Hunchback Kennedy – created by David Hazan
A new ‘reality’ of Kennedy’s “abnormal neck” as asserted by the anonymous & clinically insane commentator on JFKfacts, “Dr.” Photon, now illustrated by Mr Hazan:
(satire)
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Hybridrogue1's Blog 
Willy Whitten hi Willy; I have seen your name numerous times in JFK facts and I recently tried to communicate with you. I find that you have a deep knowledge in the matter.
I myself am a 75 year old lawyer who has spent my last three years almost entirely as a conspiracy theorist. That was a 180 degree change of my life. However; there is where I am! What I have recently found, though, I hope will be the first step to change the expression conspiracy theorist” into something with a more honorable sound to it.
As a lawyer I have always been more interested in things that could be proven and (at least mostly) abstained from speculation. In the JFK case I therefore found it most fruitful to concentrate or the on the medical evidence. However; like many others I felt myself mired in the swamps of half truths and mirrors.
Recently; in a debate with an LN over the single Bullet theory; I happened to say that the Warren Commission referred to Rydbergs drawing in order to be able to explain all the angles and bullets paths. On top of that, there was of course the problem with the bullet passing through the strap muscles as an explanation for the absence of bone contact in Kennedy´s back. So, of course the Warren Commission had used the drawing to explain all that.
My opponent was steadfast so I had to go back and read what the Warren Commission in fact wrote about this. What I found astounded me. I felt like: “Heureka”! Why have I not heard this before? Why did they say that Gerald Ford moved the wound? Why did Humes, in the interview with Dan Rather, say that Boswell´s face sheet and Rydbergs drawing showed the identically same spot ?
We all “KNOW” of course, that the SBT is bs. So far we have not managed to put the finger on it. However; I think the hint I got from my LN opponent was the opening of something we had not seen before: the extent of the fraud that the Warren Commission performed in order to maintain the fiction of the Lone Assassin!
The evidence for my accusation is in the report itself but hidden behind a thick screen of smoke. Here it is:
It starts in p 96 of the report when the WC describes where the bullet hit Kennedy. They are referring to the autopsy report itself and gives the measurements from that. In the following pages the Commission goes on to describe the shooting itself with angles, distances, weapon, ballistics etc. in great detail. While doing that the WC alternately refers to the point of entry as being in “the back” and in “the neck”. This happens several times while the narrative moves on. Sometimes the entry is even mentioned as being in the “upper back”. That way we are all very soon led to think of those expressions as identical. This is not happening by mistake; as we will see soon!
At last we are coming to the conclusions about the back (?) shot. That happens in p 107. Now the Commission is not referring to the autopsy report any more. Instead we learn that what they have found as conclusive are “data derived from the autopsy doctors”. And where does this data lead us? To Rydberg´s drawing!
What has happened? The Warren Commission itself; in it´s own report; has moved the wound from the third thoracic vertebrae to a point 5-6 inches higher. Without us noticing!
All of a sudden the aforementioned interview with Humes makes sense! (Note that Humes in the interview acknowledges Boswell´s face sheet as correctly depicting the wound. This is vehemently denied by LN:s I have discussed the matter with.)
The conclusion we can make is that the SBT is a deliberate fabrication and that the WC presents the evidence for it in their own report. This means that ALL evidence coming out from the report is tarnished. Bugliosi RIP) had 53 individual pieces of evidence. Maybe lucky for him he did not live to see this!
Thank you for commenting Olle, great post!!
Welcome aboard HR1blog.
I like to use the term “conspiracy analyst” as opposed to the “CT” slur. I also consider what we do as a forensic study of history.
\\][//
Great post Olle. And nice to meet you.
I have been trying to identify this argumentative technique you outline so well above. Which is essentially I am certain it must be classified as “something” already because it is so commonly used in news reporting, political speeches, and above all in courtrooms.
Where I find it to be most effective is in creating newspeak in order to alter the perception of the public on important issues. A good example would be how the “global warming” meme was slowly transformed into “climate change” over a period of a couple of years. Which is essentially what the WC report has done in those pages.
Do you, by any chance, happen to know if there is a name for this technique?
I am not sure there is anything in the literature that would perfectly name Olle’s description in a single word. “Definist Fallacy” seems to come close, if I am interpreting it properly here.
See both:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies
And:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definist_fallacy
\\][//
Hi David, and thanks for your kind words. In my view however; this is not only misleading language. It is an outright fraud (which I think would be the correct description for it) with the wilful intent to persuade the American people that there were no more shooters. In the case of climate change there has been more of a willingness to interpret data in a certain direction. If what the Warren Commission has done should be known today the whole report would have been thrown out the window. It has the intention of hiding a crime that likely is supported by the government to such a degree that the word coup d´êtat is appropriate. The question should be pursued with this notion in mind. It will affect all the subsequent administrations who themselves have been involved in the cover-up. There should be blood in the streets and I am not talking about ours!
“the word coup d´êtat is appropriate.”
Yes indeed Olle, I have considered the event a coup d´êtat ever since I read Col Fletcher Prouty’s works, and listened to dozens of broadcasts of his lectures on KPFK Los Angeles.
Fletcher Prouty discussed the lack of adherence to standard security protocol in this article, as well as his book ‘The Secret Team’:
THE GUNS OF DALLAS
© 1975 by L. Fletcher Prouty
Photographic Research by Richard E. Sprague
Reprinted with permission of the author
The shocking nature of what you are about to read in this article makes it imperative that you be aware of some of the credentials and experience of the author.
From 1955 to December 31, 1963, Col. L. Fletcher Prouty was the Focal Point (liason) officer between the Pentagon and the CIA. During 1962 and 1963 he was Director of Special Plans (clandestine operations) in the office of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
In 1971 he was the president of the Financial Marketing Council, Washington, D.C.
* * * * *
“Yes, history has been made by a series of murders, but not enough has been done to solve them. The trial of Watergate was the trial of the cover-up. There has been no trial about the real crime of Watergate. There has been no trial of the big power behind Watergate. The Hunts, Liddys, McCords, and the Cubans were not drawn into that drama solely for their own interests. They were working for someone much higher up. They were all pawns, just like Nixon was. This is a game for the biggest stake of all—absolute control of the government of the United States of America; and, with control of this government, control of the world. And yet the real crime underlying all of this has not even been identified, stated, and charged. The real criminals still walk the streets, run their corporations, control their banks, and pull strings throughout their political and financial machines.
This control mechanism did not start in 1972 with Watergate. It began, in a tentative way, in the Korean War era, when the military and the executive branch found out how easy it was to fool the Congress and the American public. And with that recognition, power-hungry and money-mad industrialists began to usurp more and more power. And when those rifles crackled over Dealey Plaza, in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963 and John F. Kennedy’s brain was splattered across the road, they had made their move into the big time. They took over control of the President and of the Presidency. The man they had killed was no longer a problem and they had made certain that his successor, Lyndon Johnson, heard and remembered the sound of those guns. It is the sound of those guns in Dallas, and their ever-present threat, which is the real mechanism of control over the American government.”
~Fletcher Prouty
He is the author of numerous articles and of The Secret Team, published by Prentice Hall (1973) and Ballantine Books (1974).
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/GoD.html
\\][//
About this page and the photos above:
For close to a year now a commentator on the blog JFKfacts has been asserting that John Kennedy had an abnormal neck. He refused to elaborate, but he continued to insist this was true.
On the first of April Jeff Morley posted a new story titled, JFK’s Pacific Swim. Again the anonymous commentator calling itself “Photon” began his/her routine about Kennedy’s “abnormal neck”. An argument ensued between Photon and the rest of the commentators on the site. The entire time Photon would only make more and more outrageous claims.
Eventually, the moderator Tom Scully, posted a new “Comment of the Week” dedicated to this ongoing dispute about Kennedy’s alleged “abnormal neck”.
Finally on April 14, 2016 at 3:40 am, Photon left three comments inwhich he attempted to prove that not only did Kennedy have an abnormal neck, but that Kennedy was a ‘hunchback”.
See those three comments that begin here:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-week-21-2/#comment-869613
* * * * *
I replied to these new assertions with several comments, one of them being:
>’The question that occurred to me again this morning is:
‘Is Photon an anonymous individual, or an anonymous group?’
After months and months of Photon’s coy jitterbug of innuendo and vague rhetorical taunting, SUDDENLY he utters the ‘magic words’, “Cushingoid neck & back”. He offers no links to back up any of these claims.
We are offered too little too late.
Photon’s latest is unconvincing and anticlimactic to say the least.’
* * * * *
All interested parties are encouraged to read the original dialogues as they took place on JFKfacts.
\\][//
Another astounding image from 11/22/1963
\\][//
This is a photo I had never seen until I revisited a PBS article published on the 50th anniversary of the assassination titled 5 journalists who got their start covering the JFK assassination .
When I had first read the article 2 years ago, I remember thinking that it was quite peculiar that all of these 5 journalists went on to become anchormen for major networks for long years. My conspiracy prone mind calmed down once I realized there might have been fifty other journalists who covered it and never got anywhere… But still, couldn’t get my mind off the possible Mockingbird aspect of the whole thing.
A couple of peculiar anecdotes, along with the fact that two of them were Canadians, and the silence of all these men in governmental wrongdoings in the pursuing decades that still make me go “hmmmm?”
Link to full article
Thanks David, a very interesting article. “Mockingbird” seems to haunt the airwaves and ink-flows of the Public Relations Regime like a legion of spooks. The five “journalists” listed in this story are typical of the 1960’s era propaganda program.
\\][//
To point out something spectacularly obvious; Photon is either utterly clueless as to human anatomy, and completely disingenuous as to his claimed ‘expertise’ in medical issues – OR he/she is purposely misrepresenting the position of the bullet wound in Kennedy’s back.
The proposition that JFK’s coat and shirt were “bunched up” is belied by the actual photograph of JFK’s back from the autopsy. ANYONE with eyes can see that that wound is in JFK’s back at the vicinity of T-3, and NOT in his neck.
Claiming that the coat and shirt were “bunched up” is also an assertion of ‘Coincidence’ so blatantly absurd, in that the visual evidence of the wound is unquestionable, the alignment with the garments is unquestionable. The fact that Boswell’s facesheet places a dot at that exact place is unquestionable. The fact that Burkely’s JFK death certificate placing the wound at T-3 is unquestionable. Sibert and O’Neill’s report that the wound was at T-3 is unquestionable.
The ONLY thing that is questionable is Photon’s medical expertise, or his/her sincerity.
\\][//
The Parkland Bullet and CE399 have no chain of custody connecting them:
Willy Whitten
April 11, 2016 at 2:12 am
“Had anybody fact-checked Tink Thompson’s claims in “Six Seconds” I doubt that it would have ever reached the status it did ( nor enrich the author as much as it did). I thought that it was very revealing when he couldn’t explain his .30-.30 claims when I challenged him on this site-and amazing that in 30 years nobody had even bothered to question those allegations nor recognize the contradictions in his story.”~Photon
“Dr” Photon has a peculiar mode of memory as displayed in this comment. I recall Josiah Thompson explaining very clearly that the bullet he had photographed was pulled from the desk of O.P. Wright. It was NOT the bullet that had been given to the SS, it was a standard pointed hunting round from a package of re-loader ammo — but it was the SAME TYPE of bullet that Tomlinson and he handled before giving it to the authorities.
The first 4 links in the chain of custody of the bullet found at Parkland are unable to identify it as CE399.
They are:
1. Orderly Darrell Tomlinson >>
2. Parkland hospital security director O.P. Wright >>
3. SS Agent Richard Johnsen >>
4. Agent Rowley (Secret Service Chief).
A break in the chain of custody at this proximate point proves that the bullet of record, CE399 is NOT the bullet found at parkland, and therefor CE399 is a planted bullet by the highest authorities themselves.
Let me remind you once again: A memorandum from the FBI office in Dallas on June 20th to J. Edgar Hoover contains the statement, “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”
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=29
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=86
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 IDENTIFY RIFLE BULLET C ONE (# 399, which, before the Warren Commission had logged in as #399, was called “C ONE”), BY INSPECTION (capitals in original).
\\][//
John McAdams
April 11, 2016 at 5:45 pm
This document actually shows the chain of custody to be intact.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=30
There is no expectation that civilians can ID a particular bullet that they did not initial.
Tomlinson and Wright said the bullet “looked like” and “appears to be” the bullet their handled.
Willy Whitten
April 11, 2016 at 9:46 pm
“Tomlinson and Wright said the bullet “looked like” and “appears to be” the bullet their handled.”~McAdams
Agent Odum denied he ever had that bullet, and that he never showed it to Tomlinson and Wright:
. . .
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.
http://www.history-matters.com/essays/frameup/EvenMoreMagical/EvenMoreMagical.htm
\\][//
Willy Whitten
April 11, 2016 at 10:49 pm
This item does NOT show what McAdams claimed:
It only shows that agents Tod and Frazier initialed the bullet in question. It advised having it identified by Johnson and Rowley. We now know that neither of them could identify the bullet.
There is no chain of custody linking the Parkland Bullet to CE399.
http://www.maryferrell.org/showDoc.html?docId=59607#relPageId=30
\\][//
See the 4 comments in a row starting at:
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/devils-chessboard-today/#comment-868955
~Willy Whitten \\][//
“That little Kennedy, he thought he was a god”~Allen Dulles
See page 36 of ‘New York Days’ by Willie Morris
\\][//
President Kennedy visits San Diego (1963)
Note the incredible military presence as security for JFK. Certainly nothing like what was seen in Dallas on November 22, 1963; as well as noting the fit of JFK’s suit coat.
\\][//
I think it is appropriate to regard everything that is being claimed in this matter as being part of a court room hearing. In that respect I would just like to clarify one thing. Facts in the eyes of the law are of two kinds. They are either NOTORIOUS i.e. known to everybody or they are PROVEN in the legal process.
What we now have here is a fact that wrecks the whole Warren Commission ship and thus the whole case of the Lone Gunman.
Many of you are pointing out to many interesting circumstances but as long as they are not established as undisputable facts they cannot be regarded as that.
However; now we have the Warren Commissions own story on how they created a fact that has been a sine qua non for the whole notion of the Lone Gunman.
By this we can establish as a FACT that there was no Single Bullet. That is irrefutable! The case against Oswald is lost because the forgery of evidence against him make all the other 52 pieces of evidence doubtful.
From now on there is, on top of all this, no basis for the expression “conspiracy theorist”. We have been right all along. There was a conspiracy and it has been a continuous story ever since.
Federal Rules of Evidence # 406
Habit; Routine Practice
“Evidence of the habit of a person or of the routine practice of an organization, whether corroborated or not and regardless of the presence of eyewitnesses, is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice.”
. . . . .
This rule officiates the concept of Modus Operandi as relevant evidence in criminal law.
Subsequently this rule transfers as relevant in discussion on this forum, and has to do with how the term “Fact” is used and a specific form of “information” derived from a reasonable organization of datum.
The epistemologically mature individual grasps that data points are but “beads” to be snapped together into chains in order to bring out the ‘meaning’ of datum.
In tandem with Routine Habit is the construction of the “profile” of a group or individual. That would be a catalog of the habits and routines of individuals or groups.
This can turn from an exacting science to an art form by talented individuals with long experience in such investigation and research.
\\][//
We could say that a Modus Operandi becomes notorious by it´s regular practice. I would also label the writing of the Warren Commission as notorious even if we may have had the wrong impression. What we needed were a fresh pair of glasses and I happened to be handed those.
It is notorious in the sense that we don´t have to prove anything. They wrote it themselves and never made any attempt to correct it. Thus we have reason to believe that this was done on purpose.
We don´t even need to prove intention to mislead; though. It does not matter. They have already stated that those points of entry were identical although they at the same time gave information that they were not. That was no mistake. It was a necessity in order to prove the Single Bullet Theory.
At the same time, by acting this way it is unavoidable that they have to acknowledge that there in fact was an entry at the third vertebrae. They just tried to make us believe that it was one and the same as in the drawing.
The difference between this and all the other evidence that is presented is that this is irrefutable; even from a purely technical point of view. As Gerald Posner said: “Case closed”.
“We could say that a Modus Operandi becomes notorious by it´s regular practice.”~Olle Reimers
Precisely my point in offering rule # 406.
Now I think we have something here. I will be brief because I think you will recognize it when I propose it; that exculpatory evidence for Oswald is in essence exculpatory evidence for Kennedy.
If Oswald did not kill President Kennedy, then he was killed by a larger conspiracy [obvious] that this larger conspiracy is proven to include the Military Industrial Complex, which includes the Public Relations Regime.
It is taking these points together to prove ‘Motive’ as added to our proof of Modus Operandi.
To avoid the appearance of a circular argument, we must be clear that Kennedy was killed for opposing the the military industrial system. This is why I have included so much evidence as I can garner that JFK was intent on military withdrawal from Vietnam, in the pages of this blog.
Of course Means and Opportunity, and Cui Bono are part and parcel to that which we have already developed.
Thus my proposal for developing a succinct abstract for a larger detailed brief in this case.
\\][//
A Note of Interest:
Real-life Quasimodo uncovered in Tate archives
“With his hunched back and deformed face, Quasimodo, the tragic hero of Victor Hugo’s novel The Hunch Back of Notre Dame, has always been considered a mythical creation drawn from the depths of the author’s imagination…
[…]
In a later entry, Sibson writes about working with the same group of sculptors on another project outside Paris, where he again mentions the reclusive government sculptor, this time recalling his name as “Mon. Le Bossu”. Le Bossu is French for “the hunchback”.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/artsandentertainmentbooksreview/7945634/Real-life-Quasimodo-uncovered-in-Tate-archives.html
\\][//
Willy Whitten
April 16, 2016 at 6:50 pm
“Hell, yes the BOP and ANYTHING to do with Vietnam were criminal acts and EVERYONE involved should have been prosecuted. That includes Kennedy.”~Steve Stirlen
Okay Steve, since you are throwing a blanket party here, and say “that includes Kennedy,” why stop there?
If you recall, the Nuremberg Principles state that “following orders is not an excuse for war crimes.”
If we accept that BOP and Vietnam were wars of aggression, then we must accept that every participant in these operations were guilty of that crime.
So your unfortunate breakfast pal suffering the effects of Agent Orange is no less guilty than the men who’s orders he followed. Bill Clarke is no less guilty than the men who ordered him into battle in a war of aggression.
Almost every single one of the guys I grew up with, who volunteered for the Marines and were sent to the war of aggression in Vietnam were guilty of the same charges.
All of those who supported and support these continuing wars of aggression are no less guilty than the leadership that they blindly follow.
What does it mean to be well adjusted in a pathological society? You’re an adult Steve, you are capable of honestly answering that question. Either that or you are willing to make excuses for some, and lay blame on others.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-week-21-2/#comment-870169
I am not the one who brought up the subject of judging our fellows. I am just attempting to provide a reasonable criteria for doing so, if we are going to do it. I happen to think that the critique is in fact a necessary one. If we are to claim to be responsible rational individuals, then for the sake of the principles of Liberty & Justice, we must stand to reason.
~Willy
[For Ballistics thread]
As described by Dr Perry, JFK’s throat wound may have been caused by a 3mm diameter unjacketed bullet, a .30-06. A hunting round. This is the type of bullet that Tomlinson and OP Wright described and showed an example of.
\\][//
Devo – ‘Freedom Of Choice’
A victim of collision on the open sea
Nobody ever said that life was free
Sank, swam, go down with the ship
But use your freedom of choice
I’ll say it again in the land of the free
Use your freedom of choice
Your freedom of choice
In ancient Rome
There was a poem
About a dog
Who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead
Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom of choice!
Then if you got it you don’t want it
Seems to be the rule of thumb
Don’t be tricked by what you see
You got two ways to go
I’ll say it again in the land of the free
Use your freedom of choice
Freedom of choice
Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom of choice
In ancient Rome
There was a poem
About a dog
Who found two bones
He picked at one
He licked the other
He went in circles
He dropped dead
[Repeats]
Freedom of choice
Is what you got
Freedom from choice
Is what you want
. . . .
Songwriters: MOTHERSBAUGH, MARK ALLEN/CASALE, GERALD V
Freedom Of Choice lyrics © Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC, BMG RIGHTS MANAGEMENT US, LLC
\\][//
Mmmm
“Accepting the de facto partition of Vietnam as unavoidable but still pledging to halt the spread of communism in Asia, U.S. Pres. Dwight D. Eisenhower began a crash program of assistance to the State of Vietnam—or South Vietnam, as it was invariably called. The Saigon Military Mission, a covert operation to conduct psychological warfare and paramilitary activities in South Vietnam, was launched on June 1, 1954, under the command of U.S. Air Force Col. Edward Lansdale (who was in fact a CIA agent under the cover of Air Force) At the same time, Viet Minh leaders, confidently expecting political disarray and unrest in the South, retained many of their political operatives and propagandists below the 17th parallel even as they withdrew their military forces to the North.”
http://www.britannica.com/event/Vietnam-War
\\][//
Willy Whitten — April 17, 2016 at 3:28 pm
“I don’t want to speak for Bill—but you and I pull a lever very four years.”~Steve Stirlen
I am going to address this one point Steve, and then suggest you drop it.
I haven’t voted but one time in my entire life, that was as a lark for Ross Perot. Because he was a funny little man that squeaks when he talks.
I have argued for years that voting in just burlesque theater, that the elites choose who will be part of their so-called government.
I have been outspoken against war from the time I was a sophomore in HS. I came very close to being sent to prison for speaking out against the war while I was at boot camp at Fort Lackland AFBase. I was finally discharged as a ‘Conscientious Objector’ thanks to an interview with a quite enlightened base commander.
If you think bucking the system is hard in the marketplace of jobs and such, try to buck the system when in military boot camp.
Neck! Necks!?!? YOU put YOUR neck on the line like that someday, and then tell me that I am as guilty as those who go along to get along.
FINI
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-week-21-2/#comment-870338
The Transition
Lyndon Johnson and the events in Dallas.
BY ROBERT A. CARO
“The Chicago Tribune noted the “curt wave of his hand” with which Yarborough had sent the Vice-President’s emissary packing. The feud was the main story of Kennedy’s trip not just in Texas but across the country. On the morning of the twenty-second, Lyndon Johnson sat in his suite at Fort Worth’s Hotel Texas with newspapers in front of him—there were four separate stories in the Dallas paper alone; one was headlined “NIXON PREDICTS JFK MAY DROP JOHNSON”—and then he had to go downstairs for a rally of five thousand labor-union members, and join Kennedy, Yarborough, Connally, and some local congressmen, all of whom had, of course, seen those stories.”~Caro
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/04/02/the-transition
If Kennedy had not been assassinated, the great likelihood is that Johnson would have been dropped from the ticket and a new VP nominated.
Johnson may have ended up in “the big house” rather than the White House by 1964.
Johnson was in deep hot water at this point of his career as is spelled out in vivid detail in this article~WW
\\][//
“And yet a much more bulky object than the JFK ” buffalo hump” is nowhere to be seen in any of the prominent photographs taken during his Presidency.”~Photon
Absurd! A “bulky object”?? Something akin to a girdle?
Here is a video of JFK from behind as he takes off his shirt an runs into the surf at Santa Monica Beach August 19, 1962; his back is as normal as can be:
\\][//
A photo of JFK in his back brace. Obvious support for LOWER back — does not come up above sternum and has NOTHING to do with his neck.
We have seen JFK shirtless at the beach with a quite normal looking back. We have seen his back brace is no more “bulky” than a girdle. We have found out that Photon has no point to make and this has been an exercise in futility; much ado about nothing. Another of Photon’s silly games.
\\][//
Where was Curtis LeMay on the day JFK died?
“While General LeMay’s most recent biographer claims he was hunting in Michigan when the assassination occurred, he clearly was not.
“The ‘Chuck Holmes’ Air Force logbook from Andrews AFB obtained by the ARRB reveals that LeMay was in Toronto, in Canada, on the day of the assassination—not in Michigan. The logbook reveals that the flight dispatched to pick him up was originally sent to Toronto, not to any location in Michigan.
“While en route to Canada, the VIP flight was diverted to Wiarton (pronounced “wire-ton”), a different Canadian site, which Bill Kelly’s research has revealed was a commando training base in WW II. (It’s spelling was incorrect in the Andrews log—recorded as “Wairton”—but the intent and meaning was clear. For some reason, LeMay wanted to be picked up at a remote site.)
“We don’t know what LeMay was doing in Canada, but he did not take his aide with him. Colonel Dorman’s surviving family menbers told Bill Kelly that this was the one and only trip when LeMay did not take his aide with him. Apparently, LeMay felt it necessary to lie to his family and associates about his whereabouts that day, otherwise his family and associates would not have fed the false information about a Michigan hunting trip to his biographer.
Where did LeMay go?
“Furthermore, LeMay’s aircraft landed at Washington’s National Airport, instead of at Andrews AFB as had been ordered by the Secretary of the Air Force. The Chuck Holmes logbook reveals that LeMay disobeyed orders that day, and we don’t know why.
“But we do know, from the logbook, that LeMay’s aircraft landed at DCA (National Airport) at 5:12 PM—more than one hour and fifteen minutes prior to the time JFK’s body arrived at Bethesda Naval Hospital at 6:35 PM. And the Clifton tapes reveal to us that his aide, Colonel Dorman, was frantically attempting to speak to him on the radio while LeMay was en route to DCA, but was unsuccessful.
“Navy Petty Officer Paul K. O’Connor—a hospital corpsman whose job it was to assist the pathologists at the autopsy—recounted consistently over the years that when he was ordered by the chief pathologist at the autopsy to tell whoever was smoking in the morgue to put out their cigar, he walked over to the gallery and discovered that the offender was Air Force Chief of Staff Curtis LeMay. LeMay contemptuously blew cigar smoke in O’Connor’s face, and of course, refused to extinguish his cigar.
“This is a good example of how a multidisciplinary approach to research bears great dividends. Neither the Clifton Air Force One tapes, nor the Andrews logbook, nor Paul O’Connor’s recollections, can tell us the complete story; but together, we can piece together a significant event on 11/22/63: Curtis LeMay was present at JFK’s autopsy to gloat over the death of his nemesis, and in going there, he disobeyed the orders of his nominal superior, the Secretary of the Air Force, Eugene Zuckert.”~Douglas Horne
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/a-note-on-curtis-lemays-actions-on-nov-22/#comment-870509
\\][//
Tom S.
April 18, 2016 at 10:07 pm
“George”, you’re presenting claims using an alias. However, I’ve grown indifferent under the influence of “feedback” initiated by Robert Morrow continuing through the remarkably similar abuse you delight in dishing out.
I have approved the last comment I will ever involve myself with on this website, at least until Mr. Morley weighs in on the veracity of your accusations against him. If these claims of Greg Parker, disguised as “George” are accurate, I will not be back. If they are denied by Jeff Morley, “George” will not be back.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/in-jfk-lore-who-is-prayer-man/#comment-870698
* * * * * * * * * * * * *
There is a real shitstorm going on at JFKfacts right now!
Tom has stopped moderating until he hears back from Morley by email, This is terrible! Tom was the best moderator JFKfacts ever had. We had a few differences. He has his peculiar biases, but Tom is essentially a fair and honest moderator.
This is really fucked, Tom will be sorely missed if he leaves…
Dammit!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~>>
UPDATE April 20, 2016:
It seems that the crisis has passed, although moderation hasn’t yet resumed. Jeff Morley made some limp noodle tepid supportive remarks about Tom at this link:
UPDATE: April 21, 2016,
Everything is cool at JFKfacts with Tom as moderator.
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/a-note-on-comments/#comment-871071
\\][//
Willy Whitten — April 21, 2016 at 8:41 pm
Photon’s comment above is written like a true follower of Machiavelli, and his prescriptions for Realpolitik; the maxim of “Might is Right” with the attendant meme of “Ends justify the means.”
Of course Realpolitik fails, not merely ethically and morally, but in practical sense itself.
Means DEFINE the Ends; the results are of rational necessity due to the means employed.
Photon gives us the ‘EXCUSES’ maintained by cradle to grave indoctrination and conditioning that, “Government is Necessary”.
The fact is that “government” is simply formalized predation.
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/comment-week-21-2/#comment-871636
Willy Whitten — April 22, 2016 at 10:42 am
“Neither agency had reason to think he was dangerous. You might say he wasn’t “Oswald” yet. He was an oddball who defected to the Soviet Union and then came home.”~Jean Davison
Really Jean?
. . . .
“Once Oswald defected to Russia in 1959 the FBI opened up a file on him for security purposes. But at the CIA there is a curious, and suspicious, vacuum. Richard Snyder of the American Embassy in Moscow sent a cable to Washington about Oswald’s defection. But the exact date the CIA got it cannot be confirmed (p. 24). Further, the person who received it cannot be determined either. Since Oswald was a former Marine, the Navy also sent a cable on November 4th. This cable included the information that Oswald had threatened to give up radar secrets to the Soviets. But again, no one knows exactly when this cable arrived at CIA. And almost as interesting, where it was placed upon its immediate arrival. (p. 25) This is quite odd because, as Newman points out (Chapter 3), Oswald’s close association with the U-2 plane while at Atsugi, Japan should have placed alerts all over this cable. It did not. To show a comparison, the FBI recommended “a stop be placed against the fingerprints to prevent subject’s entering the US under any name.” (Ibid) So, on November 4, 1959, the FBI issued a FLASH warning on Oswald. This same Navy memo arrived at CIA and, after a Warren Report type “delayed reaction”, eventually went to James Angleton’s CI/SIG unit on December 6th. Angleton was chief of counter-intelligence. SIG was a kind of safeguard unit that protected the Agency from penetration agents. It was closely linked to the Office of Security in that regard. But as Newman queries: where was it for the previous 31 days? Newman notes that the Snyder cable and this Navy memo fell into a “black hole ” somewhere. In fact, the very first file Newman could find on Oswald was not even at CI/SIG. It was at the Office of Security. This is all quite puzzling because, as the author notes, neither should have been the proper resting place for an initial file on Oswald. This black hole “kept the Oswald files away from the spot we would expect them to go-the Soviet Russia division.” (p. 27)
[…]
Another thing the author finds puzzling about this early file is that he could find no trace of a security investigation about the danger of Oswald’s defection. This is really odd because while talking to some of his friends the author found out that Oswald knew something that very few people did: the U-2 was also flying over China. If Snyder’s original memo said that Oswald had threatened to give up secrets on radar operation to the Russians, and Oswald had been stationed at the U-2 base in Japan, there should have been a thorough security investigation as to what Oswald could have given the Russians. For the obvious reason that the program could be adjusted to avoid any counterattack based upon that relayed information. Newman could find no evidence of such an inquiry. (pgs 28,33-34) Further, the author found out that Oswald was actually part of a unit called Detachment C, which seemed to almost follow the U-2 around to crisis spots in the Far East, like Indonesia. (p. 42)
Needless to say, after Oswald defected, the second U-2 flight over Russia–with Gary Powers on board–was shot down. Powers felt that, “Oswald’s work with the new MPS 16 height-finding radar looms large” in that event. (p. 43) The author segues here to this question: Whatever the CIA did or did not do in regard to this important question, it should have been a routine part of the Warren Commission inquiry. It was not. As the author notes, “When called to testify at the Warren Commission hearings, Oswald’s marine colleagues were not questioned about the U-2.” (p. 43) Oswald’s commander in the Far East, John Donovan, was ready to discuss the issue in depth. The Commission was not. In fact, Donovan was briefed in advance not to fall off topic. (p. 45) When it was over, Donovan had to ask, “Don’t you want to know anything about the U-2.” He even asked a friend of his who had testified: “Did they ask you about the U-2?” And he said, “No, not a thing.” (Ibid) Donovan revealed that the CIA did not question him about the U-2 until December of 1963. But this was probably a counter-intelligence strategy, to see whom he had talked to and what he had revealed. Why is that a distinct probability? Because right after Powers was shot down, the CIA closed its U-2 operations at Atsugi. Yet, Powers did not fly out of Atsugi. As Newman notes, the only link between Powers and Atsugi was Oswald. (p. 46)
Right after this U-2 episode, Newman notes another oddity. The CIA did not open a 201 file on Oswald for over a year after his defection, on 12/8/60. (p. 47) This gap seriously puzzled the House Select Committee on Assassinations. Investigator Dan Hardway called CI officer Ann Egerter about it. It was a short conversation. She didn’t want to discuss it. (p. 48) The HSCA tried to neuter the issue by studying other defector cases. But as Newman notes: defection is legal but espionage, like giving up the secrets to the U-2, is not. (pgs 49-50) So the comparison was faulty. In fact, when Egerter finally opened Oswald’s 201 file, the defection was noted, but his knowledge of the U-2 wasn’t. This delay in opening the 201 file was so unusual that the HSCA asked former CIA Director Richard Helms about it. His reply was vintage Helms: “I am amazed. Are you sure there wasn’t? … .I can’t explain that.” (p. 51) When the HSCA asked where the documents were prior to the opening of the 201 file, the CIA replied they were never classified higher than confidential and therefore were no longer in existence. Newman notes that this is a lie. Many were classified as “Secret” and he found most of them, so they were not destroyed. Further, the ones that were classified as confidential are still around also. (p. 52)
And this is where one of the most fascinating discoveries in the book is revealed. Although no 201 file was opened on Oswald until December of 1960, he was put on the Watch List in November of 1959. This list was part of the CIA’s illegal HT/LINGUAL mail intercept program-only about 300 people were on it. Recall, this is at a time when Oswald’s file is in the so-called Black Hole. It was not possible to find a paper trail on him until the next month. How could he, at the same time, be so inconsequential as to have no file opened, yet so important as to be on the quite exclusive Watch List? This defies comprehension. In fact, Newman is forced to conclude, “The absence of a 201 file was a deliberate act, not an oversight.” (p. 54) Clearly, someone at the CIA knew who Oswald was and thought it was important enough to intercept his mail. Long ago, when I asked Newman to explain this paradox in light of the fact that his first file would be opened at CI/SIG, he replied that one possibility was Oswald was being run as an off the books agent by Angleton. In light of the other factors mentioned in this section, i.e. concerning the U-2 secrets, the “black hole” delay, plus what we will discover later, I know of no better way to explain this dichotomy.
[…]
As Newman notes, “the CIA was spawning a web of deception”. (p. 430) When JFK is killed, and Hoover tells President Johnson about Oswald’s trip to Mexico City and his visits to both the Cuban and Russian embassies, the threat of nuclear war quickly enters the conversation. But when the FBI discovers that the voice on the tapes are not really Oswald’s it does two things: 1.) It points to something even more sinister, therefore throwing the intelligence community into a CYA mode, and 2.) It forces the Agency to hatch a cover story: the tapes were routinely destroyed days after they were made. The result of all this was an investigation that was never allowed to investigate. A presidential commission whose leader was told beforehand that millions of lives were at risk because the Cubans and Russians might be involved. And it exposed an intelligence community that was asleep at the switch, therefore allowing the alleged assassin to be moved into place by the KGB. The result was therefore preordained: a whitewash would follow. And Newman presents written evidence from both J. Edgar Hoover and Nicolas Katzenbach demonstrating that the subsequent inquiry was curtailed at its inception. Deputy Attorney General Katzenbach wrote that speculation about Oswald had to be “cut off” and the idea that the assassination was a communist conspiracy had to be rebutted. (p. 632) Newman later discovered that Hoover realized he had been duped by the CIA about Oswald in Mexico City. (The Assassinations, p. 224)
[…]
In his new Epilogue for this 2008 edition, Newman explains why only someone who a.) Understood the inner workings of the national security state, and b.) Understood and controlled Oswald’s files, could have masterminded something as superhumanly complex as this scheme. One in which the conspiracy itself actually contained the seeds that would sprout the cover-up.
In this new chapter, Newman names James Angleton as the designer of the plot. (p. 637) He also names Anne Goodpasture, David Phillips’ assistant in Mexico City, as the person who hatched the internal CIA cover up by saying the ersatz tapes had been destroyed in October. This is evidenced in a cable she sent on 11/23 (pgs 633-634). Yet she probably knew this was false. Because she later testified to the ARRB that a voice dub of a tape had been carried to the Texas border on 11/22/63, the night before she sent the cable (p. 654). Further, Win Scott had made his own voice comparison after the assassination. He could not have if the tapes had been destroyed. (p. 635) Angleton made sure Scott’s voice comparison never became public by swooping into Mexico City and confronting, nearly threatening, Win Scott’s widow after he died. Once he was inside the house, he removed four suitcases of materials from Scott’s office. This included the contents of his safe where the Mexico City/Oswald materials had been stored. (p. 637)
This remarkable book could never have been composed or even contemplated without the existence of the Assassination Records Review Board. No book takes us more into Oswald’s workings with the intelligence community than this one. And his section on Mexico City is clearly one of the 5 or 6 greatest discoveries made in the wake of the ARRB. The incredible thing about the case he makes for conspiracy and cover up is this: The overwhelming majority of his evidence is made up of the government’s own records. Its not anecdotal, its not second hand. In other words, its not from the likes of Frank Ragano, Billy Sol Estes, or Ed Partin. It is material that could be used in a court of law. And it would be very hard to explain away to a jury. Imagine the kind of witness Jane Roman would make.
Which is why it all had to be concealed for over thirty years. So much for there being nothing new or important in those newly declassified files. Angleton knew differently. Just ask Win Scott’s widow. Or read this book.
http://www.ctka.net/reviews/newman.html
\\][//
http://jfkfacts.org/assassination/review/trailer-for-new-documentary-killing-oswald/#comment-871782
ANNIVERSARY OF AN ATTEMPT TO OVERTHROW FRANCE’S CHARLES DE GAULLE. DID CIA HELP?
In the post-World War II era, one week stands out as truly extraordinary. Just a couple of days after the failed US-backed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, on April 21, 1961, a group of French generals launched a coup-d’etat, with the aim of taking down President Charles de Gaulle. This week marks the 55th anniversary of this profound event, little-remembered today.
The conspirators managed to control Algiers, the capital of French Algeria, but failed to achieve their secondary objective of taking Paris. Lacking popular support and having lost momentum, the coup was put down within days.
Evidence suggests that Allen Dulles, the US Director of the CIA, and his numerous contacts deep within the French government, helped orchestrate the plot.
Many French — along with Dulles — feared an independent Algeria would fall into the hands of Communists, giving the Soviets a base in Africa.
And there was another reason to hang onto Algeria — the usual reason: its natural resources. According to the US Energy Information Administration, it is today “the leading natural gas producer in Africa, the second-largest natural gas supplier to Europe outside of the region, and is among the top three oil producers in Africa.”
Here is an extraordinary propaganda video, old but of high visual quality, that was designed to move the hearts and minds of “patriotic” French to overthrow De Gaulle:
And here are links to a series of excerpts on this astonishing episode, previously published by WhoWhatWhy, from David Talbot’s masterful book, The Devil’s Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of the American Secret Government. Talbot’s lively writing and eye for the telling detail bring this story to life.
JFK Assassination Plot Mirrored in 1961 France, Part 1
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/20/jfk-assassination-plot-mirrored-in-1961-france-part-1/
Part 1 of this 3-part series is about the many reasons why the CIA and the French right wing wanted to bring down Charles de Gaulle. It is also about the deep connections between the CIA and France’s own intelligence agencies and government, and why de Gaulle wanted to purge his country of these insidious ties.
JFK Assassination Plot Mirrored in 1961 France, Part 2
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/21/jfk-assassination-plot-mirrored-in-france-part-2/
In Part 2 of this 3-part series, John F. Kennedy learns of Allen Dulles’s involvement in plotting to overthrow de Gaulle, and assures the French of his support for de Gaulle, while warning them, “the CIA is such a vast and poorly controlled machine that the most unlikely maneuvers might be true.” But not even the CIA, with all its right-wing allies, was a match for the millions of French who stood up for de Gaulle.
JFK Assassination Plot Mirrored in 1961 France, Part 3
http://whowhatwhy.org/2015/10/22/jfk-assassination-plot-mirrored-in-1961-france-part-3/
In Part 3 of our 3-part series, de Gaulle purges his government of presumed traitors and shuts down the “unhinged” murderous forces that were gunning down, blowing up, and poisoning “enemies of the French empire” — those who were for Algeria’s independence. But de Gaulle still remains a target for assassination attempts, one of which is spectacular.
\\][//
Dorothy Kilgallen: The Key Witness
“This discussion encouraged me to research Kilgallen in more detail. This included an in-depth reading of Lee Israel’s biography of Kilgallen. The problem with Israel’s book is that she knows very little about the events surrounding the assassination of JFK. Although she collected a great deal of information about Kilgallen as a person (mainly by interviewing her close friends) she was unable to use this information to fully explain her death.
Surprisingly, most books written about the JFK assassination, have not grasped the significance of Kilgallen. Most do not mention her and those who do fail to show her true role in these events. If you carry out a search of the web for Kilgallen and the JFK assassination will find very little information. One thing you will find at the top of the rankings is a disinformation piece by John McAdams (I attend to start another thread on this article where I will show point by point how he does this).
One reason Kilgallen is dismissed is that she has been categorised as a “gossip columnist” and “TV star”. She was indeed both of these (she was also a star of US radio as well). However, all her career she was also an investigative reporter. Kilgallen began her career as a crime reporter. When she was in her early 20s she became interested in miscarriages of justice. She took part in several campaigns to free people falsely accused of murder. Kilgallen was in fact the reporter who got Sam Sheppard a retrial (and consequently his freedom).
As well as being a syndicated gossip columnist for William Randolph Hearst’s newspapers, Kilgallen was given assignments by Journal American to cover important murder cases. However, Kilgallen was refused permission to cover the JFK assassination. Bob Considine got the job and he soon became one of the leading proponents of Oswald as the lone gunman theory. In fact, Considine wrote the introduction to the 1967 book, The Scavengers (Lawrence Schiller and Richard Warren Lewis). The book was a savage attack on the critics of the Warren Commission Report.
Kilgallen decided to carry out her private investigation of the assassination. In fact, she was one of the very few journalists to immediately realise that there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK. Mark Lane was once given a lecture to students on the JFK assassination and they started giggling when he mentioned Kilgallen’s role in the investigation. Lane remarked: “You’re laughing because you think of her as a gossip columnist. Well, I’m gonna tell you something. She was a very, very serious journalist. You might say that she was the only serious journalist in America who was concerned with who killed John Kennedy”. Lane’s comments about the students could be applied to most JFK researchers.
How did Kilgallen know so much about the JFK assassination? To understand this you need to realise the way she worked. By the 1940s Kilgallen was the most important gossip columnist in America. She had achieved this position by developing a very good strategy for gaining secret information about famous people. This is how it worked. Kilgallen was swamped with requests by press agents to plug the activities of their clients. For example, an actor’s latest movie or a singer’s latest record. Kilgallen always refused these requests. Instead she offered a deal. Bring me three detrimental stories concerning other stars and I will include a good piece about your client. As these stars were usual rivals of their clients, they were only too willing to do so. For really important stories, Kilgallen was even willing to plug these agent’s clients in her popular morning radio show, Breakfast with Dorothy and Dick.
Kilgallen also had other sources of information. The Hearst media organization had a team led by Jack Clements and J. B. Mathews who collected information about people with left-wing views. This was then passed on to its reporters. According to one of Hearst’s journalists, Adela Rogers St. Johns, the Hearst organization was behind what became known as McCarthyism. Hearst wanted this information to get out via Congress. At first the plan was to use Millard Tydings. However, he rejected the idea and so they used Joseph McCarthy instead. Rogers admitted this was a mistake: “we didn’t know he was a drunk. If McCarthy hadn’t been an alcoholic, the whole story would have been different, because he had the material, but he kept blowing it.”
Kilgallen also had another source of information. According to several of her close friends, Kilgallen received information from the CIA. Kilgallen was in fact an important CIA media asset. Kilgallen was given a great deal of information about the situation in Cuba. In 1959 and 1960 Kilgallen included a large number of anti-Castro stories in her column. According to her friends she was also receiving information from Cuban exiles based in Miami.
Kilgallen used her column to attack famous people who appeared to be pro-Castro. One of her targets was the TV chat show host, Jack Paar. He retaliated on national television by accusing Kilgallen of being a right-wing bigot. He even attacking her for her reporting on the recent Khrushchev visit and ended up with using the Frank Sinatra’s tactic (another one who had been on the receiving end of Kilgallen’s journalism) of describing her as the woman “with no chin”. Sinatra and Paar had been informed that Kilgallen was very conscious of this defect.
The popular perception was the Kilgallen was a rabid right-winger. This in fact was not true. As a Roman Catholic who had suffered prejudice herself, she was a keen supporter of equal civil rights. Kilgallen used her column to promote the work of black artists. In fact, most of her close friends were liberals (she was very closely associated with the jazz scene in New York). She did what she could do to protect left-wing friends from being blacklisted. However, as in the case of Louis Untermeyer, her fellow panellist on “What’s My Line”, these efforts were always unsuccessful.
Kilgallen sometimes included highly subversive material in her column. For example, on 15th July, 1959, Kilgallen became the first journalist to suggest that the CIA and the Mafia were working together in order to assassinate Fidel Castro.
J. Edgar Hoover was fully aware that Kilgallen was not a loyal right-winger. The FBI maintained a dossier about Kilgallen’s activities. As a result of the Freedom of Information Act some of these files have been published. It shows that in the 1930s and 1940s Kilgallen was seen as being “cooperative”. However, concerns about her behaviour was raised by her behaviour in the late 1950s. The FBI was not only concerned with what Kilgallen was writing. They were also concerned about the people she was associating with (their was a rumour that she was having an affair with the black singer, Bobby Short). Kilgallen was obviously considered an important figure The files that have been released shows that Hoover added his own handwritten comments in the margins of these FBI reports.
Kilgallen was also a close friend of JFK. It is almost certain they met through Florence Pritchett who had an affair with JFK between 1944 and 1963. Kilgallen worked with Prichett on the Journal American in the early days of the affair.
Kilgallen’s friendship with JFK was kept a secret. On one occasion Bobby Short was with Kilgallen at the Stock Club. JFK came over to Kilgallen and began talking to the couple. One of JFK first comments was: “Dorothy, do you remember the night we played charades at your house?” Up until that time, Short was not even aware that Kilgallen knew JFK.
Kilgallen was fully informed about JFK’s sexual affairs with women. One day she was gossiping about this with her friend Allen Stokes. He asked her why she did not write about it in her column. She replied “I couldn’t possibly”. It would indeed be a great scoop for her. But she decided to protect him.
However, Kilgallen broke this rule when on the 3rd August, 1962, she became the first journalist to refer to JFK relationship with Marilyn Monroe. She did not actually name him but left enough clues for the readers to identify JFK as the secret man in Monroe’s life (later Kilgallen claimed she was in fact referring to Robert Kennedy). One can only assume that she came under severe pressure from someone to write this story. My belief is that it was the FBI or CIA who had put her under pressure to print this information.
The following day Monroe was found dead. Kilgallen must have realised that the FBI/CIA had set her up to smear the Kennedy brothers. Rumours soon began circulating that RFK had arranged Monroe’s death to protect JFK. In reality, Monroe had been killed to implicate the Kennedy brothers in murder. At the time, the murderers must have been confident that JFK would be ousted from power. In fact, Hoover used the incident to get JFK to promise him the job as head of the FBI for life.
Kilgallen was now aware of the attempt to remove JFK. Hoover ceased to became a problem after Monroe’s death as he got what he wanted out of the deal. However, elements of the CIA were to continue this campaign and Kilgallen knew who they were. I believe that Kilgallen knew that David Phillips was behind this conspiracy. After all, Phillips was in charge of CIA’s media assets in the campaign against Cuba.
As soon as JFK was killed she began investigating his death. This resulted in a series of articles in the Journal American. She appears to have had a good contact within the Dallas Police Department. He gave her a copy of the original police log that chronicled the minute-by-minute activities of the department in the immediate wake of the assassination, as reflected in the radio communications. This enabled her to report that Chief Curry’s first reaction to the shots in Dealey Plaza was: “Get a man on top of the overpass and see what happened up there”. Kilgallen pointed out that he lied when he told reporters the next day that he initially thought the shots were fired from the Texas Book Depository.
Kilgallen also had a source within the Warren Commission. This person gave her an 102 page segment dealing with Jack Ruby before it was published. She published details of this leak and so therefore ensuring that this section appeared in the final version of the report.
In another of her stories, Kilgallen claimed that Marina Oswald knew a great deal about the JFK assassination. If she told the “whole story of her life with President Kennedy’s alleged assassin, it would split open the front pages of newspapers all over the world.”
Kilgallen’s courageous reporting brought her into contact with Mark Lane who had himself received an amazing story from the journalist Thayer Waldo. He had discovered that J.D. Tippit, Jack Ruby and Bernard Weissman had had a meeting at the Carousel Club eight days before the assassination. Waldo, who worked for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, was too scared to publish the story. He had other information about the assassination. However, he believed that if he told Lane or Kilgallen he would be killed. Kilgallen’s article on the Tippit, Ruby and Weissman meeting appeared on the front page of the Journal American. Later she was to reveal that the Warren Commission were also tipped off about this gathering. However, their informant added that there was a fourth man at the meeting, an important figure in the Texas oil industry.
Several conspiracy books point out that Kilgallen was the only reporter to get a private interview with Jack Ruby. As far as I know, none provide the full background details of this interview. It was set up by Ruby’s lawyer Joe Tonahill. Kilgallen went to Tonahill with a message for Ruby from a mutual friend. It was only after this message was delivered that Ruby agreed to be interviewed by Kilgallen. Tonahill remembers that the mutual friend was from San Francisco who was involved in the music industry. Any idea of who that could be?
The interview with Ruby lasted eight minutes. No one else was there. Even the guards agreed to wait outside. Officially, Kilgallen never told anyone about what Ruby said to her during this interview. Nor did she publish any information she obtained from the interview. There is a reason for this. Kilgallen was in financial difficulties in 1964. This was partly due to some poor business decisions by her husband, Richard Kollmar. The couple also lost the lucrative contract for their popular breakfast show. Kilgallen also was facing an expensive libel case concerning an article she wrote about a fellow journalist. In 1964 her financial situation was so bad she fully expected to lose her beloved house at 45 East 68 Street off Park Avenue.
Kilgallen was a staff member of Journal American. Any article about the Jack Ruby interview in her newspaper would not have helped her serious financial situation. Therefore she decided to include what she knew about the JFK assassination in the book she had been working on for several years: Murder One. The book was a series of chapters on famous murder cases she had worked on. The last chapter was to be on the JFK assassination. She fully expected that this book would earn her a fortune.
Mark Lane said in 1976 that “I would bet you a thousand-to-one that the CIA surrounded her as soon as she started writing those stories.” I agree. Dick Billings played this role when Jim Garrison was working on his investigation. Billings was also called in to monitor Gaeton Fonzi and his team in 1976-78. Who did the CIA use against Kilgallen.
The only new person who became close to Kilgallen during this period was her new young secret lover. Lee Israel calls him the “Out-of-Towner”. He arrived on the scene in June, 1964. According to Israel she met him in Carrara during a press junket for journalists working in the film industry. The trip was paid for by Twentieth Century-Fox who used it to publicize three of its films: The Sound of Music, The Agony and the Ecstasy and Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines. Israel claims that the “Out-of-Towner” went up to Kilgallen and asked her if she was “Clare Boothe Luce”. This is in itself an interesting introduction. Kilgallen and Luce did not look like each other (see below). Luce and her husband (Henry Luce) however were to play an important role in the JFK assassination. Henry Luce, a CIA media asset, owned Life Magazine and arranged to buy up the Zapruder film. Life Magazine also successfully negotiated with Marina Oswald the exclusive rights to her story. This story never appeared in print.
Clare Boothe Luce also worked with William Pawley in financing anti-Castro Cubans in Miami. According to Gaeton Fonzi (The Last Investigation), Luce also took part in a disinformation campaign during the House Select Committee on Assassinations investigation.
I don’t believe “Out-of-Towner” did use this line when he met Kilgallen. I suspect that Kilgallen suspected he was a CIA spy. She therefore told her friends this is what he said so that if anything happened to her, a future investigator would realize that “Out-of-Towner” was a CIA agent with links to Clare Boothe Luce. Unfortunately for her, investigators missed this clue.
Why does Israel not name Kilgallen’s young lover? She knew who he was because she interviewed him for her book on Kilgallen. The story goes that she was worried that he would take her to court if he was named in the book. But why? She does not accuse him of murdering Kilgallen. All Israel does is to suggest that he met her on the night she was killed. I believe it was his employers, the CIA, who placed pressure on Israel not to name him. She also gives him a false identity by claiming he was a songwriter when in reality he was a journalist.
I suspected that someone in the past had investigated who “Out-of-Towner” was. I typed in “Kilgallen” and “Out-of-Towner” into Google. The first page was my own page on Kilgallen. The second page gave me several of the answers I was looking for.
It was a letter written in 1993 by a student journalist called David B. Henschel. This letter had been added to the IETF Mailing List Archive. In 1993 Henschel decided he would investigate the identify the “Out-of-Towner”. In her book, Israel claims that a press agent, Harvey Daniel, saw Kilgallen with this man in the cocktail lounge of the Regency Hotel a few hours before she died. Henschel visited the Regency and after interviewing several witnesses he discovered that “Out-of-Towner” was a journalist called Ron Pataky. At the time of Kilgallen’s death, Pataky was working for the Columbus Citizen-Journal. Henschel tracked down Pataky who admitted he was the “Out-of-Towner” named by Israel. However, he insisted he never had an affair with Kilgallen. Nor did he meet her on the night of her death. Instead he had a long conversation with her on the phone.
Henschel believes Pataky killed Kilgallen. I disagree. The CIA would not have employed a journalist to have killed Kilgallen. His role was to discover what she knew about the JFK assassination. He probably helped the CIA gain access to Kilgallen’s home the night she was murdered. (I will go into this in more detail in a later posting).”~ John Simkin
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?showtopic=1615
Kilgallen was keen to interview Jack Ruby. She went to see Ruby’s lawyer Joe Tonahill and claimed she had a message for his client from a mutual friend. It was only after this message was delivered that Ruby agreed to be interviewed by Kilgallen. Tonahill remembers that the mutual friend was from San Francisco and that he was involved in the music industry. Kennedy researcher, Greg Parker, has suggested that the man was Mike Shore, co-founder of Reprise Records.
The interview with Ruby lasted eight minutes. No one else was there. Even the guards agreed to wait outside. Officially, Kilgallen never told anyone about what Ruby said to her during this interview. Nor did she publish any information she obtained from the interview. There is a reason for this. Kilgallen was in financial difficulties in 1964. This was partly due to some poor business decisions made by her husband, Richard Kollmar. The couple had also lost the lucrative contract for their radio show Breakfast with Dorothy and Dick. Kilgallen also was facing an expensive libel case concerning an article she wrote about Elaine Shepard. Her financial situation was so bad she fully expected to lose her beloved house in New York City.
Kilgallen was a staff member of Journal American. Any article about the Jack Ruby interview in her newspaper would not have helped her serious financial situation. Therefore she decided to include what she knew about the assassination of John F. Kennedy in Murder One. She fully expected that this book would earn her a fortune. This is why she refused to tell anyone, including Mark Lane, about what Ruby told her in the interview arranged by Tonahill. In October, 1965, told Lane that she had a new important informant in New Orleans.
Kilgallen began to tell friends that she was close to discovering who assassinated Kennedy. According to David Welsh of Ramparts Magazine Kilgallen “vowed she would ‘crack this case.’ And another New York show biz friend said Dorothy told him in the last days of her life: “In five more days I’m going to bust this case wide open.” Aware of what had happened to Bill Hunter and Jim Koethe, Kilgallen handed a draft copy of her chapter on the assassination to her friend, Florence Smith.
On 8th November, 1965, Kilgallen, was found dead in her New York apartment. She was fully dressed and sitting upright in her bed. The police reported that she had died from taking a cocktail of alcohol and barbiturates. The notes for the chapter she was writing on the case had disappeared. Her friend, Florence Smith, died two days later. The copy of Kilgallen’s article were never found.
Some of her friends believed Kilgallen had been murdered. Marc Sinclaire was Kilgallen’s personal hairdresser. He often woke Kilgallen in the morning. Kilgallen was usually out to the early hours of the morning and like her husband always slept late. When he found her body he immediately concluded she had been murdered.
http://spartacus-educational.com/JFKkilgallen.htm
\\][//
R.I.P. Mark Lane
Mark Lane, famed Civil Rights attorney and author of the best-selling book, “Rush to Judgment,” which detailed the facts of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, died late last night at his home in Charlottesville, Virginia, at the age of 89.
“It seems clear,” he wrote in 1992, “that the people of this nation have a different agenda from the politics of suppression, disinformation, perjury, and subornation of perjury readily embraced by their leaders.”
\\][//
Project Censored 3.1 – JFK 50 – Peter Dale Scott – Deep Politics
\\][//