directed,
effort to destabilize the United States
might be underway. Richard Helms
recalled that “[w]e all went to baUie
stations over the possibility that this
might be a plot-and who was pulling
the strings. We were very busy
sending messages all over the world
to pick up anything that might indi-
(U) Lee Hltvey Oswald
Photo: UPI/BeUman
cate that a conspiracy had been
funned t9 kill the President of the
United States-and then what was to
come next” One of the first cables
was the following message Helms
sent to all CIA stations overseas…”~Robarge
Click to access intell_ebb_026.PDF
This is an obvious modified limited hangout, trying to sell the same excuse used to set up the Warren Commission, the bogus “fear that the Soviets, or the Cubans may have murdered Kennedy.
\\][//
(from Talbot’s book)
Manufacturing a Motive for Oswald
His new job on the commission gave Dulles an opportunity to connect with old friends, such as … British novelist Rebecca West. In March, Dulles wrote West, beseeching her to draw on her fertile imagination to come up with possible motives for Oswald’s crime. The commission was so baffled by the question that Warren even suggested leaving that part of the report blank.
“I wish sometime you would sit down and write me a line as to why you think Lee Oswald did the dastardly deed,” Dulles wrote the novelist in March, as if discussing the plot of a whodunit. “All I can tell you is that there is not one iota of evidence that he had any personal vindictiveness against the man Kennedy.”
\\][//
In a blistering but painstaking profile of the Cold War CIA chief, David Talbot’s damning accusations include the allegation that Dulles was behind the Kennedy assassination.
An affable scion of the Northeastern establishment, a committed interventionist in foreign affairs, and fervent disciple of American exceptionalism, Allen Welsh Dulles served as director of the Central Intelligence Agency from 1953 to 1961. International affairs were the Dulles family business. Allen’s maternal grandfather, John W. Foster, was secretary of state under Benjamin Harrison. His uncle, Robert Lansing, held the same office under Woodrow Wilson. John Foster Dulles, his elder brother, served as secretary of state in the Eisenhower administration, and Allen reputedly wanted the job for himself. Yet, when Allen ran the CIA and his brother was ensconced as head of State, there was little of the usual friction between the two agencies of government. The brothers worked together like a well-oiled team. Critics have argued ever since that the country and the world would have been better off had this not been the case.
After graduating from Princeton Phi Beta Kappa, Dulles joined the Foreign Service, where he served with distinction from 1916 to 1926, and developed a taste for intelligence work that lasted all his life. He then went on to join his brother’s Wall Street law firm, Sullivan & Cromwell, with a view to making real money. The firm represented some of the most powerful corporations in the world, and Dulles succeeded in his objective, but he sorely missed the excitement of cloak-and-dagger work.
Then came World War II. Recruited by Wild Bill Donovan to run the OSS office in Bern, Switzerland, he developed invaluable connections with the German resistance movement against Hitler, and established a reputation as a superb spy with a flair for running networks of agents and planning covert operations. By the time of his ascent to the directorship of the CIA, the Cold War had blossomed from a conflict centered on Europe into a truly global contest waged by proxy armies and secret agents in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. It was above all else a complex, multifaceted conflict with diplomatic, military, and propaganda components. The West had already suffered a number of serious reverses—the compromise of most of its agents behind the Iron Curtain as a result of Kim Philby’s defection, the “loss” of China, and the shocking invasion of South Korea by Communist North Korea, widely (and incorrectly) believed to have been ordered by Stalin, to name but a few….
[…]
Indeed, in the cloak-and-dagger world of intrigue so deftly conjured up in The Devil’s Chessboard, the Soviet threat to both American interests and democratic values around the world seems to be a chimera, not the very real and formidable challenge it appeared to be to American policymakers at the time. Without a reasonably detailed picture of what the Soviets were up to, it’s rather difficult to place the shenanigans of Dulles and his merry band of Wall Street and national security acolytes in proper perspective.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/13/did-allen-dulles-order-the-hit-on-jfk.html
\\][//
‘The Devil’s Chessboard’ by David Talbot review by Bill Kelly
“David Talbot’s “The Devil’s Chessboard” turns the table on the traditional journalists and historians who have uniformly portrayed Allen Dulles as the pipe smoking gentleman spy who fought for America’s righteous causes through two world wars and the Cold War and helped calm America’s anxiety in the wake of the Kennedy assassination by honorably serving on the Warren Commission.
Not so fast. By focusing on the one man at the epicenter of both World War II and the Cold War as well as the assassination – Allen Welsh Dulles, Talbot puts his finger on the pulse of power, and without promoting any conspiracy theory in regards to the assassination, he sets the stage for rational discussion and historic acceptance of such theories, for certainly one of them must be true.
Rather than the crusading knight, in retrospect we can now see Dulles for what he actually was – a shrewd lawyer who looked after the interests of his family, friends and corporate clients, a man who harnessed the secrets of the black arts of espionage and helped establish the secret intelligence state that has pretty much run things since the end of World War II.
The game of chess and the chessboard is a fitting matrix model that can help make complex issues simple or easier to understand and some of the main characters – E. Howard Hunt and David Atlee Phillips considered themselves Knights and Bishops, major players in the Great Game that Dulles played, though Dulles himself was not so much a player on the board but one of the master gamers who moved the pieces around.
From representing German industrial giants before the war and promoting a separate peace with the Nazis against the president’s stated policy to instigating coups against democratically elected governments in Guatemala and Iran, Talbot portrays Allen Dulles as a man who not only made his own foreign policy, but was often at odds with the presidents he served – Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson.
With his brother John Foster Dulles as Eisenhower’s Secretary of State and serving as head of the then relatively unknown Central Intelligence Agency, Allen Dulles was a king maker in a strategic position to design and call the plays and make the moves that made American and world history for over a decade.
Dulles’ downfall – the Bay of Pigs, was a major blunder, conceived during the Eisenhower administration and carried out shortly after Kennedy took office. While JFK approved the relocation of the invasion beach, refused to permit a second and necessary air strike, and took responsibility for the failure of the operation, he privately blamed Dulles for conceiving, approving and convincing him such a harebrained scheme would work.”~Bill Kelley
. . . . . .
This is a good read, and certainly a more fair and accurate review of the book and it’s revelations than the mundane mainstream review in my last post above. See:
http://jfkcountercoup.blogspot.com/2015/10/the-devils-chessboard-and-new-political.html
\\][//
It should be noted that no one who was close to Robert Kennedy has ever confirmed his input into the selection of the members of the Warren Commission, let alone his nomination of Allen Dulles and John J. McCloy. In addition, there is only one contemporaneous document that can be cited as in any manner supporting that assertion. The document is a Memorandum from Walter Jenkins, LBJ’s top administrative assistant who had worked for him since 1939. The brief memo is dated 11/29/63. It reports: “Abe [Fortas] has talked with Katzenbach and Katzenbach has talked to the Attorney General. They recommend a seven man commission – two Senators, two Congressmen, the Chief Justice, Allen Dulles, and a retired Military Man….” A hand written note at the bottom of the page says “orig. not sent to files.” The memo also bears the a stamp that indicates it was received by Central Files on April 20, 1965. It is unlikely that this document could ever be used as evidence on several grounds. The statement that RFK approved Dulles is, at best triple hearsay – allegedly, RFK told Katzenbach who told Fortas who told Jenkins who wrote the memo. The document also does not bear standard indicia of credibility in that, as it notes, the original was not preserved in the normal course of business, and a copy was not recorded until seventeen months after the original had been written. The memo asks LBJ to respond to three questions. I have not been able to find a copy of any response.
Interestingly enough, LBJ also met with J. Edgar Hoover on November 29, 1963, at 1:39 p.m. They discussed the composition of the Commission Johnson was considering, as Hoover reported in a memorandum:
“ He then indicated the only way to stop it is to appoint a high-level committee to evaluate my report and tell the House and Senate not to go ahead with the investigation. I stated that would be a three-ring circus.
“The President then asked what I think about Allen Dulles, and I replied that he is a good man. He then asked about John McCloy, and I stated I am not as enthusiastic about McCloy, that he is a good man but I am not so certain as to the matter of publicity he might want. The President then mentioned General (Lauris) Norstad, and I said he is a good man. He said in the House he might try (Hale) Boggs and (Gerald R.) Ford and in the Senate (Richard B.) Russell and (John Sherman) Cooper. I asked him about Cooper and he indicated Cooper of Kentucky whom he described as a judicial man, stating he would not want (Jacob K.) Javits. I agreed on this point. He then reiterated Ford of Michigan, and I indicated I know of him but do not know him and had never seen him except on television the other day and that he handled himself well on television. I indicated that I do know Boggs.”
There was no discussion here of the Attorney General nor of any recommendations he may have made. They went on to discuss other matters, including some discussion of the Attorney General, but did not discuss anything about the Attorney General and his alleged suggestions regarding the composition of the Commission.
http://realhistoryarchives.blogspot.com/2015/10/dan-hardway-rebuts-shenons-assertion.html
\\][//
McGeorge Bundy
McGeorge “Mac” Bundy (March 30, 1919 – September 16, 1996) was an American expert in foreign and defense policy, serving as United States National Security Advisor to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson from 1961 through 1966. He was president of the Ford Foundation from 1966 through 1979. He is known primarily for his role in escalating the involvement of the United States in the Vietnam War during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.
After World War II, during which Bundy served as an intelligence officer, in 1949 he was selected for the Council on Foreign Relations. He worked with a study team on implementation of the Marshall Plan: Covert CIA side to the Marshall Plan – He was appointed as a professor of government at Harvard University, and in 1953 as its youngest dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, working to develop Harvard as a merit-based university. In 1961 he joined Kennedy’s administration. After serving at the Ford Foundation, in 1979 he returned to academia as professor of history at New York University, and later as scholar in residence at the Carnegie Corporation.
During World War II Bundy served as a U.S. Army intelligence officer.
Like his father, he was inducted into the Skull and Bones secret society, where he was nicknamed “Odin”. He remained in contact with his fellow Bonesmen for decades afterward.[5] He graduated Yale in the class of 1940.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGeorge_Bundy
\\][//
“During a meeting of the National Security Council that lasted 13 days, Kennedy resisted the generals’ vehement requests for an immediate preemptive air strike against the Cuban missiles’ launch sites, an attack that would probably not destroy all missiles before they could be fired, and would amount to a declaration of war against the Soviet Union. Kennedy simply enforced “a strict quarantine on all offensive military equipment under shipment to Cuba,” and instructed his brother Robert to enter into talks with the Soviet Commander in Chief Nikita Khrushchev through his ambassador in Washington Anatoly Dobrynin.[xiv]
According to an account given by Khrushchev’s son, Robert Kennedy’s message was: “If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power. […] The situation might get out of control, with irreversible consequences. […] I don’t know how much longer we can hold out against our generals.
” Khrushchev would comment to his Foreign Affairs Minister Andri Gromyko, “We have to let Kennedy know that we want to help him… Yes, help. We now have a common cause, to save the world from those pushing us toward war.” Kennedy and Khrushchev would emerge from the crisis with a secret agreement in which Kennedy promised not to invade Cuba and to dismantle the American missiles in Turkey, in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet missiles in Cuba.[xv]
Kennedy had thus deprived the Joint Chiefs a historic opportunity to engage with communist powers.
In avoiding disaster the two Heads of State were brought closer; Khrushchev sent Kennedy a private letter in which he expressed his hope that, in the eight years of Kennedy’s presidency,“[they] could create good conditions for peaceful coexistence on earth and this would be highly appreciated by the peoples of [their] countries as well as by all other peoples.”
This was the second letter of their back-channel correspondence, which would include a total of twenty-one. The first had been written by Khrushchev during the Berlin Crisis, September 29, 1961: wrapped in newspaper and discreetly handed to Kennedy’s Press Secretary Pierre Salinger by Georgi Bolshakov, a KGB agent loyal to Khrushchev and operating under the cover of a press editor. Kennedy responded positively to Khrushchev’s proposal to bypass their respective bureaucracies “for a personal, informal but meaningful exchange of views,” that “must be kept wholly private, not be hinted at in public statements, much less disclosed to the press.”[xvi]
Through such secret dialogues, the two men worked cooperatively to avoid catastrophe. “One of the ironic things about this entire situation,” Kennedy commented to journalist Norman Cousins, “is that Mr. Khrushchev and I occupy approximately the same political positions inside our governments. He would like to prevent a nuclear war but is under severe pressure from his hard-line crowd, which interprets every move in that direction as appeasement. I’ve got similar problems.”[xvii]
Given their secret correspondence, there is little doubt that if Kennedy had lived and had been re-elected in 1964, he and Khrushchev would have normalized relations between their governments and put an end to the Cold War in the 1960s.
Kennedy’s friend Bill Walton remembers that on November 19th 1963, after signing the first treaty limiting nuclear testing, Kennedy told him that, “he intended to be the first U.S. President to visit the Kremlin, as soon as he and Khrushchev reached another arms control agreement.”[xviii]
Kennedy was killed three days later. His successor Johnson never responded to Khrushchev’s repeated pleas for exchange.”
http://www.veteransnewsnow.com/2013/11/17/230147who-killed-kennedy-cia-lbj-or-the-truly-unspeakable/
\\][//
“On numerous occasions President Kennedy told me that he was determined not to let Vietnam become an American war. He agreed to have Americans serve as advisers, and he also authorized American pilots training Vietnamese to fly T-28’s to do the actual flying — covertly — in bombing missions inside South Vietnam. But he refused every suggestion to send American combat forces.
Kennedy told several people, including Richard Nixon, that since “the American people do not want to use troops to remove a Communist regime only 90 miles away, how can I ask them to use troops to remove one 9,000 miles away?”
“All these people want me to go for a military solution in Laos,” Kennedy told Harriman, “but that is impossible. What I want you to do is find a political solution.”
When South Vietnam asked for more aid in 1961, Kennedy sent Gen. Maxwell D. Taylor and Walt W. Rostow to Vietnam to investigate. They recommended not only an increase in aid and advisers, but also 10,000 U.S. combat troops. Kennedy approved of the aid and advisers but refused to send troops. According to Roswell Gilpatric, the Deputy Secretary of Defense, even sending advisers was done reluctantly.
President Kennedy is sometimes quoted as citing the so-called domino theory that if South Vietnam fell, the rest of Southeast Asia would follow. But the quote is taken out of context. It was in answer to a question not about troops or fighting but about why Kennedy continued to send Vietnam economic and military aid.
Referring to the recommendation that Taylor and Rostow made to send troops, Taylor said: “The last thing he [ Kennedy ] wanted was to put in our ground forces. . . . I don’t recall anyone who was strongly against [ the recommendation ] , except one man and that was the President.”
In July 1962 Kennedy ordered Defense Secretary Robert McNamara to start planning for the phased withdrawal of U.S. military personnel from Vietnam, but it was not until May 1963 that the Pentagon produced a plan. Before his tragic death in an airplane crash, John McNaughton, Assistant Secretary of Defense for international affairs, said he understood President Kennedy wanted to close out Vietnam by 1965, “whether it was in good shape or bad.”
The historical record, in sum, is clear: President Kennedy was determined not to let Vietnam become an American war — that is, he was determined not to send U.S. combat troops (as opposed to advisers) to fight in Vietnam nor to bomb North Vietnam.”
Roger Hilsman~ Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs under Kennedy
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/20/opinion/l-how-kennedy-viewed-the-vietnam-conflict-892092.html?smid=tw-share
\\][//
At a January 27 [1964] Commission meeting, there was another dialogue [among Warren Commissioners]:
“John McCloy: … the time is almost overdue for us to have a better perspective of the FBI investigation than we now have … We are so dependent on them for our facts … .
Commission counsel J. Lee Rankin: Part of our difficulty in regard to it is that they have no problem. They have decided that no one else is involved … .
Senator Richard Russell: They have tried the case and reached a verdict on every aspect.
Senator Hale Boggs: You have put your finger on it. (Closed Warren Commission meeting.)”[130]
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/jfkmed/How5Investigations/How5InvestigationsGotItWrong_1b.htm
\\][//
WHY ALLEN DULLES KILLED THE KENNEDYS
By now there’s not nearly as much disagreement regarding what happened to John and Robert Kennedy as major communications corporations would have you believe. While every researcher and author highlights different details, there isn’t any serious disagreement among, say, Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable, Howard Hunt’s deathbed confession, and David Talbot’s new The Devil’s Chessboard.
Jon Schwarz says The Devil’s Chessboard confirms that “your darkest suspicions about how the world operates are likely an underestimate. Yes, there is an amorphous group of unelected corporate lawyers, bankers, and intelligence and military officials who form an American ‘deep state,’ setting real limits on the rare politicians who ever try to get out of line.”
For those of us who were already convinced of that up to our eyeballs, Talbot’s book is still one of the best I’ve seen on the Dulles brothers and one of the best I’ve seen on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Where it differs from Douglass’ book, I think, is not so much in the evidence it relates or the conclusions it draws, but in providing an additional motivation for the crime.
JFK and the Unspeakable depicts Kennedy as getting in the way of the violence that Allen Dulles and gang wished to engage in abroad. He wouldn’t fight Cuba or the Soviet Union or Vietnam or East Germany or independence movements in Africa. He wanted disarmament and peace. He was talking cooperatively with Khrushchev, as Eisenhower had tried prior to the U2-shootdown sabotage. The CIA was overthrowing governments in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Vietnam, and around the world. Kennedy was getting in the way.
The Devil’s Chessboard depicts Kennedy, in addition, as himself being the sort of leader the CIA was in the habit of overthrowing in those foreign capitals. Kennedy had made enemies of bankers and industrialists. He was working to shrink oil profits by closing tax loopholes, including the “oil depletion allowance.” He was permitting the political left in Italy to participate in power, outraging the extreme right in Italy, the U.S., and the CIA. He aggressively went after steel corporations and prevented their price hikes. This was the sort of behavior that could get you overthrown if you lived in one of those countries with a U.S. embassy in it.
Yes, Kennedy wanted to eliminate or drastically weaken and rename the CIA. Yes he threw Dulles and some of his gang out the door. Yes he refused to launch World War III over Cuba or Berlin or anything else. Yes he had the generals and warmongers against him, but he also had Wall Street against him.
Of course “politicians who ever try to get out of line” are now, as then, but more effectively now, handled first by the media. If the media can stop them or some other maneuver can stop them (character assassination, blackmail, distraction, removal from power) then violence isn’t required.
[…]
Accounts of the escapades of Allen Dulles, and the dozen or more partners in crime whose names crop up beside his decade after decade, illustrate the power of a permanent plutocracy, but also the power of particular individuals to shape it. What if Allen Dulles and Winston Churchill and others like them hadn’t worked to start the Cold War even before World War II was over? What if Dulles hadn’t collaborated with Nazis and the U.S. military hadn’t recruited and imported so many of them into its ranks? What if Dulles hadn’t worked to hide information about the holocaust while it was underway? What if Dulles hadn’t betrayed Roosevelt and Russia to make a separate U.S. peace with Germany in Italy? What if Dulles hadn’t begun sabotaging democracy in Europe immediately and empowering former Nazis in Germany? What if Dulles hadn’t turned the CIA into a secret lawless army and death squad? What if Dulles hadn’t worked to end Iran’s democracy, or Guatemala’s? What if Dulles’ CIA hadn’t developed torture, rendition, human experimentation, and murder as routine policies? What if Eisenhower had been permitted to talk with Khrushchev? What if Dulles hadn’t tried to overthrow the President of France? What if Dulles had been “checked” or “balanced” ever so slightly by the media or Congress or the courts along the way?
Reas more at:
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Why_Allen_Dulles_Killed_the_Kennedys/47286/0/38/38/Y/M.html
\\][//
McCone to Rowley: Oswald Was One of Our Boys
by Walt Brown
A document, clearly the smoking gun that Oswald was in the employee of the CIA, came to light and was widely circulated on the Internet. The question, however, remains: is it genuine?
The entire document will be typed herein, as I cannot cut and paste it and still make it readable. It is a “United States Government” Memorandum dated March 3, 1964 (stamped “Confidential” and is from “Mr. John McCone Director, Central Intelligence Agency,” to “Mr. James J. Rowley, Chief, U.S. Secret Service.”
http://www.manuscriptservice.com/DPQ/mccone.html
\\][//
DIRE CONSEQUENCES
“CE399 may seem like a “magic bullet” to the lay person, but these experts have no problem with it. Something to think about, isn’t it?”~Jean Davison — March 23, 2015 at 9:39 pm
Yes, indeed, it is something to think about. How is it that so many so-called experts would go along with that which is provably patently false, not merely to the lay person, but to anyone who actually uncovers and discovers the actual facts of this “magic bullet”. And as it is, that this preposterous tale of CE399 has been torn asunder on the pages of this blog; the question Jean Davison poses above must be seriously considered. How is it that so many simply fold under pressure and go along to get along.
This question of “Obedience to Authority” was address by Stanley Milgram in an important study published in 1974:
The Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures was a series of social psychology experiments conducted by Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram. They measured the willingness of study participants, mostly young male students from Yale, to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts conflicting with their personal conscience. Milgram first described his research in 1963 in an article published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology and later discussed his findings in greater depth in his 1974 book, Obedience to Authority: An Experimental View.
The experiments began in July 1961, in the basement of Linsly-Chittenden Hall at Yale University, three months after the start of the trial of German Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann in Jerusalem. Milgram devised his psychological study to answer the popular question at that particular time: “Could it be that Eichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were just following orders? Could we call them all accomplices?” The experiments have been repeated many times in the following years with consistent results within differing societies, although not with the same percentages around the globe. [See Wiki]
It is in considering studies such as these that give us the proximate clues to the situation faced in 1963 when a coup d’etat took place in broad daylight on the streets of Dallas, Texas. There are obviously systemic forces underlying the organized denial of truth and fact surrounding this and subsequent events. It is therefore incumbent on each and every sincere individual to come to grips with this hybrid paradigm of a blatantly obvious military police state that is the direct consequence of the 1963 Amerikan coup d’etat.
\\][//
Was Oswald an FBI Agent?
http://22november1963.org.uk/memo-was-oswald-an-fbi-agent
Executive Sessions of Warren Committee
February 27, 1964
http://www.jfklancer.com/audioconversations.html
January 22, 1964
http://www.history-matters.com/archive/jfk/wc/wcexec/wcex0122/html/WcEx0122_0001a.htm
\\][//
Oswald had a Crypto Security Clearance. He would most certainly be privy to Top Secret documents pertaining to any assignment he had.
Security Clearance Central
News and resources about the process, procedure, & implementation of issuing security clearances. Interaction between the federal government, contractors, corporations, intelligence, spy, counterintelligence, and DoD funded university research and development (R&D). Employment & Military Transistion [TAP] resources.
[…]
TS – Top Secret
Top Secret-Crypto
Top Secret-Crypto SCI / TK / G / HCS-P
Top Secret-Final / Crypto / Polygraph
http://securityclearancejobs.blogspot.com/2007/10/most-complete-list-available-for.html
\\][//
“Kennedy: Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn’t win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves.”~Robert Kennedy
This was the whole point of NSAM 263, that the Vietnamese had to fight the war themselves. That JFK was not willing to do what Johnson did.
As far as bullying goes Jean, I have never called Bill Clarke a liar. Herein, he calls not only me but other distinguished researchers and historians liars. People with far more expertise in military history and documentation than Clarke will ever be.
Clarke clamors on with this cheesy steer manure about “Camelot Shiners” – when he obviously hasn’t absorbed who Kennedy actually was, how as early as his 1957 speech before the Senate he came out against imperialism. Anyone who hasn’t read Kennedy in his own words, defining his own principles, cannot see the implications that give context to what Kennedy would do in Vietnam.
He never would have sent ground troops in, and he was determined to find a diplomatic solution to the situation in South East Asia.
It was those who came to realize that Kennedy would likely be successful in such a venture, that cast their lots for a coup d’etat.
NSAM 263 clearly provides for the plan to withdraw all personnel from Vietnam by 1965.
It was contingent on a diplomatic solution that Kennedy was clearly on course toward, and only failed because it was thwarted by the guns of Dallas.
\\][//
National Security Action Memorandum No. 263
Washington, October 11, 1963.
TO
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
SUBJECT
South Vietnam
At a meeting on October 5, 1963 the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved an instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.
McGeorge Bundy
NSAM 263, note that this memo refers to; recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor Report. These are:
B. Recommendations.
We recommend that:
1. General Harkins review with Diem the military changes necessary to complete the military campaign in the Northern and Central areas (I, II, and III Corps) by the end of 1964, and in the Delta (IV Corps) by the end of 1965. This review would consider the need for such changes as:
a. A further shift of military emphasis and strength to the Delta (IV Corps).
b. An increase in the military tempo in all corps areas, so that all combat troops are in the field an average of 20 days out of 30 and static missions are ended.
c. Emphasis on “clear and hold operations” instead of terrain sweeps which have little permanent value.
d. The expansion of personnel in combat units to full authorized strength.
e. The training and arming of hamlet militia to an accelerated rate, especially in the Delta.
f. A consolidation of the strategic hamlet program, especially in the Delta, and action to insure that future strategic hamlets are not built until they can be protected, and until civic action programs can be introduced.
===============================
Note that all of these are referring to South Vietnamese troops, not American troops; “Delta IV Corps”, and Vietnamese militias.
===============================
2. A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese by the end of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that time.
3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.
\\][//
“You can interpret it anyway you wish, Willy. What you cannot do is lie about what the written words of NSAM 263 say.”~Bill Clarke
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Arguments made from sincerity and sound reasoning towards the facts and data at hand, that show the context you put that data in, is more persuasive than someone simply insisting that their opinion is right; simply because the data is what it is and their interpretation is correct.
Data does not become fact until placed in context. All words and combinations thereof are judged by subjective interpretation, whether the subject interpreting such data is aware of that or not.
As long as the accuracy of the data is firmly established, it is the context that the data is put into that is of the essence.
\\][//
National Security Action Memorandum No. 263
Washington, October 11, 1963.
TO
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
SUBJECT
South Vietnam
At a meeting on October 5, 1963 the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved an instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.
McGeorge Bundy
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FRUSno194.html
Section I B (1-3) Recommendations:
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/FRUSno167.html
\\][//
Maybe Bill Clark and Jean Davison missed this:
B.1 Recommendations cited in NSAM 263 :
3. In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near future presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without impairment of the war effort.
. . . . .
Now to address the narrow and pinched version of history that these two commentators hold.
For anyone to say that they have seen no evidence that Kennedy was seeking a diplomatic solution reveals their total misconception of history, and John F Kennedy.
Kennedy was seeking a diplomatic solution, not just for Vietnam, and South East Asia. Not just for relationships with Cuba. Kennedy was seeking a diplomatic solution to the Cold War, to the whole confrontation between the West and the East.
Anyone who doesn’t see evidence for this is being disingenuous, or has no concept of who John Kennedy was, or his goals to pursue and establish meaningful and lasting peace for the world.
\\][//
Ted Sorensen: “JFK Wouldn’t Have Sent Combat Troops to Vietnam” — May 17, 2010 at the Commonwealth Club of San Francisco, CA.
\\][//
A personal letter President John Kennedy sent to Bobbie Lou Pendergrass, the sister of Specialist James Delmas McAndrews, one of the forty-five Americans reported as having died while serving in Vietnam up to March 1963:
“I have written to you at length because I know that it is important to you to understand why we are in Vietnam. James McAndrews must have foreseen that his service could have taken him into a war like this; a war in which he took part not as a combatant but as an advisor. I am sure that he understood the necessity of the situation, and I know that as a soldier he knew full scale war in Viet Nam is at the moment unthinkable. “ – John F. Kennedy, President, March 6, 1963.
\\][//
Ted Sorensen makes exactly the same case as I an others have made in that John Kennedy would never have sent ground troops to Vietnam.
It is disingenuous to use ONE quote from Sorensen to attempt to disregard his complete take on JFK, as he outlines in his talk at the Commonwealth club.
It is the same disingenuous attitude that denies that NSAM 263 states clearly and unambiguously that US advisers and other personnel were to be withdrawn from Vietnam by 1965 as stated in the B1 addendum to that memo.
Not only Sorensen, but many others including JFK himself, made it perfectly clear that he was not willing to involve the US in a full scale war in Vietnam.
So it is not up to future historians to figure out the truth about the war in Vietnam, or the assassination of Kennedy, it is up to current historians to face the truths of these matters and write an honest history of our times while we are yet still here to testify. This opposed to the biased bullshit produced by an anemic academia under the delusions spawned by indoctrination.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/jfk-lancer-conference-opens-today/#comment-831123
\\][//
I have busted Jean Davison here; of course she will come up with some lame excuse, but I think anyone with a lick of sense can tell she has been disingenuous, and this time outright deceitful:
Willy Whitten — November 23, 2015 at 6:03 pm
“That only makes it easy for the Communists. I think we should stay….”~JFK as quoted by Jean Davison.
Why does Ms Davison always stop at the word “stay” and trail off with dots …. ?
I think it’s obvious if one reads the sentence that follows:
“That only makes it easy for the Communists. I think we should stay. We should use our influence in as effective a way as we can, but we should not withdraw.”~JFK
Kennedy wasn’t talking directly about staying militarily. He was talking about “influence”.
This gives the whole thing a different context. Kennedy in speaking to “influence” is speaking to the concept of “winning hearts and minds”. No one is going to win hearts and minds of a country that you are blowing to shreds.
I contend that Ms Davison realized this, and that is why she purposely and consistently failed to quote the entire passage, because it changes the entire context of what she wanted to convey.
Transcript:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=9397
\\][//
Exit Strategy
In 1963, JFK ordered a complete withdrawal from Vietnam
James K. Galbraith
>> Forty years have passed since November 22, 1963, yet painful mysteries remain. What, at the moment of his death, was John F. Kennedy’s policy toward Vietnam?
It’s one of the big questions, alternately evaded and disputed over four decades of historical writing. It bears on Kennedy’s reputation, of course, though not in an unambiguous way.
And today, larger issues are at stake as the United States faces another indefinite military commitment that might have been avoided and that, perhaps, also cannot be won. The story of Vietnam in 1963 illustrates for us the struggle with policy failure. More deeply, appreciating those distant events tests our capacity as a country to look the reality of our own history in the eye.
[…]
http://new.bostonreview.net/BR28.5/galbraith.html
\\][//
Diem and his brother were as corrupt as hell. That which is characterized as a “brutal Communist attack” was for the most part the Vietnamese people themselves defending their country from aggressors from half way around the globe. The Vietnamese people wanted to be free to chose their own destiny. They had suffered under French colonialism for more than 6 decades, then Japan ruled the area during WWII. Ho Chi Minh began his revolt against the Japanese in 1941. 1945 they declared Vietnamese independence and extended the war, known as the First Indochina War, against France. The Vietnamese finally defeated the French at the Battle of Dien Bien Phuin 1954. Then defying the Geneva Accords ending the French Indochina war, the US stepped in after France left.
Kennedy was the first US president to oppose Amerikan imperialism, and wanted to seek a diplomatic solution to the strife in Indochina, as well as a political solution to the Cold War overall. He was in secret negotiations with Khrushchev to end the madness before a nuclear holocaust destroyed the planet.
That is why the military industrial complex of the US killed Kennedy in a brutal coup d’etat in Dallas, Texas in November of 1963. The Soviet military complex got rid of Khrushchev by political machinations a couple years later, putting him under house arrest until he died.
\\][//
“There are no coincidences, Delia. Only the illusion of coincidence.”~V
\\][//
BOSTON–The John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum announced today that it has declassified and made available for research presidential recordings of four meetings between President Kennedy and his highest level Vietnam advisors during the days after the highly controversial “Cable 243” was sent. The cable, which was dispatched on August 24, 1963 when President Kennedy and three of his top officials were away from Washington, set a course for the eventual coup in Vietnam on November 1, 1963, leading to the overthrow of President Ngo Dinh Diem and his assassination the following day on November 2, 1963 – 46 years ago this week.
The tapes offer unprecedented insight into President Kennedy’s thoughts on the unfolding conflict in Vietnam and reveal his reservations about U.S. support for a military coup in South Vietnam. During a meeting on August 28, President Kennedy states:
“I don’t think we’re in that deep. I am not sure the [Vietnamese] Generals are – they’ve been probably bellyaching for months. So I don’t know whether they’re – how many of them are really up to here. I don’t see any reason to go ahead unless we think we have a good chance of success.”
President Kennedy: “I don’t think we ought to let the coup…maybe they know about it, maybe the Generals are going to have to run out of the country, maybe we’re going to have to help them get out. But still it’s not a good enough reason to go ahead if we don’t think the prospects are good enough. I don’t think we’re in that deep. I am not sure the Generals are – they’ve been probably bellyaching for months. So I don’t know whether they’re – how many of them are really up to here. I don’t see any reason to go ahead unless we think we have a good chance of success.”
http://www.jfklibrary.org/About-Us/News-and-Press/Press-Releases/White-House-Recordings-of-President-Kennedy-Debating-Vietnam-Coup-Released-by-JFK-Presidential-Libra.aspx
JFK Speaks of Diem Coup – Whitehouse Tapes
\\][//
Excerpt from:
“The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA and the Rise of America’s Secret Government”
At the secret Miami meeting, Morales told Hunt that he had been recruited for an “off-the-board” operation by Bill Harvey, with whom El Indio had worked closely on the ZR/Rifle project to kill Castro. The aim of this “off-the-board” operation, it soon became clear, was to assassinate President Kennedy. Morales and Sturgis referred to the president’s planned demise as “the big event.”
Bill Harvey
In his account of the meeting, Hunt presented Harvey and Morales as the key operational figures in the plot; Harvey did not attend the meeting but seemed to loom over it. Hunt suggested that Harvey was in charge of hiring the sharpshooters to kill Kennedy and transporting the weapons to Dallas. According to Hunt, the gunmen were likely recruited from the Corsican underworld. As Harvey once indicated, when it came to highly delicate assignments, working with Corsican gangsters was preferable because they were harder to trace back to the CIA than Italian or American Mafia hit men.
Hunt found Harvey and Morales to be disturbing characters. The two men “could have been manufactured from the same cloth,” Hunt wrote in his memoir. “Both were hard-drinking, tough guys, possibly completely amoral. Morales was rumored to be a cold-blooded killer, the go-to guy in black ops situations where the government needed to have someone neutralized. I tried to cut short any contact with him, as he wore thin very quickly.”
To Morales, Kennedy was “that no good son of a bitch motherfucker” who was responsible for the deaths of the men he had trained for the Bay of Pigs mission. “We took care of that son of a bitch, didn’t we?” Morales told his attorney, Robert Walton, in 1973, after an evening of drinking loosened the CIA hit man’s tongue. It was one more confession that the media ignored, even after it was reported by one of their own, Gaeton Fonzi, a Philadelphia investigative journalist who, after going to work for the House Select Committee on Assassinations, unearthed some of the most important information related to the Kennedy case.
[…]
http://www.salon.com/2015/11/22/inside_the_plot_to_kill_jfk_the_secret_story_of_the_cia_and_what_really_happened_in_dallas/
\\][//
HOW HITLER’S ‘BIG LIE’ LED TO 9/11 AND THE WAR ON TERROR: SHURE’S PART 19
by Barrie Zwicker
https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2015/11/23/how-hitlers-big-lie-led-to-911/
\\][//
The CIA, Mafia, Mexico — and Oswald, Part 2
By Peter Dale Scott
This is a complex story, as fascinating as it is appalling. It is about how the CIA and FBI suppressed a major clue to the existence of a pre-JFK-assassination conspiracy. And about how alleged evidence of Lee Harvey Oswald in Mexico was manipulated and altered by elements in the CIA and their Mexican clients, the Dirección Federal de Seguridad (DFS).
http://whowhatwhy.us9.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a9c27247b8a9046ea939df8ca&id=2419e6f5aa&e=e1773ea8d3
“… one of the important sources of covert agencies’ power is their ability to falsify their own records, without fear of outside correction. Does this ability to rewrite their own history empower them to affect, if not control, the history of the rest of society?”
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/11/22/the-cia-mafia-mexico-and-oswald-part-1/
Washington, DC; a snake pit of vipers.
\\][//
“Deep history differs from history in two respects. First, it is an account of suppressed events, at odds with the publicly accepted history of this country. (One might say that history is the record of politics; deep history, the record of deep politics.) Second, deep history is often restored from records which were themselves once repressed. In short, deep history is a reconstructed account of events denied by the public records from which history is normally composed.
[..]
A brief but important digression here about history. Most people assume that “history” simply refers to what has happened but is now gone. In fact the dictionary reminds us that the first meaning of the word (cognate to the word “story”) is to a narrative or record of events, and only after that to “the events forming the subject matter of history.”[4] What of events whose records are destroyed or falsified? These dictionary definitions seem to assume that what is true is also what is recorded.
There is thus a latent bias in the evolution of the word “history” that is related to the structuralist, rationalist assumptions referred to in my first paragraph. History (or at least what I like to call archival history) has always been the way a culture chooses to record and remember itself; and it tends to treat official records with a respect they do not always deserve.”~Peter Dale Scott
\\][//
The Vietnam War (Vietnamese: Chiến tranh Việt Nam), also known as the Second Indochina War,[39] and also known in Vietnam as Resistance War Against America (Vietnamese: Kháng chiến chống Mỹ) or simply the American War, was a Cold War-era proxy war[40] that occurred in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia from 1 November 1955[A 1] to the fall of Saigon on 30 April 1975. This war followed the First Indochina War (1946–54) and was fought between North Vietnam—supported by the Soviet Union, China and other communist allies—and the government of South Vietnam—supported by the United States, Philippines and other anti-communist allies.[45] The Viet Cong (also known as the National Liberation Front, or NLF), a South Vietnamese communist common front aided by the North, fought a guerrilla war against anti-communist forces in the region. The People’s Army of Vietnam, also known as the North Vietnamese Army (NVA), engaged in a more conventional war, at times committing large units to battle.
[…]
In December 1960, the National Liberation Front (NLF, a.k.a. the Viet Cong) was formally created with the intent of uniting all anti-GVN activists, including non-communists. According to the Pentagon Papers, the Viet Cong “placed heavy emphasis on the withdrawal of American advisors and influence, on land reform and liberalization of the GVN, on coalition government and the neutralization of Vietnam.” Often the leaders of the organization were kept secret.[44]
The reason for the continued survival of the NLF was the class relations in the countryside. The vast majority of the population lived in villages in the countryside where the key issue was land reform. The Viet Minh had reduced rents and debts; and had leased communal lands, mostly to the poorer peasants. Diem brought the landlords back to the villages. People who were farming land they held for years now had to return it to landlords and pay years of back rent. This rent collection was enforced by the South Vietnamese army. The divisions within villages reproduced those that had existed against the French: “75 percent support for the NLF, 20 percent trying to remain neutral and 5 percent firmly pro-government,”[139]
North Vietnamese involvement
Sources disagree on whether North Vietnam played a direct role in aiding and organizing South Vietnamese rebels prior to 1960. Kahin and Lewis assert:
Contrary to United States policy assumptions, all available evidence shows that the revival of the civil war in the South in 1958 was undertaken by Southerners at their own—not Hanoi’s—initiative…Insurgency activity against the Saigon government began in the South under Southern leadership not as a consequence of any dictate from Hanoi, but contrary to Hanoi’s injunctions.[44]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War
\\][//
“Roger Hilsman, 1992 – How Kennedy Viewed the Vietnam Conflict:
“The theme of the Oliver Stone film “J.F.K.” is that President John F. Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam…as Kennedy’s Assistant Secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs, the officer responsible for Vietnam, I can testify that the first point is essentially true and correct.
On numerous occasions President Kennedy told me that he was determined not to let Vietnam become an American war. He agreed to have Americans serve as advisers, and he also authorized American pilots training Vietnamese to fly T-28’s to do the actual flying — covertly — in bombing missions inside South Vietnam. But he refused every suggestion to send American combat forces.”~Roger Hilsman
http://nyti.ms/1yWDz2f
\\][//
Who killed John F. Kennedy? The Mystery of the Constant Flow of JFK Disinformation
By Russ Baker and Milicent Cranor
Global Research, November 24, 2015
Who What Why 24 November 2015
For more than half a century, the combined American thought establishment (media, publishing, film, academia, and the like) have been cranking out a steady stream of books, articles, films, plays and more that present a completely false picture of what the assassination of John F. Kennedy was about — including who was behind it, and why.
No mention of the tremendous animus massed against John and Robert Kennedy from every quarter, including but hardly limited to Wall Street, the oil industry, the steel industry, the armaments industry, big publishers, the Pentagon, the CIA, the Mob, the John Birchers. They all hated John and Robert Kennedy and wanted them out. They said it to each other, and virtually spat it in the brothers’ faces. Ruthless men, men who found violence a necessary tool of success.
Yet, who killed John F. Kennedy? We are told that it was one angry, unstable man. Forget that the evidence — massively documented in hundreds of books, government papers and more — is that Oswald was nothing like the way he was portrayed, but instead, a focused, deliberate individual with a history that almost certainly involved participation with American intelligence.
One can debate that forever, though the assembled evidence is that it was not Oswald at all who wanted Kennedy dead, not Oswald who shot him. More important, however, is the evidence, everywhere, of a coverup — from hanky-panky in the autopsy room to a shockingly premature termination of any efforts to seriously investigate. Was the coverup itself not proof of more going on? Of course it was.
***
If this were Stalinist Russia or 1984, we could understand who was behind this giant hoax perpetrated against the people. But this is the Land of the Free. How is it that a Big Lie of such magnitude could roll along, unflinchingly, after half a century? Yet, let’s consider the tremendous output of this well-oiled machine, and ask ourselves: How does this work?
***
Let’s take a look at one of Myers’s tricks to solve a major problem with the single bullet theory — the problem of the vertical path of the bullet: It is supposed to have gone through JFK’s back, out his throat, into Governor Connally’s back, out the front of his chest, through his wrist, and into part of his thigh.
The problem starts with the location of the back wound. Because the entrance in the back is too low compared with the alleged exit in the throat, the bullet would have to travel upward, and would therefore not be able to finish the journey through Connally. Not a problem for Myers:
One Picture Is Worth a Thousand Words:
Myers turns Kennedy into a hunchback — effectively raising the back wound up, and the throat wound down. But this is how Kennedy actually looked, just seconds before the shooting began:
And now, please compare Myers’s distorted image with reality:
LEFT: Dale Myers’s portrayal of Kennedy’s posture. RIGHT: reality (a frame from a film taken by Bob Towner). The nearly horizontal white line going across the photo of Kennedy on the right is the top of the limousine window. By coincidence, it seems to follow the hypothetical path from the wound in Kennedy’s back to the wound in his throat.
In Myers’s grotesque rendition, Kennedy’s head is thrust forward, out from the hump on his back, like a turtle. The back of his jacket stands out like a shelf. Much of his throat area is in shadow, but if you look closely, you will see that the distance from chin to collar is about twice as great as it is in reality.This, in effect, lowers the throat wound. (Note: Years ago, these juxtaposed images and observations were originally posted on the CTKA website by WhoWhatWhy senior editor, Milicent Cranor.)
The above is just one example of many that appeared in the Peter Jennings special. It was a misleading come-on, because if we went “Beyond Conspiracy” ABC News style, we ended up right back where we started, with the government version — thanks to Dale Myers
http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-killed-john-f-kennedy-the-mystery-of-the-constant-flow-of-jfk-disinformation/5491216
\\][//
THE DEATH OF JFK: PHYSICAL EVIDENCE OF CONSPIRACY
Michael T. Griffith
What follows is a review of some of the physical evidence of conspiracy in the JFK assassination. Many supporters of the Warren Commission’s lone-gunman theory claim “all the physical evidence supports the single-assassin scenario.” This is simply incorrect.
What would constitute evidence of conspiracy?
1. Any evidence of shots from locations other than the southeast sixth-floor window of the Texas School Book Depository Building would be evidence of conspiracy. The lone-gunman theory says Oswald fired all the shots from that window.
2. Any evidence that refutes the single-bullet theory would constitute proof of conspiracy, since there can be no lone-gunman scenario without the single-bullet theory. The single-bullet theory says that a single bullet, supposedly Commission Exhibit (CE) 399, caused all the non-fatal wounds to Kennedy and Connally, that it pierced through both men, smashing and shattering bone en route, and yet emerged with no damage to its nose, with its lands and grooves intact, with all or virtually all of its mass remaining, and with only some deformation to its base. If this theory is wrong, then Kennedy and Connally were hit by separate bullets, which would mean at least four shots were fired and that two gunmen were involved. What else would constitute evidence of conspiracy? What follows is only a partial list, but here are some other things that would constitute evidence of conspiracy:
3. Evidence that more than one man was in the sixth-floor sniper’s nest.
4. Evidence that more than three shots were fired, since the lone-gunman theory allows for only three shots.
5. Evidence that Kennedy was struck by ammunition different than the kind of ammunition Oswald supposedly used.
With this understood, let us now examine some of the physical evidence that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy.
Kennedy’s Shirt, Coat, and Tie
There is a hole on the back of the coat and a corresponding hole on the back of the shirt. The hole in the back of the coat is 5.375 inches below the top of the collar. The hole in the back of the shirt is 5.75 inches below the top of the collar. These holes show the back wound was too low for the single-bullet theory. As mentioned, if the single-bullet theory is false, there can be no lone-gunman scenario. To explain the location of these holes, Warren Commission apologists can only theorize that both the coat and the shirt were bunched at the same time, and not just bunched simultaneously, but bunched in nearly perfect, millimeter-for-millimeter correspondence with each other, even though Kennedy wore a tailor-made shirt and was sitting with much of his back against the seat, thus pressing the shirt down and holding it in place. The location of the holes in the coat and shirt corresponds to the location for the back wound that’s recorded in the death certificate and that’s shown in the autopsy face sheet. It also corresponds to where several witnesses said the wound was located.
There are slits in the front of Kennedy’s shirt, just below the collar band. According to the single-bullet theory, CE 399, sometimes referred to as the “magic bullet,” made these slits when it allegedly exited the president’s throat. But testimony from Dr. Charles Carrico, one of the doctors who treated the president at Parkland Hospital in Dallas, suggests the slits were made by the nurses as they cut away Kennedy’s clothing. When former Senate investigator Harold Weisberg examined high-quality photos of the shirt at the National Archives, he found evidence that confirmed the conclusion that the slits were made by the emergency room nurses–he could see the zigzag mark of a cutting blade on the left side of the slits:
The dead giveaway of the fabrication that this is where the magical bullet must have exited, according to the official story, is the nonmagical, mute evidence of the slit on the left side. The irregular, zigzag mark of a cutting blade is visible with an engraver’s lens no more powerful than the 10-power miniature I carry. (Weisberg, Post Mortem, Frederick, Maryland, 1975, p. 347, emphasis added)
http://www.assassinationresearch.com/v1n2/physical.html
\\][//
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”~JFK
\\][//
Anyone risking the voyage to Von Pein’s site will discover it is certainly no pellucidar, but in fact an island shrouded in deep fog, a land of smoke and mirrors, governed by an evil necromancer casting electronic spells of voodoo curses. Here thar be dragons!
Taking into account the ‘Cognitive Infiltration’ schemata of Sunstein, it is not in anyway unreasonable to suggest that such cognitive infiltration agents might attend and attempt to misdirect the proceedings of this blog.
\\][//
The Framing of Oswald inside the Theater
[…]
“When Carroll testified before the Warren Commission on April 3, 1964, he confirmed that he placed “Oswald’s” gun into his belt prior to leaving the theater. Carroll told Counsel Joseph Ball; “I saw a pistol pointing at me so I reached and grabbed the pistol and jerked the pistol away and stuck it in my belt, and then I grabbed Oswald” (WC Volume VII, page 20). Further on during his testimony, Carroll claimed that “After I took the pistol, I stuck it in my belt immediately” (ibid, page 22). When Carroll was called back to testify on April 9, 1964, he stated that “The first time I saw [WCE 143], it was pointed in my direction, and I reached and grabbed it and stuck it into my belt… At the time, I was assisting in the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald” (ibid, page 24). Carroll then stated that he “…jumped and grabbed the gun… [then] Stuck it in my belt,” and that after leaving the Theater he “…released the pistol to Sgt. Jerry Hill” (ibid, pages 24 and 25).
Given what Carroll wrote in his report and what he stated during his testimony, the gun he was photographed holding outside the Theater was not “Oswald’s” revolver (the photograph can be viewed here). When one closely examines the photograph showing Carroll holding onto the gun, it is apparent that the barrel of the gun Carroll was holding onto was longer than the barrel of “Oswald’s” gun (this writer returns to the issue of whose gun Carroll was holding further on in this essay). In the meantime, let’s consider all of the evidence which contradicts the notion that Carroll had possession of Oswald’s revolver inside the Theater. In his December 2, 1963, report to Chief Curry concerning Oswald’s arrest, Officer Ray Hawkins wrote the following; “[Oswald] had reached in his belt for a gun, and Officer McDonald was holding his right hand with the gun in it. Officer [Thomas Alexander] Hutson had entered the row behind [Oswald], and grabbed him around the neck and held him up. Sergeant G.L. Hill then took the gun” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 18).
As the reader can see, Hawkins claimed that it was Hill who took the gun. When Hawkins testified before the Warren Commission on April 3, 1964, he explained why he thought this was the case. According to Hawkins; “…Oswald and McDonald had both fallen down into the seat, and very shortly after I got [to where they were], a gun was pulled, came out of Oswald’s belt and was pulled across to their right, or toward the south aisle of the theatre. Officer McDonald grabbed the pistol, and the best I can remember, Sergeant Hill, who had gotten there, said, ‘I’ve got the gun,’ and he took the gun and we handcuffed Oswald” (WC Volume VII, page 94). Hawkins then went on to explain that “… [Oswald and McDonald] had gotten back into the seat and Officer Hutson had grabbed Oswald from behind and Officer [Charles] Walker had him by the left arm and the gun went across and McDonald had grabbed him by the right hand and Sergeant Hill grabbed the gun and at this time I handcuffed his left hand” (ibid).
Bob Carroll testified before the Warren Commission prior to Hawkins on the very same morning. After apparently realising that Hawkins’ testimony contradicted his; in so far as Carroll grabbing the gun was concerned, counsel asked Hawkins if Carroll was involved in the scuffle with Oswald. Hawkins response was; “Well, I’m sure Bob was in there. I couldn’t say where he was exactly or – I do remember Sergeant Hill being there, and I believe he said, ‘I’ve got the gun.’ I think I read an account of where Bob Carroll may have had the gun, but I was under the impression it was Sergeant Hill. I’m sure Bob was there, but I don’t know exactly – It was all happening pretty fast” (ibid). It should be apparent to the reader that Hawkins seemed adamant that it was Hill who had grabbed “Oswald’s” gun after he allegedly pulled it out of his belt. Let’s now look at the evidence which supports Hawkins’ belief.
In his report to Chief Curry, Carroll wrote that “We put Oswald into [the car] and drove directly to the City Hall. While en route to the City Hall, I released the pistol to Sgt. Jerry Hill” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 12). During his initial testimony before the Warren Commission, Carroll reiterated that he had handed “Oswald’s” gun to Hill after the car had left the front of the Theatre; “…after we got into the car and pulled out from the theatre over there, I gave [the gun] to Jerry Hill, Sgt. Jerry Hill” (WC Volume VII, page 22). When Carroll was called back to testify before the Warren Commission on April 9, 1964, counsel David Belin asked him whether he had given the gun to Hill before or after he had started the car. Carroll stated that it was after (ibid, page 25). When Belin asked Carroll how far he had driven the car prior to giving the gun to Hill, Carroll replied “I don’t recall exactly how far I had driven,” thus indirectly confirming that he had given the gun to Hill after the car had pulled away from the Theater (ibid).
On December 5, 1963, Hill wrote his own report to Chief Curry concerning Oswald’s arrest. In his report, Hill claimed that “As Officer [Bob] Carroll started to get into the car, he pulled [out] a snub-nosed revolver from his belt and handed it to me” (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 2, Folder 7, Item 23). Hill testified before the Warren Commission on April 8, 1964. During his testimony, Hill stated that “As [Carroll] started to get in the car, he handed me a pistol, which he identified as the one that had been taken from the suspect in the theatre” (WC Volume VII, page 54). Hill then remarked that “[Carroll] apparently had [the gun] in his belt, and as he started to sit down, he handed it to me. I was already in the car and seated” (ibid). After counsel David Belin asked Hill what transpired inside the car after Carroll had allegedly given “Oswald’s” gun to him, Hill stated “We mostly got the car in motion…” after which he explained to Belin the route which Carroll took after pulling out from in front of the Theater (ibid, page 56).
As the reader can see, Bob Carroll insisted that he had given the gun to Hill after he had driven the car away from the front of the Theater. Hill, on the other hand, insisted that Carroll had given the gun to him before the car pulled away from the Theater, and as Carroll started to get into the car. It should be obvious to the reader that the recollections of both men cannot be correct. Hill also told the Warren Commission that as Carroll handed him the gun, he asked Carroll if the gun belonged to him (ibid, page 54). But this is absurd, for what possible reason would Hill have for believing that Carroll would pull out his own gun from his belt and hand it over to him following Oswald’s arrest? It is also worth bearing in mind that in his memorandum to DPD Captain W.P. Gannaway on the day of the assassination, Carroll wrote that after he grabbed the gun he “…kept in my possession until I later released it to Jerry Hill,” and made no mention of giving it to him inside the car (Dallas Municipal archives, Box 4, Folder 2, Item 52). .”
http://www.ctka.net/2014/hill.html
\\][//
Looking at the Tippit Case from a Different Angle
by Staffan H Westerberg and Pete Engwall
http://assassinationofjfk.net/looking-at-the-tippit-case-from-a-different-angle/
Helen Markham interviewed by Joseph A. Ball for the Warren Commission (26th March, 1964)
Joseph A. Ball: Did anybody tell you that the man you were looking for would be in a certain position in the lineup, or anything like that?
Helen Markham: No, sir.
Joseph A. Ball: Now when you went into the room you looked these people over, these four men?
Helen Markham: Yes, sir.
Joseph A. Ball: Did you recognize anyone in the lineup?
Helen Markham: No, sir.
Joseph A. Ball: You did not? Did you see anybody – I have asked you that question before did you recognize anybody from their face?
Helen Markham: From their face, no.
Joseph A. Ball: Did you identify anybody in these four people?
Helen Markham: I didn’t know nobody.
Joseph A. Ball: I know you didn’t know anybody, but did anybody in that lineup look like anybody you had seen before?
Helen Markham: No. I had never seen none of them, none of these men.
Joseph A. Ball: No one of the four?
Helen Markham: No one of them.
Joseph A. Ball: No one of all four?
Helen Markham: No, sir.
Joseph A. Ball: Was there a number two man in there?
//spartacus-educational.com/JFKStippet.htm
\\][//
On 22nd November, 1963, Markham was in the Oak Cliff area when she saw Officer J. D. Tippit killed. She later described the killer as being short and somewhat on the heavy side, with slightly bushy hair.” Later, Markham identified Lee Harvey Oswald in a police lineup, but this was after she had seen his photograph on television.
Although considered the star witness, her testimony was full of mistakes. She said he was alive when the ambulance arrived, but the other witnesses say he died immediately. She also falsely claimed that for the first twenty minutes she was the only person to attend the body. Once again, the other witnesses disagreed with her.
Her testimony before the Commission was obviously scripted in advance. But she would not stay on script which greatly frustrated her interrogator, Joseph A. Ball, who had to lead her mercilessly to finally say that she recognized Oswald in the line-up. Reading the transcript of this interrogation makes this crystal clear.
See above.
\\][//
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”~George Orwell
http://www.highexistence.com/george-orwell-on-the-7-ways-politicians-abuse-language-to-deceive-you-and-how-to-make-it-stop/
“…If there’s any question as to what it’s an allegory for I will tell you.
It is the powers that be in the United States of America.
It’s profiteers.
War is for profit. It’s not “to save the world for democracy” or “for king and country.”
No, bullsh*t.
It’s for the profit of the top 10%, and the young people who see this film, must recognize that for the future “blind faith in their leaders,” as Bruce Springsteen said, “will get you dead.”~Donald Sutherland – November 2015
\\][//
The first telephone conversation between LBJ and J. Edgar Hoover took place at 10.01 on 23rd November, 1963.
(1) J. Edgar Hoover: “I just wanted to let you know of a development which I think is very important in connection with this case – this man in Dallas (Lee Harvey Oswald). We, of course, charged him with the murder of the President. The evidence that they have at the present time is not very, very strong. We have just discovered the place where the gun was purchased and the shipment of the gun from Chicago to Dallas, to a post office box in Dallas, to a man – no, to a woman by the name of “A. Hidell.”… We had it flown up last night, and our laboratory here is making an examination of it.”
* * * * * * *
The third recorded telephone conversation takes place at 1.40 pm on 29th November. This time it is a long and detailed conversation.
(1) Lyndon B. Johnson: Are you familiar with this proposed group that they’re trying to put together on this study of your report and other things – two from the House, two from the Senate, somebody from the Court, a couple of outsiders?
(2) J. Edgar Hoover: No, I haven’t heard of that. … I think it would be very, very bad to have a rash of investigations on this thing.
(3) Lyndon B. Johnson: Well, the only way we can stop them is probably to appoint a high-level one to evaluate your report and put somebody that’s pretty good on it that I can select… and tell the House and the Senate not to go ahead… because they’ll get a lot of television going and I thought it would be bad.
(4) J. Edgar Hoover: It would be a three-ring circus.
(5) Lyndon B. Johnson: What do you think about Alien Dulles?
(6) J. Edgar Hoover: I think he would be a good man.
* * * * * * *
(30) J. Edgar Hoover: There was a story that this fellow had been in this nightclub that is a striptease joint, that he had. But that has not been able to be confirmed. Now this fellow Rubenstein is a very shady character, has a bad record-street brawler tighter, and that sort of thing-and in the place in Dallas, if a fellow came in there and couldn t pay his bill completely, Rubenstein would beat the very devil out of him and throw him out of the place… He didn’t drink, didn’t smoke boasted about that. He is what I would put in a category of one of these – egomaniacs. Likes to be in the limelight. He knew all the police in that white-light district… and he also let them come in, see the show, get food, liquor, and so forth. That s how, I think, he got into police headquarters. Because they accepted him as kind of a police character, hanging around police headquarters They never made any moves, as the pictures show, even when they saw him approaching this fellow and got up right to him and pressed his pistol against Oswald s stomach. Neither of the police officers on either side made any move to push him away or grab him. It wasn’t until after the gun was fired that they then moved…. The Chief of Police admits that he moved him in the morning as a convenience and at the request of morion-picture people, who wanted to have daylight. He should have moved him at night… But so far as tying Rubenstein and Oswald together we haven’t as yet done. So there have been a number of stories come in, we’ve tied Oswald into the Civil Liberties Union in New York, membership into that and, of course, this Cuban Fair Play Committee which is pro-Castro and dominated by Communism and financed, to some extent, by the Castro government.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1909
\\][//
It is very obvious from the telephone conversations between J Edgar Hoover and LBJ, that they both knew that Oswald was not the assassin, that it was Hoover and Johnson who decided on a Blue Ribbon Commission, and who were to be members of that commission – all to keep an open hearing in the Senate from taking place, “with TV cameras and all that…”
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1909
Johnson is the one who suggests Alan Dulles – first name out of his mouth. So any of this bullshit about Bobby Kennedy suggesting Dulles is obviously a tale made up out of whole cloth
\\][//
As usual, Photon offers no sources, no actual evidence, just opinion. An assertion made without evidence may be dismissed without evidence.
But re Burkley, let’s all flip to page 49 of Henry Hurt’s “Reasonable Doubt.” (NY: Henry Holt, 1985):
“In 1982 Dr. Burkley told the author in a telephone conversation that he believed that President Kennedy’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy…”
In a footnote on the bottom of page 49, Henry Hurt added:
“*When he originally telephoned the author Dr. Burkley expressed his willingness to discuss various matters concerning the assassination. He asked for a letter detailing the areas the author wished to discuss. Dr. Burkley acknowledged receipt of the letter with a letter of his own. Two months later, the author proposed a meeting with Dr. Burkley to discuss the points. The doctor responded with an abrupt refusal to discuss any aspect of the case.”
Gary Aguilar:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/dale-myers-on-the-state-of-the-jfk-case/#comment-833335
\\][//
Richard Sprague: Memorandum
From: Richard Sprague
To: File
March 18, 1977 William F. Illig, an attorney from Erie, Pa., contacted me in Philadelphia this date, advising me that he represents Dr. George G. Burkley, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy retired, who had been the personal physician for presidents Kennedy and Johnson.Mr. Illig stated that he had a luncheon meeting with his client, Dr. Burkley, this date to take up some tax matters. Dr. Burkley advised him that although he, Burkley, had signed the death certificate of President Kennedy in Dallas, he had never been interviewed and that he has information in the Kennedy assassination indicating that others besides Oswald must have participated.Illig advised me that his client is a very quiet, unassuming person, not wanting any publicity whatsoever, but he, Illig, was calling me with his client’s consent and that his client would talk to me in Washington.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Dr_Burkley.html
http://22november1963.org.uk/richard-sprague-memo-dr-george-burkley
\\][//
Malraux asserted that all views are, in effect, the autobiography of their authors…
\\][//
The Warren Commission report is ”a dead whale decomposing on a beach,”~Norman Mailer – 1995
And now 20 years after Mailer’s allegory, that whale has vanished into the sands of time as a grimoire; a fabulistic myth of twisted spells and statist rituals.
That the Warren Commission set out to frame Oswald in a politically motivated cover-up is now beyond dispute. There isn’t now, nor has there ever been convincing proof that Lee Harvey Oswald shot John Kennedy. There is however countervailing proof that Kennedy was killed in a military coup d’etat on the streets of Dallas on November 22, 1963.
\\][//
Oswald’s attempt to call military intelligence from jail the night before he was killed:
Had Mrs. Treon not kept the LD call slip that she filled out as a souvenir, this story would be no more than the most minor of footnotes in the tragedy of the Kennedy Assassination. However, years later, when the identity became known of the man to whom Oswald was trying to place a call, its significance would rise to the “very troublesome” and “deeply disturbing” levels ascribed to it by HSCA Chief Counsel Blakey.
Mrs. Treon’s LD call slip, which I have digitally remastered for clarity, is reproduced here:
How We Know What We Know
What Mrs. Treon recorded for history on her LD slip is that Lee Oswald requested to call a “John Hurt” in Raleigh, North Carolina. But what would become important is the fact that the John Hurt who had the first phone number on the slip was a former Special Agent in U.S. Army Counterintelligence. In short, Oswald attempted to place a call from the Dallas jail to a member of the American Intelligence community on Saturday evening, November 23, 1963, but was mysteriously prevented from completing the call.
Could it be that one of the most interesting and potentially important aspects of the assassination of President Kennedy may not have anything to do with the murder itself? This story of the President’s accused assassin attempting to place a call to a former member of the American Intelligence community has simmered on the back burner of the investigation since its discovery. It is considered by many leading assassination authorities to be a key in the unsolved mystery — if not in being able to determine if Oswald was the lone assassin, then at least in understanding more about who he was or (perhaps more important) who he thought he was.
http://www.groverproctor.us/jfk/jfk80.html
\\][//
Are you sick and tired of going along to get along?
Is it becoming clearer every day that the benefits of your subservience are shrinking day by day?
That the society you live in is grotesquely distorted and unjust?
Have you come to the point of asking yourself, “What the Hell is really going on??”
Well if you have reached the limits of your patience and wish to find out what the hell is happening;
I offer you a source of information and inspiration at HR1blog.
One stop shopping for the real goods on the current sociopolitical situation.
Everything is presented free of charge, and is yours for the taking.
Be there or be square:
https://hybridrogue1.wordpress.com/
Curtis LaVerne Crafard possible murderer of Tippit
\\][//
It was not widely known then just how much JFK was at odds with the military and CIA on his foreign policy decisions.
The following documents are only examples of many in the record:
FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1961–1963 VOLUME I, VIETNAM, 1961, DOCUMENT 47
(OFFICE OF THE HISTORIAN)
On 8 May 1961, JCS Chairman Lyman Lemnitzer sent a blistering telegram to the Pentagon. Lemnitzer said it appeared “the unhappy sequence of events in Laos” was being repeated, adding that this “can only mean the loss of Vietnam.” In a scathing indictment of the President’s cautious approach to the Communist threat in Southeast Asia, Lemnitzer argued the problem in simple terms: “Does the U.S. intend to take the necessary military action now to defeat the Viet Cong threat or do we intend to quibble for weeks and months over details of general policy…while Vietnam slowly goes down the drain of Communism as North Vietnam and a large portion of Laos have gone to date?”
An extraordinary document from Lemnitzer to the Joint Chiefs. A scathing critique of Kennedy’s policies regarding Vietnam. One can see the seeds of a coup right there as early as May 1961.
==============================================================================================================
Photocopy of NORTHWOODS DOCUMENT
* * * * * *
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d47
This October 29, 1962 from DDCI Carter to DCI McCone shows how unhappy senior CIA officials were with JFK’s handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis. A feeling that was undoubtedly prevalent throughout the corridors of Langley and the Pentagon. http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/5829/CIA-RDP80B01676R001300040058-3.pdf
\\][//
San Diego, Nov. 5, 2013. Author Richard Cottrell has turned up an exciting new lead in the JFK murder, from his research into the little-known record of ardent Cold Warrior Gen. Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) from 1960 to 1962, and NATO commander from 1962 to 1969.
Lyman Lemnitzer is probably best remembered today for the 1962 Operation Northwoods plot to spark a war on Cuba, nixed by Kennedy. It was to employ classic Gladio-style false-flag operations. Overflowing with fantastic schemes, it showed how well prepared Lemnitzer was to transform NATO’s “stay-behind” paramilitary units into terrorist special forces.
Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were bent on removing Castro, and they took JFK’s “No” on Northwoods hard. Researcher James Fetzer has proposed the JCS may have meant JFK’s killing itself to be a Northwoods episode, with the patsy Oswald having Russian and Cuban connections.
Lemnitzer was a great favorite of Eisenhower, who helped him rise rapidly to the top spot of JCS Chairman in 1960. When Kennedy took office in 1961, the two became the chief antagonists in a titanic struggle over civilian vs. military control of the armed forces and foreign policy, and above all over the preference for war or peace. They sharply disagreed on Cuba, Russia, nuclear warfare, and escalation in Vietnam. When Lemnitzer formally proposed a first-strike nuclear attack on Russia in 1961, a pet idea of Air Force chief Curtis LeMay, JFK humbled Chairman Lyman by walking out of the meeting in disgust.
For fifty years, Lemnitzer has escaped the suspicions of JFK assassination researchers simply because he was transferred to Europe in November 1962, a year before Kennedy’s murder. The move gave him both a motive and a perfect alibi — “out of sight, out of mind.” Although he was stationed “over there,” the Joint Chiefs remained resentful of JFK and loyal to him. As soon as JFK was out of the way, the top brass got the war on Vietnam they wanted.
In fact, Lemnitzer remained so far above suspicion that President Ford could appoint him to the commission investigating the CIA’s role in the JFK murder. Yet the appointment itself is suspicious, as it gave LL the perfect opportunity to deflect inquiries that might uncover his own role.
In Cottrell’s book, “Gladio: NATO’s Dagger at the Heart of Europe,” he also documents a new twist on the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Lemnitzer intentionally allowed this CIA operation to fail, to undermine both Kennedy and the rival CIA, whom JFK was letting onto military turf.
Researchers seem to agree that the JFK assassination involved high-level CIA and military figures, with lower-level Mafia and Cuban exile participation. Lemnitzer’s Mafia ties go back to his first major command, running the 1944 invasion of Sicily in close cooperation with top Mafiosi. He worked with the Cosa Nostra again as head of NATO, to build up the Gladio death squads — as indicated in Cottrell’s subtitle, “the Pentagon-Mafia-Nazi Terror Axis.”
The Nazi element refers to the recruiting of Nazi assets after the war, another Lemnitzer commission. Fascist talents were used to set up the Gladio structure. LL was among those who felt “we fought on the wrong side.” With his Nazi sympathies and rabid militarism, he saw Kennedy as a traitor, soft on communism, who deserved to be eliminated.
In 1965, on Lemnitzer’s NATO watch, a plot to kill Gen. De Gaulle led to the eviction of NATO HQ from Paris to Brussels. Cottrell documents the extreme contempt LL felt for both JFK and De Gaulle. He also fingers Gladio in several of the most high-profile European assassinations of our times, including Aldo Moro, Pope John Paul II, Olof Palme, and the Umbrella Murder.
In 1961, when LL and JFK first collided, their mutual enmity was apparently common knowledge, as it became the theme of a best-selling novel in early 1962, “Seven Days in May.” JFK himself encouraged the production of the film version. As Cottrell writes, “The sensational plotline featured a fictional president (called with scarcely-concealed finger pointing, ‘Lyman’) who becomes the target of a Right-wing coup staged by the Joint Chiefs of Staff.”
L. Fletcher Prouty, Chief of Special Operations for the JCS at the time, said CIA black ops expert Ed Lansdale orchestrated the JFK shooting, and appeared in photographs taken of the “three tramps” in Dallas; they are generally believed to be the hit men. This earned a “Lansdale” character a part in Oliver Stone’s film, “JFK.”
Lansdale was a fervent anti-Communist and gifted veteran of imaginative psy war ops in the Philippines and Vietnam. Cottrell reports that as soon as Gen. Lemnitzer became army chief of staff in 1957, he hired Col. Lansdale to run special ops, notably Operation Mongoose, a covert project to topple Castro. The two remained close associates, and Cottrell believes Lansdale inspired the Northwoods memos, as well as Lemnitzer’s black-op Gladio philosophy.
To sum up, Lemnitzer had deep ideological and personal motives for killing Kennedy. As NATO commander, he had all the necessary means at his disposal, with the advantage of distance and military discipline to keep it secret. Under him, NATO tried to assassinate Pres. De Gaulle, a head of state who was an ideological and personal adversary, and several other highly respected figures. Lemnitzer had deep and long-standing Mafia connections, and the contemporary political thriller and film “Seven Days in May” dropped a very broad hint that “Lyman” would lead a coup against Kennedy. Col. Lansdale, who also had scores to settle, was the ideal deputy to carry out the hit on JFK for his general.
It’s enough to make one wonder, after the last 50 years of chasing up every conceivable JFK conspiracy angle, how has Lyman Lemnitzer escaped notice?
==========
Modus Operandi, Motive, Means & Opportunity, Cui Bono? These are the standard questions asked to answer who the perpetrator of a crime is. All are existent for the military industrial complex in the JFK assassination case.
This is why some of the most hysterical and irrational arguments are made by the WC cult to attempt to extinguish the Motive that the MIC clearly had.~ww
http://progressivepress.com/blog-entry/50-years-after-jfk-murder-finger-finally-points-pentagon-chief-lemnitzer
Willy Whitten — December 3, 2015 at 12:13 am
“Even assuming that Dulles was at “the Farm” that weekend, which he apparently was not, how would Talbot know what Dulles did there?”~Jean Davison
How can you say “he apparently was not” as to Dulles being at the ‘Farm, when this information is given:
“After receiving the news from Dallas, around 1:30 that afternoon, Dulles took a car back to Washington with John Warner, a CIA attorney.
But, according to Dulles’s date book, he did not spend the evening at home in Washington. he headed back to the northern Virginia countryside, where he would spend the entire weekend at a top secret CIA facility known officially a Camp Peary, but within the agency as “the Farm”. … As CIA director, Dulles had built himself a comfortable home at the Farm.” –As Quoted by Ronnie Wayne:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-6/#comment-834331
How does Talbot know what he did there? It seems clear enough to me, given all the other aspects of what we know about Dulles; that he was there to celebrate a job well done in pulling off a successful coup d’etat.
Not empty supposition Jean, but based on the well known MO of Alan Dulles; who did have the Means and Opportunity, the Motive, and those are the prime benefits of his participation of the project to install a Fascist state. One only thinly veiled by the Public Relations Regime.
\\][//
“Perhaps nothing is more troubling than Dulles’s behavior around the time that John F. Kennedy was assassinated.
Although Kennedy had fired him in 1961, Dulles basically kept, de facto, running the CIA anyway, as Talbot notes. And, even more ominously, after Kennedy was killed in Dallas on Friday November 22, Dulles moved into The Farm, a secret CIA facility in Virginia, where he remained for the weekend — during which time the “suspect,” Lee Harvey Oswald, was killed, and a vast machinery began to create the “lone gunman” myth that has dominated our history books to the present.
And that same machinery began to bury evidence that Oswald himself had deep connections into US intelligence.
Throughout all this, it is clear, Dulles was no rogue operative. He was serving the interests of America’s corporate and war-making elites. And he went all out.
The “former” CIA director was so determined to control the JFK death story spin, as Talbot chronicles below, that he even tried to strong-arm former president Harry Truman when the plain-spoken Missourian broadly hinted that he suspected the Agency was involved in Kennedy’s murder.”
— WhoWhatWhy Introduction by Russ Baker.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/12/new-book-on-cia-master-plotter-dulles-sneak-peek-part-1/
Good spies are almost always bad people.~ww
\\][//
No one can possibly understand the precarious state of American democracy today without scrutinizing the often secret path the country was taken on by those in power from the 1950s to the present.
Among the elemental figures in forging that path was Allen Dulles.
He was the most powerful, and, it appears — the most sinister — director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Given that outfit’s history, that’s some accomplishment.
Dulles’s job, simply put, was to hijack the US government to benefit the wealthy.
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/13/new-book-on-cia-master-plotter-dulles-sneak-peek-part-2/
\\][//
DID JFK SIGN HIS DEATH WARRANT BY FIRING CIA CHIEF?
Agency reminded him of vow within days of taking office…
http://www.wnd.com/2013/09/did-jfk-sign-his-death-warrant-by-firing-cia-chief/
\\][//
Operation Golden Lily is the well-documented story of the Japanese gold-collecting teams, which infiltrated key gold-holding nations well in advance of the military invasions of China and other nations, with the express intent of seizing the hundreds of thousands of metric tons of gold that had accumulated in Asia (primarily in China).
http://neilkeenan.com/
\\][//
as much as she would stomp and glower
to insist a mum but a flower
when she plunged from the steep high tower
the mums petals they did shower
O how the sphinx would weep
that cryptic message still would keep
(From The Flower of Zanzibar by Kiplard Yewing)
\\][//
THE BUSINESS PLOT TO OVERTHROW ROOSEVELT
In the summer of 1933, shortly after Roosevelt’s “First 100 Days,” America’s richest businessmen were in a panic. It was clear that Roosevelt intended to conduct a massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. Roosevelt had to be stopped at all costs.
The answer was a military coup. It was to be secretly financed and organized by leading officers of the Morgan and Du Pont empires. This included some of America’s richest and most famous names of the time:
Irenee Du Pont – Right-wing chemical industrialist and founder of the American Liberty League, the organization assigned to execute the plot.
Grayson Murphy – Director of Goodyear, Bethlehem Steel and a group of J.P. Morgan banks.
William Doyle – Former state commander of the American Legion and a central plotter of the coup.
John Davis – Former Democratic presidential candidate and a senior attorney for J.P. Morgan.
Al Smith – Roosevelt’s bitter political foe from New York. Smith was a former governor of New York and a codirector of the American Liberty League.
John J. Raskob – A high-ranking Du Pont officer and a former chairman of the Democratic Party. In later decades, Raskob would become a “Knight of Malta,” a Roman Catholic Religious Order with a high percentage of CIA spies, including CIA Directors William Casey, William Colby and John McCone.
Robert Clark – One of Wall Street’s richest bankers and stockbrokers.
Gerald MacGuire – Bond salesman for Clark, and a former commander of the Connecticut American Legion. MacGuire was the key recruiter to General Butler.
The plotters attempted to recruit General Smedley Butler to lead the coup. They selected him because he was a war hero who was popular with the troops. The plotters felt his good reputation was important to make the troops feel confident that they were doing the right thing by overthrowing a democratically elected president. However, this was a mistake: Butler was popular with the troops because he identified with them. That is, he was a man of the people, not the elite. When the plotters approached General Butler with their proposal to lead the coup, he pretended to go along with the plan at first, secretly deciding to betray it to Congress at the right moment.
What the businessmen proposed was dramatic: they wanted General Butler to deliver an ultimatum to Roosevelt. Roosevelt would pretend to become sick and incapacitated from his polio, and allow a newly created cabinet officer, a “Secretary of General Affairs,” to run things in his stead. The secretary, of course, would be carrying out the orders of Wall Street. If Roosevelt refused, then General Butler would force him out with an army of 500,000 war veterans from the American Legion. But MacGuire assured Butler the cover story would work:
“You know the American people will swallow that. We have got the newspapers. We will start a campaign that the President’s health is failing. Everyone can tell that by looking at him, and the dumb American people will fall for it in a second…”
The businessmen also promised that money was no object: Clark told Butler that he would spend half his $60 million fortune to save the other half.
And what type of government would replace Roosevelt’s New Deal? MacGuire was perfectly candid to Paul French, a reporter friend of General Butler’s:
“We need a fascist government in this country… to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America. The only men who have the patriotism to do it are the soldiers, and Smedley Butler is the ideal leader. He could organize a million men overnight.”
Indeed, it turns out that MacGuire travelled to Italy to study Mussolini’s fascist state, and came away mightily impressed. He wrote glowing reports back to his boss, Robert Clark, suggesting that they implement the same thing.
If this sounds too fantastic to believe, we should remember that by 1933, the crimes of fascism were still mostly in the future, and its dangers were largely unknown, even to its supporters. But in the early days, many businessmen openly admired Mussolini because he had used a strong hand to deal with labor unions, put out social unrest, and get the economy working again, if only at the point of a gun. Americans today would be appalled to learn of the many famous millionaires back then who initially admired Hitler and Mussolini: Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, John and Allen Dulles (who, besides being millionaires, would later become Eisenhower’s Secretary of State and CIA Director, respectively), and, of course, everyone on the above list. They disavowed Hitler and Mussolini only after their atrocities grew to indefensible levels.
The plot fell apart when Butler went public. The general revealed the details of the coup before the McCormack-Dickstein Committee, which would later become the notorious House Un-American Activities Committee. (In the 50s, this committee would destroy the lives of hundreds of innocent Americans with its communist witch hunts.) The Committee heard the testimony of Butler and French, but failed to call in any of the coup plotters for questioning, other than MacGuire. In fact, the Committee whitewashed the public version of its final report, deleting the names of powerful businessmen whose reputations they sought to protect. The most likely reason for this response is that Wall Street had undue influence in Congress also. Even more alarming, the elite-controlled media failed to pick up on the story, and even today the incident remains little known. The elite managed to spin the story as nothing more than the rumors and hearsay of Butler and French, even though Butler was a Quaker of unimpeachable honesty and integrity. Butler, appalled by the cover-up, went on national radio to denounce it, but with little success.
Butler was not vindicated until 1967, when journalist John Spivak uncovered the Committee’s internal, secret report. It clearly confirmed Butler’s story:
In the last few weeks of the committee’s life it received evidence showing that certain persons had attempted to establish a fascist organization in this country…
There is no question that these attempts were discussed, were planned and might have been placed in execution if the financial backers deemed it expedient…
MacGuire denied [Butler’s] allegations under oath, but your committee was able to verify all the pertinent statements made to General Butler, with the exception of the direct statement suggesting the creation of the organization. This, however, was corroborated in the correspondence of MacGuire with his principle, Robert Sterling Clark, of New York City, while MacGuire was abroad studying the various form of veterans’ organizations of Fascist character.
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/Coup.htm
Also see:
“Around the beginning of July 1933, the first overt move was made in one of the most fantastic plots in American history. A representative of a group of conspirators opened negotiations with a noted military man to head a 500,000-man army, seize the Government of the United States, put an end to American democracy and supplant it with a dictatorship. The McCormack-Dickstein House Committee, investigating un-American activities, turned its attention to the plot, but that probe ended abruptly. Even a generation later, those who are still alive and know all the facts have kept their silence so well that the conspiracy is not even a footnote in American histories. It would be regrettable if historians neglected this episode and future generations never learned of it.”~John Spivak – ‘A Man In His Time’ (1967)
http://www.greanvillepost.com/2015/06/18/the-fascist-plot-to-seize-washington/
\\][//
Fascista Amerikana in livery red, white, & blue
The time hath come to feel the screw
As it turns
The brand as it burns the tumult that churns
Come hither and bear thine neck
The reed has slipped from the shaft
The ax is in the headsman’s grip
Time to take that grizzly trip
\\][//
“The reed has slipped from the shaft
The ax is in the headsman’s grip”
This is in reference to a single-headed ax in the fasces, with the blade projecting from the bundle.
\\][//
Tom Scully’s commentary on the 1933 Fascist Coup Plot, Great information:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-6/#comment-835723
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-6/#comment-835748
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-6/#comment-835750
\\][//
Once upon a night time dreary waft in haze and sights so smeary I heard a voice call out this querry
the voice like that of a nagging bitch the hair on my nape rose my buttox twitched
“are you ready for the lash that stings for all your pain such pleasure brings?”
I made no answer
I ran and hid
and tho’ the shadows do constant bid
I find my soul has shift and slid
to a grateful ado
(The Flower of Zanzibar)
\\][//
so on a trip quite wide and far I came upon the bizarre bazaar in the land of Zanzibar
a wench with breath the fragrance of plum offered for a hefty sum a bouquet of chrysanthemum
I leaned close and with just one whiff I felt as tho’ plied by rum
her giggle lite made my mind go numb
all sights and sounds seemed made of light a rainbow hue of such delight
I stumbled and seemed to float rather than fall and felt such caring from them all
and still I can hear that song from afar floating from the land of Zanzibar
\\][//
Conceptualizing the NEW WORLD ORDER as a stagnant ‘object’ is error. This globalist order is a perpetual ‘process’. It is a living organism, in a real sense, an entity; in metaphor.
Corporatism, the immortal “fictitious entity” is the key mechanism driving the process.
What we see before us is the Hegelian process dynamic in action.
\\][//
Those who can grasp the central conclusion of Julian Jaynes’ THE ORIGIN OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND, will understand that “Consciousness” is Metaphor. That the epistemology of the mental construct is based on ‘What is like’; as “this is like that” from one perspective, and “this is not like that” from another POV, and “that is like this most of the time but for this” … and so forth. This is the very definition of Metaphor. Plus there is the Taoist dialectic meme which states “Like is Not,” thus presenting the concept of the paradox of time, the eternal Now of all is everything at once.
\\][//
McAdam’s list of “admissible proofs”:
1. Spent cartridges in the Sniper’s Nest that matched Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>> Chain of custody issues – non admissible in court.
2. A paper bag in the Sniper’s Nest, of a size perfect for Oswald’s rifle, with Oswald’s palmprint on it.
>>The bag in fact was too short even for the disassembled rifle, admissible of proof it could not hold the rifle.
3. Two fragments in the front seat of the limo, matching Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>> The metalergy tests were later deemed unreliable, not admissible.
4. CE 399, matching Oswald’s rifle to the exclusion of all other weapons.
>> Complete lack of chain of custody – in fact indicative of switching the Parkland Bullet with CE399 at some point near the end of chain of custody.
5. Oswald’s actual rifle, found on the 6th floor.
>> There is still controversy over this matter. Admissible but due for fair litigation.
6. Marina’s testimony that Oswald’s rifle was missing from the Paine garage.
>> Marina was utterly unreliable and should be dismissed as such – see Hoover’s remark about coercing her in his phone remarks to Johnson
7. Oswald’s palm print on the recovered rifle.
>> Disputed between FBI and DPD.
8. The fact that Oswald had no alibi at the time of the shooting.
>> He had several alibis, including Truly himself as being in the lunch area with a soda in his hand.
9. Oswald’s lie about bringing the paper bag into the Depository on November 22.
>> There is no proof that this was a lie. As has been shown the rifle would not fit in that bag.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/why-so-many-books-supporting-the-official-theory-of-jfks-assassination/#comment-836031
\\][//
G. Robert Blakey’s 2003 Addendum:
“I am no longer confident that the Central Intelligence Agency co-operated with the committee. My reasons follow:
The committee focused, among other things, on (1) Oswald, (2) in New Orleans, (3) in the months before he went to Dallas, and, in particular, (4) his attempt to infiltrate an anti-Castro group, the Directorio Revolucionario Estudiantil or DRE.
These were crucial issues in the Warren Commission’s investigation; they were crucial issues in the committee’s investigation. The Agency knew it full well in 1964; the Agency knew it full well in 1976-79. Outrageously, the Agency did not tell the Warren Commission or our committee that it had financial and other connections with the DRE, a group that Oswald had direct dealings with!
What contemporaneous reporting is or was in the Agency’s DRE files? We will never know, for the Agency now says that no reporting is in the existing files. Are we to believe that its files were silent in 1964 or during our investigation?
I don’t believe it for a minute. Money was involved; it had to be documented. Period. End of story. The files and the Agency agents connected to the DRE should have been made available to the commission and the committee. That the information in the files and the agents who could have supplemented it were not made available to the commission and the committee amounts to willful obstruction of justice.”~Robert Blakey
\\][//
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”~The Declaration of Independence — July 4, 1776.
This is where this argument all began. The one that continues to this day, on these very pages. There are those here that hold to the principles of the document cited above, there are others who do not.
Those who do not agree with such principles are far from subtle in their disagreements here. They hold the opposite view of the jurisprudence that is derived from such principles by bold proclamation. As those who would stand as the Prosecutors of the case against Lee Harvey Oswald, they insist that we who would stand as his Council for Defense must prove his innocence.
At the core of the Principles of Justice is the Standard of Proof for conviction is: Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
At this juncture, and here on this forum we are confronted by those who insist on turning on its head this long held and most rational standard of justice; we are now charged with proving the innocence of the accused.
Is it not ironic, that those who speak for the authority of the state here, who proclaim the officers of that state are “honorable men”, who seek conviction upon the dubious foundation of “guilty until proven innocent”, wrap themselves in the red white & blue shroud of “patriotism”? Is it not strange that they defend a process began on the streets of Dallas; the usurpation of the unalienable Rights of Justice, to establish Rule by Fiat and Decree?
Until the participants and readership of this forum come to grips with this basic dispute of principles between the two sides, any and all arguments have been in vain.
\\][//
“The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
Thus begins a list of charges of a conspiracy by the agents of the Crown. This is in fact the original “Conspiracy Theory” that began this nation.
\\][//
Peter Dale Scott – November 25, 2015 at 11:20 am
Philip Shenon writes:
” I continue to believe the record shows that RFK did propose Dulles, and not just because LBJ (more than once) said that was the case.
“There’s a document in the LBJ Library in Austin that supports this — a Nov. 29, 1963 memo prepared by LBJ aide Walter Jenkins. It pretty clearly shows that RFK – through Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach – was consulted about the membership of the Warren Commission, and that RFK and Katzenbach offered Dulles’s name. (In fact, Dulles is the only candidate identified by name.)”
Shenon was kind enough to supply the link to the memo, which reports what Abe Fortas said, not even what Katzenbach said RFK said. Shenon wrote a good book about the 9/11 Commission. But after this latest shoddy performance I will never again trust Shenon on anything.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/fact-check/rfk-and-dulles-a-closer-look/#comment-831926
\\][//
Pipe Dreams on the Road to Serfdom
“Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”
~ Matthew 7:15, King James Bible
CIA Cults and the Global Brainwashing Experiment: The Untold Story of the Jonestown Massacre
John Judge ratical.org
The ultimate victims of mind control at Jonestown are the American people. If we fail to look beyond the constructed images given us by the television and the press, then our consciousness is manipulated, just as well as the Jonestown victims’ was. Facing nuclear annihilation, may see the current militarism of the Reagan policies, and military training itself, as the real “mass suicide cult.” If the discrepancy between the truth of Jonestown and the official version can be so great, what other lies have we been told about major events?
History is precious. In a democracy, knowledge must be accessible for informed consent to function. Hiding or distorting history behind “national security” leaves the public as the final enemy of the government. Democratic process cannot operate on “need to know.” Otherwise we live in the 1984 envisioned by Orwell’s projections and we must heed his warning that those who control the past control the future.
The real tragedy of Jonestown is not only that it occurred, but that so few chose to ask themselves why or how, so few sought to find out the facts behind the bizarre tale used to explain away the death of more than 900 people, and that so many will continue to be blind to the grim reality of our intelligence agencies. In the long run, the truth will come out. Only our complicity in the deception continues to dishonor the dead.
[…]
Is it possible that the 700 who fled were rounded up by these troops, brought back to Jonestown and added to the body count?27
If so, the bodies would indicate the cause of death. A new word was coined by the media, “suicide-murder.” But which was it?28 Autopsies and forensic science are a developing art. The detectives of death use a variety of scientific methods and clues to determine how people die, when they expire, and the specific cause of death. Dr. Mootoo, the top Guyanese pathologist, was at Jonestown within hours after the massacre. Refusing the assistance of U.S. pathologists, he accompanied the teams that counted the dead, examined the bodies, and worked to identify the deceased. While the American press screamed about the “Kool-Aid Suicides,” Dr. Mootoo was reaching a much different opinion.29
There are certain signs that show the types of poisons that lead to the end of life. Cyanide blocks the messages from the brain to the muscles by changing body chemistry in the central nervous system. Even the “involuntary” functions like breathing and heartbeat get mixed neural signals. It is a painful death, breath coming in spurts. The other muscles spasm, limbs twist and contort. The facial muscles draw back into a deadly grin, called “cyanide rictus.”30 All these telling signs were absent in the Jonestown dead. Limbs were limp and relaxed, and the few visible faces showed no sign of distortion.31
Instead, Dr. Mootoo found fresh needle marks at the back of the left shoulder blades of 80-90% of the victims.32 Others had been shot or strangled. One survivor reported that those who resisted were forced by armed guards.33 The gun that reportedly shot Jim Jones was lying nearly 200 feet from his body, not a likely suicide weapon.34 As Chief Medical Examiner, Mootoo’s testimony to the Guyanese grand jury investigating Jonestown led to their conclusion that all but three of the people were murdered by “persons unknown.” Only two had committed suicide they said.35 Several pictures show the gun-shot wounds on the bodies as well.36 The U.S. Army spokesman, Lt. Col. Schuler, said, “No autopsies are needed. The cause of death is not an issue here.” The forensic doctors who later did autopsies at Dover, Delaware, were never made aware of Dr. Mootoo’s findings.37
Image
The mainstream media was in on the brainwashing. These people did not “drink the Kool-aid”, then drop where they stood. After Leo Ryan was shot dead, they tried to escape over several days but were hunted down in the jungle by US and British special forces before being dragged back to the site and laid out in neat rows for the press.
There are other indications that the Guyanese government participated with American authorities in a cover-up of the real story, despite their own findings. One good example was Guyanese Police Chief Lloyd Barker, who interfered with investigations, helped “recover” 2.5 million for the Guyanese government, and was often the first to officially announce the cover stories relating to suicide, body counts and survivors.
http://www.sott.net/article/244751-CIA-Cults-and-the-Global-Brainwashing-Experiment-The-Untold-Story-of-the-Jonestown-Massacre
\\][//
Dr. Jose Delgado, funded by NASA and Navy Intelligence, is an expert in controlling behavior through implanted electrodes. Because this is being done at the present time at Vacaville Medical Facility and Atascadero Hospital in California, it is important to relate Delgado’s underlying philosophy, which is used to justify this radical procedure, to the SLA:
“We need a program of psychosurgery for political control of our society. The purpose is physical control of the mind. Everyone who deviates from the given norm can be surgically mutilated.
“The individual may think that the most important reality is his own existence, but this is only his personal point of view. This lacks historical perspective.
“Man does not have the right to develop his own mind. This kind of liberal orientation has great appeal. We must electrically control the brain. Some day armies and generals will be controlled by electric stimulation of the brain.”
— Dr. J. Delgado
Congressional Record,
No. 26, Vol. 118
February 24, 1974
\\][//
THE SLA IS THE CIA part III
by Mae Brussell
…Will tactical support come from a CIA safe-house in the Mojave Desert?
Charles Manson and his “family” were moved from the Spahn Ranch in Topanga Canyon to the Barker Ranch in the Mojave Desert following their “arrest,” and after the Sharon Tate-La Bianca murders.
The SLA reportedly had maps of deserts, parks, wilderness areas and abandoned mines.
At the time of the incident at Mel’s Sporting Goods Store, the Harrises were buying thermal underwear, sleeping bags and other outdoor items.
Twelve and a half million acres of California desert have suddenly been closed to off-road traffic.
Will Emily and William and Patty be protected in government safe-houses, while law enforcement officers spend the entire summer searching vans, campers, communes, airports and highways? The excuse to hunt three SLA members has already caused arrests, and persons stopped at gunpoint as possible suspects.
Law enforcement officials in Ozona, Texas set up roadblocks; 24 persons were busted on pot charges, 20 others were arrested, while looking for Patty.
Many people have been stopped as SLA suspects.
Driving down U.S. 101, Linda Lipsett, her husband and a female friend were followed by police. “We thought they were going to shoot us.” They were forced to lie face down on the pavement, and seven officers held pistols and rifles to their heads.
VII. How Dangerous Was the SLA?
The reason given for the SLA’s instant deaths in Los Angeles was that they were “armed and extremely dangerous.”
The Los Angeles police had records indicating that Donald DeFreeze was dangerous. Yet they gave him considerable freedom when he was in prison. He was allowed to leave prison. They never bothered to bring him back after he “escaped.”
Dr. Foster had been murdered, and Robert Blackburn had been shot. Yet when the SLA surfaced, police didn’t yet believe its members were dangerous enough to be sought. The SLA safehouses and the abandoned apartments in Oakland and Berkeley contained evidence of ownership of weapons, ammunition, and lists of possible kidnapping victims. Still, law enforcement agencies didn’t bother to identify or search for the “army,” except for Joseph Remiro and Russell Little.
Seven of the SLA had weapons registered in their names. All the SLA members except Donald DeFreeze did their target practice at the Chabot Gun Club in Oakland.
Police haven’t bothered to locate the third person who participated in the murder of Dr. Foster, or the third person who helped to kidnap Patricia Hearst.
Willie Wolfe and Angela Atwood, cremated in Los Angeles, were not named as suspects in any crime.
Did the SLA intend to kill anybody?
Were the police violent in not alerting the neighborhood that their lives might be in danger, or that homes might burn down? One neighbor’s three dogs were burned alive.
The LAPD called in its public relations firm to witness the assault on the 54th Street house. The advertising men would later work with their client, the LAPD, to try to justify the extermination of human lives and gain public approval for police actions.
Did the police hope the SLA would accidentally wound or kill persons in the neighborhood during the shoot-out? This could have provided the SWAT teams with the excuse that they were “protecting lives.”
If the SLA and similar groups are dangerous, why do the police supply them with arms? Donald DeFreeze had previously received weapons from the LAPD that were used by him during an armed robbery and shoot-out.
Two men were shot when the SLA left the Hibernia Bank after their robbery. How serious were their wounds? Were the men hospitalized? How come we never heard about them again? Were these shootings sufficient justification to murder six persons
later?
California law enforcement paid three men to stage a prison “escape” in San Jose at the time of the Angela Davis trial. One Of the men was killed. The purpose of this staged incident was to scare the jury deliberating Angela’s fate concerning other matters. Were the Hibernia Bank shoot-out and the shooting in front of Mel’s Sporting Goods Store staged by the same people? Would this prove to the public that the SLA L could fire weapons?
When the same cast of characters stages continuous conspiracy productions, it is important to consider the similarities.
The worst violence committed by the SLA was the murder of Dr. Foster and the kidnappingof Patricia Hearst. Two men c
http://www.maebrussell.com/Mae%20Brussell%20Articles/Why%20Was%20Hearst%20Kidnapped%203.html
“There’s a fog upon LA and my friends have lost their way..”~George Harrison
10050 Cielo Drive is the street address of a former mansion in Benedict Canyon, a part of Beverly Crest, north of Beverly Hills, Los Angeles, California, where the Charles Manson “family” committed the Tate murders in 1969.
ome facts about the Sharon Tate murders that have not been widely publicized.
Sharon’s father was high level military intelligence. At the time Bobby Kennedy announced that he was going to run for the presidency, the CIA’s favorite director and Zionist operative, John Frankenheimer, (The Manchurian Candidate, Seconds, Seven Days in May, The Gypsy Moths, French Connection 2, Black Sunday, the Holocroft Covenant, Year of the Gun, Ronin etc.) called Bobby and asked to follow him and film him throughout his election campaign. Frankenheimer went everywhere and filmed everything Bobby did during the campaign. The night prior to the California primary, Bobby Kennedy, Frankenheimer, Sharon Tate and others stayed at the Tate residence, and had dinner and a party there. The following evening, Bobby was driven to the Ambassador hotel along with Tate and Frankenheimer who had kept tabs of Bobby’s every movement during the campaign.
It appears that the Sharon Tate murders were more than an effort to start a race war. Manson was a CIA and Mafia asset, doing hits and black bag jobs for the Boys while running his family using MK-Ultra mind control techniques to manage his “family”. On an early nineties Hard Copy TV program, Manson admitted he killed La Bianco, who was a bookie, because he was holding out money to his superior, Frankie Carbo, the mob boss who was in Federal prison in Illinois at the time and who controlled organized boxing up to Sonny Liston’s time. The interviewer sat there with glazed look while Manson went on how dumb and uninformed the average American is. He denied any connection to the Sharon Tate murder.
There is a strong probability that Sharon Tate was targeted because of her knowledge of the Bobby Kennedy murder and perhaps she was talking to other people about the RFK murder. LAPD did everything they could to stifle the Tate murder investigation but finally had to pick up members of Manson’s “family” who may or may not have been the only killers. The rabbit hole goes deeper than you know.
My understanding is the first time The Beatles stayed at the 10050 Cielo Drive was the night they met Elvis Presley.
Read more: http://60if.proboards.com/thread/2983?page=2#ixzz3uHN8sqsz
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/6126892/Dr-Thomas-Noguchi-LA-coroner-confidential.html
\\][//
So, what incentive could the military industrial complex possibly have for transforming the image of the peaceful, flower children, war protesting ‘hippies’ into raging psychokillers hopped-up on acid?
The question answers itself doesn’t it?
Were the ‘Tate-La Bianca Murders’ actually a PSYOP?
The proposition is certainly not “out of the question”; too impracticable or unlikely to merit discussion, impossible, impracticable, unfeasible, unworkable, inconceivable, unimaginable…
\\][//
The Tate Murders – The Psyop That Stifled a Generation
Wednesday, March 25, 2015 5:14
by Miles W. Mathis
http://beforeitsnews.com/alternative/2015/03/the-tate-murders-the-psyop-that-stifled-a-generation-3127744.html
The JFK assassination in 1963 was a coup d’etat, so thinly veiled that only saps and government toadies deny it.
\\][//
The JFK Assassination – a digest of the main issues on the Mary Ferrell site:
http://maryferrell.org/pages/JFK_Assassination.html
\\][//
From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory
-by- Colonel Paul E. Valley
Commander
– with – Major Michael A. Aquino
PSYOP Research & Analysis Team Leader
Headquarters, 7th Psychological Operations Group
United States Army Reserve
Presidio of San Francisco, California
1980
FULL TEXT:
https://archive.org/stream/pdfy-Mv-q4qGq8_TBPcwL/Michael%20Aquino%20(US%20Satanist)%20-%20From%20PSYOP%20to%20MindWar%20-%20The%20Psychology%20of%20Victory%20(1980)_djvu.txt
\\][//
“In the later 1970s, Psychological Operations (PSYOP) doctrine in the U.S. Army had yet to emerge from the disappointment and frustration of the Vietnam War. Thus it was that in 1980 Colonel Paul Valley 1 , Commander of the 7th PSYOP Group, asked me, as his Headquarters PSYOP Research & Analysis (FA) Team Leader, to draft a paper that would encourage some future thought within the PSYOP community. He did not want a Vietnam postmortem, but rather some fresh and innovative ideas concerning PSYOP’s evolution and application.
I prepared an initial draft, which Colonel Valley reviewed and annotated, which resulted in revised drafts and critiques until he was satisfied, and the result of that was this paper: From PSYOP to MindWar: The Psychology of Victory.”~Michael A. Aquino
\\][//
“The scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities, probably contentment will be considered the most important.
In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play. . . . All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called ‘co-operative,’ i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them. . . . Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world State and to their own order, members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific technique, and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements. . . . In normal cases, children of sufficient heredity will be admitted to the governing class from the moment of conception. I start with this moment rather than birth since it is from this moment and not merely the moment of birth that the treatment of the two classes will be different. If, however, by the time the child reaches the age of three it is fairly clear that he does not attain the required standard, he will be degraded at that point.
There would be a very strong tendency for the governing classes to become hereditary, and that after a few generations not many children would be moved from either class into the other. This is especially likely to be the case if embryological methods of improving the breed are applied to the governing class, but not to the others. In this way the gulf between the two classes as regards native intelligence will become continually wider and wider. . . . Assuming that both kinds of breeding are scientifically carried out, there will come to be an increasing divergence between the two types, making them in the end almost different species.”~Bertrand Russell – The Scientific Outlook (1931)
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/allen-dulles-first-ceo-of-the-secret-government/#comment-840539
So we are now invited to imbibe the poison jingoberry pie made from the recipe of the scribes and apologists of empire, the official propagandists of the military industrial complex. And reject the “heresies” of independent minds like Newman, Prouty, and P.D. Scott. All for the love of war and victory at any and all cost.
It’s really just a red, white, and blue boohoohoo from the moronic fools who got their war, shot their wad and lost anyway.
And now, after dinking around with their phony “War on Terror” meme they have finally taken a deep swallow of that ancient swill to revive and instigate a redux of the “Cold War” – pumping up the punching bags of the Russians and the Chinese for rhetorical target practice. Hoping this time they may really get a chance to drop the BIG ONE in a Strangelovian burlesque of true Yankee Doodle proportion.
Welcome to the New World Order dementia of Orwellian Newspeak; where Hate is Love, War is Peace, and Big Brother’s got his eye on you 24/7 as we count down to oblivion.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-841883
\\][//
Intelligence in Public Literature
Vietnam Declassified: CIA and Counterinsurgency in Vietnam
Thomas L. Ahern, Jr. (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2009), 480 pp., index.
Hayden Peake
In his preface to Vietnam Declassified, Thomas Ahern writes that when he left Vietnam in 1965, “I knew we were losing, but I had no idea why the Saigon government was in retreat in the countryside, and the VC ascendant.”(12) In this book, originally published internally in 2001 as a classified history entitled CIA and Rural Pacification in South Vietnam, Ahern provides many answers, formed with the benefit of hindsight, deep research into classified documents, candid and revealing interviews, and his own experience as a clandestine service officer.1
Vietnam Declassified is narrowly focused on operations related to “the struggle to suppress the Viet Cong and win the loyalty of the peasantry”(9), although major military and political events are mentioned for context. The story is told from the perspective of the CIA officers involved — many of whom are named — the insurgents they battled, and the peasants they labored to empower. The narrative covers six chronological periods. In the first, from 1954 to 1956, the Agency, as a temporary expedient to get things going, dismissed orthodoxy and operated with two distinct stations. One, labeled the Saigon Military Mission (SMM), was headed by Col. Edward Lansdale, who reported to Allen Dulles. Its mission was to establish military and civic action programs in the countryside where none existed. The conventional station, subordinate to the Far East Division of the Directorate of Plans (since renamed the Directorate of Operations and then the National Clandestine Service), focused on rural political mobilization. While the two stations cooperated on some projects, for the most part they operated in parallel, often with the reluctant toleration of the Diem government, which was struggling to consolidate power on its terms. By the end of 1956 the SMM, having laid some groundwork with the Diem government, left Vietnam, while the conventional station continued the work in the provinces.
Agency activity diminished during the second period (1956–61) as Diem attempted to destroy communist elements in the countryside, alienating peasants in the process. The station reasserted itself in the third period (1961–63) by “launching a series of programs designed either to stimulate village self-defense or attack the insurgent organization at the village level.”(17) Internal Vietnamese conflicts persisted and Diem was overthrown in November 1963.
During the fourth period (1963–65) the Vietnamese generals competed for power while station officers worked at the provincial level trying to find a successful pacification formula. The fifth period (1966–69) was characterized by an expansion of the pacification effort and the massive military buildup of US troops, which eventually led to the unification of intelligence and countryside action programs under the Military Assistance Command (Vietnam) or MACV.
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol53no4/intelligence-in-public-literature-1.html
\\][//
National Security Action Memorandum Number 12
This memorandum deals exclusively with the numbers of Vietnam military were in country that could be redistributed.
I get this offered up to me continuously from those who are claiming Kennedy was sending combat troops to Vietnam, and use this memo as evidence:
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Asset-Viewer/54YqDoapmUimjQeQGgF7Hw.aspx
FOREIGN RELATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, 1961–1963
VOLUME I, VIETNAM, 1961, DOCUMENT 52
52. National Security Action Memorandum No. 52
Washington, May 11, 1961.
TO
The Secretary of State
The President today reviewed the report of the Viet-Nam Task Force, entitled “Program of Action to Prevent Communist Domination of South Vietnam.”2 Subject to amendments or revisions which he may wish to make after providing opportunity for a further discussion at the next meeting of the National Security Council, now scheduled for May 19,3 the President has made the following decisions on the basis of this report:
1. The U.S. objective and concept of operations stated in the report are approved: to prevent Communist domination of South Vietnam; to create in that country a viable and increasingly democratic society, and to initiate, on an accelerated basis, a series of mutually supporting actions of a military, political, economic, psychological and covert character designed to achieve this objective.
2. The approval given for specific military actions by the President at the National Security Council meeting on April 29, 1961,4 is confirmed.
3. Additional actions listed at pages 4 and 5 of the Task Force Report are authorized, with the objective of meeting the increased security threat resulting from the new situation along the frontier between Laos and Vietnam. In particular, the President directs an assessment of the military utility of a further increase in GVN forces from 170,000 to 200,000, together with an assessment of the parallel political and fiscal implications.
4. The President directs full examination by the Defense Department, under the guidance of the Director of the continuing Task Force on Vietnam, of the size and composition of forces which would be desirable in the case of a possible commitment of U.S. forces to Vietnam. The diplomatic setting within which this action might be taken should also be examined.
[…]
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d52
40. Editorial Note
At its meeting at 10 a.m. on April 29, 1961, the National Security Council discussed the Program of Action for Vietnam (see Document 35) and approved paragraphs 3a-3e. The NSC also agreed that the task force should revise the program for further consideration of the Council. (NSC Action No. 2416; Department of State, S/S-NSC Files: Lot 66 D 95) No record of the discussion at the Council meeting has been found.
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d40
\\][//
1. Augment the MAAG with two U.S. training commands—composed of approximately 1600 instructors each—to enable the MAAG to establish in the “high plateau” region of South Viet-Nam two divisional field training areas to accelerate the U.S. training program for the entire GVN army.
>>2. Deploy, as soon as possible, a Special Forces Group—approximately 400 U.S. military personnel—to Nha Trang in order to accelerate GVN Special Forces training.
3. Assign CINCPAC the responsibility for coastal patrol activities (from the Cambodian border to the mouth of the Mekong River), employing U.S. Naval forces in conjunction with the Junk Force, to prevent the seaborne infiltration of Viet Cong personnel and materiel (into the southern delta area).
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d42
\\][//
PENTAGON PAPERS – Kennedy Era:
Click to access Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-B-1.pdf
\\][//
As it turned out, Durbow s efforts took a more complicated form. Even reaching a nominal agreement on the CIP took about 6 weeks.
Then, Durbow recommended holding up what is constantly referred to as “the green light ” on increased aid until Diem had actually signed decrees implementing his major promises .
On March 8 ( in response to a Washington suggestion for stepping up some aid prior to agreement on the CIP), Saigon cabled that: despite pressure of Embassy and MAAG, GVN has not decreed the required measures and will continue to delay unless highly pressured to act . (p. 12/13)
Click to access Pentagon-Papers-Part-IV-B-1.pdf
\\][//
“As I understand it, we and the Vietnamese will announce that we are no longer bound by certain provisions of the Geneva Accords. (This subject is not covered in yesterday’s messages to Saigon;3 I don’t know why.) We believe that it will then be up to the ICC to establish that North Viet Nam as well as we are violating the Accords.…
In my opinion, when we announce that we are no longer bound by the Accords the ICC will be pretty well washed up in Viet Nam. To hope that following such an event it will become a much more effective instrument for the sole purpose of establishing North Viet Nam as an aggressor seems to me quite optimistic. Perhaps the Indians… have indicated that they will take the ICC more seriously, but did he commit himself to such action in the context of a decision by the U.S. to state that it is no longer bound by the Accords? … How much of value can we hope to get out of the ICC? At best, we might get a judgment by the Indian and Canadian members substantiating some of the Vietnamese charges against North Viet Nam. It would be an important advance which would help us establish the basis for current and future U.S. actions,.” …
Robert H. Johnson
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d260
More related memos here:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/ch10
* * * * * *
As you can see here, it was the US and South Vietnam that violated the Geneva Accords that established the independent state of Vietnam.
And then the US turned around and framed the North as aggressors.
Again, this takes place during the first year of Kennedy’s administration. I find it an unfortunate blemish on his record, as I am sure you will agree. Yet I still wonder at the momentum that was still in effect as he was getting advice from the “old school” boys, yes even the so called “Best and Brightest”. As we know, the covert establishment of this illegal breakaway state was due to the machinations of Ed Landsdale (CIA).
As has already been noted, Kennedy had no idea that Vietnam was a major problem when he came into office. Eisenhower had informed him of the troubles in Laos, but made no mention of Vietnam. It wasn’t until Rusk informed him of a memorandum from Landsdale, enumerating the quagmire that South Vietnam had already become that Kennedy found out about the issue. He immediately ordered Landsdale in for an interview and briefing on what Landsdale knew.
This is certainly a morass, a complex mess to be dropped into as a new President. All of this was in full locomotion when he got into office, just like the plan in place for the invasion of the Bay of Pigs.
Again, it seems obvious that when Kennedy finally got all of this in focus, and NSAM 263 was put in place, he was going to right all that he saw as wrong in his time left in office and hopefully a second term — then came the Guns of Dallas.
\\][//
More relevant history for Kennedy in Vietnam:
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/ch11
\\][//
Landsdale Report
340. Memorandum From the Secretary of Defense’s Assistant for Special Operations (Lansdale) to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Lemnitzer)
Washington, December 27, 1961.
SUBJECT
Vietnamese Command Problem
CINCPAC’s message to you, 232137Z [232135Z] December 1961,[*2] outlines the problem of President Diem giving control authority to Big Minh as his military field commander, when Diem is apprehensive of a coup. CINCPAC then solicited your help to get State to direct Ambassador Nolting to make a concerted approach to Diem with General McGarr.
In CINCPAC’s proposal, as in other comments on this problem, I have yet to note anyone come up with an answer to Diem’s apprehension. It is the basis for his real reluctance to do what the Americans want him to do, and this basic point needs resolving. How are Nolting and McGarr to reassure him on this point?
U.S. policy is to support Diem and he has been so informed by the President. We know that Big Minh has been outspoken about a coup. Diem certainly knows about the way Big Minh has been talking, also. Now we ask Diem to give practical control of his military force to a man who has talked about a coup. What realistic assurances can we give Diem that the action he fears won’t take place?
It would seem that the increased U.S. military stake in Viet-Nam should afford some means for stabilizing the political relationships within the Vietnamese Armed Forces long enough for all concerned to get on with the war. Armed with facts about such a political stability, Nolting and McGarr should have little trouble in getting Diem to play ball.
E.G. Lansdale
Brigadier General, USAF
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v01/d340
. . .
*2. Document 337
https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1961-63v22/d337
I ponder the Dance Macabre of Kennedy and Landsdale, The whole tune began with Landsdale’s report that turned Kennedy’s head around to the reality in S.E. Asia.
It all ended with Kennedy’s brains splattered on Elm St. in a Landsdale designed coup d’etat.
\\][//
Willy Whitten — December 28, 2015 at 10:39 am
The issue of JFK & Vietnam seems to be muddled. In my view the issue is not what Kennedy might have done had he lived, but what he did and didn’t do while he was alive.
It has become crystal clear that what Kennedy did NOT do: He did not authorize combat forces deployed to Vietnam, against every proposal, coercive pressures, lies, deceptions and intrigue set against him to do so.
It is also crystal clear that those putting these pressures on Kennedy were convinced that their “advice” was “the right thing to do”, and that they were increasingly frustrated and angry; convinced that Kennedy’s lack of going along with “the right thing to do”, amounted to “appeasement”, and was seen as virtual treason to the most virulent warmongers. And the most virulent warmongers composed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many top civilian advisers.
Further I propose that this crystal clear situation can be seen as the motive for a coup d’etat, to remove Kennedy in order to do “the right thing”.
Beyond this, there is overwhelming evidence that Oswald was a patsy set up by the perpetrators of the assassination in Dallas. All of the points of this evidence having been gone over ad infinitum in these threads for countless years, as well as being public knowledge for decades.
My conclusion is that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in a coup d’etat, perpetrated by the military industrial complex.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-843416
\\][//
Cabinet Meeting, April 27, 1961
“if we do not fight in Laos, will we fight in Thailand where the situation will be the same sometime in the future as it is now in Laos? Will we fight in Vietnam? Where will we fight? Where do we hold? Where do we draw the line?
… I went back [that same day]. I wrote a memorandum to the President, and you don’t just send a memorandum over to the President: You take it over. And I got thrown out…the President said, “This is settled.”~Admiral Arleigh Burke
(Interview with Joseph O’Conner, January 20, 1967, pp. 35-36)
\\][//
Assassination Records Review Board Final Determination Notification
ORIGINATOR : HSCA
FROM : PHILLIPS, DAVID ATLEE
DATE : 11/27/76
PAGES : 135
DOCUMENT TYPE : TRANSCRIPT
SUBJECT(S) : OSWALD, LEE, POST RUSSIAN PERIOD, TRAVEL, TRIP TO
MEXICO; CIA, METHODOLOGY; PHILLIPS, DAVID A., TESTIMONY
BEFORE THE COMMITTEE;
CLASSIFICATION : UNCLASSIFIED
[…]
Mr. Phillips: He later contacted Mr. Miller, and that presumably triggered Mr. Miller’s call to me to talk about the secrecy agreement.
Mr. Sprague: And who was it that said to you that this technically applies?
Mr. Phillips: Mr. Miller.
Mr. Sprague: And what else was covered in that conversation, if anything?
Mr. Phillips: That was it, sir, it was very brief.
Mr. Sprague: Well, that is what my question is. Was the whole content of that conversation Mr. Miller’s telling
you that technically that agreement still was binding on you?
Mr. Phillips: I …Yes, sir, and also to tell me something like they weren’t going to tell me what to do or anything like that.
Mr. Thone: Excuse me, Mr. Sprague, but when they tell you technically, again, you are a thirty-year veteran of the CIA, aren’t they cautioning you to be very careful in your choice of language. Why would he bring up the language well, no, it doesn’t apply, but technically it does apply?
Mr. Phillips: Sir, I don’t know, but it was in the context of letting me know that they were not saying to me don’t go down and testify, and so that is why I did not see it as a threat.
. . . . .
WTF???~ww
Click to access Phillips_11-27-76.pdf
\\][//
Willy Whitten – December 28, 2015 at 1:40 pm
“I also suspect that Mr. Brugioni “may know” more than he is letting on, in; he refers to it(as if “speaking out” to others;perhaps as a sign or warning)”~D. E. Mitchell
You suppose, you feel, you suspect, you presume…
However you obviously don’t know squat about film and special effects. Your position is preposterous and essentially the result of a superstitious mind: Belief in things that you don’t understand.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/rewinding-the-zapruder-film/#comment-843467
\\][//
Willy Whitten — December 28, 2015 at 3:08 pm
Deploy, as soon as possible, a Special Forces Group—approximately 400 U.S. military personnel—to Nha Trang in order to accelerate GVN Special Forces training.~NSAM 42
Terms of the essence to keep this in context are:
“in order to accelerate *GVN Special Forces *TRAINING.”
This was the MISSION. Regardless of what happened on the ground, these were Kennedy’s orders: TRAINING.
It is so entirely obvious that every move Kennedy made was an effort to get the Vietnamese ready to fight their own war.
It is equally as obvious that the military command disregarded Kennedy’s purposes every step of the way.
Going’round’n’round, with someone insisting that plain language does not mean what it actually states… It is simply Orwellian nonsense.
I refuse to participate in this disingenuous “debate” any further.
Mr Clarke is free to spout any nonsense, he or any of his “academic” sources can come up with.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/agencies-hint-they-may-try-to-block-jfk-declassification-in-2017/#comment-843489
McAdams dreary text is reminiscent of the voodoo rhythms of Haitian zombies…
It’s like listening to the thumpidy thump of a twitching spazpaddle of a rabid beaver on a hollow log.
\\][//
“Helms’s motives for perjury in 1964, involved far more than the technicality that he had sworn an oath to protect the agency’s secrets. At risk in these crucial months was the preservation of the agency itself, or at a minimum the preservation of its operational capacity. The choice confronting him was not between two conflicting oaths. It was a choice between the survival of the CIA as he knew it, or the survival of America’s justice system and the rule of law as we then knew them.
Helms’s choice was unambiguous, as it was again in 1973, when he “falsely testified [to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee] that the CIA had not passed money to the opposition movement in Chile”.[12] He lied, at the expense of justice, to ensure that the CIA would survive. In this he would assuredly have had the support of Angleton. Angleton later testified to the Senate Church Committee that “it is inconceivable that a secret intelligence arm of the government has to comply with all the overt orders of the government.”[13]”~Peter Dale Scott
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/12/28/why-cias-richard-helms-lied-about-oswald-part-3/
\\][//
“Given this evolution of events, I conclude that Helms’s perjuries significantly affected the history of this country. They were a vital part of an on-going process whereby, after the Reagan Revolution of 1980, the constitutional deep state was now subordinated to the needs and priorities of the structural deep state (including, but not limited to, the CIA). One of these needs, ever since 1963, has been to preserve the threadbare fiction that Lee Harvey Oswald by himself killed the president, and no one in the CIA was involved in any way.
How can we make the American people more aware that elements of the CIA lied about the assassination in 1964, and are still lying today? How are we to deal with the widespread climate of denial in our media and academies?
To pursue the truth about these matters is to position oneself outside the mainstream-supported structure of ideas. And we have learned from experience that there are severe limits to the amount of assistance we can expect in that pursuit from either Congress or the courts.
The truth, however, can be a powerful political weapon. So can justice. So I hope we will all continue to dedicate ourselves to this very slow, but undying and rewarding effort, to make truth and justice prevail.”~Peter Dale Scott
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/12/28/why-cias-richard-helms-lied-about-oswald-part-3/
\\][//
R. Andrew Kiel
December 31, 2015 at 7:20 pm
“Photon – Karen Carlin (one of Ruby’s dancers) would surely qualify as an associate of Jack Ruby. Here is what she told the Warren Commission about Jack Ruby:
“He (Ruby) was always asking the question, Do you think I am a queer”? Do you think I look like a queer? or Have you ever known a queer to look like me? Every time I saw him he would ask that”?
If these are true statements by Carlin – does that prove that Ruby & Oswald were engaged in a “gay” relationship – of course not. But you – Photon stated “NO ONE” of his associates ever alluded that he was a “Pinkie”. Do I think that you stated a deliberate falsehood – no – but any objective researcher would wonder why Ruby was asking those questions.
You & Mr. McAdams continually ignore documented evidence that others present when it doesn’t fit your theories – you do not engage in an honest consideration of opposing views. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.
SS Agent Roger Warner interviewed Karen Carlin on November 24, 1963 – his report stated: “Mrs. Carlin was highly agitated & was reluctant to make any statement to me. She stated to me that she was under the impression that Lee Harvey Oswald, Jack Ruby, & other individuals unknown to her, were involved in a plot to assassinate President Kennedy & that she would be killed if she gave any information to the authorities”. She apparently believed that Ruby & Oswald were associates – why did she make that statement & why was she so agitated is what we should be asking.
Jack Ruby stated to the Warren Commission “if there was a conspiracy, then this little girl(Carlin) that called me on the phone in Ft. Worth then is part of the conspiracy. Who else could have timed it so perfectly by seconds. If it were timed that way, then someone in the police department is guilty of giving the information as to when Lee Harvey Oswald was coming down.”
Jack Ruby did send a money order to Karen Carlin from the Western Union office & then proceeded to walk less than half a block into the basement of the Dallas Jail & shot Lee Oswald – ending any possibility of Oswald receiving any reasonable & objective defense.
Sounds very similar to what you & McAdams have been attempting to do for years – to no avail to objective researchers – you are the buffs – because you will not respond to this post with objectivity to the possible role of Karen Carlin.”
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-844487
\\][//
“50 Reasons for 50 Years,” Len Osanic says yes. I think the evidence says no. Decide for yourself.
The YouTube episode focuses on the so-called “sniper’s nest,” the area next to the 6th floor window of the Texas School Book Depository (TSBD) from which Lee Oswald allegedly fired a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle wounding Governor John Connally and killing President Kennedy. The piece makes some good and indisputable points — this area was not controlled after the shooting; the photographs that appear in the Warren Commission do not depict the space as it was found after the assassination; the boxes and the bullet shells were rearranged for the purposes of photography.
The most debatable point concerns the alleged discovery of a Mauser rifle in the TSBD. One deputy sheriff, Seymour Weitzman, wrote in his report the next day that he found a 7.65 Mauser and another deputy, Roger Craig, said that is was a Mauser. News footage shows officers handling an Italian-made Mannlicher Carcano rifle and no German-made Mauser was ever introduced as evidence. So the implication is that Dallas law enforcement made the Mauser — and evidence of second gunman — disappear.
But as Osanic’s first day footage makes clear there were a wide variety of TV reports about the type of rifle found. Confusion was obviously the order of the day.
Deception?
Rifle discovered
Gary Mack of the 6th Floor Museum, an institution that does not engage the JFK conspiracy debate, says that the Manlicher-Carcano was simply misidentified.
In an email Mack wrote:
“The rifle was misidentified by Sheriff’s deputies as a Mauser while it was still on the floor partly hidden by boxes. One of the two reporters on the floor at the time – Tom Alyea/WFAA-TV and Kent Biffle/Dallas Morning News – and one of them got word out to the newsroom and that’s how the Mauser name first appeared.
“Later, once [another Dallas Police Lieutenant J.C.] Day and then [Dallas Police Captain Will] Fritz got a close look at it, they weren’t sure what it was due to the vague markings which did, however, include the phrase “Made in Italy.: That’s when “Italian weapon” started appearing on the wires.
“After Fritz took it back to the crime lab for further examination, he still wasn’t sure what it was. He was asked to take it to Fritz’ office so, to prevent reporters outside his office from touching it, he held it over his head. Many news people got pictures of that moment including a KRLD-TV camera man. The original video tape is in The Sixth Floor Museum’s collection and the wall clock behind him shows 6:18 as Day told reporters what he knew about the weapon: 6.5mm, made in Italy, 1940. That’s all he said.
“So there were hours of vague information. The important thing to remember is that none of the sheriff’s deputies saw the rifle again and they were not privy to what the Dallas Police were doing. It’s no surprise to me that Weitzman the next day reported it was a Mauser since that is all that he knew, for that is what they thought when he was there.
I asked Osanic, host of Black Op Radio, to respond to the argument that this was a simple case of misidentification. He replied:
“If it was the case of a simple misidentification overheard by a newsman, then one should expect the initial reports to be consistent, much as the erroneous information of discoveries being on the fifth floor was uniformly presented for several hours. Instead, multiple rifles (makes and models) were featured on the airwaves, with the report of a British rifle being just the first of many.
“The Sixth Floor [Musuem] has an agenda to promote the Warren Report. Weitzman was there, he swore an affidavit that it was not only a Mauser, but model 7.65.
David Lifton, author of “Best Evidence,” notes that Seymour Weitzman later said his identification was an honest mistake. You can watch a YouTube of Weitzman’s comments here.
Sorting out the issue
For me, I see no other indication that a Mauser played any other role in the JFK story. For example, the forensic evidence doesn’t indicate a Mauser was used to fire on the presidential motorcade. I know of no other allegation that a Mauser was used on November 22, 1963. Given Weitzman’s explanation, I am inclined to accept this was a case of misidentification, amplified in the chaos of the immediate aftermath of the killing of president.
Watch Osanic’s video here:
The Four Faces of Harry D Holmes
by Ian Griggs
Note: Members of Holmes’ family have contacted JFK Lancer to say that their father should be remembered in the context of the times where it was considered a badge of honor to be an FBI informant and feel he did his duty in all areas of his responsibility in relation to the murder of President John F. Kennedy.
Presented at the 1997 November In Dallas Conference.
Introduction
Harry D Holmes was born in Indian Territory, Oklahoma on 2nd July 1905. His father was a goatherd and young Harry’s entire education took place in the area in and around Kansas City where he ended up at dental college. However, he went into the United States Postal Service when he was 18 years old and he remained in the USPS until his retirement in 1966. He died in Dallas on 14th October 1989. One of the most difficult things to find in the whole of the assassination investigation – apart from the truth! – is a picture of Dallas Postal Inspector Harry D Holmes. Has anybody here ever seen one? I think it safe to say that almost everyone who has visited my home city of London as a tourist is familiar with one of the major landmarks, Big Ben. This is the name by which the high, four-sided clock tower at the eastern end of the Houses of Parliament is known. Strictly speaking, Big Ben is actually the huge bell in the clock tower. In Britain, a person who is thought to be particularly devious is sometimes said to have as many faces as Big Ben. That expression hardly requires clarification. I think that Dallas Post Office Inspector Harry D Holmes falls easily into that category. Just like the Big Ben clock tower, he had four distinct and separate faces. The Four Faces of Harry D Holmes In strict chronological order, the four faces of Harry D Holmes were as follows:
(1) The FBI Informant
Prior to the assassination, Holmes had already become an FBI informant. One of his functions was to keep the FBI (and, incidentally, the Secret Service) appraised of changes in the allocation of post office boxes in the Dallas area. This obviously brought Lee Harvey Oswald to his attention. Several authors, notably the late Sylvia Meagher and our colleague George Michael Evica, brought this point out in their books. In each case they mentioned that Holmes had been allocated a Dallas Informant Number – T-7. It is a problem that nowhere do we find any document, FBI report or anything else which positively states this as a fact. However, close perusal of Commission Exhibit 1152 does prove the point. That exhibit is an FBI report which deals exclusively with information supplied by “Confidential Informant, Dallas T-7”. It contains many precise details which can only have been known to Harry D Holmes in his capacity as a Dallas Postal Inspector. It is thus proved beyond any doubt that FBI Informant T-7 and Harry D Holmes are one and the same. I would urge you all to study that exhibit – CE 1152. In his Warren Commission testimony, Holmes told Assistant Counsel David Belin that he was “feeding change of addresses as bits of information to the FBI and the Secret Service and a sort of a coordinating deal on it” At this stage, Belin immediately silenced him with one of those convenient “discussions off record” and they then went on to something completely different.
http://www.jfklancer.com/Holmes.html
\\][//
U.S. Postal regulation no. 355.111 clearly states that “Mail addressed to a person at a PO Box who is not authorized to receive mail shall be endorsed ‘addressee unknown’ and returned to sender.”
http://www.ctka.net/2011/wiki_pt2.html#N_10_
Note the last paragraph on page 4 of FBI Report – Commission Exhibit No. 2585
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1141&search=post_office+box#relPageId=889&tab=page
\\][//
Edward S. Butler Obituary Notice:
010988 Butler – Edward S. Butler Iii, Radio Host, Activist Edward Scannell Butler Iii, A New Orleans Radio Host And Anti-Communist Activist Who Debated Lee Harvey Oswald On The Air Three Months Before President Kennedy’s Assassination, Died Aug. 31, 2005 Of A Heart Attack At Louisiana Heart Hospital In Lacombe. He Was 71. Mr. Butler Was Born In New Orleans, Worked In Holmby Hills, Calif., For Many Years And Most Recently Lived In Slidell. At The Time Of His Death, He Was Awaiting Heart Surgery To Correct Problems That Arose Immediately Before The Arrival Of Hurricane Katrina, Said His Brother, Perrin Butler Of Metairie. During A Stint In The Army, Mr. Butler Worked With The Defense Intelligence Agency While Stationed At The Army Management School At Fort Belvoir, Va. Later, He Co-Founded The Information Council Of The Americas, A Non-Profit Organization That Became Involved With Aiding People Displaced By Fidel Castro’s Communist Revolution In Cuba. In The Course Of His Work With The Council, Mr. Butler Came In Contact With Oswald, Who Was Promoting A Pro-Castro Organization In New Orleans And Seeking Help From The American Communist Party. Mr. Butler Confronted Oswald On A New Orleans Radio Show In August 1963 And Forced Him To Admit That As A Marxist, He Had Gone To The Soviet Union And Tried To Renounce His U.S. Citizenship. Oswald Soon Moved To Dallas, Killing Kennedy On Nov. 22, 1963. In 2002, Mr. Butler Recalled His On-Air Debate With Oswald: ‘He Wore A Very Heavy Wool Suit In August, A Very Hot August Day In New Orleans. He Was Parboiling, But He Didn’t Have A Bead Of Sweat On Him, And He Was Very Self-Contained. ‘I Was Shocked When I Heard He Had Killed Kennedy. I Would Not Have Been Shocked If He Had Tried To Kill Me. I Was Concerned About The Guy From The Minute I Met Him.’ After Kennedy’s Assassination, Mr. Butler Wrote A Study Of Political Revolution, ‘Revolution Is My Profession,’ In Which He Predicted Unrest In The United States During The 1960s And 1970s And The Rise Of Terrorism. He also Produced A Television Show Based In Large Measure On The Oswald Radio Debate, As Well As A Feature Film Examining The Nature Of The Castro Regime: ‘Hitler In Havana.’ During His Years In California, Mr. Butler Produced And Starred In A Weekly Television Show, ‘The Square World Of Ed Butler,’ And In Documentaries, Including Two Series: ‘Spirit ’76’ And ‘Spirit U.S.’ He Also Published A West Coast Magazine, ‘Westwood Village Square.’ More Recently, Mr. Butler Managed Radio Station Wtix-Am In New Orleans, Where He Conducted An Afternoon Talk Show. Mr. Butler Is Survived By Five Children, Edward Scannell Butler Iv Of Redondo Beach, Calif., Nola Butler Of Pasadena, Calif., Matthew Thomson Butler Of Beaverton, Ore., Clarkston Butler Of Slidell And Dawn Butler Edelen Of Lafayette; Four Grandchildren; Brothers Perrin Butler Of Metairie And Rhett Butler Of Troy, Ala.; And A Sister, Lynn Butler Mauney Of New Orleans. A Memorial Service Will Be At A Later Time, When Travel Restrictions Related To Hurricane Katrina Are Sufficiently Eased. For More Information, Call Perrin Butler At (504) 831-5958.
http://files.usgwarchives.net/la/orleans/obits/1/b-37.txt
\\][//
Ed Butler: Expert in Propaganda and Psychological Warfare
[…]
“Some of the people Butler recruited in New Orleans to help finance his propaganda efforts were Clay Shaw and Lloyd Cobb of the International Trade Mart and Alton Ochsner, the extremely conservative physician and philanthropist. By 1961 he had become involved in two associations that were meant to fight this propaganda war: the Free Voice of Latin America and the American Institute for Freedom Project. The former had its office in Shaw’s International Trade Mart and through the latter Butler engaged both Ochsner and Guy Banister, who was Oswald’s handler in New Orleans in the summer of 1963. But according to an investigation by Jim Garrison, Butler was so imperious and abrasive within the former group that he was forced out in 1961.
At that time, Butler began to organize its successor organization, the Information Council of the Americas, or INCA. This was to be, in essence, a propaganda mill that had as its targets Central and South America, and the Caribbean. It would create broadcasts, called Truth Tapes, which would be recycled through those areas and, domestically, stage rallies and fund raisers to both energize its base and collect funds to redouble its efforts. By this time, as Carpenter and others point out, Butler was now in communication with people like Charles Cabell, Deputy Director of the CIA, and Ed Lansdale, the legendary psy-ops master within the Agency who was shifting his focus from Vietnam to Cuba. These contacts helped him get access to Cuban refugees who he featured on these tapes. Declassified documents reveal the Agency helped distribute the tapes to about 50 stations in South America by 1963. There is some evidence that the CIA furnished Butler with films of Cuban exile training camps and that he was in contact with E. Howard Hunt — under one of his aliases — who supervised these exiles in New Orleans. Some of the local elite who joined or helped INCA would later figure in the Oswald story e.g. Eustis Reily of Reily Coffee Company, where Oswald worked; Edgar Stern who owned the local NBC station WDSU where Oswald was to appear; and Alberto Fowler, a friend of Shaw’s; plus future Warren Commissioner Hale Boggs who helped INCA get tax-exempt status. Butler also began to befriend ground level operators in the CIA’s anti-Castro effort like David Ferrie, Oswald’s friend in New Orleans; Sergio Arcacha Smith, one of Hunt’s prime agents in New Orleans; and Gordon Novel, who worked with Banister, Smith and apparently, David Phillips, on an aborted telethon for the exiles.
Two other acquaintances of Butler’s were Bill Stuckey, a broadcast and print reporter, and Carlos Bringuier, a CIA operative in the Cuban exile community and leader of the DRE, one of its most important groups in New Orleans. These three figure in one of the most fascinating and intriguing episodes in the Kennedy assassination tale. In August of 1963 — three months before the assassination — Bringuier was involved in a scuffle with Oswald as he distributed literature for the FPCC, the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. As many commentators have noted, Oswald was the only member of that “committee” in New Orleans, and some of the literature he distributed gave as the FPCC headquarters address, the office of rabid anti-communist Guy Banister — further exposing who Oswald really was. WDSU filmed some of these leafleting events. When Bringuier found out about this, he confronted Oswald on the city streets and verbally and physically assaulted him. The police came. Bringuier got off; Oswald was busted for disturbing the peace — even though Bringuier was the aggressor. This event brought Oswald to the attention of Stuckey who had him on his WDSU show, Latin Listening Post, on August 17th. After the show, Stuckey and his friend Ed Butler asked Oswald to return four days later. Oswald continued his leafleting, this time in front of the International Trade Mart. In the interim, through contacts in Washington, they found out about Oswald’s voyage to Russia, his stay there, and his attempted defection. The morning of the program, the 21st, Stuckey informed the FBI that Oswald would appear on the program. Butler and Stuckey used the Washington information to “unmask” Oswald on the show, and thereby discredit the supposedly liberal and sympathetic FPCC as harboring Soviet Communists in its midst. Right afterwards, Butler went over to a neighboring TV station, WVUE, where he was put on the air to announce Oswald’s exposure on the 10 PM news.
Interestingly, John Newman later revealed in Oswald and the CIA that the CIA had an anti-FPCC program ongoing at the time. It was run by Phillips and Hunt’s friend, James McCord. It may be relevant to note here that a CIA contact sheet with Butler contains the comment that he was “a very cooperative contact and has always welcomed an opportunity to assist the CIA.” Even more revealing as to the true nature of these events, Oswald wrote a letter about the confrontation five days before it happened.
Butler’s role in the assassination tale now gets even more interesting. For as Time magazine noted in its 11/29/63 issue, “Even before Lee Oswald was formally charged with the murder, CBS put on the air an Oswald interview taped by a New Orleans station last August.” That night, according to New Orleans Magazine, Butler and the INCA staff churned out news releases about Oswald in order to offset the “rightist” and “John Bircher” charges flying about. Then, Senator Thomas Dodd, who ran the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee, was called up by Butler. Conservative Democrat Dodd was very friendly with the CIA and was a personal and professional enemy of Kennedy, opposing him on his African anti-colonialism policy in the Congo. Dodd was out of Washington on November 22nd but booked a special flight back and announced to his staff, “I am a friend of the new administration!” Dodd then began to mimic and deride those who were bereaved over Kennedy’s death. He topped it all off with this: “I’ll say of John Kennedy what I said of Pope John the day he died. It will take us fifty years to undo the damage he did to us in three years.
[…]
In the eighties, the Butler-Banister-Oswald story came full circle. A young advertising employee named Ed Haslam was assigned to go over to the revived offices of INCA in New Orleans. At the time William Casey was fighting a not-so-secret war against communism in Central America. INCA was going to use a radio station through the Voice of America to support that effort. Haslam’s company was going to write ad copy for the station. When he got there, Butler showed him around the place. One thing he showed him was the extant files of Guy Banister. Gus Russo knew this story because Haslam revisited the office and Butler in the nineties with him. This intriguing fact never made it into the ABC special. Somehow, the files of the man who handled Oswald in New Orleans in 1963 came into the possession of the man who “exposed” him as a communist, first locally, then to the US government, and then to the world. By not going into any of the above facets, ABC served as a conduit for propaganda analyst Butler to revive his greatest psy-ops triumph.”~Jim DiEugenio
http://www.ctka.net/butler.html
Also see, on ZRMetal [Cryptonym for Washington, D.C. = ZRMETAL]:
Click to access AERODYNAMIC%20%20%20VOL.%201_0020.pdf
Notes on Ed Butler’s Contacts with Oswald:
Click to access Item%2025.pdf
\\][//
Remember, as Bernays articulated; “Propaganda is the executive arm of the invisible government.”
The Public Relations Regime is in fact the prime directive for maintaining the ‘invisible government’ that Bernays outlines in this tract, ‘PROPAGANDA’.
The proposition that someone with the known history of Ed Butler is not an official ad hoc arrangement is rather silly, given all the background of general and specific history being presented here.
I do not see my opinion as in anyway unfounded in logic and critical thinking. This all seems rather obvious to me.
\\][//
HSCA (01-23-1976) CIA, FILES
GAUDET, WILLIAM GEORGE
Gaudet further stated that he had observed Oswald in conversation with Guy Banister on Camp Street right by the post office box. They were leaning over and talking and it was an earnest conversation.
Gaudet further testified that Oswald and Banister appeared to know each other and that Banister was requesting Oswald to d something for him. (p. 11)
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=112000&search=junior_and+butler#relPageId=7&tab=page
This entire document should be read, fascinating info therein.
\\][//
“The Warren Commission was bunk. It fucked us all up. We’re a generation of Hamlet figures.”~Oliver Stone
[Mother Jones, March/April 1991]
\\][//
Jefferson Morley v Central Intelligence Agency
Civil Action No. 03-2545 (RL)
Sixth Declaration by Jefferson Morley
Click to access sixthmorelydeclaration.pdf
\\][//
Counter-Revisionism
Was President Kennedy responsible for the deaths of thousands, or up to one million, Indonesians?
Negative, that was Eisenhower (CIA’s failed coup in Indonesia) and Lyndon Johnson (CIA’s successful coup in Indonesia)!
Was President Kennedy responsible for the deaths of hundreds to thousands of Iranians?
Negative, Eisenhower was responsible for the coup in Iran in the early 1950s.
Was President Kennedy responsible for the deaths hundreds to thousands of Guatemalans?
Negative, Eisenhower was responsible for the coup which overthrew Jacobo Arbenz’s administration!
Was President Kennedy responsible for the deaths of millions of Vietnamese?
Negative, Johnson and Nixon were responsible for those deaths!
Was President Kennedy responsible for the deaths of thousands of Brazilians?
Negative, Johnson was responsible for Operation Brother Sam!
Was President Kennedy responsible for the deaths of thousands of Chileans?
Negative, Nixon was responsible for the coup which overthrew Salvador Allende, and the replacement with the brutal mass murderer, Gen. Augusto Pinochet!
Was President Kennedy responsible for the deaths of US Navy and Marine personnel aboard the USS Liberty when the government conspired with Israel on a false flag operation?
Negative, that was President Lyndon Johnson!
sgt_doom – January 7, 2016 at 3:47 pm
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-11/#comment-846766
Dr. Charles Mendoza
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=13963
Willy Whitten
March 14, 2015 at 7:35 pm
DeMohrenschildt’s “psychiatric problems” seem to center around a certain, Charles Mendoza, who George initially went to for a relapse of his chronic bronchitis. Someone recommended Mendoza who was new to the area. George began “treatments” at Mendoza’s office rather than go to a hospital.
Although his bronchitis got better, he began to become more nervous and agitated emotionally.
Jean became concerned and asked what these “treatments” were, and George said he was given shots, and a regimen of pills.
I think this would indicate that George may have been in the hands of MK Ultra, who were able to “treat” him in such a way as to drive him to the edge.
His early attempts at suicide were by taking overdoses of the pills.
Click to access Item%2025.pdf
“A check with the Dallas County Medical Society showed that a Dr. Charles Mendoza had registered with the association just two months before he began treating George DeMohrenschildt. Mendoza left Dallas in December 1976, shortly after George had entered Parkland for mental problems. Mendoza’s forwarding address proved fictitious.” ~Ibid
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/in-defense-of-bill-oreilly-i-have-no-explanation/#comment-728380
\\][//
“So you can be “part of the DIA” without being employed by the DIA?”
~John McAdams
Do you understand what the term “Asset” means in Intelligence parlance?
Are we being indoctrinated into some form of alternate “McAdamsian Kindergarten” here?
Are you suggesting we all take a Pledge of Naiveté for the greater good of Amerikan Exceptionalism?
Short answer: YES, you can be part of the DIA without being employed by the DIA
Does the term ‘NGO’ ring any bells here?.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-848111
\\][//
CIA memo #1035-960
May I point out to all of our fine flustered friends that as of the date of CIA memo #1035-960 (4/1/67), that “news” was an *international business operation:
United Press International (UPI) is an international news agency, whose newswires, photo, news film and audio services provided news material to thousands of newspapers, magazines and radio and television stations for most of the 20th century.
*And covertly Intelligence was and is an international operation as well:
JMWAVE or JM/WAVE or JM WAVE was the codename for a major secret United States covert operations and intelligence gathering station operated by the CIA from 1961 until 1968. It was headquartered in Building 25 25.6202°N 80.3990°W on the South Campus of the University of Miami in Miami, Florida. (This location was formerly the site of Richmond Naval Air Station, an airship base about 12 miles south of the main campus; after the airship base closed, it has been used by the University of Miami since 1948.) The intelligence facility was also referred to as the CIA’s “Miami Station” or “Wave Station”.
And just who was “Station Chief” of JMWAVE? Theodore Shackley:
“In the early 1960s, Shackley’s work included being station chief in Miami, during the period of the Cuban Missile Crisis, as well as the Cuban Project (also known as Operation Mongoose), which he directed. He was also said to be the director of the “Phoenix Program” during the Vietnam War, as well as the CIA station chief in Laos between 1966–1968, and Saigon station chief from 1968 through February 1972. In 1976, he was appointed Associate Deputy Director for Operations, and was in charge of the CIA’s worldwide covert operations. Shackley is perhaps best known for his involvement in CIA “black ops”.”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Shackley
CIA memo #1035-960:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=42910&search=%22employ_propaganda+assets%22#relPageId=2&tab=page
http://www.jfklancer.com/CIA.html
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-848473
\\][//
Low Intensity Warfare
CHAPTER 1
Fundamentals Of Low Intensity Conflict
“The political object, as the original motive of the war, should be the standard for determining both the aim of the military force and also the amount of effort to be made.”~Carl von Clausewitz
“What is important is to understand the role of military force and the role of other responses and how these fit together.”~Caspar Weinberger
This chapter outlines the role of military operations in low intensity conflict (LIC). It describes the environment of LIC and identifies imperatives which the military planner must consider. It describes the four major LIC operational categories-support for insurgencies and counterinsurgencies; combatting terrorism; peacekeeping operations and peacetime contingency operations. It also provides general guidance for campaign planning, and presents perspectives which are useful at the operational level. Subsequent chapters address the four major operational categories in detail.
DEFINITION
Low intensity conflict is a political-military confrontation between contending states or groups below conventional war and above the routine, peaceful competition among states. It frequently involves protracted struggles of competing principles and ideologies. Low intensity conflict ranges from subversion to the use of armed force. It is waged by a combination of means, employing political, economic, informational, and military instruments. Low intensity conflicts are often localized, generally in the Third World, but contain regional and global security implications.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/100-20/10020ch1.htm
\\][//
“I’m telling you – the man and the dog are definitely working together…”~Trevor, the wise sheep
\\][//
Lately I have noticed the flavor of cayenne pepper more in chocolate, even in Mars chocolate bars… And this seems to correlate with getting that damned stink bug in my mouth the other day!
A not unpleasant after effect to tell you the truth.
Weird? Kinda sorta in a way, I spoze.
\\][//
From Christopher Andrew and Vasili Mitrokhin, The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB, pp. 225-230:
It would have been wholly out of character had the Centre failed to interpret President Kennedy’s assassination by Lee Harvey Oswald in Dallas on November 22, 1963 as anything less than conspiracy. The deputy chairman of the KGB reported to the Central Committee in December:
A reliable source of the Polish friends [Polish intelligence], an American entrepreneur and owner of a number of firms closely connected to the petroleum circles of the South, reported in late November that the real instigators of this criminal deed were three leading oil magnates from the South of the USA — Richardson, Murchison and Hunt, all owners of major petroleum reserves in the southern states who have long been connected to pro-fascist and racist organizations in the South.
http://www.jfk-online.com/mitrokhin.html
\\][//
Oswald unknown at Soviet consulate in Mexico City
Did Bush Sr. Kill Kennedy and Frame Nixon?
Review of Russ Baker’s new book
By David Swanson
Global Research, December 26, 2008
http://www.globalresearch.ca/did-bush-sr-kill-kennedy-and-frame-nixon/11495
\\][//
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 13, 2016 at 5:22 am
“In other words, it’s not possible for a bunch of people to disagree with you unless they are spooks.”~McAdams
We are not children here Herr Doktor. We all know what the trope, “in other words” means. It means that YOU are going to make up what we mean, and not address what we said, but what you say we said.
That is the definition of a “straw man argument”.
You seem to run the whole gambit of false argumentum in your commentary. Each comment you make has one of these types of critical errors in them.
Is this the sign of a dunce? Or is this the sign of a propagandist? If you were analyzing a KGB cable, and found these types of arguments being made therein; what would you think?
[Not that I don’t think you will take that very question and attempt to turn it back at me.]
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-848726
\\][//
Operation Mockingbird
Operation Mockingbird was a secret campaign by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to influence media. Begun in the 1950s, it was initially organized by Cord Meyer and Allen W. Dulles, and was later led by Frank Wisner after Dulles became the head of the CIA. The organization recruited leading American journalists into a network to help present the CIA’s views, and funded some student and cultural organizations, and magazines as fronts. As it developed, it also worked to influence foreign media and political campaigns, in addition to activities by other operating units of the CIA.
In addition to earlier exposés of CIA activities in foreign affairs, in 1966, Ramparts magazine published an article revealing that the National Student Association was funded by the CIA. The United States Congress investigated the allegations and published a report in 1976. Other accounts were also published. The media operation was first called Mockingbird in Deborah Davis’s 1979 book, Katharine the Great: Katharine Graham and The Washington Post [1]
History
In 1948, Frank Wisner was appointed director of the Office of Special Projects (OSP). Soon afterwards, OSP was renamed the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC), which became the CIA’s covert action branch. Wisner was told to create an organization that concentrated on “propaganda, economic warfare; preventive direct action, including sabotage, anti-sabotage, demolition and evacuation measures; subversion against hostile states, including assistance to underground resistance groups, and support of indigenous anti-Communist elements in threatened countries of the free world”.[2] Later that year, Wisner established Mockingbird, a program to influence foreign media. Wisner recruited Philip Graham from The Washington Post to run the project within the industry. According to Deborah Davis in Katharine the Great, “By the early 1950s, Wisner ‘owned’ respected members of The New York Times, Newsweek, CBS and other communications vehicles.”[3]
In 1951, Allen W. Dulles persuaded Cord Meyer to join the CIA. However, there is evidence that he was recruited several years earlier and had been spying on the liberal internationalist organizations he had been a member of in the late 1940s.[4] According to Deborah Davis, Meyer became Mockingbird’s “principal operative.”[5]
“I’m proud they asked me and proud to have done it” – Joseph Alsop [6]
After 1953, the network was overseen by CIA Director Allen Dulles, by which time Operation Mockingbird had major influence over 25 newspapers and wire agencies. The usual methodology was placing reports developed from intelligence provided by the CIA to witting or unwitting reporters. Those reports would then be repeated or cited by the preceding reporters which in turn would then be cited throughout the media wire services. These networks were run by people with well-known liberal but pro-American big business and anti-Soviet views such as William S. Paley (CBS), Henry Luce (Time and Life Magazine), Arthur Hays Sulzberger (New York Times), Alfred Friendly (managing editor of the Washington Post), Jerry O’Leary (Washington Star), Hal Hendrix (Miami News), Barry Bingham, Sr. (Louisville Courier-Journal), James Copley (Copley News Services) and Joseph Harrison (Christian Science Monitor).[7]
The Office of Policy Coordination (OPC) was funded by siphoning off funds intended for the Marshall Plan. Some of this money was used to bribe journalists and publishers. Frank Wisner was constantly looking for ways to help convince the public of the dangers of Soviet communism. In 1954, Wisner arranged for the funding of a Hollywood production of Animal Farm as an animated allegory based on the book written by George Orwell.[8]
According to Alex Constantine (Mockingbird: The Subversion of the Free Press by the CIA, first chapter of Virtual Government: CIA Mind Control Operations in America, p. 42), in the 1950s, “some 3,000 salaried and contract CIA employees were eventually engaged in propaganda efforts”. Wisner was able to constrain newspapers from reporting about certain events, including the CIA plots to overthrow the governments of Iran (see: Operation Ajax) and Guatemala (see: Operation PBSUCCESS).[9]
. . . .
Former CBS News anchor Walter Cronkite revealed the tip of the iceberg by admitting that he had “sometimes” relayed as “news”, stories directly handed to him by the CIA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Mockingbird
\\][//
Oh yes!
Tom Sculley is well aware that we are dealing with Mockingbirds in the Crypt-Tickled Three.
\\][//
“The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself… Almost inevitably, he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, and intolerable.”~H.L. Mencken, American journalist
\\][//
JFK, Operation Northwoods and 9/11.
http://forum.jfkmurdersolved.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8
\\][//
From Mockingbird, to Northwoods, to CIA memo #1035-960; is a bold straight line.
\\][//
Willy Whitten
January 13, 2016 at 11:17 pm
“Thomas Mallon writes well, but when it comes to the JFK murder he neglects one thing writers should value above style, TRUTH.”~Russ Tarby
Excellent point! And to expand on it a bit, I would add that style and form are derived from an author’s cognizance or lack thereof.
Written text, as is all symbolic languages a series of compound metaphors. We call the stacking of these metaphors, “re-as-on” reason: To re, as, on the top of the stack of ever interlocking and focusing metaphor.
It is the author’s conscious awareness of the context of his/her central epistemic space of the totality of this inner construct that provides the most accurate representation of mortal life in the context of the Time/Space Continuum.
In this sense, style and form are everything and substance and meaning will arise in their wake’ as ever widening waves of conscious thought waves – or patterns if you will.
When Jefferson proclaimed, “We hold these Truths Self Evident,” he did not let the point go unattended, but added the points that were ‘obvious’ as in ‘self-evident’, and continues adding to that original base, a firm and lasting PROOF, of what was asserted to be self evident. That is the thing about universal truths; because they are TRUE there is a path to find them in critical and lucid reasoning.
Consideration of any topic within artificially narrow barriers is an irrational constriction of context, for all integers are interconnected in a matrix as a whole.
“Ta Panta Nous” is a holistic conceptualization from Ancient Greece. The concept is at once complex and extraordinarily simple, depending on ones degree of cognizance. What seems a paradox, is found to be in fact a Paradox. And it is that paradox that divides Time & Space.
There is only ONE, that cannot be divided. And we are that.
[1≡∞]
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/thomas-mallon-asks-did-the-climate-of-hate-kill-jfk/#comment-849074
All moments, past, present, and future are simply manifestations of constructs of the mind in the ever present NOW.
Now. This is our actual experience if we actually think about it. If one has this thought, and makes a note of it, writing, ‘It is right now’– when one comes back to read that sentence it is still true, regardless of how much time is imagined to have passed, it is ALWAYS NOW.
You may object and say that I wrote that then, but it was true when I wrote it, and it is true now as you read this, it is indeed right now.
\\][//
The Voir Dire Process, is simply put, sizing up a witness pool for jury selection.
http://www.americanbar.org/newsletter/publications/law_trends_news_practice_area_e_newsletter_home/voirdireprocess.html
\\][//
General George C. Marshall believed American boys going overseas needed an honest definition of the “ism” they were fighting against. He issued Army Orientation Fact Sheet No. 64, which read, “Fascism: is government by the few, and for the few.”
Full Text :
https://archive.org/stream/ArmyTalkOrientationFactSheet64-Fascism/Fascism64_djvu.txt
WAR DEPARTMENT— WASHINGTON 25, D. C.
24 March 1945
FASCISM!
Note For This Week’s Discussion:
Fascism is not the easiest thing to identify and analyze; nor, once in power, is it easy to destroy. It is important
for our future and that of the world that as many of us as possible understand the causes and practices of fascism,
in order to combat it. Points to stress are: (1) Fascism is more apt to come to power at a time of economic crisis;
(2) fascism inevitably leads to war; (3) it can come to any country; (4) we can best combat it by making our
democracy work.
The fascists promised everything to everyone: They
would make the poor rich and the rich richer. To
the farmers, the fascists promised land through elimi-
nation of large estates. To the workers they promised
elimination of unemployment — jobs for all at high
wages. To the small business men they promised
more customers and profits through the elimination
of large business enterprises. To big business men
and the industrialists they secretly promised greater
security and profits through the elimination of small
business competitors and trade unions and the crush-
ing of socialists and communists. To the whole
nation they promised glory and wealth by conquest.
They asserted it was their right, as a “superior people,”
to rule the world.
[…]
The press, radio, movies, stage — all were put to the task of glorifying war. The school system, from kindergarten to university, justified and exalted tyranny of the strong over the weak. “The school is the preparation for the Army,” said the Nazi Minister of Education.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Mussolini coined the term Fascism. He was a journalist and a war-wounded political activist who believed Italy had been shabbily treated by its allies after World War I. During a period of intense domestic political strife, Mussolini and his band of black shirts were granted power by the king. They’d promised national unity and discipline. The symbol he chose for his political party was the ancient Roman fasces, a bundle of rods containing an axe with the blade projecting. It had been borne before Roman magistrates as an emblem of official power in the time of Caesar. He reigned from 1922 until 1943.
Benito Mussolini’s philosophy was “All for the state, nothing outside the state; nothing against the state.” He believed that “Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial and fruitful inequality of mankind.” The common street slogan for Italian Fascists was “Order, hierarchy, discipline.”
The Spanish Fascists, who assumed power in 1939 under dictator Francisco “El Caudillo” Franco, adopted the absurd slogan, “Long Live Death. Down with intelligence.”
\\][//
Also see:
Ancient Roman fasces bass relief US House of Representatives.
—If you can!, I cannot find a clear photo of them in all my image searches thus far.
Amerikan Fascism, like the bite of a black widow spider is initially painless, you don’t know until the infection sets in that you are bitten, by the time you do feel it the pain is advanced and excruciating, and could lead to death.
\\][//
Edward Scannell Butler was born in New Orleans in 1934. He went into the Army Management School from 1957-59 at Fort Belvoir, Virginia. After completing the course he was employed as an account executive with Brown, Friedman and Company, an advertising firm.
Butler became friendly with Clay Shaw and Lloyd Cobb of the International Trade Mart and persuaded these men to help fund his anti-communist campaigns. This included the establishment of two organizations: Free Voice of Latin America (FVLA) and the American Institute for Freedom Project (AIFP). Butler employed former FBI agent Guy Banister to work for the AIFP.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKbutlerED.htm
\\][//
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/disp_textbook.cfm?smtID=3&psid=1162
Obituary, New York Times, September 11, 1935
In reality. Senator Long set up a Fascist government in Louisiana. It was disguised, but only thinly. There was no outward appearance of a revolution, no march of Black Shirts upon Baton Rouge, but the effectual result was to lodge all the power of the State in the hands of one man.
If Fascism ever comes in the United States it will come in something like that way. No one will set himself up as an avowed dictator, but if he can succeed in dictating everything, the name does not matter. Laws and Constitutions guaranteeing liberty and individual rights may remain on the statute books, but the life will have gone out of them… There is no need to be on the watch for a revolutionary leader to rise up and call upon his followers to march on Washington. No such sinister figure is likely to appear. The danger is, as Senator Long demonstrated in Louisiana, that freedom may be done away with in the name of efficiency and a strong paternal government.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/thomas-mallon-asks-did-the-climate-of-hate-kill-jfk/#comment-849594
\\][//
Thanks for the comments Pat. Yes, I do believe there was a shot through the windshield. Several eyewitnesses and FBI/Secret Service agents admitted in their reports of a shot through the windshield. And, Mortician Tom Robinson of Gawler’s Funeral Home admitted to the ARRB that JFK had glass ‘shrapnel’ in his neck/cheek area. Also, an analysis of the angle of a shot from the South Knoll is consistent with a shot through the front and JFK’s personal physician was NOT seated between the two Secret Service Agents on this motorcade. The only time he was NOT seated there. If he is there, he gets hit from frontal shot, not JFK.
As for the McCone Memo, I received this from Robert Groden. This document has been rumored to be ‘fake’ by several people. However, upon talking to Robert Tosh Plumlee, he verified to me that he seen a memo identical to this in 1974 before hearings before the Church Committee. He admitted he doesn’t know if it was word for word, but said he did see this memo prior to its ‘fake status’ now.
As for Roscoe White, YES…YES…YES…YES… I think Roscoe is 100% involved. The only people that I know that tried to discredit Ricky White was the Media, FBI, Intelligence, etc….and YES, I think these agencies have an agenda to try to discredit Ricky. However, J. Gary Shaw has the originals in Baylor University Library, I had my hands on them and they were tested to be authentic by both 3M and IBM. I also had my hands on Roscoe White’s ‘Witness Elimination Program Book’ in which he admits to killing 28 people from 1963 to 1970. J. Gary Shaw not only knew Jack Ruby, but has been one of the leading researchers on this topic for 52 years. Yes, I believe completely in Roscoe. Besides his USS Bexar trip with Oswald, did you know they served together in the same Marine Unit for over 6 months in photographic and radar operations? Surely you don’t think this is all ‘coincidence.’
I appreciate your comments, but, I would ask the same of other researchers to independently look at all the evidence. I’m not in this to sell books.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22623&p=323475
Anatomy of an Online Atrocity: Wikipedia, Gamaliel, and the Fletcher Prouty entry
https://wikipediaonlineatrocity.wordpress.com/
\\][//
Meet Jack Crichton, JFK Murderer
Jack Crichton (1916-2007) is not exactly a household name, but when you travel with the Family of Secrets, your profile lies low. Crichton is one of the fine upstanding pillars of the Military Industrial Complex who played a pivotal role in the Murder of John F Kennedy on November 22, 1963 in Dealey Plaza.
Crichton made his money in the Texas oil business where he developed a strong relationship with George Herbert Walker Bush – the very same George Bush of the CIA referenced in J Edgar Hoover’s damning letter concerning the future president’s involvement in the Kennedy murder.
Earle Cabell (1906-1975), another key player in the Kennedy murder while he was mayor of Dallas, went to school with Crichton who subsequently joined the OSS during World War 2. Afterwards, he had many relationships with America’s leading MIC elements such as DuPont, General Dynamics, Kuhn Loeb, Clint Murchison, and other luminaries of the far right.
His most significant relationship in connection to the Kennedy murder was with George Bush’s Operation 40 team which planned a fake attack on Guantanamo Bay as a cover for its covert plans against the President. Both men were in Dealey Plaza at the time of the murder, with Crichton having walked from the Adolphus Hotel to Elm Street.
In addition to his business interests and role as mentor and confidante of Bush, Sr, Crichton also commanded the US Army Reserve 488th Military Intelligence unit stationed in Texas at the time of the Kennedy assassination.
http://theamericanchronicle.blogspot.com/2013/07/meet-jack-crichton-jfk-murderer.html
\\][//
The Innocence of Oswald–50+ Years of Lies, Deception & Deceit in the Murders of President John F. Kennedy & Officer J.D. Tippit.
This book proves how the U.S. Government, Lyndon B. Johnson, The Secret Service, FBI, CIA, Mafia Connections and Texas Oil arranged, financed, implemented the assassination and cover-up of our nations 35th President, John Fitzgerald Kennedy.
Includes FBI documents signed by J. Edgar Hoover on 11/23/63 stating the FBI (and Dallas Police) had no fingerprints on the weapons and shell casings Oswald was to have ‘allegedly’ used to assassinate President Kennedy and Officer J.D. Tippit.
Includes Naval Intelligence documents before and after the assassination of President Kennedy to a self-admitted assassin describing in great detail of the upcoming events of 11/22/63 and the following cover-up.
Includes the document of Jack Ruby admitting to Dallas County Police (while in Dallas County Records Building/Asst. District Attorney Office) on 11/21/63, “You probably don’t know me now, but you will.”
http://www.theinnocenceofoswald.com/
Page 5 of the FBI Report.
The second paragraph is all the proof Oswald would have needed to be found innocent at trial.
No latent prints of value were developed on Oswald’s revolver, the cartridge cases, the unfired cartridge, the clip in the rifle or the inner parts of the rifle.
The FBI is admitting they have no prints available on the revolver, the rifle, the cartridge cases or ammunition, the clip in the rifle or inner parts of the rifle.
Lee Oswald has less than 24 hours to live and the FBI and Dallas Police Department have no physical evidence he committed either crime against President Kennedy or Officer Tippit, however, Oswald would be killed the next day by Jack Ruby.
http://www.theinnocenceofoswald.com/documents
\\][//
This is a letter which recently sold at auction for $2,900. It was a response to a request of Mrs. Lincoln to describe her actions on Nov. 22, 1963.
Mrs. Lincoln on Air Force One on the returning trip to Washington D.C. wrote a list of who she believed was responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy. According to her list, the most likely candidates were:
Lyndon B. Johnson (had the most to gain)
J. Edgar Hoover,
The Mafia
The CIA
The FBI
This letter (in last paragraph) shows in Evelyn Lincoln’s opinion, there was no doubt a conspiracy. This letter dated November 19, 1994 confirms her original hand written notes of 11/22/63 aboard Air Force One and suggests Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK” was on the right track.
http://www.theinnocenceofoswald.com/documents
\\][//
“Photon,
Your confidence (gullibility) is fascinating, especially considering:
Lloyd Ray Memo, 1967: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=55052&relPageId=35&search=safe_and
J Walton Moore Memo, 1976: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=16299&search=NO-98-76_and+Walton#relPageId=2&tab=page
1962 Clearance, described as “unwitting” but consider that Ray and Moore did author those memos of concern, totally
absent in your demeanor projection.:
Here is the clearance status of the man, J. Monroe Sullivan, in San Francisco Shaw met with on November 22, 1963, in a more recent (1998) declassification.: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=4901&search=monroe_and+shaw#relPageId=3&tab=page
Again, here is Joan Mellen’s description.:
A Farewell to Justice: Jim Garrison, JFK’s Assassination, …
https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=ssl&ei=bo6YVuzjE4OP-gXe55LoCg#q=joan+mellen+jesse+core+%22shoe+leather%22
Joan Mellen – 2013
…..
The International Trade Mart was run by CIA operatives, its public relations handled by David G. Baldwin, who later would acknowledge his own “CIA Connections.”
Baldwin’s successor, Jesse Core, was also with the CIA. It was a matter of saving the Agency “shoe leather,” Core would say. The Trade Mart donated money to CIA asset Ed Butler’s INCA. Every consulate within its bowels was bugged….
Photon,
I’ve made it my business to know with a high degree of certainty, in this instance, that you don’t know what you are talking about, but your delivery via this medium, and with such certainty, is mighty impressive!
Shaw hires covert CIA agent David Gilmore Baldwin, friend of Jesse R. Core III, as Trade Mart PR director.:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=54933&relPageId=2&search=calcutta
Declassification (1999) of document describing Jesse Core’s wife Marilou, aka “Lucy” Ruggles, movements with
her husband Jesse in the Foreign Service in the 1950’s,
(see: http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=30248&relPageId=2&search=mrs._and%20jesse )
and names her association with a CIA agent and a former
O.S.S. agent.:
http://maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=8178&search=SHAW_AND+1951#relPageId=3&tab=page
Lo and behold, the obits of the agents associated with Core’s wife, and consider that covert agent Baldwin, and his successor
in the Trade Mart job, Jesse Core served together in…..India, circa 1952.:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/2002/08/10/obituaries/271659ce-1ceb-4fc1-89ea-5865a900c0d2/
August 10, 2002
Michael Charles Pearson
CIA Analyst
Michael Charles Pearson, 79, a Mideast and Far East specialist who retired in 1978 as a senior analyst at the…
Aug. 6 at the Cameron Glen Care Center in Reston….
Dr. Pearson, …. began his intelligence career in 1949. He was posted by the CIA
to India, Iraq and Libya. Earlier, he taught history and political science at Williams College in Massachusetts.
He was a native of Dallas and a graduate of the University of Texas……
….and the former O.S.S. man named in the page linked in the MFF.org link above Pearson’s obit.:
http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/wickedlocal-cambridgechronicle/obituary.aspx?pid=168604635
John Max Rosenfield of Cambridge, Massachusetts,.. died …on December 16, 2013. He served at Harvard University for more than twenty-five years as professor and curator… In 1971 he was appointed Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Professor of East Asian Art. With special interest in Buddhist arts, he traveled frequently in India,…..
A secret to share, the CIA misleads and covers up.”Tom Sculley
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-10/#comment-849774
\\][//
JOAN MELLEN
Official website of Author and Temple University Professor Joan Mellen. Her twenty-two books, most recently “A Farewell To Justice,” “Our Man In Haiti” and “The Great Game in Cuba,” explore the history of the Central Intelligence Agency and its role in the planning and cover-up of the Kennedy assassination.
“I met Jim Garrison in New Orleans two months after Clay Shaw was acquitted for participating in a conspiracy to murder President Kennedy. It was May 1969. Garrison had invited my husband, Ralph Schoenman, and me to New Orleans because Ralph, who had been living in London, sent him the Paese Sera newspaper articles about a CIA front in Rome to whose board of directors Clay Shaw had been named. Shaw had been recruited in New Orleans by a Hungarian named Ferenc Nagy who himself had been recruited for CIA by Frank Wisner, an early chief of the clandestine services. There’s a CIA document describing Wisner’s recruitment of Nagy.
Without the massive documentation that has been available since the passage of the JFK Act in 1992, Garrison figured out that Shaw was a CIA asset involved in the framing of Lee Oswald. He was right. A CIA History Review Group document, for internal distribution only, states that Shaw was a “highly paid contract source of the Agency.” Garrison had concluded that Oswald was with CIA. In his deep, sonorous voice, he said that not only was Oswald not the “lone” assassin, but he was never alone, and everyone he was seen with was connected to CIA.”~Joan Mellen
– See more at: http://joanmellen.com/wordpress/2015/10/20/my-investigation-of-the-garrison-investigation-new-orleans-louisiana-october-17-2015/#more-894
http://joanmellen.com/wordpress/2015/10/20/my-investigation-of-the-garrison-investigation-new-orleans-louisiana-october-17-2015/#more-894
http://joanmellen.com/wordpress/
Listen to Alan Dale interview Joan Mellen at this link: http://www.jfkconversations.com/
. . .
The Elusive ``Bruce-Lovett Report’‘
Judging by the number of presidential and congressional commissions, panels, boards, and committees formed to study CIA’s mission and purpose, one could conclude that the Agency is one of the most studied of all federal agencies. The best known studies are closely identified with their principal authors or sponsors. Hence we have the “Church Committee” report (1976), the “Schlesinger” report (1971), and the “Dulles-Jackson- Correa” report (1949). The final product of the ongoing Presidential Commission to study the future of the intelligence community will undoubtedly be remembered as the “Aspin Commission” report.
These reports make fascinating reading as well as invaluable sources for the CIA History Staff. The Staff recently ran across a reference to another item, the so- called “Bruce-Lovett” report, that it would very much like to read–if we could find it! The report is mentioned in Peter Grose’s recent biography Gentleman Spy: The Life of Allen Dulles. According to Grose, two American elder statesmen, David Bruce and Robert Lovett, prepared a report for President Dwight Eisenhower in the fall of 1956 that criticized CIA’s alleged fascination with “kingmaking” in the Third World and complained that a “horde of CIA representatives” was mounting foreign political intrigues at the expense of gathering hard intelligence on the Soviet Union.
The History Staff decided to get a copy of the report and see what the two former diplomats had really said. The first place to look was the CIA files on the President’s Board of Consultants on Foreign Intelligence Activities (PBCFIA). Bruce and Lovett had been charter members of this blue-ribbon panel. There was no reference to such a report. We then checked with the Eisenhower Library and National Archives, which holds the PBCFIA records, but came up emptyhanded. The Virginia Historical Society, the custodian of David Bruce’s papers, did not have a copy either.
Having reached a dead end, we consulted the author of the Dulles biography, Peter Grose. Grose told us that he had not seen the report itself but had used notes made from it by historian Arthur M. Schlesinger for Robert F. Kennedy and His Times (1978). Professor Schlesinger informed us that that he had seen the report in Robert Kennedy’s papers before they were deposited at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library in Boston. He had loaned Grose his notes and does not have a copy of these notes or of the report itself.
This raises an interesting question: how did a report on the CIA written for President Eisenhower in 1956 end up in the RFK papers? We think we have the answer. Robert Lovett was asked to testify before Gen. Maxwell Taylor’s board of inquiry on the 1961 Bay of Pigs operation. Robert Kennedy was on that board and may have asked Lovett for a copy of the report. But we do not have the answer to another question: where is the “Bruce-Lovett” report? The JFK Presidential Library has searched the RFK papers without success. Surely the report will turn up some day, even if one government agency and four separate archives so far haven’t been able to find it. But this episode helps to prove one of the few Iron Laws of History: the official who keeps the best records gets to tell the story.
https://cryptome.org/ic-black5601.htm
\\][//
KBR, Inc. (formerly Kellogg Brown & Root) is an American engineering, procurement, and construction company, formerly a subsidiary of Halliburton. The company also has large offices in Arlington, Virginia, Birmingham, Alabama, and Newark, Delaware, in the United States and Leatherhead in the UK. After Halliburton acquired Dresser Industries in 1998, Dresser’s engineering subsidiary, The M. W. Kellogg Co., was merged with Halliburton’s construction subsidiary, Brown & Root, to form Kellogg Brown & Root. KBR and its predecessors have received many contracts with the U.S. military including during World War II, the Vietnam War, and the Iraq War.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KBR_(company)
\\][//
Depeche Mode:
“Access to Oswald’s military intelligence file, which the Department of Defense never gave to the Warren Commission, was not possible because the Department of Defense had destroyed the file [apparently in 1973]…”
— Report of the House Select Committee on Assassinations, p. 223.
\\][//
Between the Signal and the Noise The Best Evidence Hoax and David Lifton’s War Against the Critics of the Warren Commission
by Roger Feinman
“Of course, having written a best selling book (Best Evidence is now with its fourth publisher and
has had about 30 printings), and being the producer of a best selling video, I suppose I am a public
figure, and criticism comes with the territory …”
~David Lifton — in a letter to Jacqueline Liebergott, President of Emerson College, 8 December 1992
“We cannot speak of falsehood until there is this awareness of the existence of a reality within oneself and external to oneself.”~Marcel Eck, Lies & Truth
On April 3, 1993, I appeared in a panel debate on the medical evidence in the John F. Kennedy assassination at the Midwest Symposium on Assassination Politics in Chicago. Speaking for the critics of the official medical findings were Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, Wallace Milam, David Lifton, and I. An opposing panel defending the government’s case consisted of Dr. George Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association, Dr. John K. Lattimer, Dr. Michael West, and Dr. Marc Micozzi.
This direct confrontation between critics and defenders afforded me a rare opportunity to make two points that have been nagging at me for quite some time: First, after nearly 30 years, we still do not have a full and honest official account of what occurred on the night of November 22, 1963, at the autopsy of Kennedy’s remains at Bethesda Naval Hospital, or of how the autopsy pathologists reached their ultimate findings.
Second, without fact, theories just don’t work.
I am neither a well–known critic nor a professional public speaker (perhaps an odd apology coming from a trial attorney, but I find it rather nerve–wracking to prepare for and then face larger audiences), nor do I have any burning desire for celebrity in connection with this case. I tried to persuade all of my co–panelists on the critics’ side beforehand to avoid discussion of theories, to attack the government’s case on the narrowest and least vulnerable grounds, and to stick to the evidence. In all but one case, my persuasion was either unnecessary or successful. The exception was David Lifton, the author of Best Evidence.
Mr. Lifton, who spoke before I did at his insistence, reviewed the tape–recorded interview he did with Dr. JamesJ. Humes, the chief autopsy pathologist, in 1966. He apparently wanted to demonstrate that Dr. Humes conceded the possibility that President Kennedy’s body was altered before it was delivered to Bethesda for autopsy. No one in the audience with whom I later conferred believed the tape anywhere near conclusive of this question; some believed that the very suggestion (which was novel and unpublished in 1966) startled Dr.Humes, but that Mr. Lifton was reading way too much into Humes’ remarks, especially his omission to flatly deny the alteration theory.
Mr. Lifton also propounded a series of rhetorical questions concerned with his theory that the bullet wound in President Kennedy’s back was artificially inflicted after the assassination.
Mr. Lifton did not directly address the two articles that had recently been published by , featuring interviews
with the autopsy pathologists. It was my understanding that this was the purpose of the debate. I believe that Mr. Lifton’s use of this occasion amounted to little more than self–promotion.
[…]
“Besides our divergent substantive approaches to the Kennedy assassination, it is the main thesis of this book that Mr. Lifton’s Best Evidence is a literary deceit in multiple dimensions.”~Roger Feinman
[…]
Perry, however, had denied holding any theory of the wounds, either at the time of the assassination or at the time he testified. (6H 12, 15) Neither did he advance any theory during the press conference.
The transcript of that press conference gives the game away. It reveals that both Drs. Perry and Clark repeatedly and emphatically declined to speculate on the trajectory of the shots or their course through the President’s body. They confined themselves to what they had observed and done. They spoke of a head wound and a neck wound, without saying whether the wounds were made by one, two or more bullets.
Dr. Perry described the neck wound as an entrance wound. His opinion was definite. It left no room for doubt. He had arrived at that judgment independent of the factors that Arlen Specter would later ask him to assume, and before the best evidence, President Kennedy’s body, had been transported behind military lines. Dr. Perry had an opinion on November 22. On the basis of the hypothesis later given to him by Specter, Perry decided that his was not “the correct opinion.” Unlike testimony, however, the Perry transcript could not be shaded through the use of hypothetical questions. Unlike the Zapruder film with its unmistakable depiction of the violent backward thrust of Kennedy’s body, it could not be ignored. Unlike scientific tests, it could not be misinterpreted. Therefore, the Perry transcript had to be buried.
Read more in this PDF:
file:///C:/Users/Willy–PC/Downloads/between-the-signal-and-the-noise.pdf
See also:
http://www.ctka.net/feinman_elegy.html
And:
Click to access Feinman%20CBS-ABC%20cover_assn%202-3.pdf
\\][//
WHEN SONIA SOTOMAYOR’S HONESTY, INDEPENDENCE, AND INTEGRITY WERE TESTED
A MEMORANDUM TO THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, UNITED STATES SENATE, UPON ITS HEARINGS WHETHER TO CONSENT TO THE APPOINTMENT OF THE HON. SONIA SOTOMAYOR TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Sonia Sotomayor’s Collaboration in a Judicial Deceit and Cover-Up While a Federal District Judge and a Member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Raises Troubling Questions
WHEN THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY’S CULTURE OF COLLEGIALITY BECAME A CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE
By Roger Bruce Feinman, J.D.
http://www.ctka.net/2009/feinman.html
\\][//
Look Jean, you and McAdams continue to banter on with your nonsense about this up higher in the thread; so I want you two to remember this point and stop pretending it wasn’t made:
YOU are the one who posted Brewer’s testimony Jean, as if it proved Oswald had the pistol. I simply pointed out that Brewer did NOT see where the gun came from.
No one can prove Oswald brought that pistol into the theater. To contend that the cops brought it with them to plant on Oswald is completely reasonable.
It is also utterly reasonable to assert that Oswald was already in the Texas Theater at the time of the Tippit shooting:
“According to Warren H. “Butch” Burroughs, the concession stand operator at the Texas Theater, Lee Harvey Oswald entered the theater sometime between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M., several minutes before Officer Tippit was slain seven blocks away.[428] If true, Butch Burroughs’s observation would eliminate Oswald as a candidate for Tippet’s murder. Perhaps for that reason, Burroughs was asked by a Warren Commission attorney the apparently straightforward question, “Did you see [Oswald] come in the theater?” and answered honestly, “No, sir; I didn’t.”[429] What someone reading this testimony would not know is that Butch Burroughs was unable to see anyone enter the theater from where he was standing at his concession stand, unless that person came into the area where he was working. As he explained to me in an interview, there was a partition between his concession stand and the front door. Someone could enter the theater, go directly up a flight of stairs to the balcony, and not be seen from the concession stand.[430] That, Burroughs said, is what Oswald apparently did. However, Burroughs still knew Oswald had come into the theater “between 1:00 and 1:07 P.M.” because he saw him inside the theater soon after that. As he told me, he sold popcorn to Oswald at 1:15 P.M.[431]—information that the Warren Commission did not solicit from him in his testimony. When Oswald bought his popcorn at 1:15 P.M., this was exactly the same time the Warren Report said Officer Tippit was being shot to death[432]—evidently by someone else.”~Jim Douglass – JFK and the Unspeakable
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-12/#comment-851212
\\][//
Affidavit In Any Fact by George Jefferson Applin, Jr. as a witness to the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald. He states that he was watching a movie in the Texas Theater when an officer with a riot gun walked down the aisle. He witnessed the officer approach a seated man and shake him down. The man then took a swing at them and held up a pistol. Applin heard the pistol snap and then a large group of officers arrested the man.
http://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth338846/
Alpin “heard the pistol snap”…but both the officer and Oswald were holding the gun when the pistol “snapped”
Also see:
The testimony of John Gibson was taken at 3:45 p.m., on April 8, 1964, in the office of the U.S. attorney, 301 Post Office Building, Bryan and Ervay Streets, Dallas, Tex., by Mr. Joseph A Ball, assistant counsel of the President’s Commission.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russ/testimony/gibson.htm
Oswald was not in the isle with a gun in his hand as Gibson claims, the scuffle took place at the seat where Oswald was sitting:
http://www.concordmonitor.com/csp/mediapool/sites/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.cls?STREAMOID=M6dLlstOZKDDRG$bxmcMAc$daE2N3K4ZzOUsqbU5sYtGCgYoQsPf2eXQcfhM7_fBWCsjLu883Ygn4B49Lvm9bPe2QeMKQdVeZmXF$9l$4uCZ8QDXhaHEp3rvzXRJFdy0KqPHLoMevcTLo3h8xh70Y6N_U_CryOsw6FTOdKL_jpQ-&CONTENTTYPE=image/jpeg
\\][//
“Documents are often subject to different interpretations.
I’m sure you believe that the documents show what you say they do, but somebody else might interpret them differently.”~John McAdams — July 1, 2014 at 6:35 pm
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/news/garrison-angleton-and-the-cia/#comment-503968
\\][//
Oswald’s Doubles: How Multiple Lookalikes Were Used to Craft One Lone Scapegoat
The following segments of Jim Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable – Why He Died and Why It Matters examine the composite scapegoat served up to the world in the guise of Lee Harvey Oswald and the domestic intelligence network that was writing his story. Recently I read Norman Cousins remarkable “Asterisk to the History of a Hopeful Year, 1962-1963,” The Improbable Triumvirate: John F. Kennedy, Pope John, Nikita Khrushchev. In it, Cousins describes his experiences as an emissary between President Kennedy, Pope John XXIII, and Nikita Khrushchev.
The following truth-telling of Butch Burroughs, Bernard Haire, T. F. White, Wes Wise, Robert G. Vinson, and Ralph Leon Yates allows us to peel back layers of obfuscation and unspeakable deception that have been directed at this country’s people for fifty years about why their beloved President was murdered by elements of U.S. national security state personnel that evermore direct the affairs of this corporate empire state. Peace is possible and can manifest when we are willing to see and acknowledge the unspeakable.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/Unspeakable/TwoLHOs.html
\\][//
The very fact that the syndicate squatting in DC is constitutionally ultra vires is a clear casus belli for revolution.
The only rational response to Full Spectrum Dominance is Full Spectrum Defiance.
\\][//
“US government was launching illegal wars of aggression (still being waged), torturing prisoners, and indefinitely detaining suspects seized far from any battlefield. (Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions forbids torturing any prisoners, uniformed or not.) In the eyes of most Americans, the American State can do that and anything else – because it’s the American State.
This is where The State leads. A self-declared and self-enforced monopoly on force is bound to generate a self-perpetuating dogma that induces people to suspend their critical faculties and countenance a double moral standard, not to mention atrocities. Those are sufficient grounds to work for the abolition of The State.”~Sheldon Richman
http://antiwar.com/blog/2016/01/15/sheldon-richman-on-the-pernicious-state/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AWCBlog+%28Antiwar.com+Blog%29
Government is a racket.
\\][//
” I knew that American policy in Vietnam was ineffective, but I had been one of those who thought that if only better tactics were used, the United States could “win.” Once back in this country, I soon came to see that American involvement in Indochina was not only ineffective but totally wrong. The State Department had assigned me to the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, first as an analyst of French and Belgian affairs and then as staff assistant to State’s intelligence director. Since this bureau carries on State’s liaison with the rest of the intelligence community, I was for the first time introduced to the whole worldwide network of American spying—not so much as a participant but as a shuffler of top-secret papers and a note-taker at top level intelligence meetings. Here I found the same kind of waste and inefficiency I had come to know in Vietnam and, even worse, the same sort of reasoning that had led the country into Vietnam in the first place. In the high councils of the intelligence community, there was no sense that intervention in the internal affairs of other countries was not the inherent right of the United States. “Don’t be an idealist; you have to live in the ‘real’ world,” said the professionals. I found it increasingly difficult to agree. For me, the last straw was the American invasion of Cambodia in April 1970.”~John D. Marks
Click to access The-CIA-and-the-Cult-of-Intelligence.pdf
\\][//
Clay Shaw Trial Transcript, 26 Feb 1969 (Testimony of James Phelan)
https://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=1305&search=first_and+time#relPageId=59&tab=page
\\][//
DARK JOURNALIST: Agent Oswald – The CIA Patsy – RARE JFK Assassination Documentary
\\][//
Willy Whitten
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
January 21, 2016 at 8:07 pm
“That’s not a primary source.
Give me a primary source saying that.”~McAdams
. . .
It is obvious on the Mary’s Databas page that the primary source on Stephen B. Lemann (resident CIA Chief in New Orleans – with Law Firm: Monroe & Lemann) is from the Gaudet files:
FBI – HSCA Subject File: William Gaudet
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-851943
\\][//
MEMO RE: DR. LEONARD REISSMAN & CONI:ECTED LEADS
FOR: REISSMAN FILE AND LEAD FILES
Alvin V. Oser to Jim Garrison
Click to access Item%2002.pdf
\\][//
ORLEANS PARISH GRAND JURY
PROCEEDINGS OF
MARCH 22, 1967
PRESENT:
MESSRS. ALVIN V. OSER AND JAMES ALCOCK
Assistant District Attorneys
[JIM GARRISON, District Attorney]
MEMBERS OF THE ORLEANS PARISH GRAND JURY
WITNESS:
PERRY RAYMOND RUSSO
Q. This man you were introduced to, called Shaw, how were you introduced to him?
A. Well, Ferrie introduced me to everybody — Shaw was sitting there — he might have said something like, Perry Russo is a student, and all that stuff, right down the line, and this is so-and-so . . .
Q. What did he call Shaw?
A. Well, he called him Clem Bertrand.
Q. Clem Bertrand?
A. Clem Bertrand.
Q. At any time did you know the person you now know as Shaw — did you know him as any other name, other than Clem Bertrand?
A. Not until March 1.
Q. Until the day of his arrest?
A. Well, Andy [Sciambra] told me his real name.
Q. Up until that time, you always knew this individual as Clem Bertrand?
A. Yes.
Q. You want to look at this photograph?
A. That is the same man —
Q. And you knew him as Clem Bertrand?
A. Yes.
Q. Before this night, how many times have you seen Clem Bertrand, who is Clay Shaw, before this?
A. Before the party?
Q. Yes.
A. Once.
Q. How many times after this party you are talking about?
A. Well, I saw him a few times over here on Dauphine St., once at the service station, and I saw him at the trial.
Q. Let’s go back — take the first time you saw the man you knew as Clem Bertrand, who is Clay Shaw, when was the first time you saw him?
A. I saw him at Nashville Wharf when I went to see President Kennedy speak.
Q. When was this?
A. 1961.
Q. How do you remember him?
A. Well, I thought I was late — Kennedy was late getting there to make a speech — I was running and rushing, and trying to get over there from school, I had to wait until class got over — I had seen Eisenhower long time ago [sic] — think it was the Sesquicentennial or something, I think he had a bubbletop, and I didn’t get a good look, but this time I wanted a look at the President — so I went there, and got there a little late — and all a sudden I hear the sirens coming, and everybody runs for the sides to see President Kennedy, so he came and went up to make his speech, and I was halfway listening, as I was looking at him more, really, and then I got tired of it, not really tired, I had seen him and that was good — I could always say I had seen the President — so I was in the back of the group — as I got there a little late and people were jammed in and I had noticed this guy — standing there with another guy — both dressed real good — and he had something on, like corduroy material, but with stripes in it — real rich looking — corduroy looks like paper, but it didn’t look like paper, something like that. The President was up there talking, like at this ashtray [?], and there was about 600 or 800 people right here, then I got in late and everybody ran over to the side of the Hangar, and they looked out the side, and President Kennedy drove up and he got out the front and jumped up there and automatically you could feel it was him — I think he wore a blue suit or something — I am not sure of that — he had a real suntan — real striking. But anyway, I was in the back, and I have 20-13 vision — I have been examined — and I know it. I have real good baseball vision — I can see things real clearly, and I don’t need to stand real close to see a guy, that’s for sure. Now, in front of me were these two guys. He [Shaw] was one of them, and I don’t know who the other guy was. He [Shaw] wasn’t watching the President, and I thought he has to be a Secret Service man, for he was watching everything but the President. I made that remark to whoever I was there with — because he was watching everything but the President — I said I never saw a President in reality before, but he was watching everything but.
Q. What was your impression besides his being a Secret Service man?
A. He looked everything below the belt — he was moonlighting a little bit — you know, he was looking everything below the belt — he was sizing up the guys — I was with Lefty — he met me there — and I was with a guy from Loyola, but I don’t recall his name, and he was just looking below the belt, and he put you at unease, you know, just kept staring down like that, and then these two young boys back there about my age, I guess, but young men, and he got into a conversation with one of them — one of them was away — and the other one came back, and then they evidently decided they wanted to leave, and he went back to his buddy, and was standing there and talking to him, and he kept looking around, looking at all the people, he looked below the belt, and I got the impression that he was homosexual.
Q. When was the next time you saw him?
[Line of text missing?]
Q. When was the next time you saw him after this?
[…]
Q. What was Dave Ferrie doing at this time?
A. Well, Ferrie was trying to calm everybody’s nerves about me being there, and pacing up and down — he would always pace up and down when he got excited.
Q. Did he have anything in his hands?
A. He had these clippings, a bunch of clippings, of Kennedy. I could see two or three of them — Kennedy’s name in headlines, they were cut out of the paper, and maybe the seventh or eighth clipping, I could see a picture of Kennedy down below. Of course, all of them were about Kennedy. But, of course, I wasn’t real sure of that.
Q. Did Dave get into the conversation?
A. Well, I would keep getting up — I would walk out on the porch and look around — and I’d come back in — and it was getting late — late for me, it was about 2:00 o’clock [sic]. And I was real tired, and I figured that I might have to catch the bus — and they ran only once an hour. So they started talking and Ferrie walking up and down, and he was telling when they shoot the President, they’re going to have three people — and he always did this, I can remember this to this day, he had big hands, to me they big hands, and he would stick his fingers up like that, fat fingers, and he would go like that, and he would say when they shoot him, there’s got to be three of us, and he would point like this, now one of them is going to have to go, going to have to be the scapegoat in the procedure. The other two — if this guy is the scapegoat, these guys go free. He says now, if necessary, they might have to use two scapegoats — because if they have two scapegoats, this one gets to go free, for he says . . . he talked during the summer — want me to back up a little bit?
Q. Yes. Go ahead. Is this the first time he talked about assassination?
A. Oh, no, he talked about perfect murders, assassination is one of the things he talked about. He talked about . . . he said that in 1956, I don’t know if that is right or not, Eisenhower came down in New Orleans and said a woman got real close to his car and opened up a purse, just a woman from the street, on Decatur St., he might have been talking about the Sesquicentennial, I don’t know. She got all the way up close to Eisenhower and opened up her purse like this before somebody stopped her — and now if she wanted to sacrifice herself, she could do it. He talked like that — I said, well, I am not sure, for they’ve got all kinds of Secret Service men around. This was during the summer he talked all about that, but he never talked about Kennedy, he just talked theoretically, what was working in his mind and all that. And what you could do, and all that — he also talked about the President of Mexico, Mataeo, I think, he said that if you got an auditorium or a big gathering place where the President was speaking, said you get the President speaking in Mexico City, and you got 20,000 people out in the group, he said all you need to do is have two people, one of them is going to be the scapegoat, the other guy is not, the first guy just shoots a shot up in the air, and everybody in the group turns around and looks at him, the police start going at him like crazy, and at that split second, you can hear it in your ear, he said, the guy in the front takes a well calculated aim and he shoots him thirty or fifty feet away, and he said you can’t miss. He said in the confusion, the second shot is not always audible, everybody is always running and scared, and the police are running, he said the second guy can get away, but the first guy — that’s too bad for him.
Q. Let’s go back to the point when Ferrie was talking and using his hand and the three fingers, what did he say about diversionary fire?
A. Well, I may have given a wrong idea at that trial, a diversionary fire did not mean that one guy just shoot [sic] up in the air like the two guys in the Mexico thing, all three of them were going to shoot at the President, but this guy is diversionary in the sense that he is going to take the brunt of all the people who will come at him, and he will let them catch him — there is nothing he can do. Somebody has got to get caught. And you need ten or twelve men to let the others escape — and he said that these three would all shoot at the President, the first one is going to try and get him just like the other two are going to try and get him, he says now if the President in the middle of this crossfire, he was talking about Kennedy here, said if President Kennedy is in the middle, at the precise moment all three of them shoot him dead in his tracks, and he said one of them is going to be sacrificed — and he said this is diversionary man, he is going to tire that diversionary shot, that first shot, and he is going to get caught, and the other two, in the confusion, these two assassins are to do the job if the first one didn’t do it. He said no way in the world one shot can kill a President, except you are fifteen feet away from him and blooey . . .
Q. In the discussion, what was said about escape routes?
A. Yes, he talked about this first, I believe — said — he started talking about this — he did most of the talking, said either we could fly to — the exit would have to be by flying, I am the pilot and know all about flying — he is the greatest thing who ever flew — so he said — and Bertrand had a different opinion, but he said that you would either fly . . . we have two things that we can do, once the assassination is effected, don’t get caught, he said, they fly to Mexico and then on to Brazil, no extradition, said they would fly to Mexico, refuel, and stay maybe four or five minutes, whatever it takes, or that is the one route, or fly directly to Cuba, and Ferrie said if you fly Cuba, though, the people might shoot you down, says if they don’t know who you are, then Bertrand got in an argument with him . .
http://www.jfk-online.com/russo3221.html
http://www.jfk-online.com/chron.html
http://joanmellen.com/wordpress/2015/10/20/my-investigation-of-the-garrison-investigation-new-orleans-louisiana-october-17-2015/
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/russo2.txt
\\][//
Willy Whitten — January 22, 2016 at 3:11 am
McAdams,
This is my last reply to you concerning Marchetti, in which I will reiterate what I have already said about the remarks he conveyed by Helms. I said that I did NOT necessarily believe that those remarks were accurate, that Helms may have said various things about Shaw and his troubles that could be interpreted one way or another and could be lost in translation.
The gist of the matter however is that Helms and the agency were professionally CONCERNED about the Garrison trial.
Now regardless of whether you are willing to admit it or not, Garrison was clearly being bugged, followed and defamed by a concerted agenda. All the data combined proves this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
I refuse to be forced into the mold of gullibility that you yourself pretend to set in. I am simply sick and tired of dealing with your spurious spinning rhetorical game.
You may feign your ‘astonished innocence’ as often as you please, but I am not buying it. And I am not going to let you reframe my own commentary under your false lights.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-of-the-week-13/#comment-852068
\\][//
I always refer to myself as a “Conspiracy Analyst”, and in longer discussions might describe myself as a historical researcher.
I am not at all uncomfortable with the word “conspiracy”, I think it is proven by the facts that there are conspiracies that drive most of history.
A national security state is in fact a conspiratorial organization of the state, based on secrets beyond the reach of the public need to know. Such a state is indeed a conspiracy against the general public.
It is perpetually curious to me that this nation, predicated on personal liberty and “unalienable rights”; with a Constitution establishing a Republic, has allowed the rise of an unaccountable oligarchy, the criminal syndicate that sits in DC. is obvious constitutionally ultra vires.
Of course the main problem is propaganda, or what Bernays euphemistically refers to as “Public Relations”. This combined with cradle to grave indoctrination by both so-called “Education” (compulsive), and Infotainment is at the heart of the matter.
A further complication is a “legal system” based on tolerating legal fictions as a given; generating the “fictitious entity”; the corporation with all of it’s indemnities and impunity written into statutory “law”.
\\][//
Concealing William Gurvich’s Role
Denigrating a Defector
By Dave Reitzes
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/jimlie10.htm
Upon reflection, I consider William Gurvich to be a spy planted in Garrison’s team from the very start? That is the impression I have.
I think a lot of the leads he was supposedly following were being stunted and misrepresented to Garrison all along.
How this could be proved is another matter altogether.
Grand Jury Questioning of William Gurvich:
Click to access Gurvich2.pdf
Gurvich: Well, I don’t know what is important to you and what isn’t.
I think some things in here are very important. But I have
been led to believe by the Grand Jury that they are not.
Q: An illegal act, that is important.
Q: Give us one fact, you are supposed to be an investigator. You have not given us one single fact. I am trying to lay it on the line. You go around-round say what all these people are saying – that is unimportant. I think every one” of the Jury are thinking what I am telling you and I think I am speaking for all of them when I say you don’t have nothing. You haven’t given us one thing to go on.
[…]
I have told Bill if he does have some direct and specific information regarding illegal acts X would like to know about it, now Bill you want us to extend that courtesy to YOU and we would like a similar courtesy, extended to us by YOU, that give us the information without having it aired in the public light which makes it a little awkward for everyone concerned. If you have something bring it to us
and don’t let me sit down by my TV set and find out about it, this raises questions of motive and everything else.
Foreman: Thank you Bill.
\\][//
“The HSCA concluded that Oswald killed Kennedy..”
~Jean Davison
We all know by now that the HSCA was compromised by CIA interference:
Chief Counsel Blakey later stated that Joannides, instead, should have been interviewed by the Committee, rather than serving as a gatekeeper to the CIA’s evidence and files regarding the assassination. He further disregarded and suspected all the CIA’s statements and representations to the Committee, accusing it of obstruction of justice.
In the same 2003 interview, Robert Blakey, issued a statement on the Central Intelligence Agency:
“I no longer believe that we were able to conduct an appropriate investigation of the [Central Intelligence] Agency and its relationship to Oswald…. We now know that the Agency withheld from the Warren Commission the CIA-Mafia plots to kill Castro. Had the commission known of the plots, it would have followed a different path in its investigation.
The Agency unilaterally deprived the commission of a chance to obtain the full truth, which will now never be known. Significantly, the Warren Commission’s conclusion that the agencies of the government co-operated with it is, in retrospect, not the truth.
We also now know that the Agency set up a process that could only have been designed to frustrate the ability of the committee in 1976-79 to obtain any information that might adversely affect the Agency.
Many have told me that the culture of the Agency is one of prevarication and dissimulation and that you cannot trust it or its people. Period. End of story. I am now in that camp.”
\\][//
Stone answers critics of Jim Garrison
At a luncheon lecture at the National Press Club on Jan . 15, Oliver Stone responded to a questioner who charged that Jim Garrison had undertaken the prosecution of Clay Shaw for conspiracy in the assassination of Kennedy, as a public relations stunt to win the Louisiana governorship:
Why anyone would in 1967 seek to be a governor of a state by going against the CIA and the entire government by suggesting they killed a President is beyond me. Jim’s political life was over the moment he brought those charges. He was taking on the establishment in a major way and he paid the price.
As for the case itself, I just want to remind you that he has been vilified and trashed over and over and over again in the press, and he has now become a non-person, in the sense that Stalin’s opponents became non-people . There are no specifics ever brought up. It has become a media mantra, a buzz-word, a credo. The journalists cite each other to substitute for critical analysis.”~Oliver Stone
Read entire article here:
Click to access eirv19n06-19920207_040-stone_answers_critics_of_jim_gar.pdf
\\][//
Venality and Delusion presented as Tragedy and Hope in regard to Collectivist Statism:
Political Labels and Orwellian Euphemisms.
A turning of the Hegelian Screw.
\\][//
ARRB MD 236 – ARRB Call Report of September 5, 1997 Telephone Interview of Roger Boyajian (Former NCOIC of Marine Security Detail at Autopsy of President Kennedy), With His Contemporaneous After-Action Report:
[…]
> 3. At approximately 1835 (6:35) the casket was received at the morgue entrance and taken inside.
[…]
6. At approximately 0345(3:45 AM) November 23, the casket was removed from the morgue, and at 0350 Mrs. Kennedy came downstairs and departed with the casket.
* * * *
NOTE: THE casket indicates the same one both times; the elaborate bronze casket from Dallas.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=758#relPageId=5&tab=page
\\][//
“I emphatically deny these charges.”~Lee Harvey Oswald – 11/22/1963
Who was behind the assassination?
Throughout my research into the JFK assassination, there are three groups of people whom I have come to believe deserve the most attention by researchers:
1). Those who wanted the Vietnam War to escalate into a full scale War
2).Those with anti-Semitic beliefs
3). Those who were either directly or indirectly connected to U.S. Army intelligence; namely the 112th Military Intelligence Group.
What I hope to accomplish in this essay is to demonstrate to the reader that the aforementioned groups were the ones most likely responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy. Although many researchers are of the belief that the conspirators desired the escalation of the Vietnam War, a much smaller proportion believe that individuals with ant-Semitic beliefs and/or those with either a direct or indirect connection to U.S. Army intelligence were involved in the conspiracy to assassinate the President. I have already discussed much of what follows at Greg Parker’s terrific research forum in separate threads. However, I felt that it was important to put it all into a single essay. Let’s begin with the evidence that U.S. Army intelligence were involved in the assassination, and were responsible (along with the FBI) for placing Oswald into the TSBD building; with the purpose of framing him for the assassination.”~Hasan Yusuf
— September 2015
http://jfkthelonegunmanmyth.blogspot.co.uk/
brody – laying rubber – getting scratch
\\][//
Gerald Ford’s Role in the JFK Assassination Cover-up
“Warren Commission member Congressman Gerald Ford pressed the panel to change its description of the bullet wound in President Kennedy’s back and place it higher to make “the magic bullet” theory plausible, enabling the Warren Commission to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman. Ford was J. Edgar Hoover’s informant on the commission and did the FBI director’s bidding to squelch the investigation from naming other assassins. When a Dallas County deputy constable heard shots coming from the nearby grassy knoll, he rushed there to find veteran CIA asset Bernard Barker, posing as a Secret Service agent. No Secret Service agents had been assigned to cover the grassy knoll and all accompanied President Kennedy to the hospital.”
by Don Fulsom
http://www.crimemagazine.com/gerald-fords-role-jfk-assassination-cover
\\][//
OCTOBER 29, 2015
Book Discussion on The Devil’s Chessboard
David Talbot talked about his book The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America’s Secret Government, in which he recalls the life and career of Allen Dulles, the longest-serving director of the CIA.
http://www.c-span.org/video/?400034-1/book-discussion-devils-chessboard&start=284
Peter Dale Scott & David Talbot in conversation
\\][//
LIST OF WITHHELD JFK ASSASSINATION DOCUMENTS
SOURCE: RUSS BAKER
Now we can at least get a peek at what they have been hiding.
The list was obtained in a Freedom of Information Act request by FOIA specialist Michael Ravnitzky, who alerted us.
The complete list is below. You’ll note that some documents are briefly characterized by subject, while others are less clearly identified.
The government has promised to release as many documents as possible in October, 2017, the 25th anniversary of the JFK Records Act, in which Congress mandated that all efforts be made to release everything in Washington’s possession unless an overriding case can be made for withholding in the national interest.
Some — perhaps most — of these documents could be released at that time. Then again, they may be further withheld. The CIA in particular is likely to argue that some are just too sensitive to be made public.
Still, knowing their subject matter makes it easier to press for disclosure, and to hold the government accountable by insisting it justify any continued withholdings.
Those who wish to look at the list should be forewarned that it’s a bit like looking at hieroglyphics. Most of the names and brief references will mean something only to a very few.
Among the documents that caught our eye:
• Lee Harvey Oswald’s CIA “201 File.” 201 files contain personality assessments….
Click to access JFK-List-of-Denied-Docs-redacted.pdf
\\][//
The theological proposal you make is not quite accurate. I do not propose that I created myself as Willy as creator; but that the creator created Willy as a notion of itself.
\\][//
“Photon, like the designated Patsy, uses alias and other attributes of the Cover Operational Personality – COP profile.”~William Kelly
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/a-conversation-with-david-talbot/#comment-856781
\\][//
…In [Joint Chief’s chair] Lemnitzer’s view, the country would be far better off if the generals could take over. [JFK assassination legend has it some general presided over the fudgy JFK autopsy. –Mk]
For those military officers who were sitting on the fence, the Kennedy administration’s botched Bay of Pigs invasion was the last straw. “The Bay of Pigs fiasco broke the dike,” said one report at the time. “President Kennedy was pilloried by the super patriots as a ‘no-win’ chief . . . The Far Right became a fount of proposals born of frustration and put forward in the name of anti-Communism. . . Active-duty commanders played host to anti-Communist seminars on their bases and attended or addressed Right-wing meetings elsewhere.”
Although no one in Congress could have known it at the time, Lemnitzer and the Joint Chiefs had quietly slipped over the edge.
According to secret and long-hidden documents obtained for Body of Secrets, the Joint Chiefs of Staff drew up and approved plans for what may be the most corrupt plan ever created by the U.S. government. In the name of antiCommunism, they proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba.
Operation Northwoods
Click images for full sized scans
Code named Operation Northwoods, the plan, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war.
The idea may actually have originated with President Eisenhower in the last days of his administration. With the Cold War hotter than ever and the recent U-2 scandal fresh in the public’s memory, the old general wanted to go out with a win. He wanted desperately to invade Cuba in the weeks leading up to Kennedy’s inauguration; indeed, on January 3 he told Lemnitzer and other aides in his Cabinet Room that he would move against Castro before the inauguration if only the Cubans gave him a really good excuse. Then, with time growing short, Eisenhower floated an idea. If Castro failed to provide that excuse, perhaps, he said, the United States “could think of manufacturing something that would be generally acceptable.” What he was suggesting was a pretext a bombing, an attack, an act of sabotage carried out secretly against the United States by the United States. Its purpose would be to justify the launching of a war. It was a dangerous suggestion by a desperate president.
Although no such war took place, the idea was not lost on General Lemnitzer But he and his colleagues were frustrated by Kennedy’s failure to authorize their plan, and angry that Castro had not provided an excuse to invade.
The final straw may have come during a White House meeting on February 26, 1962. Concerned that General Lansdale’s various covert action plans under Operation Mongoose were simply becoming more outrageous and going nowhere, Robert Kennedy told him to drop all anti-Castro efforts. Instead, Lansdale was ordered to concentrate for the next three months strictly on gathering intelligence about Cuba. It was a humiliating defeat for Lansdale, a man more accustomed to praise than to scorn.
As the Kennedy brothers appeared to suddenly “go soft” on Castro, Lemnitzer could see his opportunity to invade Cuba quickly slipping away. The attempts to provoke the Cuban public to revolt seemed dead and Castro, unfortunately, appeared to have no inclination to launch any attacks against Americans or their property Lemnitzer and the other Chiefs knew there was only one option left that would ensure their war. They would have to trick the American public and world opinion into hating Cuba so much that they would not only go along, but would insist that he and his generals launch their war against Castro. “World opinion, and the United Nations forum,” said a secret JCS document, “should be favorably affected by developing the international image of the Cuban government as rash and irresponsible, and as an alarming and unpredictable threat to the peace of the Western Hemisphere.”
BODY OF SECRETS, James Bamford, Doubleday, 2001, p.82
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html
\\][//
“Like many of my exile contemporaries, at the time, in the early 1960’s, I believed John F. Kennedy was a traitor to the Cuban exiles and to this country. Yet, over time, I came to recognize that President Kennedy was not a traitor, but someone who acted in the interests always of the United States of America.”
“In my research of President Kennedy’s life, I came upon the American University speech, which, to me, was one of the greatest speeches ever given by an American president. After studying that speech, I decided I couldn’t go from this world without saying that John F. Kennedy was a great man and a great president who had great vision for this country and the world.” Antonio Veciana
Antonio Veciana – Admissions and Revelations from AARC Library on Vimeo.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/antonio-vecianas-transformation-from-jfk-hater-to-admirer/
\\][//
THE CUBAN MISSILE CRISIS
A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS
Click to access 590101_620919%20Chronology%201.pdf
Page 145……..
G. THE CONTROL SYSTEM FOR MONGOOSE OPERATIONS
…..The documentary evidence further illustrates the SGA’s tight control procedures for MONGOOSE. For example, after Lansdale submitted his 33 tasks and his overall concept for MONGOOSE for SGA consideration in January, he was ordered to cut back his plan and limit it to an intelligence collection program for the March-May 1962 period, rather than the five-stage plan culminating in an October “popular revolution,” as originally conceived by Lansdale. (Memo 3/2/62, by Lansdale) In approving the modified intelligence collec- tion plan, the SGA pointed out that :
* * * any actions which are not specifically spelled out in the plan but seem to be desirable as the project progresses, will be brought to the Special Group for resolution. (SGA Minutes, 1962)
In addition, the Guidelines for the MONGOOSE program emphasized the SGA’s responsibility for control and prior approval of important operations :
The SGA is responsible for providing policy guidance to the [MONGOOSE] project, for approving important operations and for monitoring progress. ( Guidelines for Operation MONGOOSE. March 14, 1962)
The SGA request for Helms to estimate “for each week as far into the next twelve months as possible * * * the numbers and type of agents you will establish inside Cuba * * * [and] brief descriptions * * * of actions contemplated,” is another example of the close control the SGA exercised over Operation MONGOOSE. (Memo, Lansdale to Helms, 3/5/62) Any proposal to supply arms and equipment to particular resistance groups inside Cuba was also required to “be submitted to the Special Group (Augmented) for decision ad hoc. ^^ (Lansdale Memo to the Special Group, 4/11/62, p. 1) These procedural requirements were operative at the time of Harvey’s meeting with Rosselli in Miami,
The Guidelines for Operation MONGOOSE stated :
During this period. General Lansdale will continue as Chief of Operations, calling directly on the participating departments and agencies for support and implementation of agreed tasks. The heads of these departments and agencies are responsible for i)erformauce through normal command channels to higher authority.’ (Guideline for Operation MONGOOSE, 3/14/62)
Harvey complained to McCone about the SGA control requirement
for advance approval of “major operations going beyond the collection of intelligence.” He stated that :
To permit requisite flexibility and professionalism for a maximum operational effort against Cuba, the tight controls exercised by the Special Group and the present time-consuming coordination and briefing procedures should, if at all possible, be made less restrictive and less stiiltifying. (Memo, Harvey to MeCone, 4/10/62) …..
https://archive.org/stream/allegedassassina00unit/allegedassassina00unit_djvu.txt
Friendly Fire
Book: U.S. Military Drafted Plans to Terrorize U.S. Cities to Provoke War With Cuba
By David Ruppe – May 1, 2001
………
Over the Edge’
The Joint Chiefs at the time were headed by Eisenhower appointee Army Gen. Lyman L. Lemnitzer, who, with the signed plans in hand made a pitch to McNamara on March 13, 1962, recommending Operation Northwoods be run by the military.
Whether the Joint Chiefs’ plans were rejected by McNamara in the meeting is not clear. But three days later, President Kennedy told Lemnitzer directly there was virtually no possibility of ever using overt force to take Cuba, Bamford reports. Within months, Lemnitzer would be denied another term as chairman and transferred to another job…
….. There were reports U.S. military leaders had encouraged their subordinates to vote conservative during the election.
And at least two popular books were published focusing on a right-wing military leadership pushing the limits against government policy of the day. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee published its own report on right-wing extremism in the military, warning a “considerable danger” in the “education and propaganda activities of military personnel” had been uncovered. The committee even called for an examination of any ties between Lemnitzer and right-wing groups. But Congress didn’t get wind of Northwoods, says Bamford….
https://web.archive.org/web/20011216222856/http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/jointchiefs_010501.html
\\][//
CUBA: OPERATION NORTHWOODS, THE FORGOTTEN INSANITY
Introduction by Russ Baker:
As we watch President Obama being warmly welcomed in Cuba, we think back to the secret, shameful things done in the past by the US to undermine Castro, not counting the various assassination attempts. This report lays bare one of the more hair-raising schemes.
On March 13, 1962, the Joint Chiefs of Staff proposed to President John F. Kennedy that the United States attack itself — and blame Cuba. This is what is known as a “false flag” event.
This proposal came at the request of the CIA’s Edward Lansdale who was in charge of the anti-Castro project.
Kennedy dismissed it as lunacy, certain to lead to war. This set him on a fatal collision course with the most powerful people in the country.
This little-known proposal, code-named Operation Northwoods, is highly relevant today. It provides a crucial backdrop to the murderous mindset of those whom Castro — and Kennedy — had angered. Moreover, we would be foolish to assume that the basic nature of institutions has changed. The temptation to engineer so-called false flag events may simply be too great to resist.
Was Northwoods an anomaly? Certainly not. Creating provocations to justify action — by making it appear you are only reacting — has long been a ploy of many governments, over time and throughout the world.
The United States has hardly been immune to the temptation to shape events, opinion, and historical trajectories…
http://www.blacklistednews.com/CUBA%3A_OPERATION_NORTHWOODS%2C_THE_FORGOTTEN_INSANITY/49943/0/38/38/Y/M.html
\\][//
The Warren report is a Grimoire.
\\][//
The Power Elite
The Power Elite is a 1956 book by sociologist C. Wright Mills. In it Mills calls attention to the interwoven interests of the leaders of the military, corporate, and political elements of society and suggests that the ordinary citizen is a relatively powerless subject of manipulation by those entities.
The book is something of a counterpart of Mills’ 1951 work, White Collar: The American Middle Classes, which examines the then-growing role of middle managers in American society. A main inspiration for the book was Franz Leopold Neumann’s book Behemoth: The Structure and Practice of National Socialism in 1942, a study of how Nazism came into a position of power in a democratic state like Germany. Behemoth had a major impact on Mills and he claimed that Behemoth had given him the “tools to grasp and analyse the entire total structure and as a warning of what could happen in a modern capitalist democracy”.[1]
According to Mills, the eponymous “power elite” are those that occupy the dominant positions, in the dominant institutions (military, economic and political) of a dominant country, and their decisions (or lack of decisions) have enormous consequences, not only for the U.S. population but, “the underlying populations of the world.” The institutions which they head, Mills posits, are a triumvirate of groups that have succeeded weaker predecessors: (1) “two or three hundred giant corporations” which have replaced the traditional agrarian and craft economy, (2) a strong federal political order that has inherited power from “a decentralized set of several dozen states” and “now enters into each and every crany of the social structure,” and (3) the military establishment, formerly an object of “distrust fed by state militia,” but now an entity with “all the grim and clumsy efficiency of a sprawling bureaucratic domain.”
Importantly, and in distinction from modern American conspiracy theory, Mills explains that the elite themselves may not be aware of their status as an elite, noting that “often they are uncertain about their roles” and “without conscious effort, they absorb the aspiration to be … The Ones Who Decide.” Nonetheless, he sees them as a quasi-hereditary caste. The members of the “power elite,” according to Mills, often enter into positions of societal prominence through educations obtained at eastern establishment universities like Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. But, Mills notes, “Harvard or Yale or Princeton is not enough … the point is not Harvard, but which Harvard?” Mills identifies two classes of Ivy League alumni, those initiated into an upper echelon fraternity or final club, such as Porcellian and Fly Club, and those who are not. Those so initiated, Mills continues, receive their invitations based on social links first established in elite private preparatory academies, where they are enrolled as part of antebellum family traditions. In this manner, the mantle of the elite generally passes through families.
The resulting elites, who control the three dominant institutions (military, economic and political) can be generally grouped into one of six types, according to Mills:
the “Metropolitan 400” – members of historically notable local families in the principal American cities, generally represented on the Social Register
“Celebrities” – prominent entertainers and media personalities
the “Chief Executives” – presidents and CEO’s of the most important companies within each industrial sector
the “Corporate Rich” – major landowners and corporate shareholders
the “Warlords” – senior military officers, most importantly the Joint Chiefs of Staff
the “Political Directorate” – “fifty-odd men of the executive branch” of the U.S. federal government, including the senior leadership in the Executive Office of the President, sometimes variously drawn from elected officials of the Democratic and Republican parties but usually professional government bureaucrats
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Elite
It is this System that killed President Kennedy in Dallas 11/22/1963. It is as important to grasp this larger systemic analysis to understand that this coup d’etat has continued the agenda of this Power Elite of Military Industrial Complex to the present existential crisis that humankind faces today.
\\][//
BEHEMOTH by Franz L. Neumann
http://www.unz.org/Pub/NeumannFranz-1942
\\][//
I have a piano wire garrote with Bill Clarke’s name on it…
It is this list of Autodidacts:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_autodidacts
\\][//
Willy Whitten — March 26, 2016 at 11:51 pm
Tom has offered documented proof that Dr Perry was leaned on to change his testimony about the entrance wound in JFK’s throat.
Again we must consider MO, and Rule #406 concerning routine habits of individuals and organizations.
The ‘Intelligence Community’ has a known history of such routine habits as intimidating witnesses, threatening with harm, actually causing harm.
To think that Dr Perry alone was intimidated in such a way is unreasonable. Mostly such intimidation is “expected/feared” by such witnesses, this is why the usual routine habit of going along to get along, before such intimidation is even applied.
Just the words, “You know what is expected of you in these circumstances…” can be enough of an intimidation to those who know “the rules of the game”.
What bothers me is that there are those here who act as though this isn’t a self-evident reality for any adult in this pathological society. Of course I DO understand it is psychological denial.
But it seems to me that the commentators here should be mature enough to at least grasp this conceptually.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/dr-robert-mcclelland-a-story-he-feels-compelled-to-share/#comment-865639
\\][//
JFK’S WAR WITH THE NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT: WHY KENNEDY WAS ASSASSINATED, PART 1
by Douglas Horne — August 5, 2013
“By the end of November 1961, profoundly dissatisfied with his own national security advisory apparatus, President Kennedy had firmly pushed back against the national security establishment (in this case the NSC, the State Department, and the CIA) by purging and/or reshuffling many of the civilian hawks in his own administration into other positions, and by placing officials more in line with his own views into key positions. [A change in the top leadership at the Pentagon was to come later, in 1962.] Throughout 1961, the new President had painfully but quickly learned to be quite skeptical of the advice he was receiving, pertaining to matters of war and peace, from his hawkish advisors; and as 1961 progressed, John F. Kennedy repeatedly demonstrated what the hawks in government (the majority) no doubt considered a disturbingly independent (and increasingly all-too-predictable) frame of mind in regard to the national security recommendations he was receiving from the “sacred cows” and “wise men” in Washington, D.C. As I shall demonstrate in this essay, by the end of 1962, the national security establishment in Washington D.C., which had quickly come to know JFK as a skeptic during 1961, had come to view him as a heretic; and by November of 1963, the month he was assassinated, they no doubt considered him an apostate, for he no longer supported most of the so-called “orthodox” views of the Cold War priesthood. Increasingly alone in his foreign policy judgments as 1963 progressed, JFK was nevertheless proceeding boldly to end our “Holy War” against Communism, instead of trying to win it. In retrospect it is clear that the national security establishment wanted to win our own particular “jihad” of the post-WW II era by turning the Cold War against the USSR into a “hot war,” so that we could inflict punishing and fatal blows upon our Communist adversaries (and any other forces we equated with them) on the battlefield. It was this desire for “hot war” by so many within the establishment — their belief that conventional “proxy wars” with the Soviet Bloc were an urgent necessity, and that nuclear war with the USSR was probably inevitable — to which President Kennedy was so adamantly opposed. And it was JFK’s profound determination to avoid nuclear war by miscalculation, and to eschew combat with conventional arms unless it was truly necessary, that separated him from almost everyone else in his administration from 1961 throughout 1963, as events have shown us.
This essay will explore, one year at a time, the seminal events in JFK’s ongoing and escalating conflicts with the national security hard-liners in his own administration.”~Douglas Horne
http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/jfks-war-against-the-national-security-establishment/
\\][//
HELLO, MY NAME IS ROGER FEINMAN. THIS IS
THE WEB VERSION OF MY PRESENTATION TO A
CONFERENCE IN WASHINGTON, D.C., ON . SUNDAY,
SEPTEMBER 19, 2004. THE CONFERENCE WAS
CALLED “THE WARREN REPORT AND ITS LEGACY.”
IT MARKED THE FORTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE
WARREN COMMISSION REPORT ON PRESIDENT
KENNEDY’s ASSASSINATION. MY TOPIC WAS
“CBS NEWS, ABC NEWS, AND THE LONE ASSASSIN
THEORY.” THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO PARTS.
V.O.
NARRATION:
FIRST, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW MY BIAS.
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO KNOW WHERE I STAND SO
THAT YOU CAN JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES HOW MUCH
WEIGHT YOU’RE GOING TO GIVE TO WHAT I’M
ABOUT TO TELL YOU. TWENTY-EIGHT YEARS
AGO, ON SEPTEMBER 7, 1976, I WAS FIRED BY
CBS NEWS FOR SENDING MEMOS TO ITS SENIOR
EXECUTIVES. I HAD WORKED AT CBS FOR
SEVERAL YEARS. IN THOSE MEMOS, SPREAD
OVER A NINE-MONTH PERIOD, I RAISED
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHETHER TWO MAJOR
DOCUMENTARIES ON THE WARREN REPORT
VIOLATED CBS’S OWN STANDARDS AND
PRACTICES. THE FIRST WAS BROADCAST IN
JUNE 1967; THE SECOND IN NOVEMBER 1975.
I STARTED BY WRITING TO THE PRESIDENT OF
CBS NEWS, RICHARD S. SALANT, ON DECEMBER
1, 1975.
IN THAT MEMO, I URGED SALANT TO APPOINT A
COMMITTEE TO REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTARIES
FOR FAIRNESS AND ACCURACY. SALANT
DECLINED MY SUGGESTION AND AFFIRMED HIS
CONFIDENCE IN THE BROADCASTS.
I ENDED BY WRITING A LETTER TO THE SENIOR
VICE PRESIDENT OF CBS NEWS, BILL SMALL.
Click to access Feinman%20CBS-ABC%20cover_assn%202-3.pdf
\\][//
Also see:
Elegy for Roger Feinman
By James DiEugenio
“Roger thoroughly understood that his company was up to its neck in the cover up of President Kennedy’s assassination. In fact, one could cogently argue that, from 1963-75, no other broadcast outlet did more to prop up the Warren Commission farce than did CBS. They prepared three news specials in that time period to support the Commission. These all came at crucial times in that time period. The first one was in 1964 to accompany the release of the Warren Report. The second was in 1967 to calm a public that was becoming anxious about what Jim Garrison was doing in New Orleans. The third was in 1975 at the time of the Church Committee exposure of the crimes of the CIA and FBI, and the Schweiker-Hart subcommittee report on the failure of those two agencies to properly relay information to the Commission.
Instead of being quiet, playing along, and watching his bank account grow and his life prosper, Roger did something that very few of us would do. He began to write internal memoranda exposing how the practices used in the assembling of the multi–part 1967 series clearly violated the written journalistic standards of the network. As an employee, Roger had access to both the people involved in the making of that series, and through them, the documents used in its preparation. To say that these sources cinched his case is an understatement. They showed how the show’s producer, Les Midgley, had succumbed to pressure from above in his original conception of the show.”~DiEugenio
http://www.ctka.net/feinman_elegy.html
\\][//
Tom Scully has set this particular thread up to continue maligning Jim Garrison.
I disagree with Scully’s take on all of this, and cannot understand what Tom’s problem is, when all of the facts that have emerged, even in Tom’s own research proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shaw was guilty as charged, that CIA was guilty as charged, and that the Federal government itself destroyed Garrison’s prosecution.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/experts/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/
It is frustrating. All in all I like Tom, he does a good job as moderator. What I find distressing is that I feel I am endangering my position and posting privileges if I disagree with Tom. I have every right to disagree with any proposal I find lacking in reason and evidence.
The evidence that Tom cites for his conclusion can be read quite subjectively, it is not necessarily an ‘objective’ assessment that Tom arrives at.
As far as Garrison having some sort of ‘conflict of interest’ in his prosecution of Clay Shaw, it is absurd. Garrison was not related to Clay Shaw by blood or marriage. Garrison was not prosecuting any of his in-laws. That they might be implicated by further investigation is up to discovery. I cannot find anything improper in Garrison’s indictment and prosecution of Shaw, neither legally nor ethically.
“Why is it not a consideration that Garrison and Shaw simply put on a performance, as they were instructed to?”
~Tom S. April 12, 2016 at 9:18 pm
Why is it that if one considers that proposition and finds it wanting, that our opinion is automatically less reasonable and valid than Tom’s?
I have followed every jot and tittle of Tom’s presentation and reasoning. But I do not agree with Tom’s final assessment. And I have considered it long and hard out of deference for Tom’s sincerity.
“We have been stove by a whale.”~’Heart of the Sea’
Norman Mailer once likened the Warren Report to a dead whale decomposing on a beach.
But before that whale beached itself, it took down the legitimate ship of state and installed usurpers, a cabal of psychopaths that remain in power to this very day.
Isn’t this the reason we need to understand what the assassination of JFK was all about?
Isn’t this what Oliver Stone’s film ‘JFK’ was all about?
Isn’t this what Garrison was trying to prove in his prosecution of Clay Shaw?
\\][//
Willy Whitten — April 12, 2016 at 10:40 pm
“Did Garrison ever successfully argue precisely how Shaw managed the murder, let alone that he authorized and covered up the hit in Dealey Plaza?”~Leslie Sharp
I don’t think that was what Garrison was prosecuting Shaw for. Garrison was merely prosecuting Shaw for involvement in the assassination. Shaw had an involvement with the assassination, an involvement with CIA, and some of those involved with CIA were in-laws to Garrison.
Garrison was not related to Clay Shaw by blood or marriage. Garrison was not prosecuting any of his in-laws. That they might be implicated by further investigation is up to discovery. I cannot find anything improper in Garrison’s indictment and prosecution of Shaw, neither legally nor ethically.
Garrison was clearly cognizant enough to realize that it was a systemic hit, a coup d’etat. He surely understood that Shaw could not accomplish a cover-up. he could not influence the Warren Commission.
Don’t forget it was Garrison’s study of the 26 volumes of the Warren Commission report that set him on the trail of the assassins. He realized he had proper venue when he began investigating David Ferrie. When Ferrie died,or was murdered, Garrison let the case simmer. It was only after a conversation with Dean Andrews about his connection with Shaw that set Garrison back on the tracks. Shaw was a citizen within Garrison’s New Orleans district.
I think that further revelations have proven that Garrison’s case against Shaw was far from frivolous. I don’t think that Shaw was the end of where he was going, it was to prove that the military industrial complex was the perpetrator of a coup d’etat. THAT is a systemic view that Garrison clearly maintained.
That is my opinion of this situation at hand here. Anyone can take it or leave it.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869334
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Photon — April 13, 2016 at 4:02 am
“What I find so fascinating about the above discussion is how little is has to do with the actual physical evidence related to the events in Dealey Plaza on Nov. 22, 1963.
Instead of a “War and Peace” narrative why not accept the simple explanation-Garrison had no case, he knew he had no case, the interrelated white political and social Establishment knew he had no case. But Garrison was an unscrupulous ,politically ambitious publicity seeker who thought that he could prove that JFK’s murder was a homosexual thrill crime. Once that scenario became untenable he proceeded to tie in vague connections to the CIA that several of the cast of characters had in the remote past to a totally different CIA-driven conspiracy, one much more attractive to the Conspiracy theorists of the time. Many if not most of the prominent conspiracy authors at the time saw Garrison as the publicity-seeking charlatan that he was.The recent disclosures by Tom S. simply point out to me the bohemian nature of the New Orleans social and political scene.”
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/provocative-prolific-joan-mellen/#comment-869382
***************************************************************************************************
Tom and Leslie are to blame for giving Photon room to say this with no rational response left for either Leslie or Tom to make against him. They made this same case for Photon. They intercepted his ball and ran his touchdown for him.
This is precisely what I knew would happen.
\\][//
On March 1, 1967, New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison arrested and charged New Orleans businessman Clay Shaw with conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy, with the help of Lee Harvey Oswald, David Ferrie, and others. On January 29, 1969, Shaw was brought to trial in Orleans Parish Criminal Court on these charges.
David Ferrie (second from left) with Lee Harvey Oswald (far right) in the New Orleans Civil Air Patrol in 1955. This photo showing Ferrie and Oswald together only became public after the trial was over.
20 September 1967
MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD
SUBJECT: Garrison Group Meeting No. 1 – 20 September 1967
PRESENT: Executive Director, General Counsel, Inspector General, DD/P, DD/S, Mr. Raymond Rocca of CI Staff, Director of Security, and Mr. Goodwin.
1. Executive Director said that the Director had asked him to convene a group to consider the possible implications for the Agency emanating from New Orleans before, during, and after the trial of Clay Shaw.
2. General Counsel discussed his dealings with Justice and the desire of Shaw’s lawyers to make contact with the Agency.
3. Rocca felt that Garrison would indeed obtain a conviction of Shaw for conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy.
4. Executive Director said the group should level on two objectives: (a) what kind of action, if any, is available to the Agency, and (b) what actions should be taken inside the Agency to reassure the Director that we have the problem in focus. The possibility of Agency action should be examined from the timing of what can be done before the trial and what might be feasible during and after the trial. It was agreed that OGC and Rocca would make a detailed study of all the facts and consult with Justice as appropriate prior to the next group meeting.
/signed/
F. W. M. Janney
. . . . . . . .
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/cia_garrison.htm
\\][//
In the Matter of the Contested Dismissal of Dr. John C. McAdams
Final Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In this proceeding before the Faculty Hearing Committee, the University seeks to establish
that it has discretionary cause to dismiss Dr. John C. McAdams, a tenured Associate
Professor in the Department of Political Science. The University initiated these
proceedings after Dr. McAdams published a blog post on his personal blog, Marquette
Warrior, on November 9, 2014, that discussed events surrounding an October 28, 2014,
session of a Theory of Ethics class taught by a graduate student instructor in the Department
of Philosophy, Ms. Cheryl Abbate. Ms. Abbate was subsequently the target of
a torrent of abusive communications that led her to fear for her safety and ultimately to
leave Marquette in the middle of the academic year. Dr. McAdams was suspended with
pay and banished from campus on December 16, 2014, and was subsequently notified
of the University’s intent to terminate his employment by letter dated January 30, 2015.
A substantial record has been compiled during these proceedings, which the Committee
has reviewed. We have also, by necessity, resolved several questions concerning
the proper interpretation of Chapters 306 and 307 of the Faculty Statutes, which are
being applied in this proceeding to a contested dismissal for the first time. That exercise
has at times been made more difficult by language in the statutes that is convoluted,
heavily qualified, or unclear. Based on our review of the record, our interpretation of
the statutes, and the findings of fact we make herein, and after due deliberation, the
Committee reaches the following conclusions.
The Committee concludes that the interim suspension of Dr. McAdams pending the
outcome of this proceeding, imposed by the University with no faculty review and in
the absence of any viable threat posed by the continuation of his job duties, was an
abuse of the University’s discretion granted under the Faculty Statutes. The purpose of
the suspension appears not to have been to prevent immediate harm to Dr. McAdams
or members of the University community, but rather to impose a summary sanction on
Dr. McAdams to satisfy the demands of external and internal audiences. This is an
improper use of the interim suspension power that violated Dr. McAdams’s right to
due process under the Faculty Statutes.
[…]
. . .
See: Entire Report at:
Click to access 20160118-MUFHC-Final-Report-Contested-Dismissal-Dr-John-C-McAdams.pdf
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This commentary in reaction to the McAdams case by the ‘research community’ is interesting as well. Very interesting is that David Lifton is defending McAdams’ deplorible activities.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=22826
\\][//
John McAdams suing Marquette for its response to his role in a 2014 controversy
Suspended Political Science Professor John McAdams announced Monday that he is suing Marquette after his role in a 2014 controversy, and the university responded by welcoming the lawsuit and releasing the related Faculty Hearing Committee report. (See: above)
At a press conference conducted by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, McAdams’ lawyer Rick Esenberg said a breach of contract action was filed in the Milwaukee County Circuit Court.
“Marquette holds itself out, as it should, as an institution committed to academic freedom,” Esenberg said. “We intend to hold it to that commitment.”
The controversy started when McAdams published a post on his blog, Marquette Warrior, to criticize former Teaching Assistant Cheryl Abbate for allegedly stopping her students from discussing anti-gay marriage views in her Theory of Ethics class.
University Spokesman Brian Dorrington said in a statement that Marquette is welcoming the lawsuit.
“The public will hear a comprehensive account of Dr. McAdams’ mistreatment of our former graduate student, rather than the select details he has handpicked to promote his false narrative,” Dorrington said in the statement. “Once all the facts are made clear, Marquette fully expects that the decision to suspend him will be upheld.”
http://marquettewire.org/3950158/tribune/tribune-news/john-mcadams-suing-marquette-for-its-response-to-his-role-in-a-2014-controversy/
\\][//
The Architecture of Political Power
So there is this grimoire referred to as the Warren Report. Which is indeed a book of spells meant to put one in the trance of acceptance of the spin that is put on the information therein. It is agreed that this report is a “lie’ in the impression it attempts to give.
Yet the Warren Commission Report and attendant 26 volumes, in fact holds the keys to it’s own destruction as per it’s skewed conclusions. In aggregate the testimony proves that Oswald could not possibly be the shooter. That the Manlicher Carcano was in fact just a stage prop and was never fired in Dealey Plaza on 11/22/1963. All of this information is contained within the pages of the report and 26 volumes of hearings.
It was Garrison’s reading of this report and hearings that he realized that the conclusions conflict with the data used to reach the false conclusion.
So we are often confronted with adversaries who bawl out in a knee-jerk reaction, “Oh that is from the Warren Report and everyone knows it is a big lie!” But then these same people with cite testimony from the report chosen for their own agenda, claiming that the testimony was led by the interrogators, or that the witnesses themselves had a motive for lying. And they spin it to support their argument. Of course in the first place this is utter hypocrisy to say in a blanket statement that nothing in the Report is trustworthy, and then turn around and use those statements in ones argument.
Of course there ARE other critical sources of information from principal players, Fletcher Prouty being of prime importance, Garrison another from another angle, Mark Lane and a legion of other primary researchers. Much of their work puts the lie to the Warren Report by reporting the facts as they were in 1963 as opposed to the spin put on those facts by the commission.
This case is much more complex than attempting to identify a character in a blurry photograph. It is in fact an unnecessary and spurious attempt, as Oswald in fact has a solid alibi, not only for that day and time of the hour, but as to who and what he really was. Oswald was an agent of OSI working to infiltrate the Cuban Exile community and Bannister and Ferrie’s connections to them. What he found was the connection of US intelligence involvement with the fore described milieu. This made him the most likely candidate for a patsy to take the fall for the assassination. It would get rid of Oswald’s findings as well as frame him for the perpetrators crime.
As in all historical cases, this one must be analyzed from a systemic perspective. Grasping the means and methods, the modus operandi of the System itself is of the essence. The architecture of modern political power must be understood in its entirety. A forensic assessment of history gives us the blueprints and schematics for this architecture.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I want to note that the general conclusions I put in the above, are a reflection of the views I have held for more than 20 years now, and they have only been reinforced by the events and findings of those intervening 20 years.
\\][//
Texas Doc Says Jfk’s Fatal Shots Came From Front
BY JACK MCKINNEY
POSTED: April 15, 1992
In the two weeks since participating in that televised panel discussion on the slaying of President John F. Kennedy, I’ve been asked by viewers to recommend some basic reading material for people who would like to be better informed on the November 1963 assassination, but don’t know where to start.
While I realize most of this desire for further detail was stoked more by the Oliver Stone film, “JFK,” than by our modest 90-minute chat on cable TV, I’m delighted to contribute anything I can to keep the interest alive.
Today, much information on the assassination and its attendant controversy is available in bookshops, with some important earlier titles resissued as a result of the widely seen Stone film.
Those with long memories, however, will remember when big-name publishers were afraid to accept any manuscript that challenged the “official” version of the Kennedy assassination, as it was viewed by the Warren Commission in its 888-page report and its later-released but little-read 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits.
Pioneer researcher Harold Weisberg could show you files of letters from leading publishers praising his work. But the only way he could get his definitive “Whitewash” series into print was by mass-producing it himself with unattractive offset techniques.
Bizarre as this must seem now, the first independent, commercially-produced book wasn’t even in English!
Scholarly Leo Sauvage was Washington correspondent for the French newspaper, Le Figaro. After plowing through the Warren Report and then the 26 Volumes of Hearings and Exhibits, he flatly rejected the notion that Lee Harvey Oswald, an oddball loner, had slain Jack Kennedy with an obsolete, war- surplus Italian carbine.
Sauvage debunked that finding in a hard-cover book, “L’Affaire Oswald,” which was available in France by early-1965. It was not translated into English and marketed in America by the World Publishing Co. as “The Oswald Affair” until a year-and-a-half later!
Once the dam was breached, though, American publishers turned so gutsy that domestic books on the assassination became such standard fare, they now number in the hundreds.
Yet, those looking for a primer will find the ideal thing in “JFK, Conspiracy of Silence,” a Signet Book by Charles A. Crenshaw, M.D., one of the surgeons who failed at the impossible task of trying to save Kennedy’s life at Parkland Hospital.
Written with assistance from veteran researchers Jens Hansen and J. Gary Shaw, Crenshaw’s book, which went on sale less than three weeks ago at the notably low price of $4.99, breaks the arbitrary vow of silence that surgeons who worked on the moribund president had observed for more than 28 years.
Most importantly, it at last confirms what has long been the claim of the most astute researchers – as is proclaimed in Crenshaw’s own words on his book’s rear cover:
“I have wanted to shout to the world that the wounds to Kennedy’s head and throat that I examined were caused by bullets that struck him from the front, not the back, as the public has been led to believe.”
This proves conclusively, just as Leo Sauvage deduced 27 years ago, that Osawald was not the assassin.
But Crenshaw does not really “shout.” In measured terms, he leads the reader through almost every event of that horrific weekend – including the trauma team’s vain attempts to save Oswald after he was shot while in police custody by Jack Ruby.
Of course, fellow-surgeon Malcolm Perry now panders to the powerful by trying to discredit Crenshaw’s claims.
But Perry forgets he made the same admission about the fatal front shots to Bob Groden, who earned respect from Congress as an expert witness in hearings on the Kennedy assassination.
“I’ll go up againt Perry in a lie-detector test anytime,” Bob Groden has told me.
“Should Perry repeat his public line on a lie-detector, he’ll be the one discredited.”
http://articles.philly.com/1992-04-15/news/26004071_1_assassination-researchers-warren-report
\\][//
Washington Times reported: “America is no longer a democracy — never mind the democratic republic envisioned by Founding Fathers. Rather, it has taken a turn down elitist lane and become a country led by a small dominant class comprised of powerful members who exert total control over the general population — an oligarchy … .”
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/
\\][//